Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1990/09/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPF~ENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, September 6, 1990 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Buildinq 1. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members Moore, Nader and Malcolm MEMBERS ABSENT: Member McCandliss STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss; Community Development Director Salomone; Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam; Agency Attorney Boogaard 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 16, 1990 MSUC (Moore/Cox) approve the minutes of August 16, 1990 as submitted. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3 through 6) Item No. 5 was pulled from the Consent Calendar. Item No. 6 was continued to the meeting of Tuesday, September 11, 1990. MEMBER MOORE OFFERED THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS 3 AND 4), the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved. (The vote on item 3 was 4-0; the vote on item 4 was 3-1 with Member Nader voting no.) 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION a. Letter dated 8/23/90 from K.N. Slijk, 4450 Vista Nacion, Chula Vista, CA 92010 regarding concern about the width of Third Avenue between F and G Streets Mr. Niek Slijk requested that the City consider reducing Third Avenue from four to two vehicle lanes between "F" and "G" Streets to conform to the two-lane traffic pattern on Third Avenue north of "F" Street. Staff proposed to include Mr. Slijk's ideas along with other concepts that will be considered during the re- evaluation of the Town Centre Project Area. 4. RESOLUTION 1113 AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF $490,000 INTO ESCROW FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF CHULA VISTA, ACCEPTING THE GRANT DEED AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -2- September 6, 1990 The Agency directed staff to acquire four parcels: 288 Center Street and 336, 338 and 342 Church Avenue in order to provide parking for the downtown area. This resolution is for the purchase of three of these properties: 288 Center Street, 336 and 342 Church Avenue, from the Community Congregational Church. 6. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR REDEVELOPMENT SERVICES WITH RSG, INC. AND APPROVING EXPENDITURE OF $25,000 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES This item was continued to the meeting of Tuesday, September 11, 1990. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 5. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A BILLBOARD LEASE AND IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 186 BROADWAY The city and Redevelopment Agency have undertaken a billboard elimination project. One of the subjects of this project is the billboard located in the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area at 186 Broadway on property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Fogerty and leased to National Neon, a billboard space rental company. At the direction of the Agency, an appraisal was conducted of the billboard lease and improvements and these fair market value offers were conveyed to the respective parties. Both the Fogerty's and National Neon declined to either accept or officially decline the offer. It was recommended that the Agency adopt the resolution of necessity and authorize the City Attorney to pursue Agency possession of the billboard lease and improvements. Mr. Gene Monce, 2035 Helix Street, Spring Valley, representing Mr. Sidney Derene, addressed the Agency. He asked for a continuance of this item based on the grounds that there has not been any good faith negotiations; the amount offered in his opinion is not fair market value. The existing lease has 11 years remaining. Data on past performance of the billboard indicates $9,500 to $10,000 a year income. Actual value to Mr. Derene of this lease would indicate $100,000 to $110,000 income. This represents a financial hardship for his client. Responding to questions of Member Malcolm, Mr. Monce stated he would like this matter continued for two weeks. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -3- September 6~ 1990 MOTION .MSUC (Malcolm/Nader) to continue this item to the next regular Redevelopment Agency meeting on Thursday, September 20, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. PRESENTATIONS 7. REPORT: PRESENTATION OF FINALIST PROPOSALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER WINDMILL FARMS SITE A Request for Proposals (RFP) for the sale or lease and development of 2.62 acres of Agency-owned land (formerly the Windmill Farms site) was issued in April 1990. Three proposals were selected to be presented to the Redevelopment Agency for final consideration. Mr. Salomone noted that the Kentucky Fried Chicken parcel has been included as an option in each of the proposals. He pointed out that the three proposers are: 1) Flagship Commercial Properties, 2) The Pieri Company, and 3) Pacific Scene, Inc. Mr. Terry Plowden, representing Flagship Commercial Properties, stated that their development proposal known as "Alvarado Plaza" consists of a two-story, roughly 33,000 square foot office building, and 25 residential condominium units. This is intended to be the first phase of the project. The second phase, if and when the Kentucky Fried Chicken property becomes available, consists of a 13,000 square foot two-story office building. A brick exterior is proposed for Alvarado Plaza along with covered trellises. The residential component will have stucco exterior with tile roofs. John Turpit, Turpit and Partners, addressed the architectural components of Alvarado Plaza. The proposed office building is two stories and 32,600 square feet; of that square footage, 3,000 square feet will be retail. That retail is designed specifically to serve the needs of this office tenant and not compete with the retail core on Third Avenue. The parking for this building is handled on site and in a three-level parking structure. Regarding the condominiums, architectural references were taken from the adjacent Church School on Alvarado. At this point they are changing "Alvarado Plaza" to "Mercy Plaza" because they have entered into negotiations with Mercy Hospital to lease a significant portion of the Phase 1 office building. Mr. Turpit added that the design that they have provided responds to the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Plowden further noted that under the terms of their proposal, the Redevelopment Agency would receive approximately $2.1 million Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -4- September 6, 1990 for the property referred to in Phase I. There is an additional $400,000 that the Agency receives if and when the Kentucky Fried Chicken property is delivered. The value of the completed project is about $12.5 million upon sale-out of the condominiums and stabilized occupancy in the office building. A key element of their proposal is the fact that they have entered into negotiations with Mercy Hospital to lease a significant portion of their Phase I office building. Mr. Plowden presented a letter of interest from Mercy Hospital to the Agency members. With respect to financing, they have contacted lending sources and received an expression of interest from a mid-west life insurance company, United of Omaha. Responding to questions of Chairman Cox, Mr. Plowden stated that the office components of the project (both Phase I and II) will be referred to as "Mercy Plaza". The $400,000 figure is a result of the availability of the KentUcky Fried Chicken parcel, and was based on $18.00 per square foot of the land area plus an additional $100,000 for relocation expenses. Mr. Jim Pieri, representing the Pieri Company, stated that as a result of their demographic studies, it is their conclusion that Third Avenue does not presently need residential development. It needs commercial development generating a strong employee base and a strong annual sales revenue. Further studies they conducted have shown that new major tenants to the Chula Vista market have expressed interest in committing their business expansion to this City. He noted that Mercy Hospital indicated that they would be willing to negotiate with the proposer selected for this project. The priority request from major tenants is that the building type be of significant size and quality. Mr. Pieri stated that they will be doing an art design competition for this project. They will be donating to the City of Chula Vista $25,000 to create a foundation to perpetuate the beautification of Chula Vista. Mr. Joe Martinez, representing Martinez, Cutri and McArdle, the design team for this project, stated this development consists of 112,000 square feet of retail and commercial use. It has a two- story elevation along Third Avenue and a five-story elevation rotated at a 45 degree angle in the center of the building. The buildings will have sandstone exterior as well as marble. Mr. Tony Cutri, Martinez, Cutri and McArdle, stated they propose a two-story, heavily articulated facade that runs the entire distance of Third Avenue. Another element that they felt was critical was defining other spaces on the site that were more intimate spaces such as a linear courtyard along the back that buffers the office building from the parking garage. The parking Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -5- September 6~ 1990 garage is three-stories and is submerged a level below grade. It is also buffered by a 20-foot strip that is heavily landscaped. Mr. Pieri summarized that this project will produce the following: an employee base of over 400 people; property tax base estimated at over $250,000 per year; a proposed sales tax income in excess of $198,000 per year. The project cost is over $16.5 million and will have a fair market value approaching $5 million. Responding to questions of Chairman Cox regarding the Kentucky Fried Chicken parcel, Mr. Pieri stated the project is developed in two phases; it can be developed without the Kentucky Fried Chicken site, but they would prefer to develop it with that site included. Mr. James Moxham, representing Pacific Scene, stated their proposed project is known as "Town Centre Village". Town Centre Village is a $15.5 million mixed-use project consisting of retail, office, medical and residential uses. The proposal conforms to the City's Town Centre Redevelopment criteria. The project encompasses two 30,000 square foot multi-purpose commercial buildings three stories in height and thirty town homes built around a central plaza. They have placed strong emphasis on the street plaza area. They have limited site coverage ratio on the commercial to 41% by putting 83% of the required parking underneath the commercial area. Mr. Ron Barefield of Pacific Scene discussed the residential element of Town Centre Village. Because there are existing two story condominiums and apartments on the east property line, they felt it was important to keep a residential element on the east portion of the property. The proposal includes 30 townhomes with two-car garages. The townhomes would have their own entry access. Every unit would have 15' x 25' rear yards. The units would be Mediterranean style, two and three bedroom, two and one- half baths, averaging about 1,300 square feet. The project architect, Joseph Wong, stated it is important that this project be a mixed-use project. This project provides parking underground for the commercial uses. The residential area will include a street connecting the alley to Alvarado to provide each townhome a 2-car garage plus guest parking. Mr. Mo×ham added that Pacific Scene's original offer for the property was $1.8 million subject to upward adjustment should the project size be increased. They were redirected by the Agency to revise their proposal on the assumption that the Kentucky Fried Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -6- September 6, 1990 Chicken property would be included. $300,000 would be provided for the Kentucky Fried Chicken parcel. Construction would take approximately 10 months. Major tenant interest has been expressed by Mercy Hospital and Kaiser. The finished value of Town Centre Village will be $15.5 million which represents approximately $11 million of commercial and $4.5 million of residential value. Chairman Cox commented that all three proposals are excellent. He suggested that the Agency not take any action on this matter at this meeting. MOTION MS (Cox/Moore) continue this item to Tuesday, September 11 following the Council meeting; staff to include a matrix comparing the three proposals; a report to include the information of the Project Area Committee and any recommendations that staff may have concerning which proposal would be recommended for this project. Member Moore stated he would like to see staff prepare the top 3 to 5 positive aspects and any weakness along with rationale in the report. The motion carried. The vote was 3-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote. The Redevelopment Agency recessed at 7:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:27 p.m. **JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PLANNING COMMISSION** Planning Commission Members Present: Bob Tugenberg, Susan Fuller, Shirley Grasser, JoAnne Carson, Jim Cartmill, Joe Casillas, and Vern Decker. 8. PRESENTATION: Summarizing Draft Environmental Impact Report - Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment Mr. Salomone stated the purpose of this workshop was to present the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed Bayfront project for the consideration of the decision makers and to answer any questions. The economic analysis that is being prepared by consultants will be delivered to staff on September 20. The Planning Commission is scheduled to have a public hearing on the Draft EIR on September 26. The developer at this time has indicated a willingness to begin negotiations on a development agreement. Staff would like to convene those negotiations concurrent with the Planning Commission and Agency review of the Draft EIR. Staff will be negotiating with the Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -7- September 6~ 1990 .developer on the project being reviewed and it could be that the result will approximate one of the alternatives in the Draft EIR; if that is the case, this document will be suitable to one of those alternatives. It is anticipated that the Final EIR will be published the end of October or the first part of November. A second Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for November 14 or 28. Should the applicant decide to go forward with the project as it is presented, a public hearing will be held and a decision will be made on the EIR and Local Coastal Program Resubmittal before the City Council in December or January. Ms. Christine Keller, Keller Environmental, the firm that prepared the Draft EIR, stated that the EIR document is complex in that it evaluates the proposed LCP Resubmittal project, six on-site alternatives, the ultimate development that would be allowed by each alternative as well as six off-site alternatives. Ms. Keller stated that she and her associates will focus their presentation on the major issues of concern, potentially significant impacts and whether they are mitigable or not under the current proposed project and alternatives. Ms. Keller pointed out that it needs to be recognized that the sensitivity of the site is very high and any project that meets the community goals may result in significant unmitigable impacts. CEQA requires the decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project or not. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable. In this eventuality, the decision makers must make a statement of overriding considerations. This is provided in writing and explains the specific reasons for this determination. This statement then becomes incorporated in the record of project approval and must be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. Consequently, from an environmental compliance standpoint, the goal should be to choose a project which results in the fewest impacts as possible and incorporates a comprehensive mitigation program. Chairman Cox noted the EIR includes the parcel that has been sold to Rohr. Rohr is moving forward with a plan for development of that parcel. He questioned if Rohr is doing their own separate EIR. Ms. Keller responded that Rohr is doing their own separate EIR. Ms. Keller summarized the proposed project and alternatives. The proposed project is the resubmittal of the LCP and consists of changes to the LCP land uses in the text and on the maps. The proposed LCP Resubmittal would serve as the new LCP, essentially Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -8- September 6, 1990 replacing the text of the original LCP that was certified in 1985. Chula vista's General Plan Update and the Redevelopment Plan would also be changed to reflect the modifications to the LCP. Two major changes will occur with the approval of the proposed project. First, all City plans for the D Street Fill and Gunpowder Point will be redesignated to open space. This change is consistent with the establishment of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge in 1989. Secondly, the Midbayfront subarea will be changed to permit a variety of new and more intensive uses than the current LCP allows. The proposed development plan can be characterized as a destination resort project that also provides for residential, commercial, park and industrial park uses interspersed throughout. Proposed land uses include commercial, industrial, residential, public and quasi-public, parks and recreation areas. Ms. Keller further reported the ultimate development allowable under the current LCP and the proposed LCP Resubmittal differ significantly in terms of land use intensity. The development plan proposed by Chula Vista Investors includes approximately 4.2 million square feet as compared to approximately 2.5 million square feet for the existing LCP. This represents approximately 47% greater intensity. With respect to phasing, the proposed project will require an approximately 20 year construction period. The project would be constructed in five phases. Ms. Keller stated that six on-site alternatives were evaluated for this project as well as a number of off-site options. The discussion focuses on the on-site alternatives. These alternatives include: Alternative 1. No project alternative. (This would mean there would be no LCP Resubmittal and no development.) Alternative 2. This alternative allows development under the existing certified LCP. (The existing LCP would be approximately 47% less in intensity than the proposed project.) Alternative 3. This alternative would allow development similar to the proposed project but would reduce the overall development to 3.5 million square feet. This alternative represents a 26% reduction in intensity from the proposed project. Alternative 4. This alternative is also similar to the proposed project in terms of the type of development and is the same level of intensity as Alternative 3. Alternative 5. This alternative would allow 2.5 million square feet of development. This represents a 47% reduction in intensity from the pro- Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -9- September 6~ 1990 posed project. It has further reductions in residential uses in the northern portion of the site, reduction in height of apartments and reduction of height of hotels. Alternative 6. This alternative is the locational alternatives that were addressed in the EIR, and these were not discussed at this meeting. Alternative 7. This alternative allows development similar to the proposed project but is modified to reduce impacts to a degree greater than is achievable by the proposed project and the other density reduction alternatives. The main differences between the proposed project and Alternative 7 are substantial reductions in building height and mass. Diana Richardson, Keller Environmental, discussed the impacts and mitigation. The proposed project and Alternatives 3 and 4 result in 29 significant and unmitigable impacts. Alternative 5 results in 28 unmitigable impacts, while Alternatives 2 and 7 result in 15 and 16 respectively. $ignifioant and unmitigable impacts from the proposed project and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 occur from or to the issues of geotechnical constraints, hydrological constraints, water quality problems, visual aesthetics, community character, biological resources, land use incompatibility, shadows to parks and other public areas, school transportation costs and traffic levels-of-service. The significant and unmitigable impacts from Alternatives 2 and 7 occur from or to the issues of geotechnical constraints, hydrological constraints, biological resources, school transportation costs and traffic levels-of-service. Ms. Richardson further reported that the major difference between the proposed project and the alternatives is that the heights and densities of the project and Alternatives 3 and 4 are substantially greater than Alternatives 2, 5 and 7. In order to mitigate a large number of significant impacts to a level below significant, a redesign of the proposed project was recommended in the Draft EIR. That recommended redesign included ~ reduction in building heights and land use intensity. The analysis indicates that of the proposed project and each of the alternatives analyzed, Alternative 7 had the least number of unmitigable significant adverse environmental impacts, while achieving at least some of the project's objectives. Ms. Richardson stated that the existing land use and visual aesthetics issues that were evaluated for the proposed project included the compatibility of the project with internal land uses and surrounding land uses; the visual dominance of the project from public viewing locations; whether the project would be similar in urban character and form to the surrounding developments; and whether the project would eliminate or signifi- Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -10- September 6~ 1990 -- cantly obstruct existing public views to the Bayfront. Ms. Richardson pointed out that significant land use impacts occur from incompatibility of the proposed project and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 with surrounding land uses including the National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed project substantially exceeds existing allowable densities and existing surrounding densities as well as densities of local comparable projects. Alternative 2 would be compatible with the certified LCP from a land use stand point. Alternative 7 is generally consistent, however, it allows 3 twelve-story structures and 3 six-story structures. Ms. Keller discussed the visual resources. The visual issues that were evaluated in the EIR include ~the visual dominance of the project from public viewing locations and its compatibility with the existing community character, and whether scenic views would be obstructed. The City of Chula Vista has an established low profile image with respect to its community form, with the majority of the residential and community services structures being no more than four stories and usually one to two stories in height. The proposed project in comparison would allow a number of high rise buildings that would be among the tallest currently developed in the entire San Diego metropolitan region, with the exception of downtown San Diego. The alternatives also include high rise structures. Due to the proposed project's height, it will create a strong urban mass from each of the view points that were evaluated with the exception of F Street at Woodlawn and from Interstate 5 southbound. As such, the high rise buildings will create a strong contrast with the existing low profile urban image of Chula Vista. Consequently, these visual impacts are considered significant and not mitigated by the current plan. The EIR also concluded that Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would result in significant impacts to community image due to the number of high rise structures, their placement on the site, and their visual dominance from public viewing locations. Alternatives 2 and 7 were found to result in potentially adverse, but not significant, impacts on community image. The other visual issue evaluated in the EIR is the potential obstruction of existing public scenic views to the Bayfront. The proposed project will retain the existing view windows immediately possible down E Street and from F Street. In addition, views of the Bayfront will still be afforded from Interstate 5 southbound. The project will almost completely obstruct views from Bay Boulevard and from existing restaurants along Bay Boulevard. While view windows will be maintained along E and F Street, the types of panoramic views that are presently possible will be lost with only small focal views remaining. In conjunction with the urban development adjacent to these roadways, existing panoramic and scenic natural bay views will be dominated by the urban development with the bay views being only a minor element in the landscape. It is important to recognize Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -11- September 6. 199~ that the proposed project will create some new scenic bayfront views, including views from the parks and the extended stay hotel restaurant, as well as along Marina Parkway. However, the creation of these new view points are not considered sufficient to mitigate the off-site impacts, since public parking and accessibility to the project lands are considered to be deficient and significant impact issues in their own right. Consequently, the visual impacts remain significant, and mitigation would require a redesign of the project to address these issues. Ms. Richardson next addressed the parks, recreation and open space assessment. The issues addressed in the parks and recreation analysis include consistency with parkland requirements, consistency with park and public area parking requirements, provision of public access to parks and public areas, shadows covering parks and public areas from high rise buildings, and schedule of parks development in the phasing plan. The amount of proposed parkland is consistent with the City's threshold standard for service to project area residents. However, due to the unique location of the proposed parks adjacent to the Bayfront and close to the National Wildlife Refuge, approximately 150,000 people annually are expected to use these parks. The standards for adequate amount of regional parkland varies from 2 to 2.5 acres per 1,000 people. Based on a 2 acre standard, the amount necessary to service the anticipated 150,000 would be 300 acres which is infeasible. This deficiency was considered to represent an incremental adverse impact from project development. Mitigation would be possible by developing as much parkland as possible such as proposed by Alternatives 2, 5 and 7, by making the parkland contiguous west of Marina Parkway such as proposed by Alternatives 2 and 7, and to encourage public use of the athletic facilities by minimizing or avoiding public fees. Other significant mitigable impacts include deficiency of parking spaces for the public and lack of public access information. Both of these impacts could be mitigated by provision of spaces and by provision of public access information later in a project level analysis period. Shadow impacts from the 172 foot and 265 foot hotels are considered significant as they cover a substantial amount of the lagoon and public core areas when public use is anticipated to be high. Another stated significant and mitigable impact has already been partially addressed since the Draft EIR went out for public review, the lack of information regarding development of parks and parking areas for the public in the phasing plan. Mitigation called for in the EIR was to build all parks and public parking areas within Phase 1. Alternatives 2 and 7 address these mitigation recommendations by providing a greater amount of parks, by making parkland contiguous west of Marina Parkway, and by lowering building heights and reorienting tall buildings to reduce shadow impacts. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -12- September 6, 1990 Chairman Cox commented that bar charts have been presented that are not included in the EIR which would be helpful to make available for the Planning Commission and the Agency. Mr. Goss also suggested providing information on typical structures in Chula Vista as well as in the bay, San Diego, and suburban areas. He further suggested a bar chart be created to try and get some idea of building mass for the purpose of comparison. Responding further to questions, Ms. Keller stated along Bay Boulevard, all of the alternatives obstructed a fair amount or all of the bay views. From that stand point, there is not any alternative that did not have a significant obstruction of views along Bay Boulevard. The existing LCP retained more views along Bay Boulevard than the other alternatives. Alternative 7 would also largely obstruct views to the Bay, however, because the higher buildings are massed together in a central core, there would still be some limited views of the bay along Bay Boulevard. Dan Marum, JHK & Associates, discussed the traffic issues. The final traffic analysis report resulted in the determination of traffic impacts associated with the proposed project as well as each of the alternative land use scenarios. The analysis also included feasible mitigation measures to address all anticipated impacts. Mr. Marum pointed out that 75% of the trips generated by the proposed project will be oriented to Interstate 5. The remaining 25% are oriented to and from Central Chula Vista and points to the east. It is anticipated that the vast majority of the traffic generated by the Midbayfront site will utilize the E Street/I-5 interchange exclusively. Planning Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the new geometrics at E Street and I-5 are not sufficient to handle the anticipated traffic crunch, who will finance the construction of additional lanes if required? Mr. Marum stated that their analysis did not include mitigation for widening the overpass. The assumption that they included in their analysis called for the restriping of that overpass to provide two lanes in each direction with double left turn capacity for eastbound to northbound I-5 at the E Street interchange. Mr. Marum pointed out that E Street between I-5 and Woodlawn will continue to be a heavily travelled segment and will require additional mitigation to provide improved access to and from the freeway at the intersection of the northbound I-5 ramps at E Street. A series of network improvements are proposed at the E Street/I-5 interchange. A portion of these improvements are currently under construction and are being performed by CalTrans as part of the Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -13- September 6. 1990 State Route 54 extension project. Improvements at the I-5/E Street interchange and at the State Route 54/I-5 interchange will provide critical linkage between I-5 and 1-805. The completion of this CalTrans construction project is expected to reduce the amount of through traffic on E Street by approximately 15%. The positive impact of the completion of freeway improvement was included in the traffic analysis report. The other improvements that are proposed at the interchange of E Street and I-5 include: 1) Restriping of E Street overpass. 2) Improvements to the northbound on-ramp at the E Street/I-5 interchange. 3) An exclusive right turn only lane from westbound E Street to northbound I-5 ramp. 4) A restriping project to be located on the I-5 northbound off-ramp approaching E Street. 5) Improvements currently under construction in the northwest quadrant of the interchange. These improvements are being constructed in conjunction with the State Route 54 extension project. Capacity at this interchange will be significantly improved as a result of these roadway construction projects. Mr. Marum next discussed the projected levels of service within the study area. The p.m. peak hour analysis indicated that the I-5 interchange at E Street will experience poor levels of service and drivers will also experience significant delay. Other study area intersections are projected to experience acceptable levels of service under the proposed project. The development of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to streets and intersections in the project vicinity. Forecasted volumes on E Street between Bay Boulevard and Woodlawn Avenue would exceed 100% of the available capacity. E Street intersection with Bay Boulevard and the I-5 southbound ramp would experience level of service "F" in the p.m. peak hour. E Street intersection with I-5 northbound ramp would experience level of service "E" in the p.m. peak hour. J Street intersection with I- 5 southbound ramp would experience level of service "D" in the p.m. peak hour. Mr. Marum added that it is important to recognize that the gate downtime impact caused by the San Diego Trolley operations along the south line would worsen the impacts forecasted at these interchange intersections. It is estimated that this down time could account for an overall reduction in intersection capacity by approximately 10%. Measures have been suggested and analyzed that would reduce the level of service to "D" and "C" at the E Street/I-5 interchange. However, these measures are not proposed by the developer nor agreed to by an important adjacent land owner, Rohr Industries. These measures would include: (1) requiring Rohr traffic to use the H Street interchange exclusively or to a significant amount; (2) limiting Rohr traffic to the off-peak p.m. period only. Because these measures are not proposed nor agreed, to they are not considered feasible at this Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -14- September 6, 1990 time. Thus, the cited significant impacts to street and intersection capacities are not mitigable. Member Nader questioned if consideration had been given to the likely impact of any transportation demand management policies that might be adopted by either the city of Chula Vista or by other entities in the region. Mr. Marum responded no, they did not take this into consideration in their traffic analysis. They assumed standard SANDAG trip generation characteristics and assignment characteristics that are typically used for developments throughout the region. Member Nader stated this is something that needs to be looked at because this government as well as other governments in the region will be adopting transportation management ordinances of one type or another. The likely impact of those ordinances and policies should probably be considered for whatever impact they have on these projected levels of service. Mr. Marum continued with the impacts associated with three of the other on-site development alternatives. The p.m. peak hour traffic resulting from Alternative 2 crea~es levels of service that are worse than the levels of service forecasted for the proposed project. This is due primarily to the heavy concentration of professional office use as part of the Local Coastal Program. This high concentration of office use creates a significant impact during the p.m. peak hour. Also, this impact affects other interchanges south of E Street. Alternative 4 provides significantly improved levels of service at all study area intersections as compared to the proposed project. However, level of service "E" during the p.m. peak hours still exist at the E Street/I-5 southbound ramp intersection and level of service "D" still exists at the northbound E Street/I-5 ramp intersection. Alternatives 5 and 7, levels of service "D" would remain at the I-5 southbound interchange intersection at E Street. This is the only study area intersection which is forecasted to experience a level of service worse than "C" under Alternatives 5 and 7. The Redevelopment Agency recessed at 9:12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:27 p.m. Mr. Walt Crampton, representing Group Delta Associates, summarized the geotechnical soils and hydrology studies. He reported that all of the fill soils on site are considered unsuitable in their present condition. The impact associated with this geologic environment is the potential for ground settlement where any proposed improvements encroach into these compressible near surface deposits which cover a sizeable portion of the site. Some form of soil improvement will be required prior to any development in these areas. Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -15- Septmmher 6~ 1990 Mr. Crampton referred to seismic hazards, pointing out there is a 'significant demonstrated threat of a major earthquake occurring on a local fault which could cause significant damage. An additional impact associated with this geologic environment, specifically where proposed construction is proposed in low lying areas, is that of ground water which affects both construction activities and the actual design of any improvements that penetrate the ground water table. Regarding the hydrology and water quality issues, Mr. Crampton stated that a large portion of the site is comprised of low lying ground, the majority of which is referred to as "salt water marsh". All of these low lying areas are subject to inundation during inland flooding and likewise susceptible to inundation during tidal highs. Materials used for construction of embankments and perimeter fill surrounding the Bayfront development are likely to be susceptible to erosion, and adequate erosion control should be provided as part of the improvements. The LCP Resubmittal speaks to mitigating flood hazards by building pads above the 100-year flood level, or above a "higher high tide level" in the case of coastal flooding. Mr. Crampton stated it should be noted that there is a discrepancy between the proposed LCP Resubmittal's minimum drainage requirement and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual requirements. The Subdivision Manual requires a minimum grade of 6" per 100 feet in lieu of the 3" per 100 feet specified in the proposed LCP Resubmittal. Mr. Crampton further pointed out an additional consideration regarding urban run-off. This is the degradation of water quality which the proposed LCP Resubmittal specifically addresses requiring provision for adequate desilting and oil and chemical entrapment prior to any discharge to a salt water marsh or San Diego Bay. Traps are currently proposed within the development, however, the developer must be required to provide substantiating evidence as to the effectiveness of these proposed modifications during the project level analysis. Mr. Keith Merkel, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, provided an overview of the biological studies. The principal coastal water bird resources remaining in the San Diego Bay region are limited to South San Diego Bay. In addition to high water bird values, the resources of the region include considerable fisheries, invertebrate, floral and raptor values. Further, the South Bay system is highly productive and provides considerable nutrient value to the local as well as off-shore resource areas. The proposed project area is situated in the northeast portion of San Diego Bay and supports the largest saltmarsh system remaining RedeveloDment Aqency Minutes -16- SeDtember 6, 1990 in San Diego Bay. This area is occupied or utilized by six federal and/or state listed endangered species as well as numerous other species which have been proposed for listing or which otherwise are recognized as sensitive. Mr. Merkel stated that while the designated development zones of the Midbayfront are primarily heavily disturbed fallow agricultural lands with limited wildlife value, the proximity of the proposed development to the highly sensitive Refuge and bay resources were important considerations. The project issues identified and addressed in the EIR include drainage and water quality, wildlife resource issues, and marine resources. The drainage and water quality issues were found to be significant and mitigable through a variety of control measures. There was a finding of significant and unmitigable impacts associated with contaminant discharge. This finding resulted from a lack of information in the recent proposal regarding groundwater quality. It is anticipated that this finding could be revised only after receiving additional information during project level environmental review. Potential disruption of avian flight patterns was identified as an issue of major concern due to the geographic location of the project site, the proposal for tall buildings and the high amount of bird flight activity in the area. For these reasons, a long term study was designed and implemented to evaluate the effects of the proposed project and each alternative on avian flight patterns within the Midbayfront. Flight pattern interference for all but gulls and raptors was found to be quite low, generally less than 5%, for all project alternatives. Flight pattern disruption is not significant in light of the extremely few collisions expected and the strong indication that the few flights which do cross the uplands are made as a matter of convenience rather than necessity. Human and pet presence impacts were considered to be a principal concern associated with the project. These impacts would be mitigable; however, the mitigation would require considerable cooperation between the various jurisdictions within the Bayfront and the implementation of a continuous predator and resource management program for the area. The vast majority of the impacts occurring as a result of the proposed project could be off-set by the proposed buffers, expansion of wetlands away from the development area, implementation of effective predator management programs, building and landscape design criteria, and utilization of anti-perch material. It should be noted that even with the most intensive predator control programs, some predators, notably the American kestrel and domestic cats, are all but uncontrollable. Because these species are so numerous and will recolonize areas immediately after other birds are removed, predation will continue and it is expected that losses Redevelopment Aqencv Minutes -17- September 6r 1990 of sensitive species from marshlands will occur at a higher than existing level. For this reason, these impacts are considered to be significant and unmitigable. Mr. Merkel added that the impacts of modifying the existing land use from fallow agriculture to urbanized areas with open water were evaluated relative to the changes in habitats which would occur. In general, the agriculture fields provide little in the way of habitat and most upland species losses would not be considered significant. Of note, however, were the vast number and diversity of raptors which utilize the area on a resident and migratory basis. Because the site represents one of the last coastal fields remaining in the region, its value to these birds is extremely high and the loss of this resource is considered to be significant and unmitigable. Threatened and endangered species are considered in each discussion of impacts. Several impacts to marine resources including mudflats and eelgrass beds are expected to occur as a result of storm water discharge across inter-tidal areas. These impacts may be mitigated through the extension of storm drains out to discharge points in deeper water with a subsequent restoration of mudflats and eelgrass beds damaged by the trenching for storm drains. Mr. Merkel pointed out that the proposed activity centers, active park and food services, and medium to tall buildings constitute the principal elements of the predator and encroachment problems. Raptor foraging habitat would be lost under any development to the Bayfront region and would be most impacted where active uses were placed on the periphery as opposed to the core of the development. Responding to questions of Member Nader, Mr. Merkel stated that in general the significant and unmitigable impacts all remain the same under each of the alternatives. There are a few minor exceptions, for example, Alternatives 2 and 7 have typically lower buildings and buildings which are set back further than the proposed development and, therefore, would not have certain impacts associated with such birds as the Perigren Falcon. In general, the problem for the falcon is solved by lowering the building heights. There are unmitigable impacts identified to the Light-footed Clapper Rail. There are also impacts identified to the Belding's Savannah Sparrow. Ms. Keller commented regarding the statement of overriding considerations and how it relates to federal compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The statement of overriding considerations only addresses compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Ultimately this project will need to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act and the U.S. Fish Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -18- September 6~ 1990 and Wildlife Service is the agency responsible for that federal compliance. Responding to questions of Member Nader, Mr. Merkel stated the applicant is coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order to try to come up with mitigation measures to utilize to offset the impacts. It is possible to have a significant impact and still process a Section 10 permit under the Endangered Species Act. Ms. Keller stated she would try to receive some indication from the Fish and Wildlife Service as to their time line in reviewing this matter and bring this information back to the Agency. Martin Kenney, representing the Fish and Wildlife Service, was present and stated that his agency will be making comments on the endangered species and they will point out areas of concern. Their goal is to avoid impact with endangered species. Member Nader confirmed that Mr. Kenney stated there is a reasonable possibility of adequate mitigation of the endangered species impacts. If Fish and Wildlife's opinion changes, he would hope that the City would be promptly notified. Paul Peterson, Attorney for the applicant, commented it is their view that the EIR is an adequate EIR. They have some disagreement with some of the conclusions that are reached. The applicant is in the process of preparing comments that will correct some of what they consider to be inappropriate conclusions. They are also considering some revisions to the project based on the input on the EIR and will be responding to that during the comment period. Member Moore asked if the revisions referred to by Mr. Peterson would include reduced density, reduced heights and expanded parklands. Mr. Peterson responded affirmatively. The revisions will be coming forward within the next ten days. Carl Worthington, Planning Consultant for the applicant, commented one of the most important objectives of a project is to have a successful project. It is important not to have a "half project" that fails; it is important to make a project that will be successful and meets the needs of transportation and environment, but not one that becomes watered down and fails. Chairman Cox commented that he received a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning a proposed San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which is a concept at this point. It would include 2,500 acres, including properties within the corporate boundaries of the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego. If this is Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -19- September 6~ 1990 implemented it would create a significant area that would be set aside for wildlife management purposes. **END OF JOINT MEETING** 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 12. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: None. 13. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: Member Moore noted his dissatisfaction with the temperature of the Council Chambers during this meeting. ADJOURNMENT at 10:23 p.m. to Tuesday, September 11, 1990 following the City Council meeting. Chri~Salomone Community Development Director (Minutes\Minutel9)