HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2003/07/30
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, July 30 , 2003, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
CAll TO ORDER: Hall
Madrid O'Neill Cortes Castaneda Horn
Felber
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
June 25, 2003
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on
any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on
today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes,
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 03-80; Conditional Use Permit proposal to allow a
dwelling group consisting of three single-family dwelling
units in the R-1-5P Zone, at 1198 Alpine Avenue.
Project Manager: Dawn Van Boxtel, Associate Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 03-47; Conditional Use Permit for Cingular Wireless
to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunications
facility at 525 Hunte Parkway.
Project Manager: Stan Donn, Associate Planner
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Greenbelt Master Plan; A plan for implementation of
a 28-mile open space and trails system surrounding the
City. City Initiated.
Project Manager, Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner
Planning Commission
- 2-
July 30, 2003
4. REPORT:
Broadway Revitalization Strategy initial focus area from
"H" to "L" Street for the "H" Street entry-way of the
Broadway Avenue Corridor.
Project Manager: Xavier Del Valle, Community Development
Specialist
5. ACTION:
Adopt Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City
of Chula Vista approving the Revised Added Area
Boundary for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment
Project Area.
Project Manager: Miguel Tapia, Sr. Community Development
Specialist
BUSINESS:
Nomination of new Chair and Vice Chair for FY 03-04,
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities, Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific Information at (619) 691.5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
~!ft.
=.r-:
~~~--
CI1YOf
CHUIA VISTA
Deparbnent of Planning and Building
Date:
July 9,2003
To:
From:
Planning Commission !rJ\_
Jim Sandoval, {\C~e~ Director of Planning & BUildiri9V"
Dawn Van Boxtel~sociate Planner
Via:
Subject:
Public Hearing Item: PCC-03-80: 1198 Alpine Avenue
On June 25th, you reviewed and considered PCC-03-80, an application for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a dwelling group of three units in an R-1-5P zone, At the commission's request,
the item was continued to allow the applicant to return with further elevations and a landscape
concept plan,
Attached to this memo, are elevations showing a streetscape view from both Alpine Avenue and
Oxford Street. The elevations include an approximation of the nearest adjacent structures to
show the scale of the proposed development. In addition, the applicant has provided a
landscape concept plan, A color version of this concept will be available at the hearing for your
review,
Staff has reviewed these plans and feels they accurately reflect the project design as submitted,
In addition, staff believes that these additional plans will assist the Commission in making the
first required finding for Conditional Use Permits that 'The proposed use at this location is
necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well
being of the neighborhood or the community",
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.: 3
Meeting Date: 7/30/03
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Draft Greenbelt Master Plan - a plan for
implementation of a 28-mile open space and trails system
surrounding the city, City initiated,
, SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building
The proposed Greenbelt Master Plan consists of an implementation plan for an open'
space and trails system encircling the city, This plan is intended to implement the
Greenbelt Concept identified in the adopted General Plan and join together a variety of
open space programs through a connected trail system that links existing and proposed
parks, golf courses and other activity centers around the perimeter of the city, The
Greenbelt can serve to reinforce the identity of the city, as it serves to provide a distinct
visual break between communities, something that is lacking with most communities,
The master plan proposes trail guidelines and standards as well the maintenance approach
for this 28-mile open space area, Additionally, the master plan identifies issues and
implementation recommendations within eight individual segments of the Greenbelt and
sets the framework for subsequent implementation,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the attached
Resolution (PCM-03-38) recommending that the City Council adopt the City of Chula
Vista Greenbelt Master Plan,
DISCUSSION:
I. Background
In 1989 the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the city's General Plan,
within this plan the concept of a Greenbelt that would encircle the city was introduced,
The Greenbelt concept described in the General Plan would consist of a series of open
space segments connected by a 28-mile trail system that would connect both regional
parks and local parks surrounding the city, The General Plan describes the major
components of this Greenbelt as "the backbone of an open space and park system that
extends throughout the city."
The city has hired Peggy Gentry, of Chapin Land Management, Inc" as a consultant to
assist in the preparation of a master plan for implementation of the Greenbelt,
I
!
(
Page 2, Item No.: _
Meeting Date: 7/30/03
2, Planning Commission Workshop
The Planning Commission held a public workshop on the Greenbelt Master Plan
on May 28, 2003 at which time they provided staff with comments regarding the
plan, The Commission at that time expressed general support for the master plan
and cited concerns including: the need to use cool temperature trail paving
materials; desire to connect trails to other systems outside the city; and potential
maintenance cost burdens to homeowners associations in the eastern portion of the
city in the event of a catastrophic event. See Attachment 3 for meeting notes ITom
the May 28 meeting,
3, Other Boards/Commissions and Public Input
a, Parks and Recreation Commission
A public meeting was first held before the Parks and Recreation Commission on
the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan on May 15, 2003 to provide an opportunity for
the Commission and the public to provide input. The Parks and Recreation
Commission continued the hearing to their regular June 19 meeting at which they
recommended that the City Council adopt the Greenbelt Master Plan, See
Attachment 4 for June 19,2003 Minutes.
b, Resource Conservation Commission
A public meeting was held before the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC),
on May 19, 2003, Also in attendance at this meeting were members of the
General Plan Update Environmental and Open Space Subcommittee, of which the
RCC is included, General support was received from the Commission and
Subcommittee, as wen as recommendations that included support for naturalizing
the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel within the Greenbelt, and greater
emphasis within the master plan on open space/preserve planning aspects, The
Resource Conservation Commission members requested that after modifications
are made to the plan, but before it goes forward to the City Council, they would
like to have the master plan returned to them for a fonnal recommendation.
c, Public Input
Input received at a public workshop held on May 5, 2003, through
correspondence, and at subsequent public hearings before the various
commissions and boards identified above, has been considered in making
revisions to the master plan now before the Planning Commission for a
recommendation, Comments received that were responded to included providing
greater emphasis in the master plan on the open space aspects of the master plan,
greater emphasis on the linking of existing and proposed parks and golf courses
within or near the Greenbelt, and the opportunity for greater public input into the
preparation of the master plan,
;L
Page 3, Item No.: _
Meeting Date: 7/30/03
2, Proposed Master Plan
The intent of the proposed Greenbelt Master Plan is to provide goals and policies, trail
design standards and implementation tools that guide the establishment of an open space
system that links existing and proposed parks, golf courses and other pennanent open
space, and that provides a system of interlinking multi-use trails (see Attachment I for
map), The Greenbelt includes the Sweetwater and Otay Valley Regional Parks, the area
surrounding and including the Upper and Lower Otay Lakes, the interface with the San
Diego Bay and a series of habitat conservation lands to be set aside through
implementation ofthe Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP).
The planned Greenbelt includes land areas that fall within several political jurisdictions
besides the City of Chula Vista, including: the City of National City, the City of San
Diego, the County of San Diego, the Unified Port District. Public and quasi-public land
ownership and stewardship within the Greenbelt involve several agencies, including the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game,
Sweetwater Authority and Otay Water Districts, Caltrans, San Diego Gas & Electric, the
Olympic Training Center and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board,
The primary goals of the Greenbelt Master Plan are as follows:
I, To establish a comprehensive and coordinated greenbelt system that visually
reinforces the natural character of the community and integrates unique
historic and cultural resources, open space areas, creeks, and trails,
2, To provide connected open space areas surrounding Chula Vista to enhance
the natural beauty and to preserve native biological and cultural resources,
3. To establish a greenbelt that ensures public access within the greenbelt
through an active and passive recreation park system with trails connecting
each segment.
4, To provide a Greenbelt system that receives the necessary resources for open
space acquisition, park and trail development, maintenance, and to establish
volunteer programs,
5. To establish a framework for the City to designate a staff person or
department who will serve as the Greenbelt Manager responsible for open
space and park acquisition, obtaining funds, coordination, implementation,
and ongoing maintenance of the Greenbelt,
Greenbelt Segments
The master plan identifies eight individual segments of the Greenbelt and identifies issues
specific to that segment, as well as recommendations for long-tenn implementation of
each, Issues include where gaps exist in the continuous trail system and where
3
Page 4, Item No.: _
Meeting Date: 7/30/03
coordination with other jurisdictions or agencies is necessary for implementation, The
individual segments include:
I, Lower Sweetwater
2, Sweetwater Regional Park
3, San Miguel
4, Otay Lakes
5, Salt Creek Corridor
6, Otay Ranch Village Greenway
7, Otay Valley Regional Park (east and west)
8, The Bayfront
Trail Guidelines and Construction Costs
The Greenbelt Master Plan includes design criteria and standards for multi-use and rural
trails and the development of staging areas that would occur where opportunities exist
around the Greenbelt. Guidelines are included for the siting and construction of trails
through sensitive habitat areas (consistent with MSCP guidelines), for arterial road
crossings, urban runoff, accessibility, signage, for trail sizing and materials, and fencing.
In addition, estimated costs for construction of future trails and maintenance of each
segnlent of trail are included,
Greenbelt Maintenance
Maintenance of open space and trails within the Greenbelt are addressed using several
mechanisms. The Greenbelt is currently comprised of several different maintenance
entities, including: regional park public maintenance, homeowner associations, and
maintenance assessment districts, Estimated annual maintenance costs for trails are
included within the master plan, as well as possible future funding sources, Where the
Greenbelt traverses master planned communities within eastern Chula Vista, the
connected open space and trails provided within these communities were anticipated in
development project approvals and assessment mechanisms and are consistent with the
General Plan Greenbelt concept. Implementation issues with maintenance coordination
should be addressed through a subsequent Greenbelt implementation plan,
Greenbelt Management
Management of the Greenbelt is anticipated to occur in several ways, Because the
Greenbelt is addressed through many different agencies and existing open space
programs, the management of each segment is anticipated to occur through individual
jurisdictions and through individual open space programs, Management of trails and open
space within the City of Chula Vista will occur through management commitments with
individual development projects, through cooperative agreements with multiple
jurisdictions and will need to be identified as individual projects are implemented within
each segment. A Greenbelt implementation plan will need to be prepared that will
identify department/staff roles and responsibilities and that wi]] identify funding and
t.....{
Page 5, Item No.: _
Meeting Date: 7/30/03
pnontIes, This implementation plan will occur subsequent to adoption of the Greenbelt
Master Plan,
ANALYSIS:
The Draft Greenbelt Master Plan relies heavily on a variety of open space and trails plans
and programs that aTe in varying stages of implementation. The following are some of
those and the agencies/jurisdictions that administer portions of the Greenbelt:
. Multiple Species Conservation Program (Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista;
County of San Diego)
. San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Otay-Sweetwater and Southbay Units)
. Sweetwater MaTsh Refuge
. Sweetwater Regional PaTk
. Sweetwater Bikeway Plan
. San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Homeowners
Association (HOA)
. Rolling Hills Ranch SPA Plan and HOA
. EastLake Trails. Vistas and Woods SPA Plans and HOAs
. Olympic Training Center
. Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan
. Otay Valley Regional Park
. Bayshore Bikeway
. Port Authority of San Diego
. City of National City
To ensure that implementation of the Greenbelt occurs in a coordinated and
comprehensive manner, the City of Chula Vista will need to identify a managing entity
with defined roles and responsibilities, This entity should also pursue funding
opportunities for the construction of new trails and interpretive signage, and for
development of staging aTeas. Inter-jurisdictional and interagency coordination will be
necessary in order to identify where trail connectivity issues exist, where management
issues occur and to set appropriate implementation priorities.
In addition to a Greenbelt implementation plan the City ofChula Vista will be preparing
a city,wide trails master plan that will address other connecting trail systems within the
core of the city, It is anticipated that the Greenbelt manager (entity) will be identified
through this implementation plan, The city-wide trails system should include connecting
trails that not only link community activity centers, including parks, but should also link
back to the Greenbelt.
CONCLUSION:
Adoption of the Greenbelt Master Plan will recognize the multiple open space and trails
planning and development efforts throughout the City of Chula Vista, as well as aTeas
adjacent to the city that make up the connected Greenbelt system, The Greenbelt Master
s-
Page 6, Item No.: _
Meeting Date: 7/30/03
Plan will serve to standardize details, provide guidance for new trail and staging area
development, as well as provide a unifying system for the development of a city-wide
trails master plan, An implementation plan that includes departmental roles and
responsibilities, budget and staff commitments is expected to be prepared subsequent to
adoption of the Greenbelt Master Plan.
Attachments:
L Draft Planning Commission Resolution
2, Draft City Council Resolution
3, Planning Commission Meeting Notes tTom May 28,2003
4, Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes from July 19, 2003
5. Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes from May 15,2003
6, Draft Greenbelt Master Plan document
(J:\Planning\Duane\Greenbelt Master Plan\Reports\PC Greenbelt Agenda Staternent.doc)
~
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PCM 03-38
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMEDING THAT THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE
GREENBELT MASTER PLAN (PCM-03-38) FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A 28-MILE OPEN SPACE AND
TRAILS SYSTEM SURROUNDING THE CITY
. WHEREAS, Chapin Land Management, Inc, , acting as consultant for the City, with
assistance from City Staff, prepared the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan ("Greenbelt Master Plan");
and
WHEREAS, a public workshop was conducted on May 5, 2003 by City Staff, to present
the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan and solicit public input; and
WHEREAS, a public meeting was conducted on May IS, 2003 by the Parks and
Recreation Commission on the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan and the item was continued to their
next regular meeting on June 19,2003; and
WHEREAS, a public meeting was conducted on May 19, 2003 by the Resource
Conservation Commission to review the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on May 28, 2003 by the Planning
Commission on the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan with no action being taken; and
WHEREAS, a public meeting was conducted on June 19, 2003 by the Parks and
Recreation Commission on the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan and the Commission voted (4-0-1-2)
to recommend that the City Council adopt the Greenbelt Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan is
statutorily exempt from environmental review, pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Draft
Greenbelt Master Plan and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely July 30,
2003, at 6:00 p,m, in the City Council Chambers, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter c1osed; and
7
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan, the Planning Commission voted
_ to recommend approval of the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan (PCM-03-38),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the Draft
Greenbelt Master Plan (PCM-03-38) in accordance with the findings contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City
CounciL
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 30th day of July 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Russell Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J\P!anning\Duane\Greenbdt Master Plan\Rcports\PCM-03-38-2.doc
~
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO, 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE GREENBELT MASTER PLAN
(PCM,03.38) FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A 28-MILE OPEN
SPACE AND TRAILS SYSTEM SURROUNDING THE CITY
A. RECITALS
I, Project Description;
WHEREAS, the project consists of a Greenbelt Master Plan for the implementation of a
28-mile open space and trails system surrounding the City; and
2, Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the Draft Greenbelt Master Plan
is statutorily exempt from environmental review, pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA
Guidelines; and
3, Parks and Recreation Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted a public hearing on May
15, 2003, and took public testimony and provided staff with additional comments and
continued the item to their regular meeting oOune 19,2003; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted a public hearing on June
19, 2003, took additional public testimony and recommended that the City Council adopt
the Greenbelt Master Plan
4, Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public workshop that was advertised
for May 28,2003, at 6:00 p,m, at Joseph Casillas Elementary School, 1130 East J Street,
at which time the Planning Commission opened the workshop and took public testimony
and provided staff with additional comments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing that was advertised
for July 30, 2003, at 6:00 p,m, in the City Council Chambers, located at 276 Fourth
Avenue in the Public Services Building, at which time the Planning Commission took
additional public input; and
5, City Council Record on Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Greenbelt Master Plan was
held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 19, 2003, to receive
~
I
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with
regard to same,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and
resolve as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the project introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on this project held on May 28, 2003 and July 30, 2003, and the minutes and
resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding,
C. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the project introduced before the Parks and Recreation
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on May 15,2003 and June 19,2003, and
the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding,
THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA THIS 30th DAY OF JULY 2003.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Jim Sandoval
Ann Moore, City Attorney
J:\PlanningIDuane\(irecnbelt Master Plan\Rcports\PCM-03-38 CC Rcso.doc
Iv
2
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Meeting Notes
May 28, 2003
Principal Planner Duane Bazzel introduced Peggy Gentry, Chapin Land
Management, Inc., as the city's consultant and primary author of the Greenbelt
Master Plan and then presented an overview of the master plan. He identified
the process and noted each of the upcoming meetings: June 19, Parks and
Recreation Commission (2nd hearing), Planning Commission on July 9 (2nd
hearing) and the City Council hearing scheduled for July 29, 2003.
Chairman Hall stated that he felt that the document should identify the overall
cost to the city of maintenance of the trails system.
Commissioner Hom stated that the trail segment under SR' 125 needs to be
resolved. The commitment by Caltrans for realignment has not resulted in an
adequate trail connection,
Mr. Bazzel stated that he will coordinate a meeting with Caltrans to gather the
additional information to ensure that the connection is not severed.
Commission Castaneda stated that he had three primary comments: 1) there
needs to be more public comment--this is critical to developing a master plan that
recognizes the concerns of the public; 2) Once the trails are complete, there
needs to be a public campaign to show the public where the trails are located;
and, 3) We need to look at other opportunities for trails in the westside--he
suggested that staff consider exploring utility corridors and drainage canals,
Bazzel added that the Greenbelt Master Plan identifies trails within the greenbelt
area and the city has committed to develop a citywide trails master plan,
Commissioner O'Neil suggested that we should try to link beyond SR 125, He
stated that there is a high cost to implement these key missing links but once the
opportunities are developed the money will come, He asked whether patrols
were explored. There will need to be additional maintenance to look for potholes
and address vandalism,
Duane added that it is understood that there is the need for a budget and
assigned staff as the greenbelt manager. At this time, we don't have a single
entity that has taken the lead to develop the greenbelt. Bazzel added that in the
preparation of the citywide trails master plan the city will focus on the additional
need for a greenbelt/trails manager to focus on maintenance issues,
Commission Madrid stated that she felt that the plan needs to ensure safety for
women and children using the greenbelt and trails. She requested that the city
consider eliminating asphalt for trail construction since it gets hot. Consideration
1/
ATTACHMENT 3
should be given to using concrete on trails because it is cooler, She requested
that staff consider locating water within the staging areas for dogs.
Commission Falber stated that the maintenance for trails within the HOAs could
become very expensive, depending on the amount of usage, This is an unfair
burden to the HOA and the City should consider subsidizing trail maintenance
since they provide a broad benefit to an active community.
Chairperson Hall asked if there were any more comments from the
Commissioners. He then opened the hearing to receive public comments,
Dean Ziegler, Sweetwater Planning GrotJp, Trails Subcommittee, stated that he
felt the document should consider trails within Rice Canyon to ensure
connectivity to other trails.
There were no additional comments. Chairperson Hall asked if the Commission
should take action on the Master Plan. Duane stated that the purpose of the
hearing is to present the document to the Commission and gather
Commissioners and public comments. The document will be brought back to the
Commission on July 9, 2003,
! ::L....
A-ilACI4MeNT 4-
City of Chula Visfa
Parks and Recreation Commission
Minufes
Thursday - 6:30 p.m.
Public Works Center
June 19, 2003
1800 Maxwell Rd
Meeting called to order by Vice Chair, Don Salcido at 6:31 p,m.
Stott Present:
Buck Marlin, Director of Recreation
Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations
Andy Campbell, Director of Building and Parks Construction
Jack Griffin, Asst, Director of Building and Parks Construction
Mary Hofmockel. Principal Landscape Architect
Joe Gamble, Landscape Planner II
Martin Miller, Associate Planner
Duane Bazzel. Principal Planner
Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager
Ed Hall, Principal Recrealion Manager
Ted Nelson, Recreation Supervisor III
Margarita Cella no, Recording Secretary
Guests:
Peter watry. Crossroads II. Representative
John Norman, Brookfield Shea
John Moore, Brookfield Shea
Glen Schmidt, Schmidl Design Group
Peggy Gentry, Chapin Land Management. Inc,
1, Roll Call/Mofion to Excuse
Members Present:
Commissioner Rude, Commissioner Salcido, Commissioner
Weidner (arrived at 6:38 p,m.), Commissioner Strahl. and
Commissioner Rios
Members Absent:
Commissioner Ramos, Chair Perondi
MSC (Salcido/Rios) to excuse Commissioner Ramos and Chair Perondi from tonight's
meeting,
2. Public Comments-
3. Action Items
a. Minufes of April 9, 2003 Special Meeting - MSC (Rude/Rios) (Vote 4-0-0-2) to
approve the minutes as presented,
b, Minufes of May 15, 2003 - Move to meeting of July 17,2003
c. Ofay Ranch Neighborhood Park - Village 11 - Mr, Joe Gamble (Landscape
Planner II) talked briefly about the Neighborhood Park in Village 11. and
introduced Mr. Glen Schmidt of Schmidt Design Group,
Mr, Schmidt stated that this park site is in Village 11, and is the only public
neighborhood park within the Village, and ils location is consistent with the
central tocus theme associated with the neo-traditional concept. The park is
7 acres north and east of the intersection Windingwalk Street and Exploration
Falls Drive, West ot the park is the future Village 11 Elemenlary School sile,
/3
San Diego Gas & Electric and San Diego County Water Authority easement is
east of fhe park sife, and also serves as an open space backdrop for fhe park
site. To the north of the park site and a multi-family project which elevated
approximately 10- 20 feet higher than the park, and single-family residences
are proposed to be located south of Windingwalk Street and the park.
Mr. Schmidt discussed the recreation programming elements that include:
softball field with overlaid mulli-purpose area that is suitable for soccer
activity, children's play area, picnic facilities, basketball court (lighted), tennis
court (lighted, budget permitting), skate component pedestrian walkways
and paths, comfort station, on site parking, and pedestrian and security
lighting,
Mr. Schmidt discussed the design theme of the park that includes a ranch
theme, and stated that the park is multi-tiered, In addition, architectural
elements in the park are based on the design principles of Irving Gill, who is a
famed San Diego architect.
Commissioner Strahl asked if dog-waste stations were an element of the park,
Mr, Gamble (Landscape Planner II) responded that dog-waste stations are a
standard park component,
Commissioner Rios asked why the San Diego Gas & Electric easement was not
being used at this park,
Mr, Gamble (Landscape Planner II) responded that San Diego Gas & Electric
was not open to include active recreation on the easement.
Commissioner Weidner asked how much space is allotted for swings, and how
many swings will be available,
Mr, Schmidt responded that 2 sets of swings are available; (1) 4-seat swing in
the school age play area, and a 4-seat swing in the tot-area,
Commissioner Weidner stated Ihat the trellises do not look wide enough for
useable shade for pork patrons, and asked about the size of the multi-
purpose field for soccer play.
Mr. Schmidt responded that the trellises could be expanded, and stated that
the multipurpose field meets the city's requirements for soccer field, and is
multifunctional,
Commissioner Salcido asked about the pitch of the field. drainage of the
field, and adequate lighting for the field (not for professional use),
Mr, Schmidt responded that the pitch is 2% and the drainage is across the
field, Ms, Hofmockel (Principal Landscape Archifect) responded that the
lighting issue would be addressed at the July meeting, since staff was
researching acceptable levels of lighting for certain types of play,
Discussion held on the suggested name of the park, "Windingwalk Park",
/'1
MSC (Rios/Strahl) (Vote: 5-0-0-2 Perondi and Ramos absent) to approve the
Master Plan for the Neighborhood Park in Village 11 and recommend it to the
City Council.
MSC (Rude/Rios) (Vote: 5.0.0-2 Perondi and Ramos absent) to approve the
park name tor the neighborhood park in Village 11 as Windingwalk Park.
d. Greenbelt Master Plan - Mr, Duane Bazzel (Principal Planner) briefly discussed
the proposed Greenbelt Master Plan. Mr, Bazzel reviewed and discussed Ihe
key issues raised at public workshops, In addition, Mr. Bazzel stated that Ihe
concerns raised (by the public, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
Planning Commission) were focused in five areas that include: Connectivity;
Clarify Mapping & Text; Public Participation: Implementation Chapter, and
Greenbelt Focus, Mr. Bazzel also distributed a copy of Ihe Greenbelt Master
Plan Meeting Schedule,
Mr. Bazzel also stated that he attended the Environmental and Open Space
Committee of the General Plan Update (made up of Resource Conservation
Commission plus additional environmental representatives from the larger San
Diego community), Their issues included: strengthening cornments in the
document regarding the open space program that make up the open space
walk within the Greenbelt system, Comments were rnade regarding the flood
channel, and the desire to work with government agencies to restore the
area where it is currently concrete (beyond Chula Vista control), In addition,
Mr, Bazzel stated that they expressed support for the plan with focus on the
trails, and connection to the park systems,
Mr. Bazzel stated that at the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission rneeting,
concerns raised included: Home Owners Association Fees, maintenance costs
to the City (incase of a catastrophic event) for the trail system, patrolling the
open space system. and safety (in the Otay Valley area),
Commissioner Salcido asked about the southwest section of the Greenbelt
Plan. and asked whether this area would be developed or left as an open
space area, and asked about connecting both north and soulh through mid-
bayfront area,
Mr, Bazzel responded that the Sweetwater Marsh is a protected wildlife
refuge, and development would not take place. There are existing nesting of
birds currently, In addition. there is a joint Master Planning effort with Port
District area (by J Street). to connect both sections to ensure there is a
connected trail system, They are concerned about where open space trails
will be placed; in addition, they have concerns related to having maximum
flexibility with the Master Plan. The Cily is going to ensure that there is
connected trail system through the area, and have appropriate open space
links with the interface with the bay, The ultimate land use is unknown at this
lime,
Discussion held on signage throughout the system,
Commissioner Strahl cornmented that he is concerned about how the
Greenbelt will be maintained or what will happen after it is approved by the
City Council.
Mr, Peter Watry stated that he is pleased that the Commission did not take
action on the Greenbelt Master Plan on May 15. 2003, and waited 10 receive
/5
additional intormotion trom the public and Planning Commission, Mr, Watry
also thanked the Commission for their efforts on the Greenbelt.
MSC (Rios/Strahl) (Yote: 4-0.1-2 with Perondi and Ramos absent and Weidner
abstained because she was not at the 5/15/03 meeting when substantial
discussion took place about the Greenbelt Master Plan) to recommend to the
City Council to adopt and approve the Greenbelt Master Plan, and request
that Mr. Bazzel return on July 17, 2003 and discuss any substantial changes to
the Master Plan that he received subsequent, and place this item on the
agenda as an aelion item.
10
I'ITThC./oIMf'Nr t;
City of Chula Vista
Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes
Thursday - 6:30 p.m,
Public Works Center
May 15, 2003
1800 Maxwell Rd
Meeting called to order by Chair Larry Perondi at 6:30 p,m,
Staff Present:
Buck Martin, Director of Recreation
Dave Byers, Director ot Public Works Operations
Shauna Stokes, Assistanl Director ot Recreation
Jack Griffin, Assistant Director of Building and Parks Construction
Mary Hofmockel, Principal Landscape Architect
Ed Hall, Principal Recreation Manager
Brian Cox, Principal Recreation Manager
Joe Gamble, Landscape Planner II
Ted Nelson, Recreation Supervisor III
Margarita Cellano, Recording Secretary
Guests:
John Willett, C.V. Resident, Representative, Otay Valley Regional Park
Janeen Reed. Trails in Open Space
Mark Kukucher, Horse Trails
Jon Rilling, Otay Land Company
Peter Watry, Chula Vista Resident, Crossroads II Representative
Susan Watry, Chula Vista Resident
Cynthia Drake, Chula Vista Resident
Olsie Owens, Chula Vista Resident
Don Ross,
Pat Caughey, Weimer, Yamada and Coughey Landscape Architects
Brad Hiluker,
1, Roll Call/Motion to Excuse
Members Present:
Commissioner Salcido, Commissioner Ramos, Commissioner
Perondi, Commissioner Strahl, Commissioner Rios
Members Absent:
Commissioner Weidner, Commissioner Rude
MSC (Rios/Ramos) to excuse Commissioner Weidner and Commissioner Rude from
tonight's meeling
2, Public Comments - Mr. Watry and Ms, Reed will address the Commission when their item
of interest comes up on Ihe Agenda,
3, Action Items
a. Minutes of April 9, 2003 Special Meeting - MSC (Strahl/Rios) (Vote 5-0-0-2
Weidner and Rude absenl) to move this item to the June 2003 Parks and
Recreation Commission Meeting,
b, Minutes of April I?, 2003 - MSC (Rios/Salcido) (Vote 5.0-0-2 Weidner and Rude
absent) to approve the minutes as presented
c. Otay Ranch Neighborhood Park Village 1 West - Mr, Pal Coughey of Weimer,
Yamada, and Coughed discussed the park elements and programming of
Otay Ranch Neighborhood Park, Items discussed include: park is 5.7 acres
17
and is located on East Palomar street and 0 soon to be constructed cul.de-
sac that will serve on upcoming Elemenlary school and pork,
Elements and programming include: one softball field with on overlaid multi-
purpose turf area, children's play area with accessible ploy equipment, picnic
facilities, basketball court (not lighted), pedestrian walkways and paths,
comfort station, on-site parking (25 spaces), and pedestrian and security
lighting, Additional teature in the park includes 0 council ring that serves as 0
gathering area for informal socializing, Poetry phrases are embedded within
the concrete circles to serve as 0 discussion and focal point,
The comfort station is located within proximity to the tot lot and picnic areas,
The floor plan design tokes into consideration the architectural vernacular ot
the modernized agrarian theme, Construction materials include, stone
,accents, pointed stucco"and galvanized gates,
Commissioner Strohl asked if the walkway/path went around the park. and if
provisions for dog deposit stations were strategically placed and accessible,
Mr. Caughey responded that the path/walk way did go around the
parameter of the pork, and dog deposit stations were placed Ihroughoutthe
park. These items are standard in all parks,
Commissioner Salcido asked if secondary lighting was a provision in the park
for security purposes,
Mr, Gamble (Landscape Planner II) responded that security lighting was 0
provision along the concrete pathways,
Commissioner Strohl commented that he would like to see the basketball
courts lit,
Ms. Hofmockel (Principal Landscape Architect) responded that discussion on
lighting program elements in parks would be discussed at the June meeting,
The Commission discussed the proposed nome "Horizon Park". and decided
that it would fit the park well.
MSC (Salcido/Rios) (Vote 5-0,0.2 Weidner and Rude absent) to approve the
proposed Park Master Plan in Otay Ranch Village 1 West as presented with the
caveat that lights to the basketball court be stubbed underground, and
approve the proposed name of fhe park as "Horizon Park."
d, Proposed Greenbelt Master Plan - Mr. Duane Bazzle (Principal Planner)
introduced himself and the consultant, Peggy Gentry, Mr. Bazzle also
informed the commission on the intent and purpose of the Greenbelt
Moster Plan, which is indented to link existing and future parks that occur
within the City and surrounding municipalities. A Power Point Presentation
was provided to commission on the Greenbelt Master Plan, and briefly
discussed key elements that include: General Plan Concept. Goals,
Specific Segment Issues and Recommendations, and Implementation and
Management. This Master Plan is tentatively scheduled for presentation to
the Planning Commission on May 28, Mr, Bazzle discussed specific
segments, issues. and recommendation related each element,
I~
Choir Perondi commented that this was a well thought out planned concept.
and he could see the strong cooperation between all municipalities.
Choir Perondi opened the floor for comments by the public.
Mr. Peter Watry, representative of Crossroads II talked briefly about the
presentation. Mr. Watry stated that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the
Greenbelt concept when it was developed 15-years ago, and that over the
years, the concept was changed without public input. He also stated that
there is no buffer between municipalities. He also informed the Commission
that he submitted his Greenbelt concerns and changes to the Planning
Department earlier in the day for consideration. He asked that the
Commission, and city stoff change their culture in decision making that would
include public input. In addition, Mr. Watry requested that the Parks and
Recreation Commission not toke action on the Greenbelt Master P~an, until
they have sufficient time to review all the information from the public.
Ms. Janeen Reed, representative of Bonito Trails Organization talked briefly
about the Open Space Trails, and greenbelt areas and stated that these
areas are all important in the concept. She asked that the Commission not
move the horse rink from it's present location in Rohr Park because currently,
this is the last public horse arena in the area.
Commissioner Strahl stated that before he takes action on the Greenbelt
Master Plan, he would like to receive more information that includes the
Planning Department's comments and public comments.
MSC (Strahl{Rios) (Vote: 5-0-0-2 Weidner and Rude Absent) that the Parks and
Recreation Commission approves the Master Plan in a conceptual way with its
many positive attributes, but cannot approve it until they receive more public
input and Planning Commission input. II is requested that Mr. Bazzle returns in
June with comments Irom the Planning Commission.
;0;
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 4
Meeting Date: 7/30/03
ITEM TITLE:
Broadway Revitalization Strategy (BRS) for the "H" to "L" Street
Segment / "H" Street Entryway of the Broadway Corridor.
BACKGROUND: In January 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18880, which
identified the revitalization of Broadway as one of the City's major areas in need of
improvement. The resolution set the tone for the City to embark on a comprehensive
revitalization effort along the entire Broadway corridor to reverse deteriorating conditions,
support the vitality of commercial establishments, and enhance the visual quality of the urban
environment.
The work tasks associated with this effort began nearly two and half years ago with the property-
by-property examination of the entire Broadway corridor, including major gateways (E, H, &
Palomar Streets between 1-5 and Broadway). The examination enabled staff to document
existing conditions, identify overall revitalization goals, and draft preliminary strategies for
implementation. The examination also assisted staff in establishing focus areas, including the
initial focus area, which encompasses the H to L Street Segment/H Street Entryway of the
Broadway corridor.
For your information, staff is presenting the proposed Broadway Revitalization Strategy (BRS)
for the H 10 L Street Segment/H Street Entryway (attachment) of the Broadway corridor. The
BRS provides a comprehensive list of revitalization strategies that are intended to build upon the
focus area's recent and anticipated successes for the purpose of making the area more attractive
to investors, consumers, visitors, and residents. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend to Agency/Council adoption of the proposed BRS, and to direct staff to develop an
implementation plan for immediate action items.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a
statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15262 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further
environmental review is necessary at this time; however, the proposed future implementation of
specific strategies identified in the BRS will be subject to environmental review pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending to the
Agency/Council adoption of the proposed Broadway Revitalization Strategy, and to direct staff
to develop an implementation plan for immediate action items.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Broadway Business Association
(BBA) supports the revitalization of the Broadway corridor. Staff has been providing the BBA
with periodical updates, and anticipates that the BBA will provide a key role in promoting and
assisting the City throughout the revitalization process.
Page 2
Since the boundaries of the initial focus area includes the Chula Vista Shopping Center (Town
Centre II Project Area), staff will be presenting the draft BRS to the Town Centre PAC at their
August 20, 2003 meeting.
DISCUSSION: The Broadway Revitalization Strategy (BRS) for the H to L Street Segment/H
Street Entlyway of the Broadway corridor is anticipated to play an integral part in the overall
effort to enhance City's image as a desirable place to live, work, shop, and conduct business. As
mentioned earlier in this report, the intent of the BRS is to build upon the focus area's recent and
anticipated successes in order to reverse and eliminate deteriorating conditions, and make the
area more attractive for investors, visitors, and consumers. The following provides an outline
and brief description of the major sections of the proposed BRS.
Introduction
Tells the story of the transformation of Broadway into the auto-oriented corridor that exists
today. Broadway is also described as a critical link to other revitalization areas, such as the
City's bay front and the downtown area. This section also informs the reader about new
businesses along Broadway that have provided additional services, including new development
that is planned in the upcoming years. Although this is the case, emphasis is placed on the fact
that a greater part of Broadway continues to encounter the adverse effects associated with
declining commercial strip centers. As a result, Council took action by adopting a resolution
(1998) that set the tone for the City to embark on a comprehensive revitalization effort along the
Broadway corridor and major City entryways.
Broadway Revitalization Effort
Informs the reader about the purpose and intent of the Broadway revitalization effort, and describes
the work tasks associated with moving forward this significant revitalization etfort. This section also
illustrates the overall boundaries of the revitalization area, including specific focus areas. Also
significant in this section is the rationale for establishing the smaller focus areas of revitalization,
including the basis for selecting the H to L Street Segment/H Street Entryway of Broadway as the
initial tocus area. The section ends with informing the reader that similar revitalization etforts will
tallow for other segments ofthe Broadway, which include:
. E to H Street Segment/E Street Entryway
. C to E Street Segment
. L to Palomar Street Segment/Palomar Street Entryway
. Palomar to Faivre Street Segment
The Strategy's Relationship to Other Citywide Efforts
Clarifies the distinction between the Broadway Revitalization Strategy (BRS) and the city's
General Plan, and Redevelopment Plan Expansion efforts. The reader is informed that the BRS
Page 3
takes the revitalization process further by providing a comprehensive list of revitalization
strategies that are specific to Broadway, and each focus area. Emphasis is also placed on the fact
that the BRS includes several broader based revitalization strategies that may have General Plan
or Redevelopment Plan implications. As a result, it may be necessary in the future to revisit the
strategies and make revisions based on new priorities. The reader is informed that any revisions
made to the BRS will be considered to avoid any potential cont1ict with other long-term policies
that may be derived from other citywide efforts.
Broadway Revitalization Goals
Informs the reader of the type of revitalization goals that will likely be necessary in order to
implement a successful revitalization program along the Broadway corridor. This section also
describes the goals as being instrumental in assisting to identify and prioritize revitalization
strategies that are proposed in the BRS. At the end of this section, the reader is informed that
another section of the BRS provides photographic examples of other revitalization successes that
represent potential implementation ideas that could occur along the Broadway corridor.
Initial Focus Area: H to L Street Segment & H Street Entryway
Provides a detailed description of the focus area, including area characteristics, strengths, and
challenges. This section also informs the reader that an examination of the area assisted staff in their
analysis, and formed the basis for developing focused revitalization strategies for implementation.
Equally important in this section is sharing to the reader the City's commitment to the revitalization
effort by establishing of an interdepartmental team to provide guidance throughout the process.
Designated as the Broadway Revitalization Teanl, the Team was charged with sharing their expertise
and assisting in moving forward this significant revitalization effort. This section stresses that the
Team actively participated in public workshops and meetings, and was instrumental in completing this
BRS, which focuses on the H to L Street Segment/H Street Entryway ofthe Broadway corridor.
Public Participation Process/Top Strategies
Informs the reader of two workshops held in late January to solicit ideas on how to revitalize the H to
L Street Segment/H Street Entryv.'ay of the Broadway corridor. This section further describes the
participants' involvement in a work session activity where they were asked to review and select their
top revitalization strategies from a proposed list that was presented by staff. The participants selected
the following as the most important revitalization strategies:
. Combat the spread of blighting or deteriorating conditions by establishing a strategy that prevents
abandoned properties rrom remaining donnant.
. Expand the City's facade program to include Broadway and the City's major entryways.
. Install signage identifying Broadway as the historic Highway 10 I route. Additionally, land use
strategies could potentially evolve from a Highway 101 theme. Any signage improvements shall
be based on an overall Broadway sign program or guidelines.
Page 4
. Link proposed higher density areas of the corridor to existing trolley stations.
. Encourage property owners/tenants to periodically clean their properties, remove litter, maintain
landscaped areas, collect shopping carts, and report (or remove) graffiti to the City graffiti
coordinator.
. Provide, maintain, or upgrade deteriorating street furniture, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, roads,
streetlights, neighborhood parks, and other similar public inftastructure.
. Proactively implement graffiti prevention measures along the corridor, particularly along the City
major entryway corridors, which have been designated as focus areas for a major entryway
beautification effort.
. Schedule proactive code enforcement inspections for businesses suspected of being in violation of
City zoning laws (i.e., deteriorating and temporary signage, illegal conversions, illegal outdoor
retail displays, etc.).
Not mentioned in the current draft BRS (June 2003) was the July 14,2003 public workshop to
present the BRS. The workshop was necessary in order to ensure that staff received all
comments betore finalizing the BRS. Overall, the workshop was productive and informative,
and the BRS was well received from the participants. Towards the end of the workshop, staff
informed the participants of the next steps in the process, which include presenting the draft BRS
to the Planning Commission and City Council. Statf also informed the participants that if the
BRS is adopted, staff will develop an implementation plan for immediate action items that will
include the most important revitalization strategies as selected by the participants.
CONCLUSION: Staff is presenting for your information the draft Broadway Revitalization
Strategy (BRS) for H to L Street Segment/H Street Entryway of the Broadway corridor.
Tonight's presentation will inform the Planning Commission of the contents of the BRS, and
work tasks associated with completing the BRS. The Planning Commission will also have the
opportunity to comment on the BRS, before staffs presentation Agency/Council. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to Agency/Council adoption of the
proposed BRS, and direct staff to develop an implementation plan for immediate action items.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Adoption of the BRS will not result in any direct fiscal impact. However
the implementation of individual strategies will have varying degrees of fiscal impact. The BRS
identifies potential funding sources for each revitalization strategy, some of which are already
funded and underway as mentioned in the BRS. Other proposed strategies that are not funded
will require Agency/Council approval tor any new appropriation prior to implementation. If the
BRS is adopted, staff will go back to Agency/Council with an implementation plan for
immediate action items. The fiscal impact and recommended timding source for immediate
action items will be quantified and reported to Agency/Council at that time.
A TT ACHMENTS: Broadway Revitalization Strategy (BRS)
Focus Area: Broadway from H Street to L Street, and H Street Entryway
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPT THE
BROADWAY REVITALIZATION STRATEGY FOR THE H TO L STREET
SEGMENT/H STREET ENTRYWAY OF THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR,
AND DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR
IMMEDIATE ACTION ITEMS
WHEREAS, in January 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18880,
which identified the revitalization of Broadway as one of the City's major areas in need
of improvement; and
WHEREAS, the resolution set the tone for the City to embark on a
comprehensive revitalization effort along the entire Broadway corridor to reverse
deteriorating conditions, support the vitality of commercial establishments, and enhance
the visual quality of the urban environment; and
WHEREAS, the work tasks associated with the Broadway revitalization effort
began nearly two and half years ago with the property-by-property examination of the
entire Broadway corridor and major gateways; and
WHEREAS, the examination enabled staff to document existing conditions,
identify overall revitalization goals, and establish focus areas to undertake revitalization
activities in an orderly and comprehensive manner; and
WHEREAS, the H to L Street SegmentlH Street Entryway of the Broadway corridor
was selected as the initial focus area due to the area's stability, and the recent or proposed
investment activities that are anticipated to serve as a catalyst for further revitalization efforts
along the Broadway corridor; and
WHEREAS, an interdepartmental revitalization team was established to provide
guidance throughout the process, participate in public workshops and meetings, and was
instrumental in completing the Broadway Revitalization Strategy, which focuses on the H to
L Street SegmentlH Street Entryway of the Broadway corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Broadway Revitalization Strategy is anticipated to play an
integral part in the overall effort to enhance the City's image as a desirable place to live,
work, shop, and conduct business; and
WHEREAS, the Broadway Revitalization Strategy provides a comprehensive list
of revitalization strategies, which focuses on the H to L Street SegmentlH Street
Entryway of the Broadway corridor; and
1
WHEREAS, the public participation process assisted the City to prioritize the
strategies, which have been identified as short-term (1-3 years), mid-term (3-5 years),
long-term (5-10 years), or ongoing; and
WHEREAS, the Broadway Revitalization Strategy identifies potential funding
sources, and lead departments, agencies, or other entities that will champion
implementing the proposed strategies; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined
that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15262 of the
State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary at this
time; however, the proposed future implementation of specific strategies identified in the
Broadway Revitalization Strategy will be subject to environmental review pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Broadway Business Association supports the revitalization of the
Broadway corridor, and will provide a key role in promoting and assisting the City
throughout the revitalization process; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA recommend that the Redevelopment Agency/City
Council of the City of Chula Vista adopt the Broadway Revitalization Strategy for the H
to L Street SegmenUH Street Entryway of the Broadway corridor, and direct staff to
develop an implementation plan for immediate action items.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 30th day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Russ Hall
Planning Commission Chair
Diana Vargas
Secretary
2
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
b
07-30-03
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED ADDED AREA BOUNDARY
FOR THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ;ztrL.~
BACKGROUND
In an effort to extend economic development tools throughout commercial areas in the west Chula
Vista, Redevelopment Agency staff is proposing the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Proiect Area
("Proiect Area"), which is a redevelopment plan amendment to merge the Town Centre II, Otay
Valley, Southwest Redevelopment Constituent Area as the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment
Project Area, and to add to it a fourth constituent project area known as the 2003 Amendment
Constituent Area (hereinafter referred to as the "Added Area"). The Added Area consists of 22
parcels totaling approximately 520 acres of noncontiguous commercially and industrially zoned
property in west Chula Vista as shown in the site map attached hereto as Exhibit A
The Added Area was initially approved and designated by the Planning Commission on November
20, 2002 and Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") on November 26, 2002. Upon additional
detailed analysis of the Added Area boundary, staff has determined that the original Added Area
boundary requires modifications to (i) exclude 0 few residential properties unintentionally included in
the initial area (including a portion of a mobile home park), and (ii) include the KOA Campground
facility that may be a candidate for future redevelopment that would focilitate the development of
nearby sites.
Under Section 33326 of the California Redevelopment Law, the Planning Commission may
change the boundaries of the proposed Added Area with the approval of the Agency. The
Planning Commission must first approve the revised Added Area boundary and forward its
approval to the Agency for final approval.
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07-30-03
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. _ to approve the revised Added Area
boundary.
DISCUSSION
Concurrently with merging the three existing project areas (Otay Valley, Southwest, and Town
Centre II), the Agency is proposing to add 22 noncontiguous areas to the merged project area.
Since not all of the Chula Vista older commercial areas are within one of the redevelopment
areas, limitations in the redevelopment plans could constrain the Agency's ability to complete
future redevelopment projects in the three existing redevelopment project areas.
Upon further and detailed analysis, staff concluded that several parcels within the originally
proposed Added Area boundary were unintentionally included and thus staff requests the
removal of these parcels from the Added Area. The parcels proposed for deletion from the
Added Area boundary is shown in Exhibit B attached hereto.. Staff also recommends the
inclusion of fwo parcels known as the KOA campground into the Added Area. T he parcels
proposed to be added to the Added Area is shown in Exhibit C attached hereto.
Adoption of the attached resolution approves the revised Added Area boundary, which approval
will be sent to the Redevelopment Agency far further approval by the Agency.
Over the next few months, Agency staff and redevelopment consultants will discuss and define
targeted redevelopment efforts and will provide a draft Amended and Restated Redevelopment
Plan for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area. This Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan will be brought back to the Planning Commission for its recommendation in
approximately October 2003, prior to the City Council's consideration of adoption of the
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Pion in approximately November 2003.
FISCAL IMPACT
None with this action.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07-30-03
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED ADDED AREA BOUNDARY FOR THE
MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
C:\Documents and Settings\Byrone\Desktop\pcstaffreportaddedarea.DOC
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
07-30.03
~~
..~
~..
..
~~
It:
Ul,:
Z
:it
'"
....
..~ I
.,-' f
,,- .
.,;' I
..~ \
\ :.
, IS!
L_...._
LEGEND
~ Addeo "'rei! Soul"ld.ilty
"".,' CrtyLimits
+
Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area
ExhIbit A Revised Added Area
Boundary Map
~W!...
..
uLi'\'f...
\'i\
\\~
I~\ -;;"
\;\."i\' ... \. j
" . \.
.~. ' <",
/ 1\
.~. -
/
\
~, \
\
\
.....,
,,-,... ,
.....' ,
.... I
."....' \
\
I
PAGE 5, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07-30-03
:\
,
,
;.
<::
en
L___
..
"
U.J
Z
~
en
.
+
"
';
Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area
a
,.,n,-,
LEGEND
_ Dell9tlOd F'aru"ls trom A,jd8d AlOO8
",,'- '-Ity limits
Exhibit B: Deleted Parcel Map
PAGE 6, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07-30-03
c ~..'. i
, .i-\~~ \
\\~ ~:\::
'~ ~~ /
\t\ ..~~. ~~-:--
t ,1:" \' ~\ \'" "I~
\~\ ~ -- / \~_\,~ :7-" I ,\
/~~ \:/"\' /~~/ 1 \
--j V__e<- \.//. \ \, ,
\ / \:~/\\~\\--\-\;/
\ ' ./\. \ -A( \ -- \
~ ,.~\)_/ \1'~-~\~' ," ,
\\1 F.-r\ C.
I, -,' ':\"' -~~~~
,.:-- :t..... 1 ~
\ -~~ \ ~
_----------1 I ",,~\-- \~/'\~ ~\~'/'
-- \ >- 'I . rjJ~-\ \ .-"
L__~ - ?P,~'k~0\\'\'P,\'.<J
I \ \ 0\
\ \~--~4
;1,\ I J::'>
" Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area
+ &
Exhibit C: Addition Parcels for the RevIsed .....
Added Area Boundary ~'M..
--
"
w
z
~
'"
LEGEND
_AddltlonpOjrclOlsfMtheReVIS8,j
A.dd8d Ared Boundary
"'". City limits
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED ADDED AREA BOUNDARY
TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista adopted
Resolution No. _ on November 20, 2002 to approve the Preliminary Plan for the Merged
Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") and to designate the boundary for the
addition of approximately 520 acres ("Added Area") to the Project Area, and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista adopted
Resolution No. _ on November 26, 2002 to approve the Preliminary Plan for the Project Area
and designate the boundary for the Added Area, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to amend the boundary of the
proposed Added Area portion of the Project Area to delete a few residentially zoned parcels
inadvertently included in the original proposed Added Area and to include two parcels in the
northern portion of the Added Area required for effective redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to amend and revise the proposed
Added Area boundary to ret1ect the additions and deletions as described above and as shown in
detail on the exhibits attached to this Resolution identified as Exhibits A, B, and C, which exhibits
are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Chula Vista hereby approves the revised proposed Added Area boundary as described
hereinabove and as shown on Exhibits A, B, and C attached hereto
Russ Hall, Chair
Diana Vargas, Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
REVISED ADDED AREA BOUNDARY TO THE
MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
~
,,'1
41>" ,
....;' I
,;' .
..~ \
\ >-
, ;ii
L___
-
<I::
W
z
i
a>
....
..~
....
..~
..
LEGEND
I Addtd A.rea 8ound.iry
" ~C~yLimit.:
+
Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area
Exh ibit A. Revised Added Area
Boundary Map
tl
('IL~f.u..
EXHIBIT "B"
DELETED AREA TO THE ADDED AREA BOUNDARY
MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA
,:\"\ \.., ~~: -- ' \,~... (,\
.. \ ~\
\\ --~~ \,- . ~~.., "
~~:~-'(:'\--.. \\ .~... '
--------- / ---\/f ~ ~>_(~~---:,
-- ~ \\ \\' t
~ II ~
)~\i _,,' ~, \ .:\,---" , .....1..
\ \ ~~
V*\" \ _ .~-~/ I\'I'~ _ .'
"\ \ ~ \.. -- - \..~ 0 ~~....
~ \ ~ ,.-"'P-:; ~ , '"
--ol- ". P'I \
'i.., 1 \ ~->>. . ,\ \ 'L..---
" \
\ .-"'_ \ V \
\~~!,- .: \~. __\---"Y\,~. - \
~~ \ \ ..\-'
\h k"~
\\ -::f\ ~
II ____ 1.- c>. ,
_........7 ..?'\\---~..-\\~/-k..- __
-- "\ ~#"
......; , \ . .
.......... :\ ;)~\, \ \Sif:,~ \ .
l___~ ~ \.----\ fte~--\=o~".,
" ff.-- --
,,11,1, I :r ~
Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area .-
<H.'lJ.t...
y/"
\.
~/I^I""I\ ___,~._, I
1,\
<r
I.U
Z
z
<I:
m
111
LEGEND
"
+
Exhibit 8: Deleted Parcel Map
_ Deleted Parcels from t:l"dd"d Area
""",,- City limits
EXHIBIT "C"
ADDED PARCELS TO THE ADDED AREA BOUNDARY
MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
.. 'f
" " "A ~~\~\. :\
..~ '<\11,
\\ ,',~,
",~ "", ./
Iy'\ ," '~~
.~" \ '\ \, ~ t ,.:~\\ ...~~
II ';O'~ \~ I "~~'\ \
..~ '1, ~ I \', ..
c-' --- \ ",' \ .-
~ \ '. .....1.. I
~,
\".- rt' ,;
\ , ..Jr'.~' , 0 ~-"
/~" \ -' \
-' '\ \
...-~....- >-..~
, : ,\ --/V .\-- __ I ------
-'"\ ~'}.~
, , j-
-- \ \ 1),."
\1\~,,--- ,/,-\-~ ~~, . '1____
, ' ~-, \ ,.\ '
\ _<"",0"'--' ,\_~
"'I :\ \\--'~\(/...-\:'-\ -------------
: , Ii '~Xy~~,
'. ~I III, \ .'~ ' ~\\ ..... Q
L___1. 0\1<'11'''.
I \ 0
I '
I-
I ",1\
\,~. '
~~-+
\h 1
11\
'\\, :y":/
" )"-
'\", \~' ," ",-:.--- -.--'
II, ~ \"_' ,-'
~\" h"",--" _,-"
\\\' ~_ot',/-"i
t' " --\-. "... "'"
\ #"",t--..,?""'"(_\ T
........- \ I' \
.......... \ ,,' \ ~~
~ '~
....... \........ \
\.,. \\
1
I'~
\, \.
"
\
\\
"
"
~,
"
,~
~~
LEGEND
_ Additiun Parcels forthe RevisAd
Adu!;'d ArAa 8nlmdary
"'~ City Limits
"
+
c.:
I!J
:z
Z
<(
""
'\
I~
Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area
Exhibit C' Addition Parcels for the Revised
Added Area Boundary
1'1
(K.'tl~
~Ift.
---
~-
~
CIlY OF
CHULA VISTA
Departn1.ent: of' Planning and Building
DATE: June 20, 2003
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: J. D. Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
SUBJECT: Correspondence Regarding the Bustamante Application
Attached for your review is a letter from Ms. Pamela Bensoussan regarding the Bustamante
application. Staffwill be researching the concerns stated by Ms. Bensoussan.
cc: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning and Building
Jim Sandoval
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pamela Bensoussan [pamelabens@cox.net]
Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11'30 AM
Jim Sandoval
Robert Leiter
Letter to Planning Commission
June 18,
LUU3
Jim Sandoval
C.V. Planning Depdrtrnent
Dear Mr. Sdnrl0v~1,
I wish to make d formal complaint to the Planning Commission and the
Plannin'-1 DepArtment regarding the advocAcy role of CornmissiL)ner O' Neill
in the Bllstamante matter.
Mdny people havp. r.ommented to me that the preterential tredtment given
Kpvin O'Neill durinq the May 28th meeting and his leng~hy Power Point
presentation appenred to viulate the pnblic's expectations of ethical
bphavior on the part of d commissioner.
Durinq this meeting, I personally observed the following: After recusing
himself from the BustAmante agenda item, Mr. O'Neill prompLly gave a
presentation that appeared to inappropriately take advantage of his
re'lationship with the other r:ommissioners to influence their vote on the
agenda item. The presentation was empty of relevant findinqs nf fAct and
full of pmotion~lly charged photographs of Mr. Bustamante in unitorm,
with family dnd baby, and lengthy statements of what a fine and
deserviny person he (Bustamante) is. He made many references regarding
Bustamdntp':::: military role and int'egrity and lengthy statmnpnts
olltlininq his own close relAtionship with the applicant. Mllr:h time was
also spellt by Mr. O'Neill defensively responding to letter~ written in
oppo;;ition to the Cunditional Use PE::Tmit.
In hriet, Cornmls.:::ioner O'Neill after recusing himselt wa;:; allowed to
strun'Jly lobby his tellow commissioners with this 10 to 15 minute long
Power Point prpsentation and was Flssisted by Plannin0 statt member
Michael Wdlker. In contrAst, Citizens s~eaking in opposition were cut
off after thrpe minutes.
Additionally, during this meetinq and after the O'Neill presentation,
two CUInmissioners expresseu discomfort with the "process". C-:ommissioner
Castaneda, pdrticularly, expressed surprisp that the application before
the Cummissinn w~s a Conditiondl Use Permit rtS opposed to dIl Appli~dtioIl
tor a VarldIlce.
ToddY T noticed, Commissionpr O'NAill is contillUlng his vpry public
lobbyinq on the part ot Mr. Bustamante. In detense of Mr. Bustdmante's
tront Ydrd bill} lOi'lrd (attacking the ci ty-nwnerl Her i tage Muosel1m) he is
quoted in an Article in the Union Tribune ~s saying:
"This i~ not so much ctbout the height as it is ahout
parochialism," said Kevin O'Neill, d planning r:ommis.:::ioner who has
tdkpn Bustamante's side. "He's been terribly disaccnrnmodFlted by
pecJple who have decided they're the arbiters of neiqhborhood
d8sthetir.s."
Pleds8 r.,-,rrpr.t me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression this is
ahout exceE::'dinq the height limitation in the zonin1) ordinanr.e. Is this
Ih:'QFitive a;:;;:;essment of the pror;ess by a Planning Commissiunpr
a.ppropriate 1)1- 11ptpnsiblp?
1
Another disturbing aspect of this situation is the fdct that mdny of us
if 1 the neighborhood have noticed Mr. O'Neill's construction Rquipment
(Trucks, Bob~dt~, etc.) re~ently in use on Mr. Bustamante's property for
dpmolition wnrk, land~caping work, etc. This gives the appearance that
Mr. O'Nejl n.lso has some personal financial inr.entive relr'ttini} to his
loubyinq for Mr. Bustamante.
I find Mr. O'Neil's behavior during the PC's public meeting, goes a long
way in muddying the waters and giving the impression that Mr. Bu~tdmante
TIlight be gr~nted his CUP based on the fact that he is very gond friend~
with one of the Cummis::;iuner~ and not because of any r~ompelliIlg
le0itimate reason. As a commissioner myself, I have never seen this type
of behavior dllring a Resource COIlservation Commission meeting, where we
are properly cautioned dgainst creating any inddvertent appedrance at
conflict of interest, Brown Act violation, etc. Ms. ponseggi does an
excellent jub in educating commissioners about proper and improper
condu~t and the topic is discussed regularly. I stron01y ,iisapprove of
Mr. O'Neill's actions and I believe this may be a situntion that should
be brouqht before the Ethics Commission.
I respe~tfully request that you submit this letter to the Planning
r:nmmissioll.
Sincerely,
Pdmeld Bensoussan
616 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA glg10
Tel. 610 420-7782
2