Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1972/09/20 8:00 PM MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA~ CALIFORNIA Held Wednesday September 20, 1972 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Absent: None Also present: Acting City Manager Bourcier, Director of Planning Warren, City Attorney Lindberg DISCUSSION ON THE BAYFRONT STUDY Mayor Hamilton opened the meeting by stating AND THE PROPOSED SHIPBUILDING the purpose of it was to discuss the Bayfront FACILITY Study and the proposed shipbuilding facility. He added that there has been much new infor- mation brought to light which the consultants have not yet been able to evaluate. Bruce Warren Mr. Warren stated that it was his understanding Director of Planning that the City Council has endorsed Option A as previously modified, with a desire to accommodate National Steel and Shipbuilding if possible -- the preferable site for them being south of G Street and west of Rohr. He discussed problems related to locating the shipyard, such as the time and mechanics of getting approval for dredging that must be done, as well as opposition from environ- mental groups to any dredging at all. Shipyard feasibility Mr. Warren indicated he did not feel Option A would be feasible with a shipyard either south of G Street, west of Rohr, or in the northwest corner of the study area adjacent to the Flood Control Channel. Tom Cooke, Consultant Mr. Cooke remarked that it has been difficult Sedway/Cooke to evaluate the proposal by National Steel and Shipbuilding due to the lack of informa- tion and "sketchy" presentations on alterna- tive sites. He added that if we are to make a decision about the future of this area, we should give some indication to NASSCO as to what we feel is necessary. He stated he would also like to know what functions will be carried on and what their effects (noise levels, shipping operations, painting and fabrication processes, work forces and their shifts and impact upon local economy) might be. Mr. Cooke stated that Sedway/Cooke is recommending that we assume an open position towards this proposal and to put the burden on NASSCO to provide the level of information necessary to be able to adequately judge this. Compatibility of shipyard Mr. Cooke discussed the degree of flexibility with Option A the City might have if they ware to adopt Option A and NASSCO came later with plans for a shipyard. Depending upon the type of operation NASSCO would present, it would then have to be determined whether or not it is compatible with other areas in the plan. He remarked that based upon the knowledge he has of conventional shipbuilding activities, it would be difficult to see one as compatible, but that if NASSCO were to come in with a new technology which does not require structures, noise and other problems associated with shipbuilding tions then it might be possible. There would still, however, be external traffic and economic impact. Candid observations of Councilman Hyde asked Director of Planning Planning Director Warren for his candid observations as a departing planner. Mr. Warren stated we have gone the whole planning process here with a certain set of policies in mind. He commented that we have been assuming the abandonment of the heavy industrial approach towards the development of a waterfront and then "along came the shipbuilding proposal." After giving much thought to this and the problems involved in accommodating it, he feels the shipbuilding plan came too late and it doesn't fit in to the concept everyone has adopted so far. He added that at this time, we should discard the shipyard proposal and that he prefers Option A. Mr. Warren referred to the Port Commission's concern about the residential aspects of Option A. It was his opinion that the Port Commission might want some water- related industry or commercial use on the nothernmost site. He commented that if we want to get a plan adopted we should go on to the next stage - the implementation stage. Robert Campbell Mr. Campbell stated that, although individual Port Commissioner commissioners have expressed their ideas, the Port Commission has not taken a stand collectively on the entire study, even after the introduction of the shipyard proposal. Their plan for the northwest corner has been for marine-oriented indus- trial (a plan that was rather solidified when the Army Corps of Engineers made their study of extending the channel). It met the benefit cost ratio criterion and became funded, and the only thing delaying its implementation now is the opposition being encountered as to where the spoil deposits can be located. Discussion ensued on the kind of activity that could go into the northwest corner -- any type of commercial industrial facility that, by the nature of its product or ser- vice, requires it to be on the waterfront. Port Commission's reluctance to In answer to Councilman Hyde's inquiry, accept residential development Mr. Campbell stated that he does not believe to be acceptable a proviso that the use in the northwest corner be compatible with the residential use in the uplands, adding that the staff and Commission are reluctant to accept residential in this area. They feel it would place too many restrictions on that which the Port District may develop in the future. Mr. Campbell added that it looked like Option A, as presented, would leave the Port District with a greater amount of non-revenue producing - 2 - area. Councilman Scott asked if this might be why the Port District is attempting to make a revenue-producing area out of this one last section. Marina Councilman Scott discussed the advantages of a marina as being (1) revenue-producing use for the Port District and (2) giving the citizens of the South Bay area a marina and recreational facility which they need. Mr. Campbell stated that this land in question was conveyed to the Unified Port District and that the responsibility and jurisdiction is with the Port District. Mr. Warren interjected that the City would retain title and zoning. Councilman Hyde pointed out that the South Bay has no marinas and that there are no other possibilities for one other than this northwest corner. Mr. Campbell remarked that he thought the South Bay would support a marina and that the northwest corner would be an appropriate site for one. He stated that the Port Commission has not yet discussed the possibility of a marina in the South Bay area, and he would not know when the need for one would be generated. Decision on shipbuilding Councilman Egdahl commented that he believes proposal preliminary any decision at this point regarding NASSCO would be a preliminary one and that we should address ourselves to the options and what we can expect from Sedway/Cooke so that they may proceed. And then, if NASSCO can present to us their needs and proposals, we could see if it would fit into what we have. Councilman Scott added that we should take some formal action regarding the motion ap- proved at the meeting of August 15, 1972, and that if we are to take a different approach to this we should change it and then continue discussion. Directions to consultants Councilman Hobel remarked that we should give some direction to the consultants and staff to finish up the final stage of this study. We cannot, however, give direction to the consultants until the Port District takes action as we are in a joint agreement with them as far as payment of the consultants is concerned. Mr. Campbell commented that the Port District has deferred action pending further discussions at the request of the City Council. He believes the Port Commission would prefer to see a final plan submitted and then jointly meet with the City Council and possibly come to an agreement. What the Port District submits to the State govern- ment in terms of a master plan may be a pre- liminary one subject to modifications at a later date. - 3 - Motion to accept recommendations It was moved by Councilman Hyde and seconded of consultants by Councilman Egdahl that the recommendations of the consultants and Planning Director be accepted to the effect that we not commit ourselves in a specific way to a shipyard site and that we reaffirm our support of Option A (minus that northern section) with the understanding that if National Steel and Shipbuilding should in the future want to come in with a shipyard proposal it would have to be considered at that time upon its own merits. Tom Cooke, Consultant Discussion ensued on the uses for the northern section. Mr. Cooke felt that there is no need to limit it to one specific use - a degree of flexibility should be allowed. The consultants are proposing, however, two basic uses: (1) residential to take advantage of the site or (2) office/light- industrial kind of facilities, provided there is a market for them. They have been trying to keep away from "open-ended" agreements, like a warehousing-marine terminal type operation that might be associated with "water-related uses." Ken Wood, Attorney Mr. Wood stated that he wanted to point out National Steel and Shipbuilding two things: (1) that NASSCO is in a position of having to have some guarantee as to the openness by Chula Vista for a shipyard and (2) that NASSCO will be meeting with E1 Paso National Gas, who has indicated a need for several tankers and NASSCO cannot make any commitment to this company unless they know if they will be able to build a shipyard in Chula Vista. Councilman Scott remarked that the City Council is in the same kind of a position in that we have no assurances that NASSCO will be here and if they are, what kind of operation they plan to have. He expressed a desire for something more con- crete from NASSCO. Intent of motion Councilman Hyde commented that the intent of the motion made was that the City is not making any commitments for a shipyard, but is not precluding the possibility of considering one in the future, provided some justification can be made for modifi- cations to the then-existing plans. Mayor Hamilton remarked that he had made an effort to obtain information from NASSCO as to what the possibilities were as to this becomming a reality and that he had received no answer. Ken Wood, Attorney Mr. Wood stressed the importance of con- sideration today of the kind of zoning that would be needed by NASSC0. He added that the consultants' plans are five to ten years off, but NASSCO's plans are for the near future. John V. Banks, Executive Vice President Mr. Banks discussed the benefits to the National Steel and Shipbuilding City of Chula Vista if NASSCO were to have a shipyard located here. He stated that they don't want to be "blocked out by zoning." He thinks the northern section would be the most desirable for their type - 4 - of activities, expecially because of the deep water. He told the Council that the proposed shipyard could build either LNG or VLCC ships, and he did refer to the possi- bility of offshore nuclear plm~ts. Tom Cooke Mr. Cooke stated that the problem as he sees it is that NASSCO has not sold the plan to the City but is trying to sell it to E1 Paso National Gas. Governmental Assistance Councilman Egdahl commented on the apparent interest by the Government in liquid natural gas and the possibility of governmental assistance. Council discussion ensued on the omission of that part of Councilman Hyde's motion referring to the northwestern corner. Councilman Hyde stated he would be willing to amend the motion to exclude that part. Tom Cooke Mr. Cooke remarked that the motion is quite helpful and it says that Sedway/Cooke may proceed with detailing the planning and programming in the previous agreement reached with Option A. 50% motion The Council concurred that inasmuch as the Port District has yet to consider this, the motion is only a "50% one." Implementation program Director of Planning Warren remarked that, until land use alternatives are adopted, an implementation program cannot be developed. He added that the implementation study is part of the contractual agreement. Mr. Warren indicated he did not recommend the Council adopting an. implementation program that would not correspond to an adopted land use plan. Discussion ensued on the length of the con- tract with the consultant and Mr. Warren stated he thought l~,should be renego- tiated if it is intended to be continued, but that there is a chance to end it and that i$ what we should do. Motion carried The modlfied motio~t~c~pt the recommen- dations of the:consultants an8 Planning Director carried unanimously. Robert Campbell Mr. Campbell stated that he could ask that this matter be placed on the agenda for the Port District at their meeting of October 3, 1972, for discussion. He asked if this new motion supersedes and replaces the Council action of August iS, 1972. Mayor Hamilton advised him that it did. Mr. Campbell asked what type of use the Council would prefer in the northwest cor- ner. Mayor Hamilton indicated the Council is interested in a marina-commercial- industrial use. Meeting with Fish and Game Director of Planning Warren asked if a meeting Department could be set up with the Fish and Game Department to discuss an implementable land use plan. - S - The Council agreed to set a Council Conference for this purpose on Thursday, September 28, 1972 at 3:30 p.m. Executive session It was moved by Councilman Hyde, seconded by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously carried that the Council recess to an Executive Session for personnel reasons. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. to the meeting of September 28, 1972 at 3:30 p.m. Deputy City Clerk - 6 -