Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1972/07/19 7PM MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF T~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Hold Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. July 19, !972 A regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 276 Fourth Avenuo, Chula Vista, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hamilton, Hyde Absent: None (Councilmen Hobel and Egdahl arrived lat~ Also present: Acting City Manager Bourcier, City Attorney Lindberg, Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Director of Planning Williams PUBLIC HEARING - Director of Planning Warren referred to CONSIDERATION OF LAND the Planning Commission's recommendation USE ALTERNATIVES FOR that Option A, as modified by the City THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT Planning staff, be adopted and that AREA AS RECO~ENDED BY THE Sedway/Cooke be directed to prepare their PLANNING CONSULTANTS final report based upon that plan. SEDWAY/COOKE He stated that the City Council and Port Commission were in agreement that (1) large scale industrial development would not be considered and (2) the Harsh- lands were to be preserved. The only real difference in opinion is ~n the policy relating to residential develop- ment. Although their position on resi- dential development is not clear, they apparently object to it, believing it to be incompatible with existing and proposed industrial use in this South Bay area. At their meeting of July 11, 1972, the Port Commission seemed to sus- tain those conclusions with the quali- fication that the northerly (Planning Unit C) area should be reserved for com- patible marine-oriented industrial and commercial use. They have also acknow- ledged the fact that there is no longer a need to develop waterfront with terminal facilities. They believe the tidelands should be filled adjacent to those areas of private ownership abutting the mean high tide line because they do not believe privately owned development should benefit directly from tidelands held in public trust. Mr. Warren discussed the land uses in OpIions A, B and C, and commented on the accessibility to the freeway in all three plans as being good. He added that the Planning Commission feels there are enough marine-oriented activities in the vicinity. He referred to the area east of Tidelands Avenue that could be desig~gt~d for industrial activity. The Planning Cov~ission also feels that the amount of open space more accessible or usable by the public in the area should be increased and that the area adjacent to the freeway that appears to be unsightly and of low ecological ~aiue could be utilized for a golf course. Mr. Warren, In referring to the Stanford Research Report, said it appears to show feasibility of long-term industrial development. It does not show the infeasibility of the Sedway/Cooke Option A, although it is, in his opinion, im- plied. He mentioned three points brought out in the report as being invalid assumptions: (1) that the marshlands can and will be filled, (2) that the bay is polluted and unsuitable for swimming and (3) that residential use is pro- posed for most of the Sante Fe property (5,000 dwelling units) instead of the 1,100 dwelling units recommended by the consultants as a balance. Mr. Fred Trull Mr. Trull explained that the letter signed by Director of Planning Don Nay and presented to the Council does state Port District the position of the Board of Port Conunissioners. In essence~ the letter expresses the Board's feeling that land uses other than residential (in Planning Unit C) should be further explored and that, in reference to the tidelands within this area, tile Port District wishes to retain land use options for developments in that area which are consistent with the development pur- poses for which the Port District was formed and which will be compatible with the theme of the Chula Vista bayfront proposal set forth and described by Sedway/Cooke as Option A. (Councilman Hobel arrived at this time.) Mr. Tom Cooke Mr. Cooke commented that the changes as proposed Consultant, Sedway/Cooke by the Planning Commission to put more public parklands in Area A would be desirable and feasible. As for the recommendation regarding the golf course, he concurs and believes this to be a good solution, but that more detailed work should be done. He said the major point of disagreement between the consultants and the Commission is the extent of the commercial land. He commented on the Port's position and that Area C would be a better site for commercial facilities; he mentioned that a light industrial service park could be compatible in this area as well. The more appropriate location for commercial use would be in Area C if not feasible for Areas G and F, then G and F would become an expansion of residential or office services use. htr, ~o~k~ stated that Areas A and D would be the prime areas of attraction. Public hearing opened This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Max Curl Mr. Curl stated he is representing the South Bay 6S60 Joenell Way Economic Commission, who, at their meeting of Bonita July 18, 1972, passed two motions as follows: (1) that they recommend to the Council the industrial use of the property set forth as industrial in Options B or C of the Sedway/Cooke Study, and (2) that the Council consider another existing proposed development plan by Mr. Glen Ericson for the area further south along the area of Western Salt Company. Director of Planning Warren stated that the Planning Department has been in receipt of this plan. - 2 - Mr. Richard Kau, President Mr. Kau referred to two recommendations made Chula Vista Chamber by the Tidelands Task Force to present to of Commerce the Chamber of Commerce: (1) that the Chamber go on record in support of the proposed plan for tourist and recreational facilities as outlined by the Sedway/Cooke report and amended by the Chula Vista Planning Commission and (2) that the City Council ask the consultants to study the feasibility of locating the proposed ship- building facility for National Steel and Shipbuilding in an area which would not take away from the development as recom- mended in the previous recommendation. He commented on the feasibility of a shipyard on the tidelands, in that it would add to the tax base and payroll of the City of Chula Vista. Ken Wood, Attorney Mr. Wood spoke on the proposal of National Roark, Wood and Langlois Steel and Shipbuilding to build a facility 5694 Sweetwater Road at which super-tankers would be built. He stated they would need approximately 15-18% of land area. He commented on some of the benefits to the City as being increased employment, increased retail sales and sales tax revenue, and expansion of the industrial tax base. He indicated that sight and noise pollution would be minimal. He also spoke of the compatibility with Options A and C and that the Company is seriously considering adding to the design of the facility. He discussed the possibility of green belts, bicycle paths, construction viewing facilities, and people movers - an idea to be discussed with Rohr. Mr. Wood added that he hopes that the National Steel proposal and the factors of the Interstate 5 and Highway 54 interchanges would be taken into consideration by the consultants. Jack Anthony, Chief Mr. Anthony offered information on the per- Manufacturing Engineer centage of waterfront area the facility National Steel and Shipbuilding would take, commenting on the ~ configura- tion of it. He stated the reason- this proposal was not brought before the Council at an earlier date was that his company was not aware of the Sedway/Cooke study. He added that the Company has been discus- sing this with the Port District for about two years. Mr. Wood interjected that approximately 70% of this plan is on Santa Fe property and 30% on Port District property. Mr. John Murphy, Vice President When queried as to the need for this type of Sales of facility and the feasibility of going out National Steel and Shipbuilding for bids, when two other such facilities are existent, Mr. Murphy commented that the potential market in the next few~ years will be approximately eighty ships of this size and that potential customers for these super-tankers would be any of the major oil companies, tie added that the two other facilities capable of building these tankers will not be able to meet the growing demand. - 3 - (Councilman Egdahl arrived at this time) Discussion ensued ~n tl~importance to this facility of the proposed second entrance to the Bay. Demand for LNG Mr. Murphy commented on the demand for LNG (liquid natural gas) and the prices of the vessels in which to carry it. Those made by the Japanese might be con- sidered comparable, pricewise, to those of the United States; while European prices might be lower. The need, however, in the United States would warrant the building of another facility. Mr. Mood reiterated his request that details of the National Steel and Shipbuilding proposal be considered by staff and the consultants. A recess was called at 8:45 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:03 p.m. Property owners contacted Mr. Anthony presented a cut-out of the facility to better clarify its proposed position on the map. He explained that National Steel had contacted the property owners (Port District - tidelands area, Santa Fe - balance) to gain assurance that if it were to desire to build a facility in this area the availability would be here. The*e plans were activated by (1) the application of federal subsidies to the builders of large tankers and (2) overtones of pollution creating the need for natural gas which, due to the shortage in this country, must be imported. Discussion ensued on other possible locations of the facility and the work that would have to be done to accommodate it. Market survey Mr. Murphy stated it would take approximately eight months to complete a market survey to determine whether the Company should go ahead with the outlay of over one million dollars for a shipyard. He added that it would take approximately two years to complete a shipyard, but that cutting and other such operations could be started in a year, before the facility would be completed. Also, he said that it would be hoped that the life of such a facility would be indefi- nite. Mr. Robert Hofley Mr. Horley indicated that Santa Fe had Manager, Industrial Development been contacted on this subject about two and Real Estate years ago. He added that Santa Fe would Santa Fe Land and Railway Company be willing to adjust its plans to accommo- date a major shipyard. Robert McGuinnes, Attorney Mr. McGuinness stated he is representing 1700 Bank of California Plaza the Santa Fe Land Improvement Company, an San Diego affiliate of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company. Mr. Hofley commented that Santa Fe's analysis of the conclusions reached in the Sedway/Cooke study indicated that the benefits to the community for the land use in industrial- conunercial development were not analyzed in - 4 - sufficient depth. He added that Stanford Research had been engaged to make a thorough study for Santa Fe. Mr. Harlan Danford Mr. Danford stated that he was engaged to Director of Land Use and study Santa. Fe-Chula Vista properties and Recreation Economics the location of these properties for in- Stanford Research Institute dustrial and commercial uses, not including Menlo Park resort or convention uses. The study re- vealed that there is a market for indus- trial land, which until now has been mostly in National City, and that Santa Fe is down to "zero land" -- there is no place to go except Chula Vista. Mr. Danford added that there is a demand for commercial land, the most obvious demand being for freeway-related locations. The demand for commercial land would not include a regional shopping center, mainly due to the proximity of others. He feels this would be a poor choice. It was deter- mined in the examination of the bayshore property that it would be suitable for commercial-industrial uses, that industrial buildings could be built on it, and that land fill costs could be zero if there is no urgent and immediate demand for land. Mr. Danforth went on to discuss land fill and prep-aration, and added that it appears that almost half of the property needs little or no fill. Land values The *alue of industrial park land, according to Mr. Danford, is at least $60,000 per net acre. There is 16.35% of land used for streets and right-of-ways in the Santa Fe plan which would give a value of $S0,000 per gross acre ready for use by industry. Preparation costs should not exceed $10,000 per acre. The value of the Santa Fe land (357 acres) as it stands today is $14.35 million. The value would appreciate each year by about 10%. Benefits to Chula Vista Hr. Danford offered as benefits of indus- trial and commercial development to Chula Vista (1) eraployment and more jobs, (2) tax revenues and (3) tax revenues for which more would not be paid than received. He added that most of the shoreline could be used for recreation. Mr. Hofley referred to exhibits to display how the area would look if Santa Fe were allowed to develop it industrially. He voiced Santa Fe's desire to develop the property which they have purchased and held for many years for industrial purposes. They also feel that the economic advantages of industrial development outweigh other uses of the property. Mr. McGuinness stated that it is the recom- mendation of Santa Fe that the Stanford Institute report be accepted. Mr. McGuinness added that the position of Santa Fe is that the recommendations of the Stanford Research Institute report be accepted and that land use alternatives of Sedway/Cooke be further investigated, specifically those of Option A relating to hotel-motel-conference center, townhouse and apartment alternatives. - 5 - He further discussed the feasibility of Option A, and referred to Dr. Gruen's report on the destination image this should take on, as well as the effect industrial de- velopment would have on this plan. Mr. McGuinness's interpretation of what the consultants are saying in reference to Option A is that "the area is just large enough and is just barely going to be a successful project if everything happens just right." He noted three areas that may cause dis- ruption as being (1) industrial land not under the jurisdiction of the City, (2) tidelands to the east and west not under City jurisdiction and (3) areas to the north and east which eeuld sprout industrial development which may have an adverse effect on Option A. He believes that in view of these factors, financing may be difficult to obtain. Points also brought out by Mr. McGuinness, were the effect the completion of Interstate 805 might have, due to its absorption of traffic of the north to the border; multiple ownership in Option ^; and the effect of the freeway plan in its finality. He added that these might add to hesitancy on the part of a potential developer to develop this land. Further study of Option C Mr. McGuinness felt that Option C should be further studied in the light of the announcement made by National Steel and Shipbuilding and the Stanford Report. Discussion ensued on the assessed valuation and the tax rate of the Santa Fe property. Mr. Danforth commented that land Woul~ be assessed at market value of the highest and best use at the time. He added that not all of the industrial uses would require waterfront. He further discussed land fill for the a-rea, as did Mr. Hofley. Clarification of previous Mr. Cooke offered some clarifications on the discussion previous discussions, lie reiterated Dr. Gruen's belief that they are not contesting the fact that there is a need for industrial lands in the bay front, but the question is whether there is a demand for water-realted industrial uses which would have a higher claim to that land than other non-industrial uses which are also seeking waterfront locations. He added that Dr. Gruen's study Abundance of undeveloped revealed that there is an abundance of industrial land undeveloped' industrial land, so the issue is whether or not that kind of use should go into a bay front area which has other options - options which will create better benefits to the community in terms of use of the property. He pointed out that of additional concern is that of the natural environment, and the destruction thereof if industrial development does not consider Environmental impact of the indirect costs related to destroying industrial development the valuable ratural area. Speaking to the $60,000 per acre figure discussed earlier, Mr. Cooke queried what segment of the indus- trial demand could afford to pay such a price. - 6 - He added that all of the options shown can add more park land. The reason for increasing the total acreage of public land under the industrial use option was that because of the nature of the use, the public would not be able to gain the recreation benefits and access from the major portion of the developed area. While, in contrast to the commercial-recreational option, the uses themselves are public in nature so there is a whole range of possibilities and opportu- nities to the general public in terms of the kinds of access and recreational facilities they can find. In terms of economics, Option A produces returns which would allow the financing of more park facilities than Option C does. He added that the Santa Fe land itself, if carefully planned or de- veloped, can provide the kind of environment which is necessary to make Option A feasible. Reg Vitek, Attorney Mr. Vitek stated he was representing Mr. Seltzer, Cap/an, Wilkins and Mrs. Samuel Vener, the owners of and McMahon approximately 23 acres of the subject 3003 Fourth Avenue property. He added that the property was San Diego purchased by them in anticipation of ultimate industrial use. He also commented on the increased property taxes Mr. and Mrs. gener have experienced since their purchase. ~lr. Vener feels that the best possible use of his property would not be existent under Option A, but rather as industrial property. Mr. Vitek commented on the constitutionality of implementing the proposed Option A, citing zone changes that would have to take place, adding that such implementation might be considered inverse condemnation. He asked that the Council take this thought into considera- tion when determining_the feasibility of Option A. Julius R. Jensen Mr. Jensen commented that his organization, Economic Development Corporation composed of private industry and governmental of San Diego representatives (including the Unified Port District and the County of San Diego), recog- nize the 8.3% unemployment factor today in the Chula Vista area, and therefore supports the use of a major portion of the subject property for industrial purposes, as it would increase the jobs available and help pay for the beautification of the area. They do concur that a smaller portion of the area can and should be dedicated to recreational and waterfront uses. Reva Lynch Mrs. Lynch stated that she is speaking for 626 Date. Avenue Mrs. Jean Hermanson, President of the San Diego South Bay Citizens League of Women Voters. She indicated that the League is in support of the recommended public policy as proposed by the Sedway/Cooke study. The League urges that more park and recreational areas than those indicated by the Sedway/Cooke study be considered. They also urge that there be no major industrial development since they favor public use of the shoreline. The League also recommends that Tidelands Avenue be terminated near the proposed freeway exchange and that heavy traffic be directed along Bay Boulevard for the benefit of the people using the bayfront. Mrs. W. R. Bedlams Mrs. Bedlams stated she is representing the 87 Country Club Drive Chula Vista Garden Club whose statement to the Council relays the desire for more parklands. She stated that the Garden Club endorses Option A with modifications recommended by the Planning Department. They would like to see more public park- lands added. They are in favor of the preservation of the marshlands and would like to be assured by the Port District that there will be proper development of the shoreline. They object to having industry further developed in this bay Jim Johnson Mr. Johnson referred to the recommendation 639 Wind~or Circle of the South Bay Citizens Planning Committee that Option A as recommended by the Planning Department and Planning Commission be considered. He expressed a desirability for park and recreatidnal land as well as restaurant and motel type facilities. He quoted the bayfront study by Mr. Quinney as showing that 87.6% of the citizens of the Chula Vista area want public parks and beaches on the bayfront and that 72.7% of the businesses want the same. He commented on the overabundance of industrial growth and the pollution factors. Mayor Hamilton indicated that in the light of the new developments brought forth at this meeting, that staff and the consul- tants should be directed to look into the presentation made by National Steel and Shipbuilding as to the accommodation of this within the study plan. National Steel and Shipbuilding The Council discussed the moratorium on to meet with staff and this land and the fact that National Steel consultmnts might meet with consultants and staff, after which the Council would redeliberate. Councilman Scott co~ented on the fact that the Council was faced with two very important meetings this date -- the Bayfront Study and the E1 Rancho del Rey matter held earlier in the day -- and that perhaps in the future, suc~ meetings could be spread Councilman Hyde moved that these two items be set for a Council Conference as soon as possible. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Hamilton suggested that Director of Planning Warren report at the meeting of July 25, 1972 on a time available to dis- cuss the Bayfront matter further. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to the meeting of July 25, 1972 at 7:00 p.m. Deputy City Clerk - 8 -