Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1980/02/14 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday - 4:09 p.m. February 14, 1980 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 4:09 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue. ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Gillow, Cox, McCandliss, Scott Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, City Attorney Lindberg, Development Services Administrator Robens, Director of Planning Peterson 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION It wa5 moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by Councilman Scott and unanimously carried that an Executive Session be called for reason of pending litigation. The Council recessed to Executive Session at 4:09 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 4:15 p.m. 2. PRESENTATION BY THE Mr. Tom Larwin, General Manager, gave a status report of METROPOLITAN TRANSIT the San Diego Light Rail Transit project. He reported that DISTRICT BOARD the development of the project is on time and that they are within budget. Mr. Larwin referred to charts and sketches noting the configuration of the traffic patterns at the two proposed stations in Chula Vista: "H" Street and Palomar Street/Industrial Boulevard. Council discussion followed with Mr. Larwin answering questions pertaining to having parking meters installed in the "Kiss and Ride" sections of the parking areas; traffic signal coordination so that there will be no heavy traffic congestion with the buses leaving the areas and cars coming off the freeway; transit operating resources: 37% from the Transit Development Funds, 32% from fares, 24% from U}FFA Section $, and 7% from STAF; five year projection of the LTF funds; the formula used in determining the costs for the cities; formation of a joint powers agreement. 3. DISCUSSION OF AB 1151 Director of Planning Peterson submitted a written report in which he analyzed the bill which requires a city to provide a developer with a density bonus of at least 25% above the number of housing units which the zoning ordinance would otherwise allow if the developer agrees to construct at least 25% of the units for persons and families of low or moderate income. Mr. Peterson commented that this was a "bare bones" bill with a number of legal questions. The Planning Commis- sion discussed it but did not reach any consensus as to what must be done, and he personally feels it is premature to embark upon any course of action at this time. With the exception of the E1 Rancho del Rey area, Mr. Peterson said he expects very little application of the bill. Council discussion Council discussion ensued regarding tbe present "sliding scale" and bonus factor approved by the Council as presently provided in the zoning ordinance; the merit:s ef the Planned Unit Development zone; attaching the "P" designator to those areas where the density bonus might apply; changing the open space requirements; legal ramifications - Council must be extremely careful in what they do so as not to "frustrate the purpose of the act"; feasibility of setting standards for iow and moderate income housing and the desirability of "scattering" the density bonus throughout the various areas of the city. Held Thursday - 4:09 p.m. -2- February 14, 1980 DISCUSSION OF AB llS1 (Cont.) Council discussion Councilwoman McCandliss questioned the eligibility of the density bonus; the monitoring and how much involvement the City has to give. Further discussion followed regarding the costs of the homes, the options of the Council to waive the park dedication fees, City construct the public improvements which the developer would he obligated to construct; utilize federal, state or local monies to lower the developer's land cost. Motion for staff report It was moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by Councilman Gillow and unanimously carried that the staff be directed to bring this back for consideration at this same time next month, giving the Council the benefit of their knowledge of those four points just summarized (1. Eligibility for getting low-cost housing; 2. Monitoring this after the sale; 3. Physical standards for the developments where you have an increase in the zoning in an area via 25% beyond that felt reasonable in the first place; 4. Double bonus potential) plus any other pertinent information that may be available. 4. CITY )~NAGER'S REPORT City Manager Cole reported on the damage caused to the golf course due to the recent rains indicating that quite a bit of damage was sustained. He noted that there are no State funds available for reconstructing recreational facilities. Recourse action Mayor Hyde asked if there was any recourse the City could take agaiust the County or developers that have contributed through their developments to the siltation problems. In answer to Councilman Scott's query, Mr. Cole said that staff is keeping track of the costs of the damage as a result of the Long Canyon development. Motion for staff report It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Councilman Cox and unanimously carried that the staff look into the possibility of a (law) suit against those waters coming down from Long Canyon based upon the damage done as a result of the lack of adequate drainage, poor planning and control measures. 5. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Hyde reported on the "summit" meeting held with the principals involved in the Chula Vista Shopping Center (Broadway and "H" Street) remodeling program. Mr. Joe Sanseverino, Community Development Department, stated that Walker Scott plans to come before the Redevelopment Agency meeting next Tuesday evening and request an exclusive negotiating agreement. They stated that they would be willing to allow development by Mr. Lipp (Manager of the Chula Vista I~ Shopping Center) in the surrounding area. · 6. COUNCIL CO~IX~ENTS Councilman Gillow noted the agenda proposed for tho two Saturday meetings scheduled for February 23 and March 15, He suggested the Council either eliminate the February 23 meeting and just hold tho March 15 meeting or have one agenda starting on February 23 and continuing onto the March 15 meeting date. Discussion followed regarding the importance of holding the two meetings and the items to be discussed. It was the concur- rence of the Council that both meetings be held as originally proposed, ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hyde adjourned the meeting at 5:52 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 19, 19go at 7:00 p.m.