Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1979/03/08 MINUTBS OF ~N ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETiNG OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m.~ Ma~ch 8, '~1979 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of Chula Vista, Ca~iforn. ia, wa~.held on the above date beginning at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 2?6,~Fourtt Avenue. ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Cox, Egdahl, Gillow, Scott Councilmen absent: None ' Staff present: Cit~ Manager Cole, City Attorney Lindberg, Rede~elopment. Attorney Reed, Assistant City Manager Asmus, Deputy City Manager RobenS, Director of Planning Paterson, Transit Coordinator Bloom, Director of Policy Analysis and Program Evaluatio~ (PAPE) Wittenberg 1. RESOLUTION NO. 9517 The amendment decreases San Diego Transit's (SDTC)claim. on APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT Chula Vista's Local Transportation Funds (LTF) from TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN $189,970 to $158,424 due primarily to the reduction of THE CITY AND THE SAN DIEGO Route 100 mileage from 63,703 to 42,727. SDTC also reduced TRANSIT CORPORATION FOR its express Route 100 through Chula Vista in August 1978 PROVISION OF INTERCITY by 20,976 mileS. SERVICE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1978-79 Resolution offered Offered by Mayor Hyde, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed.and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Gillow, Scott', Cox, Egdahi Noes: None Absent: None 2~ REPORT ON TRANSIT Deputy City Manager Robens remarked that the staff is FUNDING 'primarily asking the Council two quosti0hs: ' (1) "Where do we go from here? and (2) do we support the formation of a regional transit authority as proposed by the Metropolitan Transit District BOard. (MTDB) 0rganiZ_ation plan?" Mr. Robens briefly disCussed the City'~- five-year transit plan using federal funds adding !that the recommendation now is to expand the transit system without' us{ngI federal funding based on the "number of st~in.g-s" attached tO these restrictions. ,- I Jack Bloom, Transit Mr. Bloom used flip~ sheets during his presentation detaiI~ng Coordinator the federal funding received by th~ City ~ (in FY 1980, the City will receive 15% of its needs or $168,000 plus $42,.000 capi-ta~ funds); the federal "strings'; attached to getting thes'e monies;Section 13c Q~'the program and its implicationsi -options f6r'r~duc{ng the. general !fund by $100,000; the LTF r~serves; purchasing used b~Ses fo~ $25,000 'each'for a total of $350,00.0 or 14 rebuilt bns'es at $50,000 each'for a total of $7001000; the proposal for the joint powers agency (JPA) and the cities involved in this agency; funding for the traR~sit center and maintenance facility and the pooling of the LTF funds. Council discussion Council discussion followed reg~rdin~ the many variabi~s in the funding resources; the risk of committing $10g,008 of general fund monies; and the decision of whether or not to continue using federal funding for the City's. transit program. Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. -2- March 8, 1979 Motion*not to use It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Councilman federal funds Gillow and unanimously carried that (the City).not accept present Clarification of motion Mayor Hyde clarified the mOtion stating that this abandons the route the Council has been pursuing for several years of going with federal funding for the program -- the Council is now looking toward other possibilities which are available but not, as.yet, firm. Continuation of presentation TranSit Coordinator Bloom discussed the proposed 'Regional Transit Agency (RTA) concept: its role, the possible tos~ of City-decision making; the loss of Chula Vista Transit identity; no representative on the MTDB and the need for the City to have a vote on local issues. The staff recommends approval of the RTA concept based on three conditions: 1. That the City's five-year transit development plan continue to be implemented; 2. That there be a permanent City representative on the RTA Board; 3. The City have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Regional Transit Agency to determine who will be doing the transit needs alongjwith the planning and operation. Bob Nelson, Chairman Mr. Nelson discussed the three conditions noting that the Metropolitan Transit Council is approving just the "concept" of the formation District Board of the Agency. He remarked that Chula Vista does not have to lose its identity under this concept -- the RTA can · contract with tile City to provide the service. If a South Bay*Transit DiStrict is formed, there is the concern in the present law which.preclUdes the City from doing this more than once -- at only one tim~ could the City eScape and shift the 50% limitation whiCh is causing the general fund problems now. By law~ the City could not be permitted to use the LTF funds a second time under this particular concept. Weighted vote Mr. Nelson explained that in the RTA concept, MTDB is thinking in lines of something like:the CPO'(Compr6hensive Planning Organization) weighted vote -- aprocess needs to be built into the system whereby, on critical issues, Chula Vista should be able to call for a weighted vote.. Memorandum of Mr. Nelson commented that he cannot see how the City can Understanding make this condition with an Agency that does not exist '- the City will either have enough voice or confidencein. the established Agencyto insure its carrying out a reasonable program. · Motion to approve It was moved by Councilman Cox, ~seconded by Councilman Scott RTA concept and unanimously carried that the Council approves, in concept, the creation of a regional transit authority :with the proviso that there will be some sort of repreSentat:ion for the City of Chula Vista. and that there be some weighte~ voting formula devised to give (the City) the proper representation. Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. -3- March 8, 1979. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 9518 In order to receive tax increment revenues in the Bayfront AUTHORIZING A LOAN TO THE Project, it is necessary to maintain an indebtedness at REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR least equal to the increment due. The Redevelopment Agency BAYFRONT PROJECT AREA has requested the loan of $350,000 based on the following. EXPENSES conditions: 1. The loan, including interest, shall be repaid on or before Jnne 30, 1979. 2. The interest shall be at the rate of 10% per annum~ 3. The loan shall be an indebtedness of the Bayfr0nt Re- ~. development project area. 4. The loan shall be repaid from Bayfront Project Area tax increment revenues paid to the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code 33670. Resolution offered Offered by Councilman Egdahl, the reading of the'text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Egdahl, Hyde, Gillow, Scott, cox Noes: None Absent: None 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF Deputy City Manager Robens referred to the lengthy report CONSTRUCTION ON submitted to the City Council in February. He noted several EAST "H" STREET important points in the report: . 1. Getsten Company will not develop the E1 Rancho d~l Rey area until the 450 acres at the west end of the area are developed. 2. There is little or no pressure at the present time for Getsten Company to construct East "H" Street especially when the acreage (Long Canyon) is available east of the E1 Rancho del Rey specific plan area and east of Otay Lakes Road which can be developed. 3. The developer still insists that the densities are not sufficient for development in the E1 Rancho del Rey area. 4. Until the 450 acres are developed and "H" Street is'.con- structed to the westerly end of the Getsten ownership, it will not be known whether or not the densities are sufficient for development in the E1 Rancho del Roy specific plan area. 5. There are assessment and reimbursement district proceed- ings available for construction. 6. Grading plan for land development is interdependent with th~ grading for East "H" Street; therefore, the s~reet improvement should not precede'the development'oflan Overall grading plan for the entire specific plan area. 450 acre plan In answer to Councilman Egdahl's query, Director of Planning Petersen stated that the applicant has not filed his official plan for the 450 acres. Staff has been working with this developer {or the past jeveral months and it may be ready for presentation inFtwo weeks. Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. =4- March '8, 1979 Options for construction ~Mr. Robens noted the options availabl~ to the CoUncil "H" Street to help the construction along, such as: City can contrib- ute "up front" money for the street c0~strU~ion; increase the densities in the specific plan area; place a moratori,um on the development of land east of OtayLakes Road in order to determine appropriate densities and development con- figurations inthat area. Mr, Robens added that it would be his recommendation that the Council take no specific action at this time. Council discussion Councilman Scott questioned whether the staff considered the cost factors-a 10% increase in costs if!'H" Street construction were delayed five years or so. CounCilman Scott referred to the letter received from Alber~:,:~erstefi~2' Chairman, E1 Rancho del Rey and Otay Land Companyin whiclh he requested consideration Of an increase of 1500to 2~000 units in the E1Rancho del Rey area 'listing the improvements they will then make in constructing East "H" Street. Mr. Peterson said he read the letter but still maintains his original recommendation -- that. the densities not be increased. Council discussion continued during which the environmental impact report was briefly discussed;.the obligation of the City in the Construction of East "H" Street; the "up f~ont" money .- approximately $S00,000 to $700,000; the City's' position if portions of thelands were sold and develqped/ by private interests. L0U Cohen, Counsel for Mr. Cohen said there was a misunderstanding in Mr. Robens' 'Otay Land Company report -- the Otay Land Company would put in the East "H" Street improvements prior 'to the development of the 4!0 acres -- construction of the road would begin at'the easterly boundary line of the 4S0-acre parcel to the elementary school property line. Ger'sten Company would post all bonds, letters of credit, etc. and the construc-.; tion would start immediately, not five years from now. Barry Crane Mr. Crane noted the four-acre parcel owned by the Catholic Business Manager Diocese (southeast corner of future East "H" Street and Catholic Diocese of San Diego Paseo Ranchere). He stated tha~ a future westerly to easterly development is basically unfair' and asked the Council to develop other methods of developments; otherwise, to exclude thisfour-acre parcel from the restrictions. . B0nita Long Canyon Estates Mr. Peterson explained that a tentative map for this deQelopment was filed sometime ago for a portion of the development adjacent to Southwestern College Estates -- 190 lots. The Environmental ReView Committee determined that the report sh6uld include the entire 650 acres prior to approval of the tentative map (824 dwelling u~its). In answer'to Councilma~Sc0tt's question, City Attorney Lindberg stated that itwould bepossibleto condition the approval of the map on 0ffsite improvements of a portion of "H" Street. Motion for Staff report On it was movedby Councilman Scott, seconded by Counci.lman. increase in densities Cox that the staff look into the possibility of a.plan to increase the density up to an additional 1500 units. SpeaMing against the motion Mayor Hyde spoke agains. t the motion noting the pr0p0~al calls for an increase of 25% in the pla~; and the plan has been almost two years in deVelopment and has bee~ ineffe.ct for only six months. . Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. -5- Ma~ch 8, 1979 Discussion of motion Councilman Egdahl questioned (1) the time frame and (2) who will do the study. Councilman Scott indicated that the preliminary proposal will be made by the developer, reviewed by the staff and reported to the Council. Substitute motion It was moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by Councilman Scott and unanimously carried that the staff be directed to analyze and evaluate the request from Mr. Getsten in his letter of February 28, 1979 and report back to the COuncil with their recommendation in regard to his proposal. Time element In answer to the Council's query, Director of Planning Peterson said he could have the staff report ready in one month. City Manager Cole indicated that the Council may support having a consultant come in and evaluate the potential of adding an additional 1500 units to the development and whether this would support the proposal of construction on East "H" Street. Mayor Hyde said this recommendation could be reviewed in the staff report. Motion for staff report It was moved by Mayor Hyde, secondedby Councilman Egdahl on BOnita Long Canyon and unanimously carried that the staff consider the impli- Estares cations of the proposed Bonita Long Canyon Estates develop- ment as it relates to the entire'matter of East "H" Street and the eastern portion of E1 Rancho del Rey. andm~ke recommendations to the Council with regard to appropriate policy concerning the development of that area. 5. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. 6. MAYOR'S REPORT None. 7. COUNCIL COMMENTS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hyde adjourned the meeting at 6~.0~ p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 13, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services BUilding. City 'Clerk '