Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1976/03/24 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Wednesday March 24, 1976 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hail, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hyde, Egdahl Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, Assistant City Attorney Beam, Director of Public Works Robens PRESENTATION BY BARTON-ASCHMAN Mr. Tom Larwin, consultant, Barton-Aschman ASSOCIATES OF THE CHULA VISTA Associates, Inc. submitted a slide presentation TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT STUDY in which he discussed the need for local transit improvement program in Chula Vista. Mr. Larwin noted the increase in ridership (20% of which are students); and 20% to 25% of the people riding the buses in the City are transfers or are using the Savers Pass - a monthly San Diego Transit pass which revenue does not get into the City. In his presentation, Mr. Larwin discussed: 1) Park and ride sites 2) Provision for handicapped persons 3) Transit service needs 4) Future facilities that will need bus service A recommended plan would be; 1) Expanded coverage, hours of service and service frequencies 2) Transfer focus center to be constructed at Fifth and "H" Street 3) Shuttle service for the Civic Center area, Rohr, Downtown and shopping centers 4) Special vehicle for elderly and handicapped persons The consultants recommend that: 1) City reduce the elderly and handicapped fares 2) Establish a transit coordinator position 3) Develop improved managing and marketing techniques 4) Adopt a transit development program 5) Because of the loss of revenues from the San Diego Transit transfers, Chula Vista establish a similar transfer system and share some of this money 6) Before 1979, immediate actions should be taken regardin§ service and improvements in the routes 7) Establish a positive program - an image As to the Costs and Resources, the City should acquire 16 new buses; build a garage facility, and complete installation of a transit center. These capital costs over a five-year period would be $2.2 million. City Council Meeting -2- March 24, 1976 Revenue Resources 1976-1981: Farebox $ 633,000 UMTA 1,806,000 LTF 2,726,000 City 150,000 $5,314,000 Transit Center Councilman Hyde questioned having the transit center at Fifth and "H" Street if, in the future, that street should be eliminated due to an expansion of the shopping center. Mr. Larwin felt this would help the situation since the buses would be able to load at an off-road center. In answer to the Council's question, Mr. Larwin stated it would be conducive to encourage San Diego Transit to use this same center. The shuttle service would be mini-buses; however, small buses are uneconomical for any fixed route service. Funds Available from SB 325 Councilman Hobel remarked that getting these funds will be a very competitive type situation. Chula Vista used to have its own account, but this has been pooled with every other city's, and San Diego.,made no contribution, as they did not have any money. There is seven million in that account now, 1.3 million put in by Chula Vista. Next year, the Transit Board will decide the priorities on who will get these funds. Mr. Larwin admitted that Chula Vista would have to be cautious - the cost and revenue picture is unsettling enough so that a good record must be kept. New buses In answer to Councilman Hobel's query, Mr. Larwin said it takes a year and a half to get the new buses (application and ordering period). That is one of the reasons they are recommending that the 16-bus operation take place in 1979. Cost of service per mile Discussion followed regarding the operating cost of the transit service. Chula Vista is currently at 60¢ per mile; five years from now it will be $1.32 per mile. Transit Coordinator Mr. Larwin said he did not envision this position as a department head. In Santa Cruz, with 33 buses, they have three people plus one secretary who handle this division. Motion to recommend to staff It was moved by Councilman Hyde and seconded by Councilman Scott that this matter be referred to the staff for analysis and recommendation. Discussion of motion Mr. Robens, Director of Public Works, declared that he and his staff reviewed the draft whith the consultant. They agree with most of what's in there and support most of the recommendations. He asked that the Council accept the report and they will taka it back and work on it, and use the report to file any grant applications needed. City Council Meeting -3- March 24, 1976 Amended motion It was moved by Councilman Hyde and seconded by Councilman Scott that in addition to referring it to staff for analysis and reconmaendation, that a resolution accepting it as a plan be prepared for Council action. Discussion of amended motion City Manager Cole said he was ~O~cerned about the action being taken by Council as it will embark the City going into the transit business. The Council stated this was not their intent. Mr. Cole asked that he be permitted to come back with the budgetary implication~'of the plan, and then have Council take action. Councilman Hyde declared this was his intent in his in~tial motion without any regard to a resolution. Mr. Robins noted it was an "intent~ of the Council and at any step along th~ way, the Council has the prerogative of changing these steps. Corrected motion It was moved by Councilman Hyde, seconded by Councilman Scott and unanimously carried that the matter be referred to staff for recommendation as to the proper steps to proceed with implemen- tatinn and that th~ report be accepted in concept. RESOLUTION NO. 8105 - Assistant City Attorney Beam said he looked into AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF this matter because it involved CPO of which CALIMS FOR LOCAL TRANSPOILTATION Councilman Hobel is the Chairman of the Board FUND CLAIM TO CPO of Directors. Mr. Beam declared there is no conflict of interest on the part of Councilman Hobel acting on any of these matters. 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, Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde Noes: None Absent: None APPLICATION OF THE HILLSIDE Assistant Director of Planning Williams gave the MODIFYING DISTRICT Council a brief history of the Hillside District. On March 2, 1976, the staff recommended that the Hillside Modifying District be applied only to those areas east of 1-805. Motion to apply to areas It was moved by Councilman Scott and seconded east of 1-805 hy Councilman Hyde that a r~s~lution be brought back applying the Hillside ~odif~ing District to ever~iag'~ast of 1-805. Discussion of motion Assistant City Attorney Beam clarified the state- ment made in the staff's report dated March 16 in which it was stated that the City Attorney expressed the opinion that the "H" District can be incorporated into the Municipal Code and made applicabl~ only to those areas east of 1-805 and that it would be the simplest, most direct method of application. Mr. Beam stated that the matter is one of rezoning and must go through public hearings (Planning Commission and City Council). City Council Meeting -4- March 24, 1976 Included in motion Councilman Scott included in his motion the statement that the application be processed through public hearings and referred to the Planning Commission. Environmental Review Mr. Beam suggested that it first be referred to the Environmental Review Cormnittee. Mr. Cole asked that the matter be referred to staff to proceed. Motion changed It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Councilman Hyde that the matter be referred to staff to proceed. In answer to Councilman Hobel's query, Mr. Williams stated that the application would inlcude the 450 acres (previously Plaza del Rey). Councilman Hobel noted that in the Planning Director% letter dated March 2, 1976, he statee that a blanket application of the "H" District would have adverse effects. Motion ~o~ref~r to staff The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Scott, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Noes: Councilman Hobel Absent:None Motion for staff report It was moved by Councilman Hyde, seconded by Councilman Scott and unanimously carried that the staff have a report back at the next Council meeting as to the Environmmntal Review Committee's evaluation. REVIEW OF EL RANCHO Assistant Director of Planning Williams referred DEL REY P-C MONE to the memo written on March 16 in which the staff explained that in December 1974, the staff pre- pared a sketch plan illustrating how the Hillside District will affect the property. One application of that was delayed while staff worked on the traffic study. General Development Plan Mr. Williams added that the General Development Plan and Schedule is "far out of sequence" and caution is advised before adding any more incre- ments of development before that Plan is amended. Mr. Williams further explained the Council's action of December 10, 1974 in which it stated that "precise development plans in the area would not be approved until the General Development Plan was amended." Otay Land's development Mr. Carmen Pasquale., representing Otay Land Company answered the Mayor's inquiry stating that they are following the "spirit" of the hillside ordinance for their current development. They are trying to develop that area in con- Junction with the adjacent Shattuck development. The EIR is for the 950 acres plus the 84 units that are part of the PUD near the Southwestern College. Mr. Pasquale added that they do need a revision to the General Plan but no one has come out and stated what it should be. City Council Meeting -5- March 24, 1976 Council Discussion Discussion followed regarding the past develop- ments of the area east of 1-805, the precise plans, the P-C plan and the changes made since 1970, review of the General Plan and alternates to the Plan. Motion to accept report It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Councilman Hobel and unanimously carried that the interim report be accepted. General Development Plan The Council concurred that it is unrealistic to try to develop a Plan that would be feasible for a long period due to changes in economics, family structure, interest rates, etc. The Plan must be reviewed and chamged periodically. Mr. Williams commented that the alternate would be not to use ths P-C zone but to go to a more traditional zone. New General D~velopment Plan Councilman Egdahl noted that the Council's previous d~rection was to authorize the Planning Department to prepare a Sketch Plan (El Rancho del Rey), which, after hearings by the Planning Commission would become the new General Development Plan. This has besn held up becmuse of the pending traffic study. Motion for no action It was moved by Councilman Egdahl, seconded by Mayor Hamilton and unanimously carried that the Council take no action with regard to the General Development Plan until the traffic study is received, after which time this step will be reactivatsd. REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE Councilman Scott reported that the Legislative COMMITTEE REGARDING Committee did not meet regarding the Chamber of AMENDMENTS TO THE Commerce's request relating to the amendments TARIFF SCHEDULES of the Tariff Codes. He recommended that it be filed. Motion to file report It was move'd by Councilman Scott, seconded by Mayor Hamilton that the report be filed and brought back at a later date. Discussion off'motion Councilman Egdahl spoke against the motion stating that the Legislative Committee should look at it. Motion withdrawn Councilman Scott withdrew his motion; Mayor Hamilton withdrew the second. The Legislative Committee will meet on this matter and report to Council. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. to March 31, 1976 at 3:30 p.m.