Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1989/01/26 AN AGENDA FOR AN ADJOURNED (WORKSHOP) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA At 4:00 p.m., the Meeting was adjourned to 4:30 because a quorum was not present. Tuesday, January 26, 1989 Council Conference Room 4:43 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Cox (arrived at 5:43 p.m.), Councilmembers McCandliss, Nader, Malcolm (arrived at 4:48 p.m.) and Moore ABSENT: None ALSO PRESE~IT: City Manager Goss, Assistant City Manager Asmus; Assistant City Attorney Rudolf Pending the arrival of Mayor Cox, Mayor pro tempore Nader assumed the Chair. 1. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) RIGHT OF WAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT Director of Planning Krempl presented the Project's Summary Report, a scope of the work and information relative to planning objectives, stating the cost reduction alternatives; ideas on implementation will be presented by Jack Nakawatse, ONA Landscape Architecture. The project objectives are to create an updated image for the four mile stretch of the City; to stimulate beautification efforts where the east/west artery streets cross the right of way; and to compliment and enhance the Bayfront development with ambiance at the enterance to the City. (At 4:48 p.m., Councilman Malcolm took his seat on the dais.) Jack Nakawatse, ONA Landscape Architecture, 1551 Fourth Avenue, (Suite 200), San Diego 92101, emphasized the concept Plan and the related costs of the MTDB Right of Way which is four miles long and 72 acres, 20 acres of which was originally suggested to be landscaped. Mr. Nakawatse followed the Summary Report which was presented to attendees of the meeting and explained options to be considered. In summary, Director Krempl gave recognition was given to the high cost of the project, the availability of funds for the completion of Phase I and possible funding sources from other avenues. The time frame for completion of subsequent phases identified will be brought to Council with potential revenue sources within the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. MINUTES 2 - January 26, 1989 Councilmembers addressed the alternatives of landscaping and setting of priorities in terms of funding sources. Councilman Malcolm emphasized that the bicycle path necessitates MTDB's decision before anything can be planned, and his preference for more police officers and a stronger drug program before funding is put into this project. Addressing the project, he would like to see cost breakdowns and nice treatment with hardscape and landscape at major intersections concentrated at "E" and "H". Mayor pro tempore Nader stated he would like to see a "shopping list" and a listing of costs and the impacts of this funding. MOTION MS (Malcolm/Nader) to provide the information as outlined by Mayor pro tempore Nader the shopping list, what is going to be cut out, funding sources to make up for what exists now, to allow this item to compete at budget, and to release the ONA Architectural firm from the contract. Mr. Nakawatse assured Council he would provide staff with a cost breakdown of the various components and reminded them that landscaping is a very expensive procedure. Mr. Nakawatse, also, asked Council to give consideration to priority areas as well. VOTE ON THE MOTION Motion passed. (Mayor Cox out) 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY Director of Krempl reported the City's Consultant has provided information on alternative growth management programs describing Chula Vista's growth patterns, basic components for growth management programs, how other jurisdictions have approached growth management and legal aspects of developing the program. Tony Lettieri, Consultant, summarized the Growth Management Issues Paper prepared by Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates, 533 F Street, San Diego, which was presented to those present stating the Growth Management element establishes the policy relative to how the City is within the General Plan. Nancy Rollman of Lettieri.-McIntyre presented the six approaches the public facilities based program which controls the rate of growth, the tiered system and a combination of several different approaches and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each. Ms. Rollman further discussed participation in regional growth management programs emphasizing the advantage of a combination of efforts for planning the construction of major roadways, regional parks, landfills and other larger issues. MINUTES 3 - January 26, 1989 Councilmembers discussed the questions formulated for direction to staff and Consultant Lettieri: 1. Which alternative(s) does the Council want staff to pursue in preparing a Growth Management Element? 2. Does the Council desire to control the rate of growth, through either a Citywide buildout cap, annual building permit caps, or non-residential caps? Is there an annual percentage rate of growth that is desirable, or unacceptable to the Council? 3. Does the Council want to control the direction of growth east of 1-8057 4. Regardless of the type of growth management program that the City wants for itself, what is the Council's attitude toward participation in a regional growth management effort? Does the Council have any concerns with SANDAG's regional growth management recommendation? 5. How does the Council feel about becoming more involved in land use and public facility decisions on a joint basis with other South Bay jurisdictions? 6. What role does the Council see for the Threshold Standards and the Growth Management Oversight Committee in these growth management efforts? Councilman Malcolm addressed the question of regional growth and the probable impossibility to deal with it at this time and his strong opinion that the County not make decisions which affect the City of Chula Vista. Councilmembers concurred that Nos. 4 and 5 be put on the "back burner" and discussed at a later date. At 5:43 p.m., Mayor Cox arrived and took the Chair. MOTION MS (Malcolm/Nader) to recommen~ No. 1 and No. 3. Councilwoman McCandliss agreed they are the two strongest, but felt a need for a list of "tools" to meet different needs and components of problems created by growth; Councilman Moore addressed No. 3 and Council's stated west to east policy in 1981 stating that economics will dictate the growth. VOTE ON THE ~OTION Motion passed unanimously. MOTION MSUC IMcCandliss/Nader) that at the time the Growth Management Element comes back, some addition to No. 1 and No. 3 be made for some discussion of the absorption for the community to adapt to the change generated by growth. MINUTES 4 January 26, 1989 Councilmembers concurred that with the City's eleven thresholds which control growth there might only be a need for No. 2 in the event an error has been made or for fine tuning. Relative to No. 6, Councilman Moore emphasized that the monitoring of the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) is well defined and there is no logical reason to expand their responsibilities, authority or purpose. Council concurred. VOTE ON THE MOTION Motion passed unanimously. 3. ORAL COMrIUNICATIONS None 4. CITY MANAGER's REPORT - None 5. MAYOR'S REPORT - None 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 6:08 p.m. to the Tuesday, February 7, 1989 Regular Meeting at 4:00 p.m. Jennie ~l. Fulasz, CMC CITY CLERK