HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1989/12/05Tuesday, December 5, 1989 Council Chambers
4:00 p.m. Public Services Building
MINUTES OF A REGL1LAR MEETING OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Mayor Cox; Councilmembers Malcolm, McCandliss, Moore and Nader
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager, John D. Goss; City Attorney, Thomas J. Harron; and City
Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet
2+ pI.I~.FR3E OF ,~! .I .RGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
4a. The Oath of Office was administered by City Clerk Authelet and certificates presented by
Councilwoman McCandliss to:
Dianne Karen Harmata, International Friendship Commission;
Susan Martin, International Friendship Commission;
Marie O. Scrivener, Commission of Aging; and
Thomas F. Leonard, Board of Appeals.
4b. Report on Starlight Parade and presentation of trophies, Dr. Robert Shechet - Mayor Cox noted
the day and format were different for this years parade and he felt it was the best ever. He then thanked
the Downtown Association for their work and presented the trophies.
Councilwoman McCandliss noted the Rose Parade 1990 jackets being worn by the band members of the
Chula Vista High School and expressed her congratulations.
4c. Transnet Slide Presentation: Garry Bonelli, Regional Transportation Commission, SANDAG, gave
a presentation, at the request of the Mayor. Mr. Bonelli stated that revenues from the 1/2 cent sales tax
will be utilized over a twenty year period. He stated that these funds were administered by the SANDAG
Board of Directors and the approximately $2.2 billion is divided equally between highways, transit and
roads.
Mayor Cox stated the City of Chula Vista was interested in the highway portion of Route 54 widening from
805 to the future State Route 125 which is to be complete within 2-3 years and will be an eight lane
fleeway. He also noted informed the Council that the first meeting of the Southbay Bike Route Policy
Committee would be held on December 7th.
MINUTES 2 December 5, 1989
CONSFJ, I'T CAI.RNDAR
{Items pulled: 5A, 16, 17, 19)
Item 5d. Lettex from Coune~man Ron Robert~ - Councilman Malcolm stated that the Legislative Committee
supported this request.
Item 5b. Letter from Assemblywoman Dalalne Eastin - Councilman Nader stated that there was currently
a pending referral regarding recycling materials and questioned whether this request should be combined
with this referral and addressed at a later date.
Mr. Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance, stated that staff was in the process of gathering information
and felt the report would be back to Council within the next two months.
City Manager Goss stated he felt it would be appropriate to combine the items.
Councilman Nader requested the analysis of fiscal impact to be included in the report. He also stated he
did not expect the Finance Departtnent to carry the full burden of the report.
City Manager Goss stated that much of the burden would be within the Finance Deparunent due to
acquisition.
Mayor Cox rderred Ib_is item to staff and the Resource Conservation Comrni--sion.
Item 5c. Letter from the law firm of McDonald, Hecht & Solberg - Mayor Cox asked Mr. Huff if he
would like this item pulled from the Consent Calendar and noted that a report will be coming back to
Council on 1/16/90. Mr. Huff stated that he did not request to speak on this item but that he would like
to be included in staff discussions prior to the issuance of the report.
Councilman Malcolm stated that he would abstain from voting on items 11 and 20 as he had ownership
of stock and from item 22 as he was a member.
Mayor Cox noted that item 12 would require a 4/Sth's vote.
COUNCILWOMAN MCCANDLISS OFFF_.jlF..D THE BALANCI~ OF THE CONSENT C31.RNDAR, the reading
of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved.
5. WPd-nMq COMMUNICATIONS:
5a. Consideration of waiving Development Impact Fees in the consffuction of new church buildings -
(Father) John G. Proctor, Jr., Pastor, Corpus Chrisfi Catholic Parish, P.O. Box 1349, Bonita {continued
from meeting of November 21, 1989) - Recommended that the previous action of the City Council remain
the policy of the City. Pulled from Consent Calendar.
5b. Letter from Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin - request help in procurement of recycled products -
Recommended that this communication be referred to staff for evaluation and report back m the City
Council.
MINUTES 3 December S, 1989
5c. Letterfr~mthe~aw~rmofMcD~nald~Hecht&S~bergregardingR~ute~25andB~nitaMead~m!~
- request that Buie Corporation be allowed to proceed with processing of tentative map - Recommended
that letter from the attorneys representing Buie Corporation be referred to staff for a more complete
anaylsis and report back to the City Council at December 12, 1989 meeting.
Sd. Letter from Councilmember Ron Rober~ - requests the City of Chula Vista's support in endorsing
resolution relating to sale of fortitled wine products - Recommended that letter be referred to the
legislative committee for consideration and recommendation back to City Counc~.
Be. Letter of resignation from Laveme E. Decker - requests resignation be accepted from the Housing
Advisory Committee - Recommended that Ms. Decker's resignation be accepted with regret.
6. ORDINANCE 2341 ADOPTING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1988 EDITION (second
reading) - adoption is in conformance with City Council Policy 500-04 establishing Uniform Building
Regulations - (Director of Building and Housing)
7. ORDINANCE 2342 ADOPTING THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1988 EDITION (second
reading) - adoption is in conformance with City Council Policy 500-04 establishing Uniform Building
Regulations - (Director of Building and Housing)
8. ORDINANCE 2343 ADOFlING THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1988 EDITION (second J:'~ "~'
reading) - adoption is in conformance with City Council Policy 500-04 establishing Uniform Building
Regulations - (Director of Building and Housing)
9. ORDINANCE 2344 ADOPTING THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1988 EDITION (second ~"':.:7
reading) - adoption is in conformance with City Council Policy 500-04 establishing Uniform Building
Regulations - (Director of Building and Housing)
10. RESOLUTION 15416 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR RECONb-rKUCTION
OF SIDEWALKS AND INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS (1989-90 PROGRAM) AT VARIOUS
LOCATIONS IN THE CrTY OF CI-1ULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA - accept bids and award contract to Caves
Construction in the amount of $68,599.95 - (Director of Public Works).
11. RESOLUTION 15417 ACCEPTING AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE REAL PROPERTY
FOR b-rREET PURPOSE AND DEDICATING BAID STREET AS A PORTION OF FOXBORO AVENUE - said
street provides access to Tract 84-13, Chula Vista Woods, and Tract 87-8, Rancho del Bur, which have been
previously approved - (Director of Public Works). Counc~man Malcolm abstained.
MINUTES 4 December 5, 1989
12. *RESOLUTION 15418 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCF. FflNGBIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT
FOR 'REMODI~-h'NG OF ADMINISTRATIVE WING OF THE ta'IY HAIl. AT 276 FOURTH AVENUE IN THE
CI'tY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA - accept bids and award contract to J. Fife Construction in the
mount of $42,961 and appropriate $17,000 from unappropriated balance of development impact funds
to additional office space account - (Director of Public Works).
13.A. RESOLUTION 15419 ESTABLISHING RANClIO DEL REY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 20 ~="~'-- f
formation of an open space district by the developer was a condition of approval for the subdivision -
(Director of Public Works).
13.B. RESOLUTION 15420 CONFIRMING REPORT ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND LEVYING FIRST !=' ~. :.
14. RESOLUTION 15421 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECtJ'I~ A HOLD HARi~.F_~S ~': z
AG~RRMENT FOR THE USE OF MAYAN HALL AT SOLFrHWESTERN COIJ-RGE - request to use Mayan
Hall at Southwestern College for multi-media environmental performance entitled ~Yellow Cloud." -
(Director of Parks and Recreation)
15.A. RESOLUTION 15422 MODIFYING COMPENSATION PLAN FOR (~.RTAIN MIDDLE ='- ~'
MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 - (Director of Personnel)
15.B. RESOLUTION 15423 APPROVING COMPENSATION AND FRINGE BENEFITS FOR THE Ca'IY
MANAGER FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 - (Mayor)
16. REPORT ON FENCE ENCROACHMENT INTO OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO 758 CASSIA
PLACE - in response to a citizen complaint regarding the construction of a six foot high chain link fence
in the City's Open Space Lot - (Director of Public Works) - (continued from meeting of November 21,
1989) - Pulled from Consent Calendar
17. REPORT REGARDING CI-ty pOUCY REQUIRING DEVELOPERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO OPEN
SPACE DI:flRICT FOR NATURAL DRAINAGE - policy for developer contributions for maintenance of natural
drainage facilities in open space districts - (Director of Public Works) - Pulled from Consent Calendar
18. RF, I~RT REQL1KST TO CONDUCT CHR/STMAS FESTIVI'flF, S - special program in and
around Memorial Bowl on December 9, 1989 requiring the temporary closure of Park Way between Third
and Fourth Avenues - (Parks and Recreation)
19. REPORT ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
AFFEt;IP~ BY THE GENERAL PLAIN UPDATE IN THE CENTRAL CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY - (Director
of Planning) - Pulled from Consent Calendar
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
MINUTES 5 December 5, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND !R~ATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
20.A. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, (~.QA
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RF.J~RT (EIR-88-1), SUNBOW H - (Director of Planning) -
(continued from meeting of November 14, 1989)
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Bob Leiter, Director of Planning, stated that Mr. Doug Reid and Ms. Janie Nunez would review the
environmental report. He further stated the project had received Planning Commission approval on
9/27/89.
Mr. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator, stated that the number of dwelling units had been reduced
and the open space increased and he felt the impacts in the EIR were overstated.
He informed the Council that the Fish and Game Department had responded very late in the process and
the City had responded regarding mitigations. He stated the Fish and Game DeparUnent had now accepted
the EIR. Staff recommended approval with the inclusion of the two letters from the Fish and Game
Depa~ hx~ent.
Ms. Janie Munoz, ERC, then gave a review of the Environmental Impact Report and stated that she would
answer any questions from the Council.
Councilman Nader stated that he did not remember the number of wildlife impacted.
Mr. Reid stated the report listed habitats and species and not specific quantified impact.
Councilman Nader stated he would vote no on the EIK. He noted there was a twist with this EIR in that
the project will produce considerably fewer trips than SANDAG Series 6 and even more than Series 7. He
questioned whether fewer trips generated did not result in less impact and would therefore be more
favorable. He stated he did not follow this theory.
Mr. Reid stated that the impact was not significant and was not dealt with in the CEQA findings due to
fewer trips as projected by the SANDAG study.
Councilman Nader questioned whether there were any other variations to increase impact.
Mr. Reid stated there were none.
Councilman Nader stated he was disappointed with the lateness of the response from the Fish and Game
Department. He noted they had several very good points regarding their analysis of altematives.
Mr. Reid stated that the City would attempt to involve the Fish and Game Department earlier in the
Councilwoman McCandliss stated that she was concerned with page 10 in the Special Traffic Study
included in the EIR. Her concern was regarding the double counting in neighborhood commercial sites.
She felt some of the trips were already on the street system and should not be double counted and noted
MINUTES 6 December 5, 1989
the uses had been agreed upon by the City traffic engineer. She further stated the formula used should
be fine tuned and brought back to Council or City Manager for approval. She stated ff the staff is going
to continue to refine and change the ground rules it should go before the Council before being included
in the EIR's. She preferred less development in order to avoid traffic level D and questioned how big the
difference would be due to double counting.
Mr. Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer, stated double counting resulted in higher tralTxc flow and noted the
formula utilized was universally recognized. It had been recently utilized by the City of San Diego and
had been challenged by developers and withstood the challenge. He stated that staff would report back
to Council to see how it is working.
Councilwoman McCandliss questioned whether this was the first time the formula was used.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that the formula had been used on several other projects.
Councilwoman McCandliss stated she preferred to hit traffic level B for longer periods during the day and
if the rules were going to be changed they should be approved by Council.
Mr. Manuel Nunez, Consultant, gave an overview of the General Development Plan. He stated the
Planning Commission had unanimously approved the plan on 10/25/89. He noted the project location
is in an unincorporated area which is currently zoned Residential 7 and has been redesigned to conform
with the new General Plan.
He noted that principal issues were met and the Sunbow General Development Plan resembles the Chula
Vista General Plan. The project is located in an area which is park rich and facilities poor and that
Sunbow was proposing approximately $2 million in facilities improvements. He noted that a high school
site would not be required but one elementary school may be required. Two hundred units will be
designated as affordable housing. No police station will be required. Two church sites will be donated
and designated in the SPA plan. A gravity sewer system will have to be approved by the City. Water will
be provided by Rancho Del Sur Partnership.
He noted the Planning Commission had approved the proposed project and the plans meet all criteria.
He recommended approval subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
City Manager Goss stated that an additional fire station would not be needed but the relocation of an
existing station would provide better coverage. He added that if a land swap was possible the City could
locate the new corporate yard in the area, and if not possible, could set aside land for future negotiations.
He further noted this was not a condition at this stage and could be included in the SPA plan or tentative
map.
City Manager Goss informed the Council that page 6, which includes the options for parks and recreational
facilities would require major staff review regarding operating costs once construction was completed.
Councilman Nader stated he had met with representatives of the project applicant and had discussed the
pool, gym, etc. and questioned whether the level of specificity was in the General Plan.
City Manager Goss stated that it was not but it would be included in the SPA plan. He stated his office
was now involved regarding options and noted the facilities were desirable but staff would have to look
at operating costs in order not to over commit the City.
MINUTES 7 December 5, 1989
Councilwoman McCandliss referred to Table 5 in the traffic study included in the EIR and questioned why
the existing level E on Orange moves to level B.
Mr. Rosenberg stated the construction of Medical Center Drive south to Orange Avenue continuing to
Brandywine and to Otay Valley Road would alleviate much of the traffic.
Councilwoman McCandliss questioned whether development could be halted or modified if level C or
better was not maintained at intersections.
Councilman Moore noted that he failed to see conditions of improvements on Telegraph Hill and 805
anywhere. He referred to Figure 6-9 from the Planning Commission and questioned ff the south bound
off ramp to L Street would be two lanes.
Mr. Nunez stated that condition 14 was recommended as a condition of approval and that Exhibit B was
specific. This was also included under Mitigation Monitoring Section of the EIR (,page 10).
Councilman Moore stated he wanted to make sure there was no misinterpretation regarding L Street or
Telegraph Hill and that there would not be anything the Council could do once approve& He noted that
ff the staff was satisfied he was satisfied.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that his report included a description of improvements to Telegraph Hill and 805
and that a dual turn is noted. He stated they are currently negotiating with CALTRANS and are prepared
to enter into a cooperative agreement in FY 1991 and that this may come in advance of the requirement
in the phasing of the project.
Mr. Nunez stated the public facilities plan is tied to occupancy permits as well as building permits.
Mr. Tim Kruer, 2445 5th Avenue, San Diego, California, representing SunBow, stated they had three goals
for the evening. These were: 1. secure pre-zoning change, 2. certification of the EIR and 3. approval of
the General Development Plan. He felt that SunBow was presenting a quality development for Chula Vista.
He noted they had worked closely with the City staff to meet or exceed the spirit of the Chula Vista
General Plan. He also noted there had been four different designs/studies and that the plan now included
180 acres of open space. Phase One was approved two years ago and will be completed in the summer
of 1990.
Mr. Nick De Lorenzo gave a brief overview of the open space, landscaping and recreational facilities.
Mr. Mitch Beauchamp reviewed the site surveys.
Mr. Kruer requested unanimous approval on the pre-zoning, EIR and General Development Plan in
accordance with their requested revisions regarding condition #2 and #14.
Councilwoman McCandliss stated she felt the proposed plan met the goals and objectives of the General
Plan. She noted the criticism of the first Phase due to steep slopes and homes on the edge of the ridges.
Mr. ICruer stated the homes in this plan had been moved back further and City staff had requested they
be moved back even further in the northeast comer and that this would be done in the SPA plan. They
were trying to be as sensitive as possible to Telegraph Canyon Road.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
M/NUTES 8 December S, 1989
Mayor Cox recessed the Public Hearings at 6:07 p.m. to present trophies for the Starlight Parade which
was listed as Item #4b. under Special Orders of the Day. Public Hearings reconvened at 6:20 p.m.
RESOLUTION 15424 CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 88-1
Councilman Moore stated his traffic concerns were addressed in item #14.
Councilman Nader stated he had the same problem with the issue of air quality and that he would vote
no and requested a separate vote for the Resolutions.
RESOLUTION OI'I,I~IED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 3-
1-0-1 (Nader voting No and Malcolm abstaining)
Councilman Moore stated he felt this EIR was more indepth and could see greater improvement.
Councilman Nader agreed that there was improvement.
RESOLUTION 15425 ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 88-1
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the ten was waived, passed and approved 4-
0-0-1 (lV[a]colm abs~ining)
P,F~OLUTION 1S426 ADOIrflNG TIE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
F2WIRONMF_2qTAL IMPACT REPORT 88-1
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-
0-0-1 (Malcolm abstaining)
20.B. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ-87-E/PCM-89-7: CONSIDERATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY
PREZONE AND GENERAL DIZVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SUNBOW II LOCA'rED SOUTH OF TR.I~-GRAPH
CANYON ROAD, AD~AC~dqT TO THE CHULA VISTA MEDICAL CENTER - RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP
- (Director of Planning) - (continued from meeting of November 14, 1989)
ORDINANCE 2346 AN ORDINANCE OF TH~ CI'IY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING ZONING
MAP OR MAPS TO F. STABLISH PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C) DIS'I'PdCT PRF2ONE FOR 602 ACRES IN
SUNBOW II (tint reading)
ORDINANCE Ol'l'~.lqF_/) FOR FIRST READING BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived, passed
and apprnved 4-0-0-1 (Malcolm ab~a~ining)
RESOLIJTION 15427 RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE U'IY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING PCM-89-7 FOR SUNBOW II G~ DEVELOPMENT PLAN
RRSOLUTION OI'I'I~.D BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-
0-0-1 (Malcolm abstaining)
Counc~man Moore noted that the applicant requested changes to condition #2 and #14.
MINUTES 9 December 5, 1989
Mr. Lippelt stated staff could support changes to #2 and Engineering supported #14 but did note that 14c
was still a problem. The intent was OK but they were working on the wording "on the need for city
cooperation in connection with seeking CALTRANS approval, cooperation and use of eminent domain~ and
that the rest of the sentence should be su-icken.
Mr. Kruer agreed with this change.
Councilman Moore noted that ff CALTRANS agrees but drags their feet it would delay occupancy of the
project.
Fir. Lippelt stated they would have to come back to Council for alternative or solution ff timing became
a problem. This could be taken into consideration. A possible alternative would be to construct and have
CALTRANS reimburse the agency consreacting.
MS 0qader/McCandliss) to amend the motion to have construction work on east Palomar and Medical
Center Drive confined during the months of August to February (outside of breeding time for birds)
in order to mitigate biological impacts.
Councilman Moore requested staff opinion of motion.
Mr. Lippett stated staff would not have a problem with this regarding drainage or flooding but would like
to hear from the developer.
Mr. Reid stated it would be impossible to separate out the grading for this area as it would all have to
be in conjunction with the construction of the stxeets.
Mr. Kruer stated he had deep concerns over the amendment and felt it would delay the project
approximately six months which would have a catastrophic result. He noted they have waited over three
years and felt this would be a death knell. He further stated that the requirements were not suggested
by the Fish and Game Department and suggested the alternative of allowing immediate brushing in an
attempt to get the birds to relocate before nesting time.
Councilman Nader questioned whether they anticipated that the rest of the approval process would be in
place and they would be ready to grade before the time specified.
Mr. Leiter stated the SPA plan would be before the Planning Commission in January and before the
Council in February of 1990.
Councilman Nader questioned whether they could approve the condition of compliance with the Growth
Management Plan and noted that the Plan was approximately six months from adoption.
Mr. Leiter stated he would defer to the applicant as they had not discussed timing of grading with the
Planning Department.
Mr. Kruer stated they would like to begin Phase I in late spring of 1990 with construction one year from
Councilman Nader noted the earliest the general master plan could be approved would be in April and
if the amendment passed it would only result in a four month delay before grading could commence.
He then questioned if the condition could be implemented within the general master plan.
MINUTES 10 December 5, 1989
Mr. Beauchamp stated the mitigation measures called for transplanting and seeding. These will be
removed and in place for the next growing season,
Councilman Nader questioned if that would be before March.
Mr, Beauehamp stated they would like to begin brushing in the next couple of weeks, He noted that
they could not start sooner without approval and added that the eaetus would have to be moved soon,
Councilman Nader questioned whether the transplanting of habitat will be completed before the breeding
season if approval was without the amendment.
Mr. Beauchamp stated that it would be completed before that time.
COUDe~rnan Nader withdrew his motion, C. ouneilwoman McC, alldli$$ withdl~w the second.
Councilman Moore stated that the Fish and Game Depa~hnent had not been easy on the project and had
responded as he had hoped.
MSC (CoX/McCandliss) motion to approve condition #2 with modifications as requested by applicant and
agn~l upon by staff. (Malcolm abstained)
MSC (Cox/McCandiiss} motion to approve condition #14 as modified by staff. (Malcolm abstained}
Councilwoman McCandliss stated she remembers Sunbow I and the concentration of small lots. She noted
that Sunbow II was more diverse and typical of single family neighborhoods throughout the city and felt
Sunbow II would be a beautiful addition with the park areas, open space and recreational areas. She
further stated this was a far superior project and she would support.
Councilman Nader commended the developer on the modifications and noted that the project now
contained more open space than required. He stated the recreational looked promising and that the
modffications had been accomplished without the request for additional density. He further stated that
this was what the Council had hoped to see as a result of the General Plan.
Council recessed at 6:46 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
21 .A. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT -
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONDITIONS FOR EASTLAKE HI/OLYMPIC TRAINING
CENTER - (continued from meeting of November 21, 1989)
(Note: Items A, B, and C were handled as one item)
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox declared the public hearing open.
Mayor Cox noted this item had been continued from the November 21st meeting and had been referred
back to the Planning Commission for their review and input.
Mr. Bud Gray, Consultant, stated this project had been referred back to the Planning Commission. The
purpose was to seek Planning Cornmission review Council modifications and give Counc~ their input. The
Planning Cornmission, after review, gave the project unanimous approval. He noted there had been some
confusion on the staffs part on the recommended amount of commercial acreage. The discussion was
MINUTES 11 December 5, 1989
regarding the easterly parcel which had been designated as a Special Plan Area with a task force to be
appointed to help in the design guidelines. The actual language of the motion reduced the acreage from
33 to 25 and he questioned whether the intent, as the discussion by the Council on the easterly parcel,
was to lLrnit the total acreage of the Special Plan Area to 25 acres. Within the 25 acres would be 17 acres
for commercial usage with the remaining acreage open space. This was the proposal as submitted by
EastLake, The total overall commercial acreage would then be reduced from 33 acres to 27.2 acres.
Councilman Moore stated the area northeast of the olympic training center started with 42 acres of
commercial then reduced to 33 and then to 25 and questioned where the 27.2 came from.
Mr. Gray stated the easterly side contained 17 acres of commercial acreage and the westerly side 10.2
acres of commercial and that it was not intended to be changed.
Mayor Cox stated that he had made the motion and that there could have been an error in the wording
and that he had intended to accept their offer.
Councilman Moore stated that he had voted to reduce the commercial acreage to 25 acres period.
Councilwoman McCandliss questioned whether further work had been done of re~g~Lring the density and
traffic on the intersections now the plan had been modified.
Mr. Gray stated that staff had not done further work since the last Council meeting.
Mr. Bob Santos, EastLake Development Company, 900 Lane Avenue, Chula Vista, expressed his gratitude
for the support of the staff in their recommendation and the referral back to the Planning Commission.
He stated that everyone now felt good about the project and it was an opportunity to mend fences.
Jeanne Sitzberger, former Olympian, spoke in support of the project.
Carole Bmmmett, 477 Willow Crest Way, Chula Vista, spoke in opposition of the project.
Richard Zurnwalt, Department of Planning and Land Use, County of San Diego, 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite
B, San Diego, California read the following letter from Lauren M. Wasserman, Director, Deparanent of
Planning and Land Use into the record:
On December 5, 1989, you will be considering changes t the Chula Vista General Plan and the
EastLake III General Development Plan. This area is currently within the unincorporated area of
San Diego County, and is also within the Chula Vista City Sphere of Influence.
The County of San Diego has significant concerns about the tentative changes in the Chula Vista
General Plan and the EastLake III General Development Plan made by your Council on November
21, 1989. The proposed increase in density and intensity may have impacts upon the county of
San Diego General Plan as well as the Chula Vista General Plan, particularly as regards the Otay
Ranch property, subject of a joint City/County planning effort.
The County of San Diego respectfully requests that you defer action on this matter until the
County Department of Planning and Land Use has had adequate time to review and comment
upon this project. We would request a deferment of your action until January of 1990.
MINUTES 12 December 5, 1989
Mayor Cox stated he realized Mr. Zumwalt was only the messenger but that the City of Chula Vista had
been working on the General Plan for three years and the County had been involved. Action had been
taken on November 21st of this year when the project had been referred back to the Planning Commission
to insure consistency of the project with the General Plan. He noted the County had received information
on the concept of the project as early as February. He stated that the City normally bends over backwards
in order to work with the County, but the project before them was consistent with the General Plan and
he was surprised, disappointed and frustrated by the letter received by Council tonight.
Mr. Zumwalt stated that he would transmit the Mayor's comments and try to see that the County
responded earlier in the future.
Councilman Malcolm noted the densities were below the original design and that the County was well
aware of the General Plan He note the only inconsistency was the commercial around the olympic
training center and that the addition of commercial had lessened the impact of traffic from going into
town.
Councilman Moore stated that this project had been referred back to the developers and the Planning
Commission for approval. He noted that the City wanted to be a team player regarding the Board of
Supervisors and City Council relations but that he felt it was to late to accept the letter presented.
Councilman Nader questioned whether the County received the materials.
Mr. Zumwalt stated that he knew they had received the General Plan but he had not received the EIR
but also stated that did not mean they did not have it.
Councilman Nader stated there would be review and comment opportunities during SPA plan and tentative
map submittals. He also noted that the recommendations evolving from the meeting of November 21st
decreased intensity and did not increase it. If the Council had not requested the reduction of density, the
project could have been approved at the meeting of the 21st and the County would not have been able
to submit their request for delay.
Mr. Zumwalt stated that the County would appreciate seeing the EIR and other information for the project.
Mr. Reid stated there would be a supplemental EIP, for the SPA plan and a copy would be submitted to
the County for review.
Councilwoman McCandliss expressed her concern regarding the County receiving the information and
requested staff to coordinate with the County. She stated it was very irregular and strange that the
County had not received the materials and as a member of the Otay Task Force, she would also follow
up.
Mr. Gray stated that four copies of the EastLake III General Development Plan had been mailed to the
County and noted the County was on the regular mailing list. He stated a brief response had been
received from the CAO and that it did not contain specific recommendations.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
RESOLUTION 15410 ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS AND STATF, MF, NT OF OVF_.RRIDING
CONDITIONS FOR EIR-89-9, EASTLAKE III/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER
MINUTES 13 December 5, 1989
21.B. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
EASTLAKE HI/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER (continued from meeting of November 21, 1989)
RESOLUTION 15411 ADOPTING THE I~ffI-IGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR 17~ ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89-9, FASTLAKE HI/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER
21.C. PUBLIC HEARING GPA-90-05/PCZ-90-1-1/PilM-89-18: CONSIDERATION OF ~ HI
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMFAN7, PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE, AND GENERAL DEVELOPIVIE.NT PLAN FOR
EASTLAKE IH/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER LOCATED ON THE WEb'IMILY SIDE OF UPPER AND LOWER
OTAY RESERVOIRS (continued from meeting of November 21, 1989)
RESOLUTION 15412 APPROVING EASTLAKE HI GENERAL PLAN ~MENT 90-05
RESOLUTION 15413 /h°PROVING THE EASII,AKE HI GENERAL D~PMENT PLAN CPCM-
89-18)
RESOLUTIONS 15410, 15411, 15412, 15413 OV~'P. RED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
Mr. Gray again referred to the commercial acreage listed in condition #21 and stated that it should be
a reduction from 33 acres to 27.2 acres.
Councilman Moore stated the motion was to reduce commercial acreage from 33 to 25.
Mr. Gray stated condition #19 said the easterly parcel would include 25 acres of commercial in the special
plan area and the condition #21 should change the total acreage from 33 to 27.2. The reduction was in
the easte~y parcel from 25 acres to 17 and the westerly parcel was to be 10.2 acres.
Councilman Malcolm stated that the Planning Commission had voted upon the Counc~ recommendation
of 25 acres.
Councilwoman McCandliss stated the Council should stand on the 25 as per the motion and it was
inappropriate to change. She further stated that the total acreage could be reviewed during the SPA plan
review.
Mr. Santos stated that the actual proposal from EastLake had been 27.2 acres and he had been under the
impression that it was the Council's intent to approve. He informed the Council that he had given the
same presentation to the Planning Commission and understood they had accepted EastLake's compromise.
He further stated the EastLake General Plan reflected 27.2 acres.
Councilman Malcolm stated he thought he had voted on a total of 25 acres and was willing to review
the total commercial acreage during SPA plan review. He apologized for the confusion regarding the
reduction from 33 acres to 25.
Mr. Santos asked for clarification, eastern parcel to be designated at 15 acres commercial use with the
potential of expansion to 17.2 acres upon review of the SPA plan and retain the westerly parcel.
Mayor Cox stated this could be referred to the Task Force and if additional acreage was needed and
justified it could be brought back for review.
MINUTES 14 December S, 1989
Mr. Santos then stated that there would be 10.2 acres in the westerly parcel and 14.8 acres in the easterly
parcel.
Mayor Cox questioned whether it was normal to come back during the SPA plan for a precise split.
Mr. Gray stated these areas would be indicated on the General Development plan map.
MSUC {Malcolm/McCandliss) motion to modify condition #21 to state that the cornrna~-Cia] acreage would
be 10.2 acz'es in the westerly parcel and 14.8 in the easterly parcel. He noted that these figures were not
set in concrete and they could be reviexved by the Ta-~k Force during SPA plan review.
Councilwoman McCandliss specified that the goal was to protect the open space on the east side.
Councilman Nader questioned whether the U'affic related phasing condition regarding SP, 125, Phase 5,
was part of the General Development Plan.
Mr. Gray stated that it was.
Councilman Nader stated the public should be made aware of the strict requirements that are being placed
against the development and noted that EastLake was taking a risk and even though, were still committing
themselves. Due to this, he could support the project.
MSLIC CCox/Moore) motion to have City Manager prepare a response to the planning Department of the
County of San Diego outlining the Council's actions, concerns, and the Council's inability to accommodate
their request for delay.
ORDINANCE 2345 AMENDING ZO~qG MAP OR MAPS TO ES'T/U~L~SH F_ASTL.ARE m
PhAIqNED COMMUNITY DI~ri RICT PRF~ZONING FOR 1030.1 ACRES LOCATED WE~-i-I&qLY OF LIPPER AlqD
LOWER OTAY L.AKF~ RF~ERVOIR - (first reading)
ORDIINIANCE 2345 Oi, FI~.RF.D BY COUNCiLMAN MOORE FOR FIRST RF_.ADIINIG, reading of text waived,
passed and approved unanimously.
Councilman Malcolm asked Mr. Santos if there would be a problem if a condition was added that would
require EastLake to enter into some type of an agreement to include a time flame for payment schedule
of monies committed to the Olympic Training Foundation.
Mr. Santos responded that an escrow account had been established with the Foundation and was pending
annexation.
MSLIC (Malcolm/McCandliss) motion to include in condition #21 the City of Chula Visto as part of the
agreement to insure Eas~ke Devdopment Company pays their portion of money committed to the
Olympic Training Foundation,
Mayor Cox stated that the EastLake III/Olympic Training Center General Development Plan was now
completed and was the first step in a series of steps to be completed before construction. He noted that
the SPA plan should be before Council in February. He further stated that the olympic training center
was made possible by the generous offer of EastLake Development Company and he felt they had not been
given full credit in making the ttaining center a reality. He stated this would be one of the most
significant milestones in the history of Chula Vista and felt everyone was a winner with the project.
MINUTES 15 December S, 1989
Councilwoman McCandliss stated she hoped during the SPA review in February that everyone would get
together and work towards the inclusion of Chula Vista in the title or presentation of title of the training
center.
22. PUBLIC I-IF_/t~NG PCC-90-13: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO MODIFY PCC-87-5M BY ~ ~'. "-: ~
ADDING 180 SOCIAL MEMBERSHIPS AT THE SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB, 88 *L" STREET, CHUIA VISTA
- request would increase from 70 to 250 memberships in this class. Full memberships (golf and social)
would remain at 415. Total membership would increase from 485 to 665 - [Director of Planning).
This being the time and place advertised, Mayor Cox declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Leiter stated that ff approved, the membership would increase from 485 to 665 and that the sole issue
was the burden of on-site parking. After review staff had determined the club would operate well with
the increase but staff did recommend the addition of memberships in two stages. Ninety memberships
approved now and 90 approved by the zoning administrator, no sooner than six months, and after review
of the parking situation. The Planning Commission has approved staffs recommendation and the
Montgomery Planning Commission had recommended a three phase addition, but staff felt it was
unnecessary.
Mr. Lucius Qulnney, 363 Fifth Avenue, #203, San Diego, California, representing the Country Club
informed the Council he was there to answer any questions and stated they were in support of the staff
recommendations.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
RESOLUTION 15428 APPROVING PCC-90-13 TO MODIFY/' PCC-87-SM BY ADDING 90 SOCIAL
MEMBERSHIPS AT THE SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB, 88 *L' b'IF, EET
RESOLUTION 15428 WAS OFFERED BY COUNCILWOMAN MCCANDLISS, reading of the ten was waived,
passed and approved. (Malcolm abstained)
OTHER BUSINESS
23. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
23a. Victor A. Nolan, 12 Via Barbetini, Chula Vista, stated that he had received a new sewer billing for
$8.70. He noted that a new person was working on the problem and requested that the City expedite the
process.
Mayor Cox stated the item had been referred to staff and questioned when the report would be
ready for Council.
~ / Mr. Lippert stated he thought this situation had been handled and was not sure where it was.
He also stated he was not aware of the City Attorney ruling.
MSUC (CoX/Moore) to refer to staff with report to Council on 12/12/89.
Councfiman Moore questioned the responsibility of the City or the chain of information avafiable
to pass on.
M/NUTES 16 December S, 1989
Councilman Malcolm stated that any new fees would be the same as a rent increase as per
ordinance and would not be allowed.
City Attorney Harron stated that was correct and would be alright ff within CPI.
Mr. Lippert stated that this issue would be addressed by the City Attorney and Community
Development.
Councilman Moore questioned the legal authority of the park owner to make money on utilities
they do not furnish.
Mr. Nolan also complimented the Target stores for opening their facilities to the Senior Citizens.
23b. Mr. Will Hyde, Town Center Project Area Committee, stated that he was pleased with the response
by the businesses on 3rd Avenue between F and G SWeets regarding christmas lighting. He noted that
48 businesses were decorated and he offered a challenge to the City for lighting of Memorial Park.
Mayor Cox stated that the challenge would be passed on to the Parks and Recreation Department.
24. ITEMS pUIJ.RB FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item Sa. Consideration of waiving Development Impact Fees in the construction of new church
buildings -Father John Proctor, Pastor, Corpus Christi Catholic Parish, and member of the Non-Profit
Institutional Task Force, stated his church was a non-profit institution and he was asking for a new criteria
for assessment of developmental fees for new churches in the eastern territory. He stated he had appeared
before Council previously and at the time, the public facilities development fee was waived and according
to criteria developed by SANDAG, based on 4 EDIYs per acre. He felt that churches do not negatively
impact city infrastructure and noted their only source of revenue was from the congregation, constituents,
and taxpayers. He informed the Council that the present assessment was approximately $45,000 which
was a heavy burden. He added that churches are traditionally tax exempt on many other levels and
requested the Council waive the development impact fees for charitable, non-profit, or religious institutions.
David R. Snyder, 5727 Sunny View Drive, Bonita, President of Corpus Christi Catholic Church Parish
Council, stated the developmental impact fees were a form of tax and that once the facility was built, it
would not be subject to taxation.
Councilman Nader questioned whether the City charges DIF's to organizations such as child care providers
and social service agencies.
Cliff Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director, stated that these agencies were charged as they generated
traffic. He then referred to extensive studies conducted by SANDAG.
Councilman Nader stated he felt review should be made of all areas and not just churches. He noted
agencies such as child care where there is a need by the community.
Councilwoman McCandliss stated she was interested in looking at the whole issue and that the revenue
was not a concern. She noted that if the new church had not been built, the parish would just go
somewhere else by nature of the organization. She stated she was not prepared to analyze the DIF for
non-profit organization or new trips versus redirected trips.
MINUTES 17 December 5, 1989
Councilman Malcolm stated he did not want to study the issue any longer and wanted to make a decision
tonight. He noted that a church was different from other non-profit organzations such as bingo. The
church had traditional family values, builds upon the family, and is desperately needed in the community.
He also noted that the federal government exempts churches from taxation. He agreed that traffic was
redirected and did not necessarily generate additional traffic.
MS (Malcolm/Nader) motion to waive developmental impact fees for churches.
Councilman Nader stated he was not ready to go further but he did support Councilman Malcolm. He
added there were certain other non-profit organizations that should be reviewed for waivers. He then
recommended a follow up motion or referral to staff to include non-profit facilities generating new demand
but offered a vital service and benefit to the community.
Mayor Cox questioned the construction timeline.
Father Proctor stated the plan corrections were in the third phase at the City and that grading would start
in December. He noted that if the fees were not waived, it could delay the building permit.
City Attorney Harton cautioned the Council and cited a U.S Supreme Court case which upheld tax
exemption for property taxes, Walsh venus Tax Commissioner, the justification the Court gave for allowing
it applied to a broad range of non-profit organizations in which a church was just one and if they treated
a church any differen~y, it would actually be a policy that would inhibit free exercise of religion as
opposed to a policy which establishes religion. The Court test says that in order for a policy to be valid,
they must 1. have a secular purpose and 2. its primary effect may not be to either advance or prohibit
religion. He cautioned the Council to be very careful when carving out a religious exception from
governmental fees. If the exception was made as part of a broad range of organizations entitled to an
exemption from fees, it could fall under this case. He again noted it was dangerous territory.
Councilman Moore stated there was a difference in non-profits and cited hospitals as an example. He also
noted that many non-profits were good for the community. He felt that issues such as what type of
facility, persons and structure, service provided to community, cost benefit to the City as a whole should
all be considered and felt a date should be set for better review of the issue. He expressed his concern
over granting the waiver tonight and felt there were many others that should possibly receive waivers.
Mayor Cox stated he would like to support the request but could not tonight as the issue was bigger than
just the one request. He noted the developmental impact fees were not meant to be punitive and felt the
issue of double taxation may be valid. He was sympathetic with the time issue but stated the whole
issue needed to be looked at.
Councilwoman McCandliss agreed that churches ware a positive force in the community and again stated
the whole issue should be reviewed. She questioned whether the building permit could be issued prior
to any further review of the DIF by the Council.
MSUC (CoX/McCandliss) substitute motion to refer the issue of waiving developmental impact fees for non-
profit and/or tax exempt organi7~tions back to staff with report back to Council in mid Januap/. In the
interim, staff is to issue a building permit to Corpus Chris~ Catholic C~urch, subject to agreement that
they will pay developmental impact fees as decided upon by Council.
Father Proctor stated this would be agreeable.
MINUTES 18 December 5, 1989
Councilwoman McCandliss questioned if the Council began to waive fees, would the other fees be raised
or would monies be taken from the General Fund to cover the lost revenues. She stated the money must
be paid.
Councilman Malcolm stated these were the same issues as before and that staff had submitted their report.
It was time to give waiver tonight, address the City Attorney's concerns, and it would be no easier in 30
days. Questions had already been asked and not answered to his satisfaction.
Councilwoman McCandliss stated there were additional considerations and even ff there was not an
update, staff could just bring back their report again.
Councilman Nader stated there should be specific policies for churches and valuable social services. He
stated that a social service master plan had been adopted by the City Council several years ago which
stated the community needs. He further stated that guidelines should be adopted which would be outside
the intent of the developmental impact fees that could be utilized by staff.
Mayor Cox stated that was the intent of his motion.
Councilman Nader expressed his concern over timing.
Mayor Cox stated that the report is due back to Council in mid January.
Councilman Nader requested as part of the motion that the report not be back to Council later than
January 23rd.
Mr. Lippert stated the report would be ready at that time. He also informed the Council that staff would
present an ordinance for increased developmental impact fees at their next meeting.
Mayor Cox stated he felt there was a conflict and would rather wait. He further stated that he reluctantly
could not support the first motion.
VOTE ON FIRST MOTION, motion failed. (Cox, McCandliss, Moore voting no - Malcolm and Nader voting
yes)
VOTE ON SECOND MOTION BY COX/MCCANDLISS, passed unanimously.
Item 16. REPORT ON FENCE ENCROACHMENT INTO OPEN SPACE ADJA(T~.~rr TO 758 CASSIA
PLACE
Mr. Cliff Swanson informed the Council that Mr. Horton had not applied for an encroachment permit and
that staff recommended Mr. Horton remove the fence.
Mr. Tom Acuna, 866 Buen Tiempo Drive, Chula Vista, stated he resided two blocks from Mr. Horton's
residence and he would speak in opposition to the encroachment. He felt it was an inconsistent use,
excluded the usage of public lands and set a bad precedent for park lands, open space, etc. He stated he
had support from other residents and there was no good excuse to allow the encroachment to remain.
He did understand the reasoning for the location and the problems with drive throughs and trash but felt
the fence should be relocated to the northerly side of East J Street which would allow a pedestrian
walkway.
MINUTES 19 December 5, 1989
Mayor Cox noted it was the staffs recommendation to have the fence moved. He stated that Mr. Hotton
had been an innocent victim because the City of San Diego gave approval they did not have authorization
to give. He questioned staff regarding discouraging the driving through, parrying, trash, etc. Mr. Hotton
was complaining about.
Mr. Swanson informed the Council that a companion item on the agenda of 11/14/89 included the
installation of barriers to prevent illegal dumping in Open Space District #10. He noted that the barriers
could be permanent or temporary.
Mr. Willie Hotton, 768 Cassia Place, Chula Vista, presented the Council with a letter outlining the history
and concerns regarding the construction of the fence. He stated that he had attempted to obtain an
encroachment permit from the City of Chula Vista in 1987 and was told that he would have to obtain a
permit from the City of San Diego due to the existing water easement. Application was submitted to the
City of San Diego in the summer of 1988, during the interim period, the City of Chula Vista had notified
Mr. Horton the City of Chula Vista had planned to extend the City of San Diego's 100 foot easement fence
along the East J Street side p to 673 J Street. After waiting one year for the construction of the fence,
he proceeded to construct his own fence in August of 1989. During this time, he had several
conversations with City staff and had been told that as long as the fence was on the easement, he would
be all right. On September 5, 1989 he received a letter from Mr. Swanson, informing him that although
the chain link fence had been erected on city of San Diego water easement property under a prope~y
granted San Diego encroachment permit, he was required to secure an encroachment permit from the City
of Chula Vista. Mr. Horton also noted the problems he had encountered with trash, dumping, drive
throughs, parrying, etc. He felt that if required to remove his fence, he would suffer serious injury.
Councilman Nader questioned whether Mr. Horton had shown the permit from the City of San Diego to
City staff.
Mr. Swanson stated that Mr. Horton had shown them the permit, but he would also have to obtain a
permit from the City of Chula Vista and noted that each governmental agency could not interfere with
each others rights.
Councilman Nader questioned whether it would be desirable to install ballards.
Mr. Swanson stated it would and that staff had been instructed to do so.
Mayor Cox asked staff if there was any doubt that the property is in a City Open Space District, with a
water easement to the City of San Diego. He also questioned whether the homeowners paid the
maintenance fee.
Mr. Swanson stated that the property was dedicated as open space with a water easement to the City of
San Diego and maintenance fees were paid by homeowners.
Mayor Cox stated that Mr. Horton had been conscientious and had been caught in the middle. He felt
the fence should come down and suggested a compromise. Staff would work with Mr. Horton in taking
down the fence and City crews could put up the fence on the property line, everyone wins. The
installation of ballards would address the concerns of the property owners regarding the dumping of trash
and driving through. He felt there would be a nominal cost in relocating.
Mr. Horton stated he had followed the right path and if the fence was removed and he continued to have
people still coming around, he would Erie action against the City if necessary.
MINUTES 20 December 5, 1989
Mayor Cox stated that if Mar. Horton continued to have a problem, he should notify the police department
and let them handle the problems.
Councilman Moore stated that the open space belonged to everyone and Mr. Hotton had been incorrect
in fencing off this area. He felt the fence had to come down.
Councilman Malcolm stated he was not sure he wanted the fence running down the property line. He
questioned staff regarding Mr. Honon's assessment of the situation.
Mr. Swanson stated that staff remembered talking to Mar. Hor~on and that they had indicated the property
was not Chula Vista property. He noted the City had made a mistake. He stated that Mar. Hotton could
be given the choice of relocating the fence down the property line or the city reimbursing documented
costs and removing the fence. It should be done in an expeditious manner in order for the hallards to
be installed. He informed the Council that the City of Chula Vista, unlike many other cities, did not
require a building permit for fences and that some type of review should be conducted.
MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) motion to give the option of reimbursement of documentable costs or city relocate
fence down property line with staff taking immediate action to prevent vehicle access.
Councilman Moore questioned if the only access was from Mr. Horton's property.
Mr. Swanson stated there was a fence along J Street then the property drops off and vehicles can no
longer drive through.
Councilman Malcolm noted that the motion did not include the chain link fence along J Street.
Councilman Nader stated that staff had already been directed to place ballards along J Street.
Mar. Swanson stated that could be referred back to Parks and Recreation.
Councilman Nader stated that he felt it was appropriate to charge the expense back to the Open Space
Maintenance District but if it was the City's mistake it would be appropriate for the City to handle the
cost.
Mar. Horton stated that he had been responsible for the landscaping.
Mayor Cox stated that landscaping was part of the Maintenance Diswict and that the staff should meet
with the District to better address Mar. Horton's concerns.
MSUC (Cox/Moore) motion to direct staff to meet with Mr. Harton and the Maintenance District to address
issues of dumping, etc.
Councilman Moore stated that the Maintenance District would be holding their meeting in March and that
may be the logical time to meet with them.
Item 17. REPORT R~GARDING t~-~Y POLICY REQUTRING DEVELOPERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR NATURAL DRAINAGE
Councilman Nader questioned the cost of the ongoing maintenance and whether it was recovered from
the developer for a limited time with the City then assuming maintenance.
MINUTES 21 December 5, 1989
Mr. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated that there would be an assessment over the enth-e
Rancho Del Rey project which would maintain the open space.
Councilman Nader questioned if this was policy.
Mr. Lippett stated it was, costs are picked up by the districts.
MS (Nader/Cox) motion to approve sUdf recommendation. Motion failed.
Councilman Malcolm questioned the expense of maintaining natttral drainage ditches venus concrete
ditches.
Mr. Lippelt stated there was not much difference.
Councilmen Malcolm expressed his concern over the ability to encourage developers to utilize natural
channels if concrete was cheaper. He felt developers should pay the maintenance costs end that he did
not went a policy encouraging concrete channels.
Councilman Nader stated that if a developer did not realize a cost savings for natural drainage, all would
be cement. He noted the staff recommendation that required the developer to maintain for first five years
and then revert to the maintenance disttict.
Mr. Lippelt stated the policy of requiring the developer to maintain for first five years would allow the
district to build up a reserve.
MSUC (Malcolm/Nader) motion to continue to the first meeting in January.
Councilman Malcolm questioned whether anyone could give him the mount of the average yearly
maintenance fee, costs to owners, etc. He stated that he needed to have more time and information and
further stated that maybe the developer should be required to maintain in perpetuity. This could be a
condition placed on the maps.
Councilwoman McCandliss stated it was important to bring forward that developers pay their portion and
not just the landowner. She also expressed her desire to see more natural channels.
Item 19. RFJ~RT ON PROPOSF. I) ORDINANCE AMENDMF_24T FOR DEVELOPMF. NT PROJECTS
AFFEt;iP.D BY THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IN THE CENTRAL CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY
Councilman Moore stated the staff report lacked information on how many units were involved and the
impact on the neighborhoods. He stated he was basically opposed but was willing to vote to deny.
MSC CNader/Moore) motion to continue with staff report back to Council to include number of units and
location. (Malcolm abstained)
Councilwoman McCandliss stated she did not want the Planning Commission to believe the City Council
was supporting or moving forward with a project that was out of conformance with the General Plan as
adopted.
MIN'Lr~S 22 December 5, 1989
Mr. Leiter stated that all projects before staff would go before the Design Review Committee not the
Planning Commission. He stated that the report included only the gross number of projects and that staff
could provide the individual units.
25. ~;ftY MANAGERS REPORT(S}
25a. Scheduling of Meetings
26. MAYORS REPORT(S}
26a. Appointment of Housing Advisory Committee members. MSUC (McCandliss/Moore) motion ,
to ratify appointments of Mary Francis Click, Kevin O'Neffi, Alan Campbell, Dan Dennlson, Carolyn
Wffii~m~ and Steve Epstein and Diane Flint as Ex-Ofiicio mereben to the Mobilhome Re. location Park Task
Force and Thomas Loughran, Joe Casffias, Martha Flannery, John O'Neffi and Mitch Thompson as Ex-
Ofiido mereben to the Housing Advisory Cornmltroe.
26b. Mayor Cox stated that it had been the desire of the Council in the past to have more
regular evaluations and set January 6, 1990, at 7:30 a.m. for the City Manager's mid-year evaluation and
goal setting. Clerk's Office is to notice meeting.
26c. Mayor Cox stated that he had received communications the day before from the Public
Utilities Commission requesting information and that the time line was exU'emely short with information
needed by 12/13/89.
MSUC (CoX/Nader) to refer letter to staff for response.
27. COUNCIL COMMENYS
Councilman Malcolm:
27a. Stated that he was not certain that the staff had been correct in their analysis of the North
Island Park & Ride lot on L Street and I-5. He felt that letters should be sent to the homeowners in the
area requesting their input.
MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to rder to staff for a report and item docketed on whether this should
continue as a Park & Ride or ff the property should be sold.
2TD. Stated that he was not certain that low/moderate income funds were being utilized to their
full capacity. He then referred to a program that was currently being conducted by the City of Santee.
MSUC (Malcolm/Nader) to rder this item to staff, Redevdopment Agency and Housing Advisory
COmmi-~SiOn for review.
27c. Stated that he had testified before the Board of Supervisors regarding the extension of the
lease to Appropriate Technologies II. It was the decision of the Board to grant a one year extension. He
requested that the Mayor send a letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting the County to work with
the City of Chula Vista toward milestones regarding the location search for a new site.
MINUTES 23 December S, 1989
Councilman Nader questioned whether this letter would preclude the City of Chula Vista from
filing a lawsuit within the thirty day requirement.
Councilwoman McCandliss stated that Councilman Nader should discuss this item with the City
Attorney regarding grounds for suit. She also noted that the position of the City was on record with the
County regarding the extension of the lease.
Councilman Moore stated it would be difficult to relocate to another area due to the same
concerns as expressed by the Council.
Councilman Malcolm stated the site should be where the waste is generated, not by single family
residences.
Councilman Moore stated a time line should be worked out.
Councilman Nader requested this item be placed on the next Council Agenda as a Closed Session
item to Council to discuss possible litigation.
Councilwoman McCandliss:
27d. Requested a landscaping update to be included in the packet.
27e. Expressed her concerns over the safety of bike paths being included on the roadway on
six lane streets. She questioned the possibility of staff developing a policy which would requite bike paths
on six lane medals to be off street and dedicated bike paths.
Councilman Moore:
27f. Expressed his concerns over the recent closure of mobile home parks and questioned
whether staff had received applications prior to closure from the parks as required.
Mayor Cox stated staff was not present to address this issue.
MSUC (Moore/Cox) to direct staff to review Ordinance ~ it applies to mobile home parks, to involve
the Mobile Home Park Issues ComrnliIee and report back to Council with the pro's and con's.
Mrs. Mary Francis stated that she had been on the Mobile Home Park Issues Committee for ten
years and had just resigned in January. She informed the Council the Ordinance had been established
in 1982 and that the only change had been to add trailer and trailer parks. She stated she was astounded
by the closing of the parks and felt they would have been covered by Step #1 of the Ordinance which
required an application to be filed. She also felt that Items #1-9 were very explicit.
Councilman Malcolm questioned whether the City Attorney agreed.
Mr. Tom Hatton, City Attorney, stated this was the fn-st he had heard of the problem and stated
that there could possibly be a loophole. He noted that many owners empty the park before applying for
application.
MINUTES 24 December 5, 1989
Mrs. Francis stated that mobile home owners were not being paid the value of their mobile homes.
Councilman Malcolm stated that if it was possible for the City to take action, it should be done
immediately.
Mr. Allen Campbell, Housing Advisory Committee, stated they had reviewed the Ordinance and
noted that many other cities require much more but that after review they felt the intent was clear and
felt there was no problem. He stated they had requested a staff report which would include proposed
closings and whether notice or application was given. He stated he will call for a new vote at their next
meeting.
Councilman Nader stated he would like to make a sub-motion to refer to staff and if a loophole
was found or if the mobile home parks are getting around the Ordinance legally that the staff come back
to Council with an urgency ordinance at the next meeting.
Councilman Moore stated he felt there should be two separate motions.
Councilman Nader stated he would withdraw his sub-motion.
Councilman Moore stated he felt there was no doubt of the requirement to File an application with
the Community Development Director.
MSUC C/Slader/McCandliss) follow up motion to have staff research the Ordinance and if no loophole is
found, the City Attorney will take appropriate action,
Councilman Moore stated he would like to incorporate into the Ordinance the ability to have
Council appeal the f'mal approval from the Community Development Director.
Councilman Nader asked when the report from the Task Force would be ready for Council review.
Mr. Campbell stated that with the occurrences over the last two to three weeks, he did not expect
the report to be ready before Spring.
Councilman Nader questioned an interim zoning measure.
Mr. Campbell stated he could not speak for the Committee but that he did not feel it was a high
priority item. It was his understanding that the Malcolm/St. Vincent De Paul site location was highest
priority.
Councilman Nader requested Mobile Home Zoning and Potential Moratorium of Mobile Home
Conversions listed under his comments on the next Council Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:50 p.m. m discuss: Potential Litigation Haro vs. Chula
Vista; Roberto versus Chula Vista, Henrikso versus Chula Vista; Appropriate Technologies II
personnel matters.
MINUTES 25 December 5, 1989
ADJOURNMENT AT 10:01 p.m. to the RDA meeting of Thursday, December 7, 1989 at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. A~LET, CMC, City Clerk
by: Vieki Soderquist, Deputy C~erk