Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1986/09/18 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, September 18, 1 986 Council Conference Room 4:07 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Cox; Councilmembers Campbell, McCandliss, Malcolm, Moore Absent: None Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Asmus, Deputy City Manager Morris, City Attorney Harron, Community Development Director Desrochers, Senior Community Development Specialist Putnam, Senior Community Development Specialist Buchan, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Community Development Specialist Shanahan, Director of Planning Krempl, City Traffic Engineer Glass 1. RESOLUTION 12733 CERTIFYING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-86-1) Senior Community Development Specialist Putnam stated that all of the comments that were received on the Supplemental Draft EIR LCP Amendments were presented at the Planning Commission hearing on August 27, 1986. The Planning Commission considered the Supplemental EIR on the LCP Amendments on September 17, 1986 and recommended that the City Council certify the Supplemental EIR-86-1. The majority of the comments received related to the proposed drainage swale and the water quality impacts of discharging urban runoff into wetland areas. Ms. Putnam further stated the modified resolution that was handed out immediately before the meeting reflects the fact that the City Council is also adopting the attached CEQA finding. The CEQA findings are a restatement of the mitigation measures and conclusions presented in the Supplemental Final EIR. Mayor Cox proposed that the Council move on to Item No. 2 from the agenda and trail Item No. 1 for action after the Public Hearing. There was no objection. 2. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN Community Development Director Desrochers announced that Mr. Krempl of the Planning Department was present to give the Planning Department standpoint of the LCP Amendments. Also, Pamela Buchan of Community Development was present to answer questions, and Mr. Glass of the Engineering Department was present. City Council Meeting -2- September 18, 1986 Mr. Desrochers used the overhead projector to present the proposed amendments. With regard to the freeway ramp that would require a loop road, Councilwoman McCandliss questioned why the loop is seen as being a better/ safer way of handling the traffic. Mr. Desrochers responded the loop would avoid a right hand turn going onto the freeway and this will allow a smoother flow of vehicles traveling west on E Street to go south. Vehicles exiting the freeway onto E Street will have greater stacking along the bridge into the City by moving the off-ramp to the west. Councilman Campbell asked about the possibility of vacating the railroad tracks. Community Development Director Desrochers explained one alternative being discussed is the abandonment of the railroad track from National City at the 24th Street terminal through the Bayfront project area. This track would be extremely expensive to repair if MTDB and the railroad ever decided to use that track. Mayor Cox asked if MTDB and their freight operator tentatively agreed to vacation of the rail line. Mr. Desrochers stated the idea has been discussed with the staff of the rail system. Councilman Malcolm asked what the position of the City is with regard to vacation of tile tracks. Mr. Desrochers stated the position of the City is to see the railroad abandoned from 24th Street to a point midway between F & E Street in the long term and accommodation of the right-of-way for the present, k short-term. Councilman l~alcolm stated he was against any position ta en for the vacation of the railroad tracks. He feels it is damaging to the City's position to have it vacated until the Bayfront is settled. Councilman Campbell also stated his concern that the vacation of the railroad tracks is under discussion with other parties. Mayor Cox stated the City Council has initiated discussion by action of this body and staff was directed to discuss alternatives. Mr. Desrochers stated that abandonment has not been asked for. According to direction received, staff has discussed the possibilities of future alignment. Planning Director Krempl presented the standpoint of the Planning Commission with regard to the proposed amendments. He stated the Planning Commission looked at the amendments in terms of the following issues: 1) Land use mix and arrangement of uses; 2) intensity of development; 3) consistency of the plan with the adopted policies of the City and the adjacent land use conformity; 4) land form and visual aspect of the plan; and 5) development regulations. Mr. Krempl stated that in all cases the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the proposed amendments versus the adopted plan is either the same or improved. The Planning Commission recommended adoption by unanimous vote; however, they did have questions. One of the concerns was the lack of a requirement for the widening of the E Street bridge in terms of traffic circulation and how the plan will work. Councilman Malcolm stated his concern that the City is supplying the Coastal Commission with an exact design at this time and this submittal requires the vacation of the railroad. The Council has not voted to move forward with the City Council Meeting -3- September 18, 1986 vacation of the railroad; therefore, why is this plan being submitted to the Coastal Commission? Community Development Director Desrochers suggested the possibility of deleting the figure referring to the vacation of the railroad from the submission. Councilman Malcolm further questioned the movement of Marina Parkway westward. He is against this modification because it takes away the possibility of moving the hotel site to that location. Councilman Malcolm asked what the benefit to the City would be in moving the road. Mayor Cox stated it would open up public viewing and public access to the bay. Councilman Campbell asked what the estimated cost is to realign the roadway. Mr. Desrochers responded the cost will be the same. Mayor Cox opened the meeting to public testimony. There being none, the public hearing was closed at 5:05. Mayor Cox suggested returning to Item No. 1 from the Agenda. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved. (4-1; Councilman Malcolm opposedJ Councilman Malcolm stated he would vote no on all of the resolutions being offered with regard to the LCP amendments. He does not see any benefit to the public, but does see a major flaw in eliminating a potential hotel site. Mayor Cox stated we have not shut the door considering subsequent' amendments. The amendments presented provide a better layout of the road system and the traffic circulation system. There will be greater visibility to the public along Marina Parkway. There will not be any residential development immediately adjacent to wetlands. The amendments provide a better alignment of the park. Councilman Campbell asked how time sensitive this issue is. Mayor Cox responded in order for this to be considered by the Coastal Commission-in November action needs to take place today. Community Development Director Desrochers stated the plan is to submit this to the Coastal Commission on Monday, September 22; therefore, the Coastal Commission has stated this would be able to be on their November docket. Mr. Chuck LeMenager of the Chul a Vista Investment Company stated this item is extremely time sensitive. Because of environmental constraints put upon the available time for building, action on this item must take place at this time or development will not be able to occur in 1987. 2a. RESOLUTION 12734 AMENDING THE CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO INCLUDE THE GRAPHIC AND TEXTUAL CHANGES IN ATTACHMENTS A-C AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN ATTACHMENT D, AND FORWARDING SAID AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to delete the chart that references the specific design for the off-ramp at E Street and 1-5. City Council Meeting -4- September 18, 1986 RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved. (4-1; Councilman Malcolm opposed.) 2b. 'ORDINANCE 2168 AMENDING SECTIONS 19.85.01, 19.86.04, 19.86.07, 19.87.04 19.87.08, 19.88.04, 19.88.05, 19.88.U6, 19.88.59, 19.89.06, 1~.89.09, 19.90.01, 19.90.03, 19.92.02, 19.92.04, AND 19.92.05 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved. (4-1; Councilman Malcolm opposed.) RECESSED at 5:30 p.m: RECONVENED at 6:35 p.m. 3. RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BAYFRONT CONSERVANCY TRUST Mayor Cox referred to the 5th revised Memorandum of Understanding dated September 18 that was before the Council. Mayor Cox requested the Council approve this document in concept. The California Department of Fish & Game is having it reviewed by their staff and hope to have it approved in concept by tomorrow afternoon. This item has been docketed for consideration by the Bayfront Conservancy Trust and assuming this is acceptable to all parties, it may be possible for the Bayfront Conservancy Trust to take action at their September 23 meeting. The document would then come back for final approval by the City Council. The reason for this is the Bayfront Conservancy Trust meets only once a month. There is some immediacy to try and get the question of who will ultimately receive title to the mitigation lands resolved and that is provided by this agreement. Mayor Cox reviewed the most recent changes to the Memorandum of Understanding. He stated the essence of this agreement is basically to guarantee that the Department of Fish and Game will receive title to this property. The City of Chula Vista through the Bayfront Conservancy Trust will provide funding for a biologist position which will meet the criteria of the California Department of Fish and Game. MSUC (Cox/Campbell) to approve the Memorandum of Understanding in concept. The resolution was not adopted. ~. RESOLUTION 12735 APPROPRIATING $28,600 FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY AT PARK PLAZA AT THE VILLAGE, THE ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE AND PUBLIC PARKING LOTS DOWNTOWN On September 4, 1986 the City Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency directed staff to prepare a resolution for the appropriation of funds to pay for additional security at Park Plaza at the Village, the adjacent parking structure and other public parking lots within the downtown area. This item was continued from the September 16, 1986 City Council meeting. City Council Meeting -5- September 18, 1986 Community Development Director Desrochers stated the owner of the Shopping Center pays the City for the use of the parking structure and the Redevelopmerit Agency pays the debt service on the parking structure. Mr. Desrochers further stated the owner of the Shopping Center is not paying any money to the Agency at this time. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLISS, the reading of the text was waved by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. 5. OP~L COMMUNICATIONS - None. 6. REPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER - None. 7. MAYOR'S REPORT - None. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Malcolm stated he met with bond counsel, Newman and Associates, regarding potential investment of City fuhds. He wanted to know if the Council would be interested in pursuing the idea further. Councilwoman McCandliss and Councilman Campbell stated they would like to receive further information to consider. Assistant City Manager Asmus suggested the City Attorney and Director of Finance should be involved with the pursuit of this idea. ADJOURNMENT at 6:59 p.m. to the regular meeting of Tuesday, September 23, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC CITY CLERK ~ By: San~ra hase Recording Secretary WPC 2511H