Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1998/05/05 MIh"UTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TME CITY COUNCIL OF TME CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, May 5, 1998 Council Chambers 4:16 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER ROLL CAi~L: PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Horton. Councilmembers: None City Manager, David D. Rowlands; City Attorney, John M. Kaheny; City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet; and Deputy City Clerk, Charline V. Long. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 21, 1998. MSUC (Rindone/Padilla) to approve the minutes of April 21, 1998. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: A. Proclaiming the week of May 3 through May 9, 1998 as "Youth Week." The proclamation was presented by Mayor Horton to Hoppy Hopkins, Exalted Ruler of the Chula Vista Elks Lodge #2011 and Garry Hummel, Youth Activities Chairman. B. Proclaiming the week of May 3 through May 9, 1998 as "Municipal Clerks Week." The proclamation was presented by Mayor Horton to the staff of the City Clerk's Office. C. Proclaiming Thursday, May 7, 1998 as "Work at Home Day." The proclamation was presented by Mayor Horton to Scott Alevy of Pacific Bell. D. Proclamation "Extending a Warm Welcome to san Diego Flash on the Commencement of their 1998 Soccer Season." The proclamation was presented by Mayor Horton to Yan Skwara, President and General Manager. E. Report on Legislative Activities. Senator Wadie Deddeh presented a report on legislative activities in Sacramento during the first quarter of 1998. He pointed out that the biggest concern was the proposed abolishment or phase-out of the Vehicle In-Lieu Fee. It would be a potential $6.5 million loss in annual revenues to the City. Assemblymember McClintock was intent on seeking the abolishment of these fees if not through AB 1776 or ACA 45, he would seek to place the item on the ballot in the year 2000. This is the most important piece of legislation facing the legislature this session. This legislation impacts 500 cities and 58 counties. He suggested a resolution from the Council to go to members of the Committee on Revenue and Taxation in the Senate and the Assembly. It would not be a waste of time if the Mayor or Vice Mayor go to Sacramento to testify in opposition to explain why this Bill should be defeated. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 5C and 14) BALANCE OF TME CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR MORTON, headings read, texts waived, passed and approved unanimously 5-0. Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 2 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on 4/28/98, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. The letter was received and filed 5-0. B. Letters of resignation from the Town Center Project Area Committee - Jack Blakely and Daniel L. Mason. The resignations were accepted with regret and the City Clerk was directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library. C. Letter from the Rados Brothers requesting consideration of a temporary four year use as a financing vehicle to redevelop the site located at 798 Lagoon Drive. Because of the importance of this area of the mid-Bayfront, staff does not support an LCP Amendment. Therefore, the request was not approved.??? Reza Safshekan, 470 East "H" Street, No. 412, Chula Vista, 91910, applicant, San Diego Public Auction. He stated they are trying to get the right to use the Rados property site of the SW corner of Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive as an auto auction site. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney, stated the applicant has filed an application with the City for a Local Coastal Plan amendment, so it would not be appropriate to consider that issue tonight. It is going to be coming forward to the City Council at a later date. The motion to receive and file the letter that has been submitted by the applicant would be a more appropriate motion at this time. MSUC (Moot/Padilla) to receive and file the letter. 6. ORDINANCE 2732 AMENDING CHAPTERS 19.04, DEFINITIONS, AND 19.48, P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (second readinq and adoption) - The application, submitted by the EastLake Company and co-sponsored by the City, proposes to amend Municipal Code Chapters 19.04, Definitions and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone. The proposed amendments consist Of expanding the definition of Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) to allow open ball fields to the list of permitted uses identified in the Definitions Section; Consolidate CPF requirements and criteria, presently located in different Chapters, into a single Section of the above mentioned P-C, Planned Community Zone; Convert the list of permitted uses into Conditional Use Permit uses; and establish criteria to limit the percentage of the required CPF acreage that may be used for open recreational ball fields within a planned community. Ordinance was placed on second reading and was adopted 5-0. (Director of Planning) 7. RESOLUTION 18981 AWARDING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF A REPLACEMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY COMMAND VEHICLE TO JOHNSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY THROUGH COOPERATIVE BID NUMBER MP0285 WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY - The City's fiscal year 1997/98 Equipment Replacement Budget adopted in June of 1997, provides for the replacement of the Fire Department Emergency Command Vehicle. The Municipal Code Section 2.56.270 and Resolution Number 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City, therefore, has the right to participate in a current Orange County Fire Authority bid from Johnson Equipment Company. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Fire Chief, Director of Finance and Director of Public Works) 8. RESOLUTION 18982 ENDORSING THE ORDINANCE APPROVED BY THE REGIONAL LIBRARY AUTHORITY FOR A ONE QUARTER OF A CENT SALES TAX TO BENEFIT PUBLIC LIBRARIES COUNTYWIDE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS - On 10/7/97, Council endorsed the formation of a Regional Library Authority for the purpose of placing a quarter of a cent sales tax measure on the ballot. The Authority was established and has now drafted such an ordinance. The Authority has also scheduled a vote Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 3 of the people on the Ordinance for March 1999. The Authority is now asking each city in San Diego County to endorse the Ordinance as drafted. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Library Director) 9. RESOLUTION 18983 GRANTING THE 1997 RICHARD WELSH MEMORIAL AWARD TO ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH - The Beautification Awards Committee has nominated St. John's Episcopal Church, located at 760 First Avenue, for this year's Richard Welsh Memorial Award for its excellence in architectural design. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Director of Planning) 10. RESOLUTION 18984 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER PE-416 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE CROSSING AND OTHER FACILITIES WITHIN DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 3066 NORTH SECOND AVENUE BY SWEETWATER AUTHORITY Sweetwater Authority is proposing to build a demineralization plant on a parcel along North Second Avenue just north of State Route 54. The property is divided by the Paradise Creek Channel, which the City maintains. In order to connect the property for vehicles and personnel, the Authority has requested the City to grant an encroachment permit to allow a bridge to be built across the channel. According to Section 12.28 of the Municipal Code, this request must be approved by Council. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Director of Public Works) 11. RESOLUTION 18985 DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS IN ASSESSMENTS LEVIED WITHIN CERTAIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON AND ORDERING THE INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURES AS TO THOSE ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED TO BE INCREASED - On 8/6/96, Council approved the changes and modifications in proceedings and assessments in Assessment District Number 94-1 and approving the Fourth Amendment to the Acquisition/Financing Agreement; and ordering changes and modifications in proceedings and assessments in Assessment District Number 91-1. Due to changes in density in two subdivisions of Eastlake Greens, Units 10 and 16, The Eastlake Company has requested that due to higher assessments in one subdivision, due to the density reduction, a change and modification in the assessment districts be ordered. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Director of Public Works) 12. RESOLUTION 18986 APPROVING THE CITY SUBDIVISION MANUAL AND ADOPTING IT FOR USE IN PREPARATION OF MAPS AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS IN THE CITY - The City has a subdivision manual that was prepared in the 1980's. It is used by engineers of private developers and by City staff as a guide for the preparation and checking of maps and construction plans. There have been many changes in State law and procedures since the current manual was adopted. The proposed manual has been updated to reflect those changes and revised where necessary to enhance understanding and use of the desired criteria. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Director of Public Works) 13. RESOLUTION 18987 ACCEPTING BIDS ~3qD AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "THE NORMAN PARK RECREATION FACILITY - PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE CITY (PR194)" - Funding for this project was budgeted during the fiscal year 1997/98 Capital Improvement Program budget process. The project was budgeted to renovate the deteriorating shuffleboard court area to meet American with Disability Act requirements, health and safety standards, and to complement the new senior center built in 1991. The renovation includes the reconstruction of the roof and the installation of windows. The resolution was approved. (Director of Public Works) 14. RESOLUTION 18988 APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH MCA CONCERTS, INC. (NOW UNIVERSAL CONCERTS, INC.), DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1996 AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOUND WALL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement with MCA Concerts which requires the City to pay $150,000 Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 4 to MCA to be used for construction of a sound mitigation wall, the Council is requested to approve an amendment to the Agreement modifying the payment schedule by extending the target development dates which trigger payments to the MCA. The extension is necessitated by unanticipated construction delays caused by an unusually wet winter. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Director of Community Development) 4/5th's vote required. Item pulled by Councilmember Rindone. Councilmember Rindone stated that he has received some concerns about the renaming of the amphitheater. He did meet with two representatives from MCA today in looking at trying to provide a resolution and to address those issues. Its one of those things that neither the staff nor the Council was aware of. The purpose of the referral tonight under 21A was to see if we could examine what impacts it may or may not have on the City. Tonight we have received on the dais a letter from Universal Music Group addressing this issue and a willingness to develop programs to promote responsibility in drinking amongst the youth of our community which is an issue this Council has been concerned with before. He made a referral to staff to work with MCA Concerts and to insure that we are addressing the co~unity's concerns. As soon as that has been accomplished, staff is to come back with an agendized item. As far as Item 14, he had no problems with it. RESOLUTION 18988 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, heading read, text waived. · Chris Bitterlin, 2245 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, representing Universal Concerts, Inc. gave the Council a brief update; they plan to open July 21 with the first show being Hall and Oats in Chicago. · John Vansabrock, Vice President of Operations of Universal Concerts, stated there was no intention of going under the radar in trying to name an amphitheater that would have an adverse impact to the community. In the concert business 99% of the venues have a primary and secondary sponsor; one of them is a soft drink and the other a malt beverage. This is just a natural part of their business. When they set out to find a corporate partner, it is not just getting a name, but they are looking for a partner. · Allison Banks, Diverse Marketing Manager, from the Coors Brewing Company, stated they were serious in trying to discourage under-aged drinking. They have five support programs nationally and briefly went over those programs. Councilmember Rindone stated from the letters we have received from our constituents, he felt a better understanding of what the partnership is and the endorsement of the theater and what benefits will be coming to the community as a result of that is the purpose of the staff referral. Hopefully, staff can come back in a timely manner and in such a way that we will be able to communicate to anyone who so inquires as to specifically when the community projects will begin, what they will be, what the target groups are, and what the goals of those specific community benefits are. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Approved 4-0-1 (Padilla absent). 15. REPORT APPLICATION OF THE CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM FOR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 - The Chula Vista Literacy Team has been a partner for the past eight years with the Chula Vista Elementary School District's Even Start Program. The Library's Literacy Team is now the lead applicant and fiscal agent in the current round of Even Start applications. The program provides in-home and center-based educational services to approximately 100 Chula Vista families, both parents and their young children. If awarded, $300,000 will be received to implement this program. The report was accepted and the application was ratified 5-0. (Library Director) * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 5 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Rosemary Craig representing Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center at 751 Medical Centre Court, 91911, stated that Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center and Chula Vista Elementary School District would like to work together for a Pediatric Mobile Van. She requested Council's general support of the project as well as consideration of Block Grant Funding for this project and assistance in locating other funding sources. The services will be provided to all MediCal and/or underfunded and unfunded children and their families at no cost. Mayor Horton stated that Council is very supportive of the concept, however, staff is recommending no funding this year because we need more information, so we will be working very closely with Sharp to try to develop a business plan for the project. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None submitted. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 16. RESOLUTION 18989 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO TRANSMIT COMMENTS TO THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT, SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF AN ACQUISITION BOUNDARY WITH MODIFICATIONS - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has proposed a boundary for a National Wildlife Refuge for South San Diego Bay. The establishment of the boundary is the first step in establishing 4,750 acres (land/water area) Refuge for the area. Once the boundary is set, the Service can begin to acquire private lands or negotiate management agreements for public lands within the Refuge boundary. After acquisition of lands and completion of agreements, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will develop a detailed management plan for preservation and enhancement of resources within the Refuge. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Director of Community Development) David D. Rowlands, City Manager, stated that in the last several hours, we have been in communication with Dean Rundle. Mr. Rundle indicated that based upon the input that was received from Supervisor Greg Cox that there appears to be enough "deal points" for a win/win/win for all agencies, environmentalists, and interested parties in the South Bay. Mr. Rundle had indicated that the deadline will not be extended past May llth. Therefore, Council must take action on this item tonight. He encouraged Council to expand that action to indicate our support to work through Mr. Cox and other Mayors in the South Bay to have a more global resolution of this issue. Staff will give their report, but as an introduction, there is a commitment from all players to expand this to a resolution that will take care of the interest of all the agencies in the area. A key part will be a financial commitment from the Port District to provide long- term funding for this Plan. Joe Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager, stated the Refuge proposal is the first stage in establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge for South San Diego Bay. The current action of the Fish and Wildlife Service is the setting of boundaries of acquisition of properties. The Service has conducted an Environmental Assessment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is that document that staff is asking for comments on this evening. The process for establishment of the Refuge is first to establish the boundaries for acquisition. Once those boundaries are set, the Fish and Wildlife Service can then acquire properties or where properties are already held by public entities, can negotiate agreements for management within that boundary area. Only upon acquisition or completion of those agreements do the properties become part of Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 6 the National Wildlife Refuge. Any areas that are within the boundaries that are not ultimately acquired or set into agreements would not become part of the Refuge. Cities have expressed concern over this process and the fact that the Management Plans which are the heart and soul of the National Wildlife Refuge are not available for view. The Service's process is such that it doesn't allow them to prepare those Management Plans or expend federal money on Plans where they don't have the land tied up and committed. Staff has had recent discussions with Fish and Wildlife Service, and they have indicated that they will work with the City of Chula Vista; they are interested in gaining our support and working for consensus on this project. Staff has received approximately 280 comments from the public in support of the Refuge. The comment period does close on May llth, and it is important that we register our comments with the Fish and Wildlife Service by that date in order to reserve our rights under the National Environmental Policy Act. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Councilmember Moot stated that Fish and Wildlife will not prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and indicate what recreational or public uses will be allowed at the conceptual management stage. Unlike other federal lands, this area will be managed primarily for the benefit of fish and wildlife habitats and secondarily for other uses. The refuge will be closed to uses other than conservation management including public use unless specifically and formally opened. He felt this was an illogical way in going about the process. Chris Salomone, Community Development Director, stated that Fish and Wildlife has said that under federal law, they feel it is not the most prudent use of public funds to expend a lot of money upfront on a Management Plan when they don't know if they will have the ability to establish a Refuge, so they feel it is a use of public funds issue. They felt that they had to at least get the establishment Of a boundary of a potential Refuge in place, and then they would expend the necessary time and energy to do the Management Plan. Those addressing the City Council in support of the Refuge are: · Laura Hunter, 1717 Kettner, Suite 100, San Diego, 92101, representing the Environmental Health Coalition. She responded to Mr. Moot's concern by stating that the action establishes an acquisition boundary. It allows the discussions to begin. She requested that Council address the new information presented this evening in a separate motion; it is important to be on record with the current staff recommendation. The compromise position that the economic-environmental community supports is one that everyone can live with. It is good for the City; its good for the Bay. She cautioned Council to beware of the eleventh hour maneuvering by the Port District. There have been three meetings where all of these proposals could have been put on the table; they never were. She requested Council not to support anything that is not in writing and that has not been through the public process period. She requested Council's support of Alternative A. · Kristen Burnell, 4140 Camino Ticino, San Diego, 92122, an Intern with the Environmental Health Coalition. She has been out in the City talking with the residents informing them about the proposed refuge. She found an overwhelming support for the refuge. She requested support of the refuge. · Nohelia Ramos, 912 East 16th Street, National City, 91950, representing the P.U.R.E Club, an environmental club, and the Sweetwater High School. She stated her students are very supportive of the refuge. · Jim Peugh, 2776 Nipoma Street, San Diego, 92106, representing the San Diego Audubon Society. He has been watching the Sweetwater Marsh, and he has seen a very steady improvement. It doesn't happen automatically; you can't improve these things instantly. Sometimes you have to wait years for the circumstances to be right. He urged support of Alternative B. · Paul Blackburn, 3820 Ray Street, San Diego, 92104, representing the Sierra Club. This is one of the few areas remaining where we can preserve wildlife. It may be true that the Fish and Wildlife Service hasn't done as much as it could Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 7 have in the past, but he did not feel the Port District would do much better; they have shown even less of a desire to do anything in the past. We need to look forward to the future and try to get some federal money to do this. We need to move ahead with this now. · Supervisor Greg Cox in his presentation to Council stated that the County of San Diego had no jurisdiction in this issue. He had been asked by Port Commissioner Malcolm if he would Chair a forum that would provide an opportunity for elected officials, property owners, Port tenants, and members of the environmental community to come together to have a dialogue and involve some presentations from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so we could have a clear understanding of what a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge in South San Diego Bay would mean. He felt since their meetings, there has been a greater understanding and a breaking down of some of the myths and some of the concerns. There have also been questions raised such as where are the boundaries, what sort of management responsibilities are going to be there, and what sort of Opportunity will there be for meaningful local input in regards to what ultimately comes about as far as the Management Plan. Council needs to make a decision tonight as to what your comments are going to be to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The final decision On what will be the acquisition boundaries will be made by the Regional Director of Fish and Wildlife Service. Supervisor Cox supported an amended Alternative C with the inclusion of Parcel 3; deletion of Parcel 4, Pond 30 and the magnesium pond for the boundary line. The only way Council can regulate and control some of the properties is through cooperative agreements with the Port, State of California, and with the Navy. In the spirit of cooperation, in trying to come up with a plan that works, he suggested a possibility of creating either an expanded Bayfront Conservancy Trust or a new vehicle where you can be assured there is representation from the four (five if San Diego is interested) cities that have properties in the area, the Port Tenants Association, the Port District, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and from environmental organizations that have been actively involved, and get a binding commitment from the Port District to put money in to fund a management program. This can be done by sitting down and have discussions with the Port District and each of the 4-5 cities, and talk about the importance of having a locally controlled Management Authority that would contract with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the environmental resources. Normally you would have a management agreement before you would create something. By having a combination of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a Management Authority that is locally providing input and a binding commitment of revenues, we have the best of all worlds and can set up the type of collaborative effort that has been effectively done at the Nature Center with the Bayfront Conservancy Trust and use the Nature Center as the focal point and headquarters for a Refuge Management Program for the mid-bay area. He felt the Port District could be convinced that they should enter into a contract where they would commit funding for five years for this Management Authority and there would be an automatic renewal every year so if there ever was an intention of the Port District to back away from this, the Council would have in essence five years advance notice. There are other things that can be done in working in a collaborative relationship to make a much better final product than just draw a line around a lot of property. We need to have integrated trails, integrated education programs, work with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in trying to ensure that we broaden the educational value that we have in these resources and also protect them for future generations. · Rod Davis, Executive Director, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910, representing the Chamber of Commerce. They think protecting the Bayfront and the economic development of the Bayfront is the most important thing that Council will do. They liked what has been referred to as the Chula Vista compromise. They have two concerns: (1) Make sure it is a win for the Bay, win for the communities around the Bay, and a win for the people who live here. Everyone gets to come to the table with their proposal and everybody gets a chance to speak. (2) They are concerned about funding. We need to know what it is going to cost and who is going to pay for it. We can make a contingent commitment with the Fish and Wildlife that says we will agree to these boundaries, support and work with you, but we want to see your Management Plan and funding document Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 8 before we sign any papers. He requested that Council protect the Bayfront, get it developed, but don't make us pay for it. · Fred Lorenzen, 1810 Avenida del Mundo, Coronado, 92118, Chair of the Land Use Committee and member of the Conservation Committee of the San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club. Both committees have highly endorsed the boundaries in Alternative B. · Cindy Burrascano, 771 Lori Lane, Chula Vista, 91910. Council support Alternative A. This is a planning boundary; anyone who was not willing to participate. She requested that it does not commit · William E. Claycomb, 409 Palm Avenue, Imperial Beach, 91932, representing Save Our Bay, Inc. He requested Council support the National Wildlife Refuge. He felt it should be the biggest area possible. · William C. Tuchscher, 3130 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, 91910, representing Tuchscher Development Enterprises. He stated when he and Laura Hunter got involved in discussions with habitat and conservation groups, they discovered and pursued four areas on behalf of Chula Vista in trying to act as a facilitator for the Chula Vista compromise. The four areas are: (1) Navigational Channels: we have come to terms and agreement on the Chula Vista compromise that the maintenance, continued use, and any dredging necessary, that the navigational channels will remain in tact. (2) Recreational Activities: we have come to terms with the habitat groups that the existing recreational activities will remain in tact and any existing conditions would be acceptable. There is acceptance that maintaining the ability to use the Bay as a recreational asset will remain in tact. (3) Boundaries: the boundary on the shoreline was detrimental to the economic interest, the development of the Bayfront, and of utmost concern. (4) Management: they are suggesting that a management committee be activated in the event any restrictions be proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the U.S. Coast Guard associated with the Bay regarding its use of navigational channels or recreational activities. chula Vista's Bayfront represents over $1 billion worth of development. We need to be cautious about how we handle that, and we need to make sure that Fish and Wildlife Refuge does not preclude that. What we have is a very strong compromise that is a win/win for environment and for economics. He has discovered that habitat groups and the Fish and Wildlife Agencies want predictability associated with refuges. From a development and economic interest standpoint, it is dollars. He believed with the boundary compromise and the other components they have solved not only the recreational and navigational components, but more importantly they have preserved the economic viability of development on Chula Vista Bayfront. · Mary Ann Saponara, 731Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910, Vice Principal of the San Ysidro Middle School, representing students from the school. She stated her students were concerned that only 10% of the wetlands still remain. They wanted the Council to preserve the Bay for them and their children. Callie Mack, 8529 Jackie Drive, a volunteer with the Fish and Wildlife Service, expressed that the Fish and Wildlife Service was the right agency to manage the South Bay proposed refuge. She also stated that she supported Alternative B. · Patricia W. McCoy, 132 Citrus Avenue, Imperial Beach, 91932, member of the Tijuana River National Estuary and Research Reserve Management Authority and President of the Southwest Westland Interpretive Association. She expressed that they have seen an improvement in the terrain since Fish and Wildlife has taken Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 9 over. She had no problem with Alternative B because all of the ideas that have come up should be done within the basis of the acquisition boundary. She urged Council to put in the acquisition boundary and give everyone time to come up with cooperative agreement ideas. · Holly Parker, 581 Fifield Street, Chula Vista, 91910, she supported Alternative B. · Theresa Acerro, 705 1/2 Madison, Chula Vista, 91910, urged Council to support Alternative A. · Michael Klein, 4588 Wilson Avenue, San Diego, representing the Nature Festivals of San Diego County, stated we needed to see the potential of a National Wildlife Refuge in the South San Diego Bay could bring to us. There are many economic benefits that eco-tourism could bring to this region. · Beverly Dyer, 93 Trinidad Bend, Coronado Cays, encouraged support of the Wildlife Refuge. · Leticia Ayala, 725 Brookstone Road, No. 201, Chula Vista, 91913. For the last few months she has been doing canvassing work for the Environmental Health Coalition. People are for the Refuge. She encouraged support of staff's reco~endation. Karen Messer, 2399 Jefferson No. 18., Carlsbad, Conservation Chair of the Buena Vista Audubon Society. She urged support of Alternative B. Their membership supports Alternative A. In her opinion, Alternative B in its compromise position has been carefully crafted to address the concerns of recreation, the boundaries, access issues have been addressed, and the navigation channel has been addressed. · Richard Mason, 1365 Valencia Loop, Chula Vista, 91910, an instructor at Southwestern College. He was not representing the college but the activities he engages in with his students. They were supportive of a place for wildlife. They were concerned with the language in the Environmental Assessment. He applauded the Port and Supervisor Cox for bringing everyone together. He felt there was a great deal of linkage that took place. He was in support Of Supervisor Cox' suggestions. · John Willett, 97 Montebello Street, Chula Vista, 91910, representing the boating community. He spoke for the Chula Vista Yacht Club. They have been in existence since 1896 with unrestricted access to the Bay. He had a problem with the reference to recreational sailing. The line on the outboard side of the new channel was not discussed with the people involved in Chula Vista Youth Sailing program. There are forty-two activities around the Bay that would be impacted by the National Wildlife Refuge. Of those, there are five major boating clubs which consist of 1,013 members. We have six marinas. There are over 2,000 docks and 175 moorings. We have three launching ramps and ten educational programs that are going to be impacted by the proposal. All of the boating activities support the National Wildlife Refuge, but in a reduced ecological, economic, common position. He supported staff's comments but would like to see the adjustment of the bottom of the boundary. He emphasized that we need more dialogue. · Andrew Yuen, San Diego National Wildlife Refuges, Carlsbad. He felt the word boundary was the source of much of the confusion about what this Refuge proposal is about. There are two boundaries being talked about. The boundary we are talking about in the Environmental Assessment is an acquisition boundary. It identifies an area that the Service is interested in acquiring for a National Wildlife Refuge. What we are saying is, within this line the Fish and Wildlife service is interested in establishing a National Wildlife Refuge. That doesn't create the Refuge, and none of the landowners are obligated to enter into any agreement or sell their land to Fish and Wildlife Service. The other boundary is where the United States owns land that it administers as a National Wildlife Refuge. On lands that they own and manage as a National Wildlife Refuge, they Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 10 have a single use purpose and that is for the conservation of wildlife. Uses that are secondary to the primary purpose for that Refuge which is conservation of endangered or threatened species are what we call secondary uses. Recently Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. In that Act, it identifies six priority wildlife related recreational activities that the Service is to promote on National Wildlife Refuges. At this point, all we are talking about is an acquisition boundary. The reason they are not doing detailed management planning is that basically this is a line that says we are interested in a Refuge. In the case of the South San Diego Bay, we are going to have to go to the Port District, the State Lands Commission, or the U.S. Navy and say we now have an approved acquisition boundary and ask if they are interested in joining the Service in establishing a Wildlife Refuge. The Wildlife Refuge is established once we have an agreement with the landowner to bring the land into the National Wildlife Refuge System or we acquire that land. The Port, State Lands Commission, or Navy will turn to us and ask how do you expect to manage these lands that we own and are going to give to you as a secondary manager. At that point, we will have community meetings, prepare a draft Plan, prepare an Environmental Assessment, and meet with all the interested user groups. They do not have the unilateral authority to restrict boating in the San Diego Bay. When the management planning process comes up, one of the issues which will be discussed is impacts to recreational boating. We will do that in a forum that involves the jurisdictions, user groups, the communities, the Coast Guard as the federal regulatory body, and the land owning agencies. Councilmember Salas stated she felt comfortable in supporting the staff recommendation of Alternative B. She believed by supporting Alternative B, we really have done something unique in the City in that we have reached the ability to come into an agreement with the business needs, the need for economic development, the environmental concerns, and the need to preserve the precious resources that we have on the Bayfront. The key that is beneficial to the economic development of the area is that without knowing where our boundary is has actually inhibited investors from wanting to come and invest monies on our Bayfront to do an appropriate development that is sensitive to the environment. She did not think that sensitive economic development and preservation of the habitat of the Bayfront are not co-existent. Councilmember Rindone stated that he was impressed that both Laura Hunter and William Tuchscher could sit down and come up with a compromise that does deal with both environmental and economic concerns. He asked if the compromise that Ms. Hunter and Mr. Tuchscher worked out would be evaluated and would be supportive in looking at the recommendations of the City if we were to support what is referred to as Alternative B. Mr. Yuen responded that he believe that the Director, Michael Spear, is going to look at the Chula Vista compromise alternative very closely in evaluating what final decision he will make on an acquisition boundary for the South Bay Refuge. Similarly, he is going to be evaluating all the comments that have come in. Councilmember Padilla stated what he was impressed with is that divergent interests have been able to dialogue and to come together and talk about these issues recognizing that getting them on the table early is going to provide the kind of insight and stability that is going to be necessary for making anything happen when in reality you do have these areas that do need to be preserved. He was concerned given the work and dialogue that has taken place to date that we would have last minute alternative proposals that have not been on the table before and talking about the promise of funds at the last minute. He will be voting in support of staff's recommendation for that alternative and for the Chula Vista compromise. Mayor Herton stated she supports the amendment that is being proposed by the City of Chula Vista but felt there was a lot of merit behind Supervisor Cox' proposal that we need to consider also as an option because without the buy-in from the interested parties, we may not have a Refuge in the future. We may not have a mechanism to work together to provide protection for a very valuable resource. She felt it was prudent to go forward with the recommendation to support the Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 11 amended Alternative B, but with a caveat that we look at and support the proposal made by Supervisor Cox which might provide funding from the Port. If we have a contract with the Port District, we might be able to move forward, get the buy-in from the affected parties, have the funding in place, and be able to protect the environment. Councilmember Rindone stated that although some may feel strongly that Alternative C is the most appropriate, his concern is that if Alternative C is advanced, it will be ignored. If that occurs, then all is lost and the efforts by Ms. Hunter and Mr. Tuchscher have put forth in getting people together to protect the environment and economic base of the South Bay would be for naught. RESOLUTION 18989 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT with Exhibit Option A attached which is the staff recommendation and add that the dialogue begun by supervisor Cox of an actual Management Plan and specific uses be continued and go forth. Discussion followed regarding which draft letter to attach to the Resolution; there were two before the Council both with the date of April 30, 1998. It was decided that the following letter would be attached to the Resolution to be known as Exhibit A: MSUC (Padilla/Horton) to approve the Resolution with the following letter as an amendment to the Resolution: Mr. Dean Rundle Refuge Manager San Diego National Wildlife Refuge U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Environmental Assessment for Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Dear Mr. Rundle: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The City understands that the proposed project is the definition of an acquisition boundary for the proposed Refuge. It is also our understanding that the establishment of the refuge will occur when the Service acquires land or negotiates management agreements for lands within the boundary. Further, the actual management activities, which involve issues that the City has great interest in, will be detailed at a later date after the acquisition process is complete. The City would prefer that all activities related to the establishment of the proposed Refuge, including management, be addressed now rather that in incremental stages, and feels that such an approach more adequately meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The establishment and management of the Refuge is reasonably foreseeable at this time and is "connected" to the establishment of acquisition boundaries, in accordance with the definition provided in 40 CFR 1508.25. Additionally, the Refuge boundary includes an active recreation area shown on the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan, a product of a Joint Exercise of Powers Authority formed between the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. This appears to be a clear conflict with the park plan, since the refuge, by definition, cannot support active recreational uses. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.16, such inconsistencies must be identified and addressed in the EA. Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 12 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City has specific issues related to the Refuge planning efforts and has been working with the Service and local environmental organizations to seek resolution. The following is a description of those issues and the City's proposed resolution. Boundaries: The Chula Vista City Council suggests that the boundary be redefined at a more westerly location which would allow the following: Navigation Channel Use: Utilization of the existing navigation channel year round consistent with existing regulation. New Boundary: The new boundary would be west of the existing channel, and wilt be defined in a way that would allow a new "straightened channel" to be created west of the existing "dog leg" at some point in the future (see exhibit). It is acknowledged that this new western channel alignment will benefit the maritime and recreational interests, as well as the viability of the remaining mud flats and salt water marsh areas at 1) the F and G Street marsh, 2) the Midbayfront property, and 3) the Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge. Maintenance and Dredging: Maintenance and dredging of the existing navigation channel or a new "straightened channel" would not be precluded by the SSDG-NWR. Mud Flats: Although outside of the proposed boundary, it is recognized that the mudflats off 1) the F Street Marsh, 2) the Sweetwater Marsh NWR, and 3) the Chula Vista Midbayfront should ultimately be preserved and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These areas could be conveyed separately. This could be done in the future through a special action on the part of the Regional Director to expand the Sweetwater NWR to include these mudflat areas. The Chula Vista City Council suggests that the boundary be located west of the existing navigational channel in order to accommodate the new channel alignment which the EDC, CVCC, and the SCEDC understand will be in place within one year (see attached exhibit). Navigational Channel Utilization: The "current conditions" of the channel including speed limit and traffic activity is an acceptable condition. Should this "existing condition" change, the management committee (depicted in "IV" below) will be assembled to contemplate provisions and implement actions to preserve the targeted natural resources which have come under threat. III. Recreational Activities: The "current conditions" of the recreational utilization of the South San Diego Bay area is an acceptable condition. Should this "existing condition" change in a way that negatively impacts the natural resources, the management committee (depicted in "IV" below) will be assembled to contemplate actions to preserve the targeted natural resources which have come under threat. Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 13 Management Committee: Should the natural resources be compromised or changes be sought to boating or recreational access within the ultimate refuge boundary a " management" committee will be convened by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard. This committee is envisioned to be comprised of the following representation: F. H. Jo Habitat Group(s) Independent Biologist(s) Local Jurisdiction Representation (City Mayor or designee) 1. National City 2. Chula Vista 3. Coronado 4. Imperial Beach 5. San Diego Owners of property adjacent to the refuge Owners of the property inside the refuge boundary Chair of the San Diego Unified Port Commission Chair of the County Board of Supervisors Chair of the South County Economic Development Council Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency California Coastal Commission Yacht Club Associations Friends of South Bay Wildlife It is envisioned that the group would be assembled as a committee to deal with, provide input to and seek mutually beneficial resolution to issues and conflicts which might arise as a result of the varied interests and endeavors (public, private and environmental) being pursued. This to include but not limited to recreational activities, project development maritime uses, transportation issues and industrial activities. Modification of the boundary for the preferred alternative, as proposed in this letter would satisfy the concerns of the City of Chula Vista for the boundary setting phase of this project. The City is aware of other issues raised by the cities of Coronado, National City and Imperial Beach. It is the City's intention to maintain an ongoing dialog with these cities, the Port Of San Diego, the Service and interested environmental organizations, in an effort to resolve all remaining conflicts. The City of Chula Vista believes that our participation in such an effort would not, and should not jeopardize the progress we have made to date. Thank you again for your attention to issues that are important to Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista remains committed to balancing the needs of economic development and environmental protection, and believes that creative solutions, including the proposed modifications to the boundaries of the preferred alternative and ongoing discussions regarding management can lead to mutually beneficial results. Sincerely, Shirley Hotton Mayor Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 14 Council adjourned to Closed Session at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. * 17. RESOLUTION 18990 APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEaR 1998/99 INCLUDING BOTH THE FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - On 4/7/98, Council held a public hearing to review and receive public comment on the draft Consolidated Annual Plan for fiscal year 1998/99 and to review all projects and programs being considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The 30 day comment period to review the draft Consolidated Annual Plan began on 3/21/98 and ended on 4/21/98. All public comments received by staff during the 30 day comment period have been considered and, if deemed appropriate, incorporated into the final version Of the Consolidated Annual Plan. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Director of Community Development) Chris Salomone, Community Development Director, stated this is the final Council action on a very extensive Community Development Block Grant annual process and Consolidated Plan review. Council has had a public hearing on this. Staff's recommendations are outlined in the Staff Report. Councilmember Padilla stated that under the public service requests, there was a perception by some that the Otay Recreation Center didn't go through the same channels that the other requests did. There was also a question about the zero recommendation for the St. Charles Nutrition Center. He requested staff to address those issues. Mr. Salomone responded that the Otay Recreation Center, while the recommendation comes through tonight for the first time, it has been a consideration of the Block Grant for the last two years as far as a capital project. This is the operations component of that capital project that we just secured the funding for recently. We feel that it is a legitimate request; it meets all the criteria of the CDBG project; and it is a component of the capital project that Council initiated funding for in previous years. It was not a part of Council's last public hearing, but we felt that since the capital project was, it was an inherent part of that capital project. On the St. Charles Nutrition Center, the recomendation was based on the fact that it is a new program and one that is duplicative in some ways of other "meals" programs. Also, staff felt that they would not be able to track the low-income component that HUD requires us to do since they offer meals without discrimination to anyone. Mayor Horton stated she had a concern with the Thursdays Meals. The recommendation from the Committee was $5,000; their request was $5,000; but staff is only recommending $2,000. She wanted to know why staff's recommendation was only $2,000. Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, responded that this was one agency that we have been concerned about the documentation provided to us. In the future, we are going to be requesting that they submit more documentation. However, it is at the discretion of Council to make final adjustments to these numbers. · Sue Hathaway, 77 E. Shaster Street, Chula Vista, 91910, Program Manager at the St. Charles Nutrition Center. This was not a new program. It has been serving seniors for 24 years. She felt they have proven their track record in serving and taking care of seniors. The fact they asked for a contribution was based on the Older American Act that was set up in 1974. Ninety-five percent of the people they serve live on an income level of $700 or less a month. They do have tracking records. Anyone who comes in to eat, they are encouraged to register. Ninety-five percent of the people that are registered are Chula Vista residents and are considered low income. Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 15 Councilmember Moot stated that several years ago we had this exact same problem with the Youth Services. Council enforced a policy that says if you provide similar services, we would like you to enter into a collaborative arrangements with people who are providing similar services. When we enforced that policy with the Youth Services group, they did form the collaboratives and they did decide amongst themselves how to divide up the limited funds. What staff is trying to say in a polite way, we would like similar services to get together and first work amongst themselves in a collaborative effort, so there isn't duplicative services. Ms. Hathaway responded that their funding is being cut through the Area Agency on Aging also. If we are not able to provide the service any more, and we have to close that site, which is a good possibility, then who is going to be able to take up this area. · Nancy Hitchock, 658 Moss Street, NO. 157, Chula Vista, 91911, stated St. Charles Nutrition has served at South Bay Adult Health Day Care Center meals for years. She had an opportunity when she was working with the Seniors Strategic Planning Council to go to the Albany site and talk with the people who are served food by the St. Charles Nutrition Center. They are very concerned about losing that site. Councilmember Rindone felt that staff was following Council's direction about collaboratives and similar services. He had some community members call him regarding the $10,000 for the Mexico Market Analysis. They indicated that the South County EDC and Southwestern College have just recently done a market analysis. If this was the case, then we could take some of the $10,000, put it back into the general fund. Then the general fund could use the funds to assist other programs should we chose to do that. He supported the Mayor's concern on the Thursday Meals and also the St. Charles Nutrition Center. They are similar programs. If the people can pay, they do. But if they can't, it is a service that really is extremely beneficial. He hoped Council would take a look at that. Councilmember Moot stated that the $71,000 item for the Otay Recreation Center came in out of the blue. It is a City project that is capable of being funded out of City funds. He was also concerned about the Thursday Meals as well. He would be sympathetic to St. Charles if they understood when they came back next year, we would like to see a collaborative effort between them and Meals On Wheels, but he felt we should give them some money this year to keep them alive. He was also concerned with the reduction for the Boys and Girls Club. He suggested the following: Take $6,650 from the Otay Recreational Center and put $2,500 to St. Charles Nutrition Center, increase Thursday Meals $2,000, and increase the Boys and Girls Club $2,150. Councilmember Salas stated she did bring up the concern about the duplication in the Mexico Market Study because not only has the South County EDC done a study on this, but every other educational institution has done one also. The only reason she was not insistent on it was because there was a little different component in researching our retail market which is not focused in the other studies. She also knew that the San Diego Dialogue just got a grant for $940,000 to study all of the Mexican market. The kind of study that we could do for $10,000 is really not significant. Mr. Salomone responded that it was his understanding that staff is to creatively figure out a way to use this money to fund in a CDBG category something that would otherwise be funded by general fund, and to free up the general fund money for another purpose. Councilmember Rindone stated that if we delete No. 21 and then adjust monies from the Otay Recreational Center to the various ones that Councilmember Moot pointed out, we could accomplish that and save the $10,000. MSUC (Moot/Horton) that staff delete the expenditure of No. 21 and find another CDGB eligible category for that to be spent in and that we adjust the money to give st. Charles $2,500 with the recommendation that they come back next year Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 16 with Meals on Wheels in a collaborative effort; give Thursday Meals an additional $2,000; and give the Boys and Girls Club an additional $2,150. 18. RESOLUTION 18991 RE-ENDORSING THE SITING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CAMPUS IN CHULA VISTA - Council has previously approved a site in the Otay Ranch project for a public university, and has approved a resolution in support of designating this site as a University of California campus. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Director of Planning) RESOLUTION 18991 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, heading read, text waived, passed and approved unanimously 5-0. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items 5C and 14 were pulled, but the minutes will reflect the original printed agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) · Mr. Rowlands stated we have a very light agenda for next Tuesday night. One option, if it can be arranged, is to move the meeting with GMOC which is scheduled for Monday, the 18th, to Tuesday. Council concurred in trying to do that. · The budget: The public presentation will be on June 9th. Budget workshops will be on June 11, 17, and 18; and the final adoption of the budget to be on June 23. All the meetings will begin at 5:30 p.m. · July 21st meeting: the meeting needs to be cancelled because of prior commitments having been made. MSUC (Horton/Salas) to cancel the meeting of July 21st. 20. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) A. RESOLUTION 18992 SUPPORTING AB 2228 (DAVIS) PETROLEUM: COMPETITION - Assembly Bill 2228 (Davis) Petroleum: competition declares that nothing in State law preempts local authority in the field of distribution and sales of motor vehicle fuels. This bill has been introduced to assist the County of San Diego in its efforts to enforce the gasoline "divorcement" ordinance also under consideration by the City. The resolution was approved 5-0. RESOLUTION 18992 OFFERED BY MI~YOR RORTON, heading read, text waived, passed and approved unanimously 5-0. 21. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Rindone · Regarding the matter of agreement between Coors Brewing Company and Universal Concerts, Inc. Item was discussed under Item No. 14. Councilmember Salas · Announced that Juan Ayala, a student at EastLake High School, wanted her to announce to the public that he will be performing, as well as a number of other talented young people, at EastLake High School. They will be performing Minutes May 5, 1998 Page 17 Friday, May 8; Saturday, May 9; and Sunday, May 10, in the evening at the Ruth Chapman Performing Arts Center. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respect fu 1 l~.su~ Beverly A. Authelet, CMC/AAE City Clerk