Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1991/01/29 (2) MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE crlY OF CHUIA VISTA Tuesday, January 29, 1991 Council Conference Room 4:20 p.m. Administration Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Malcolm, Nader, Rindone, and Mayor Pro Tempore Moore ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk BUSINESS 2. Discussion and possible action on Rohr Park Trees - continued from the meeting of 1/24/91. 141~'75 City Manager Goss informed Council that the memorandum transmitted to Council was background information and that further information had been obtained during discussions today. He stated he was not as concerned over the possible jeopardy to the State Competitive Grants but there was still a financial issue. The trees were planted for lumber and many were planted to close together and many are diseased. The financial matrix does not look at the liability to the City. City Attorney Boogaard handed out a financial matrix addressing the following five options: 1) proceed under current contract; 2) proceed with parking lot - keep ball fields at current grade; proceed with parking lot with import fill - keep ball fields at current grade; 4) proceed with parking lot and ball fields with imported fill; and 5) full cancellation of contract. David Smith, 334 Camino Elverado, Bonita, California, informed Council that he represented a group which would make a presentation on a non-grading alternative for Rohr Park. Maxine Clark reviewed the environmental impact reports based on the preliminary study. Due to the findings, Council declared a negative declaration andno further environmental impact report was done. The difference in the elevation and tall trees are a key factor in the conclusion. They agree with the negative declaration, the community plan, and application for the state grant which applies for funds for ball fields and picnic areas. The plan they are presenting does not have to go back to the community as it adheres to the original plan approved. It would not require an EIR as it meets the requirements of the negative declaration and also the purpose stated in the State grant application. Therefore, they disagree with the timeline as presented by staff. Diane Cuznow stated she had contacted South Bay Golf Course as they sit at a lower elevation and stated they only lost the day it rained. Bonita Golf Course has also stated there is no problem with rain or drainage. Harriet Taylor addressed the impact of water on Optimist Field. She contacted the San Diego County Flood Control District and obtained a photo of the February 1980 fifty year flood. As shown, the west end of the park was underwater with Optimist Field appearing to be above the water level. Due to these photographs, they did not see a reason for further grading. Minutes January 29, 1991 Page 2 Mr. Smith stated that on the right side of Sweetwater Road, below the tennis courts, is the basin where the water enters that drains out on Optimist Field. He stated there was no water apparent in the basin either. During a presentation by Mr. Nordquist, consultant for the project, they were informed that all of the plans were developed to handle a five year flood. Tom Henry, representing Shoulders and Sanford, stated the engineer of record, Mark Stephens, informed them the design of the pipe was for a one hundred year flood. Residential design is normally one hundred years but for other areas (where damage would not result), other uses are usually designed much lower in order to reduce costs. He stated that when work is done in the flood-way, the County requires a study to determine how much water would actually be raised by constructing or doing any other type of improvement to the flood-way. He did not believe this had been for the project. Councilman Malcolm stated the Group then felt that the EIR was not adequately addressed nor was the fill that was to be placed in the flood-way. Mr. Smith responded that the negative declaration stated the trees and hill would stay. With the removal of both, he felt it was a reversal of the negative declaration approved by Council. They have concluded that if Council goes with the non-grading alternative, the project will have evolved back to the original 1986 community plan. They felt this plan was in compliance with the EIR and negative declaration, therefore they did not perceive any reason why the Council could not go forward with the project. As a result of this, they felt the eight weeks turn around time would be removed as would the review time by the State Parks and Recreation Commission. He then reviewed the perceived savings if the non-grading alternative were implemented. They felt there would be a $344,000 savings on work that K/rchnavy would not have to do. Councilman Rindone questioned what the City would be losing with the proposed project and noted that the non-grading proposal does not deal with other aspects of the project. Mr. Smith responded that the proposal only addresses Optimist Field and they did not feel the City would be losing anything. A redesign for the relocation of the utilities would have to be done. Mr. Henry did not feel a redesign would be a major task and that a plan could be resubmitted in several weeks. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore stated the following questions had not been answered: 1) cost of removal of dead or diseased trees; 2) responsibility of consultant and engineer regarding original design; 3) redesign; 4) whether the EIR and negative declaration are acceptable; 5) contractor losses; 6) loss of play days; 7) cost of additional fill, grading, drainage; and 8) difference in planned use and redesigning of hill. Councilman Nader questioned whether an environmental review had been done for the project currently underway. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded that an addendure had been done to the negative declaration which addressed the ball field lighting. Councilman Nader stated that raised the question as to whether the City could legally modify the project for which the negative declaration had been approve& City Manager Goss responded that staff agreed with the assessment that the State grants would not be in jeopardy and with the observation of Optimist Field. The proposal would see that the trees are retained, but diseased trees would have to be removed with costs involved. There is also modification to the plan including the issue of the negative declaration. In terms of the costs that were represented, staff would have Minutes January 29, 1991 Page 3 to analyze the information presented. The City had sought professional advise regarding the storm drain and clarification would be needed. The Parks and Recreation staff, City Attorney, and representatives of the contractor have submitted their estimate of fill and any donated fill would have to be analyzed before cost figures could be determined. Under Option #1, the City could proceed with the parking lot, keep the ball fields at the current grade, and may be able to preserve some of the trees at a fairly reasonable cost. The five weeks estimated by staff for turnaround time is felt to be optimistic, it could run longer particularly for the State review. Councilman Nader questioned ff there was no other work that could be done in order to reduce the costs of the "idle equipment". City Attorney Boogaard responded that the contractor was at a stand still because they needed dirt to continue with the parking lot. Dirt could be brought in and recent quotes have been $5 to $9 per square yard. The dirt from the freeway site had been rejected due m the salt and moisture content. Councilman Malcolm felt it was apparent that the field drained well and that dirt would only be needed for the parking lot. He would be willing to fly to Sacramento, at his expense, to hand carry the project for approval. He questioned whether the contractor would be willing to accept this and/or other contracts to help make up the difference. Steve Whitman, Attorney representing Kirchnavy, responded that they had spent the day trying to work with staff toward a solution. They would do what they City wanted but noted that the problem was the economic impact caused by a change in the project and that the impacts could be tremendous. Other jobs were not taken by the contractor because this contract was awarded. Councilman Rindone questioned what percentage of trees had been reported dead or diseased. Mr. Valenzuela responded that there was a total of one hundred-sixty trees and it was estimated that sixty percent were dead or diseased. The estimate by Dr. Nelson is higher. Councilman Rindone stated residents of the area were concerned about the impact of the lights on the residential area and questioned whether the trees would remain along Sweetwater Road. He also questioned whether the hill would be below the houses. There is a great deal of satisfaction with the current plan by the residents due to the removal of the driveway in the original plan and replacing it with a passive park. Mr. Valenzuela responded that the row of trees along Sweetwater Road would remain and that the hill would not be below the houses. He did not feel that the ambiance of the neighborhood would be substantially changed. Councilman Rindone felt there were no perfect answers, the key is better planning before processing. Due to the high assessment of trees that would have to be replaced, the quality project that was presented, and the insurance that there would be a tree for tree replacement, he could support the original project. MS (Rindone/Moore) to proceed with the current contract as proposed as it does include a tree for tree replacement/nduding the diseased trees. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore stated staff would have to go back and review the information received regarding the five year versus one hundred year design. He questioned what portion of the parking lot was unusable at this time. Minutes January 29, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Valenzuela responded that the parking lot was currently closed at this time. The eastern parking lot would have to be utilized. Councilman Malcolm felt due to the savings for less grading, less tufted areas, and redesign of the drainage pipe, he could not support the motion. He questioned what would happen if there was a two/two vote. City AtTorney Boogaard responded that the contract would then proceed. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore noted the clock was ticking regarding the default with the contractor and that alternafives would cause further delays. The disease<L/dead trees would still have to be removed at an additional cost to the City. Councilman Nader stated he was frustrated to have reconsidered this item so many times, let the contract, and then come so dose to an alternative plan that would meet the desires of the community and save the City money. SUBSTITUTIi MOTION: (Nader/Malcolm) to direct staff to prepare a modification to the contract to eliminate the need for the use of imported dirt, other than the parking lot, spare Apache Hill from grading, and remove only the dead/diseased frees. Councilman Rindone stated there was no doubt that everyone wanted to save the trees and that the project was controversial. It had been approved on several occasions with the best option set forth. The mitigating efforts to replace the trees and to have a well designed park that met all needs was the incentive of previous Councils. Only for that reason, because it has come before the Council and the failure, at this time, to see the adequate timeline or insurance that those timelines are not so nebulous that they could be met. It places the City in a financial risk that is totally unpredictable at this time and only because of that would he lean towards the approval of the original motion. Councilman Nader questioned what the ramifications would be if the City proceeded with the current contract and the environmental documents did not reflect the current project. City Attorney Boogaard replied that he would prefer not to expose potential liability under a lawsuit under CEQA. VOTE ON SUBSTITUTIi MOTION: denied 2-2 with Councilmembers Moore and Rindone voting no. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore stated that if no further action is taken by Council, the current contract would proceed. MS 0Vloore/Rindone) to have staff review the negative declaration as it pertains to the present contract to see if the City has abided by the law, if so, move expeditiously to correct the parking lot condition. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore stated he would include City Attorney Boogaard's response in his motion. City Attorney Boogaard stated that if it is decided that the City is in compliance with the EIR process, staff is to continue with the current contract but expedite the parking lot. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-1 with Councilman Malcolm voting no. Councilman Nader stated the only reason he was voting for the motion was because it was only doing what the City would have to do because the substitute motion did not pass. He was certainly in favor of the City Minutes January29, 1991 Page 5 Attorney conducting a review of the adequacy of the environmental review. Council recessed at 6:00 p.m. and reconvened at 6:53 p.m. 3. Interviewing applicants for Plarming Commlgsion, Parks and Recreation Commission and the Montgomery Planning Commlrtee. PLANNING COMMISSION Council interviewed: Jack Blakely, Archie Hall, Harry Hillock, Tom Martin, Steve Palma, Judith Sullivan, Barbara McAllister, and Nancy Palmet (John Willet~ was out of town and unavailable for interview) Tom Martin unanimously appointed to the Planning Commission. PAILKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Council interviewed: Diane Carpenter and Bob Strahl - Bob Thomas withdrew his application. (Susan Hemey and Margaret Helton were of town and unavailable for interview) /,9ti77 Diane Carpenter and Margaret Helton unanimously appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission. MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE Council interviewed: Paul Scheuer and Clay Plait Clay Plat~ unanimously appointed to the Montgomery Planning Committee 4. ORAL COMMLrNICATIONS - None 5. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None 6. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None 7. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 7:55 P.M. to a Special City Council Meeting on February 2, 1991 at 8:00 a.m. in the Marina Suite at the Chula Vista Marina. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk ' Vicki C. Soderqt~it?Deputy ~'~lerk