Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1991/07/25 MINDTES OF A REGULAR MEETINGfvVORKSESSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, July 25, 1991 Council Conference Room 4:08 p.m. Administration Bu~ding Ca~IJ.RV) TO ORDER 1. CALL THE ROLIz PRESENT: Councilmembers Grasser Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader. ABSENT: Councilman Malcolm ALSO PRESENT: Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager; Richard D. Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney; and Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk BUSINESS 2. REPORT RECYCLING STATUS - An overview of recycling program implementation to date, as well as upcoming decision points and necessary public hearings for next year. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (City Manager) Mayor Nader stated that staff had suggested the setting of a special meeting to hear the report. If a special meeting is not set, Council should be aware that there would be several "Action Items' on the upcoming agendas dealing with recycling. Due to lack of quorum, the meeting adjourned without hearing this item. CALL THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COIM1MH-I-~-~- TO ORDER 3. CALL THE ROLL: PRESENT: Boardmembers Christensen, Hann, Hillock, Hyde, Jimenez, Palmer (arrived at 4:25 p.m.), Peter (arrived at 4:25 p.m.), Tarantino, and Chairperson Fuller. 4. REPORT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COh41vllrrP-R REVIEI/V 1990 GMOC REPORT - Staff recommends Council accept the report and direct staff to docket required resolutions and ordinance amendments to implement recommendations. Chairperson Fuller presented the GMOC 1990 report. The Committee felt this was a significant year as it utilized the first mid-range development forecasts in preparing the threshold status reports. Highlights of the report include compliance with the following threshold standards: Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Parks and Recreation, Sewer, Drainage, Traffic, Economic/Fiscal, and Libraries. The GMOC recommends that the Council issue Statements of Concern for the following threshold standards: Air Quality, Schools and Water. They repeated their recommendation from last year to amend the Parks and Recreation Threshold and recommended this year that the Council change the Traffic Threshold Standard from the Intersection Capacity Utilization method to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual method. The Committee is concerned that the reserve sewage capacity in the San Diego Melzo system set aside for Chula Vista may not be available when needed in the future. A response was received yesterday which guaranteed the set aside. They continued with concern regarding the deficiencies in park acreage on the west side of Minutes July 25, 1991 Page 2 the City. The annual fiscal/economic report provided by the fiscal consultant was beyond the oversight level of the Committee's review. They suggested that the economic monitoring function of the GMOC should be shifted to the newly created Economic Development Commission. The Economic/Fiscal Threshold would be renamed Fiscal Impact Threshold Standard and would deal solely with the fiscal impacts of growth, including reports on collection and expenditure of development impact fees. They noted the improved relationship between the City and water agencies and felt it was in direct relationship to the development of the Interagency Water Task Force. The information received from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District was also very good. A new work schedule was presented with the Development Forecasts being started on 7/2/91, Distribution of Forecasts on 8/2/91, Agency Reports Deadline on 9/13/91, with final report ready on 3/5/92. The GMOC felt that the citizens needed to be informed that the Quality of Life Thresholds were being monitored and that growth is not being allowed to outstrip services. They recommended that an annual report to the citizens would be helpful and could notify them that the City of Chula Vista is in the forefront of the area and possibly the state in managed growth. Boardmember Hyde referred to the 8th Street Corridor included in the study and felt it could be the "sleeper" of the report. He felt the issue of making "H~ Street six lanes from 1-805 to I-5 would need long range planning. Mayor Nader questioned whether all intersections in the City meet the "C" standard. Bud Gray, Consultant for the City, responded that the City was in compliance with the Threshold as written. There is a provision that states intersections west ofi-805 that were below "C' at the time the Thresholds were adopted would be allowed to operate at that level of service. There are currently seven intersections below level 'C' which is down from the original thirteen. Boardmember Christensen stated it was important to remember that the freeway north should relieve some of the intersections. The new computerization and phasing of signals is also making a difference in traffic flow. The recommended change to HCM will also be reflected in next year's thresholds. Dan Marum, of JHK and Associates, stated that the diversion of traffic to SR 54 helped to alleviate traffic as did the addition of exclusive right hand tums and double left hand turns. Parks and Recreation Councilman Moore stated the City should be treated as one, not east versus west. He noted the difference between parks and recreation. New developments paid for land which resulted in more park land on the east side but the west side had more recreation buildings, i.e. libraries, aquatic program, senior center, youth club, etc. and less acreage of park land. He felt there should be more awareness as to what was available with credit being given for recreation facilities. More should also be done with the schools with credit also being given for their usage. Councilman Rindone felt Councilman Moore had summarized the situation well. He felt the whole picture should be looked at with a formula developed to address all aspects of parks and recreation services. He could support the review of a new formula that would include all aspects. Councilman Moore stated that most of the area to be included in the greenbelt area will be passive park lands. He felt staff should review this regarding potential for that area and work with the Policy Committee for the Otay Valley Regional Park regarding the proper mix for southwest Chula Vista. Minutes July 25, 1991 Page 3 MS (Moore/Rindone) approve the GMOC review of threshold, east versus west, and direct staff to include concepts, sim~'lar to development regarding l~rarias, aquatic centers, etc., that they have some total weight toward rt~reafion. Staff is to review what the potential of the Otay River Bed as to park lends, active and/or passive. Counc~man Nader questioned whether the motion was directing staff to develop a new formula by which fac~ities such as an aquatic center would be counted toward some portion of the perks threshold. Counc~man Moore responded that he liked what was in place now regarding park lend but felt there should be a combined formula for recreation. He acknowledged that the libraries should not be included in the formula as they Curren~y have their own threshold. Mayor Nader stated he would be surprised to find that the aquatic center had not been counted in the existing threshold. Chairperson Fuller responded that the aquatic center would not have been counted. The threshold is based on population and acreage. The land may have been counted as park lend but credit would not have been given for the recreational services provided. If recreation is determined to be an iraportent part of the threshold, credit would have to be given as is curren~y being done for park lends. Councilman Moore felt the current threshold needed to be revised and/or massaged in order to include recreation facilities or services. Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated that a lot of cities have separate standards for parks and their recreational facilities. Staff could go back and develop one standard that would deal with park lend and recreational facilities. Boardmember Hyde stated there was a growing perception that there were two Chula Vistas, one east of 1- 805 and one west. A program should be established so that all portions of the City are treated equally as possible. The key is to let the citizens know that there is only one Chula Vista. Mayor Nader felt there were two issues: 1) what kind of facilities should be counted toward the parks and recreation threshold, and 2) should they be applied city-wide versus a subcity basis. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that the Park Dedication Ordinance established standards, i.e. tennis courts, which is city-wide. Special purpose fac~ities are not standards but are counted, school grounds are not counted. Counc~man Rindone responded to Mr. Valenzuela's comment by noting that the acreage for the special purpose fac~ities are counted not the utility located on the land. It was Councilman Moore's intent to go back and develop a formula, while retaining the current park lend formula, to assign value or credit beyond passive or active parks. This threshold standard would increase the value of the parks and recreation threshold and give a better value of what is available throughout the City. Mayor Nader stated that if it was the intent of the motion to ask staff to develop more information and possibly return with a recommendation on the inclusion of active recreation fac~ities, that are not included in the present parks and recreation threshold he could support the motion. MS (Rindone/Moore) Council accept the GMOC Par~S and Recreation report, recommendations, and refer to staff to develop a new formula which would include the current park land formula as well as a formula M~.~:es July 25, !991 Page 4 for adjve recreational type uses (facilities) for a combination recomrn~ndatiolL The park land formula is not to be changed. (Restatement of original motion.) Councilman Moore stated the motion included the GMOC recommendation for revising the park threshold standard west of 1-805. Mayor Nader stated he would agree with staff coming back for adding on to the existing threshold but expressed concern over counting private recreational facilities. His intent would be to only include public recreational facilities. Boardmember Hugh Christensen did not feel that school grounds could be included for credit as many of the 'schools were now on full year schedules and the playgrounds were no longer avafiable during the summer months. He stated it was his understanding that PAD fees accumulated on the west side had not been utilized for acquisition of park land on the west side. Mayor Nader stated that Recommendation E addressed Boardmember Christensen's concerns and questioned why the GMOC was only recommending A through D. Chairperson Fuller responded that Recommendations A through D were recommendations presented W Council last year and no action was taken at that time. Recommendation E was a new recommendation this 5'ear. Mayor Nader stated he was concerned with the adoption of a city-wide standard and the risk that it wonld exacerbate the problem. He felt the situation could be created where the City would meet the overall threshold standard due to the park development on the east side with a deficiency remaining on the west side. Boardmember Harm responded that he did not foresee that as a problem because it would use the city as a whole. Because of the excess of park land in the eastern area, funds would then be available to purchase property in the western area. Councilman Moore noted that the City had forced developers to build parks which resulted in them spending more money than the City would have collected in PAD fees. Mayor Nader stated that Councfi had been informed by staff that there were possible legal problems in using PAD fees in areas other than collected. Councilman Rindone stated there were exceptions on the last two SPA's that were approved. EastLake owes the City seven acres and was not adverse to acquisition of property on the west side. The larger problem was that there were not a sufficient number of credits. He felt the intent of the motion was clear and that after the GMOC looked at this, they may have other recommendations, i.e. split it inw two separate formulas. When the Bayfront comes along, if it is any proportion as currently being presented, there will be a flip-flop regarding park lands and recreational facilities from the east to the west. SUBb'II1L]']~ MOTION: (Nader) the same motion but change from the a'ty-wide threshold and ask staff and the GMOC to study and report back with city-wide threshold with focus on park acreage within a given area. The city-wide thrr~hold would be the same but it would be w/thin so many square miles of the City anywhere in the City the thrr~hold is X-park per capita. Died for lack of second. Councilman Rindone did not feel the motion was necessary as Recommendation A on page 9 would set that up for the west side. He felt the motion to approve the GMOC recommendations and requesting staff to Minutes .luly 25, 1991 Page 5 come back with a recommendation regarding a formula to include facilities in the parks and recreation threshold was adequate. Mayor Nader stated he was more comfortable with recommendation A on page 9. If that was the motion he would withdraw his amendment. (;hairperson Fuller responded that the recommendation addressed a standard for new development and park deficiencies for exiting residents west of 1-805o Gouncilman Moore questioned what the current standard was. Mr. Leiter responded that the proposed standard was three acres/1,O00 people city-wide. Mayor Nader stated he understood the recommendation. Gouncilman Rindone clarified that the current standard was currently one acre/I,000 people on the wes' but the GMOG was now recommending that it be the same formula for both sides. The motion would be to accept that recommendation and direct staff to come back with a formula for facilities. Mayor Nader questioned whether Recommendation A, included in the report, was in the motion. Counc~man Moore responded that it was included and it would result in the same standard, three acres/1,O00 people city-wide and would also address park deficiencies on the west side. He questioned the rationale regarding Recommendation D, page 10, the charging of park fees for all new residential development rather than only for development which requires tentative map approval. Mr. Valenzuela responded that the Subdivision Map Act only allowed the City to charge for residential subdivisions. Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that the Subdivision Map Act applied to subdivision maps and questioned whether there was anything in the law that would preclude the GMOC recommendation which would allow it to be charged as a fee in the building permit stage, or some other stage, that did not pertain to the granting of a tentative map. Mr. Leiter stated that it was their understanding that a development impact fee could be established for non- subdivision projects, which is the GMOC recommendation. Mr. Valenzuela stated that staff hoped to bring the report before Council in October. Councilman Moore noted that Recommendation E required the use of PAD fees solely for acquisition and development of new parks and stated further that state law prohibited their use for maintenance. Mayor Nader responded that PAD fees were being utilized for park renovation. Mr. Valenzuela stated that PAD fees were not utilized for maintenance or custodial functions. These fees were utilized west of 1-805, Le. reconstruction of the pool and Parkway Gym. Chairperson Hyde stated that it was a Council policy to allow the use of PAD fees for reconstruction. He felt PAD fees should be utilized only to purchase land and develop parks. If they are being used for reconstruction, they are not be used to develop parks. Minutes July 25, 1991 Page 6 Mayor Nader noted that the GMOC recommendation would require a Council policy change for acquisition rather than renovation. Councilman Rindone stated this issue arose during the discussions of the Rohr Park renovation. He supported the recommendation of the GMOC and felt this would be a major shift for the Council. Councilman Moore stated he would like to see more data regarding Recommendation E. If PAl) fees are restricted to acquisition only he felt this could tie the Council's hands in the funare regarding the ability to develop and/or renovate the parks. He suggested that Recommendation E be deleted from the present motion and a follow-up motion be added. AMEI~DMENT: (Nader/Rindone) to establish a POlicy whereby PAl) fees are unliTed for acquisition and development of parks as long as a deficiency exists on the west side unde~ the revised threshold slandard that is now being adopted. Specific exceptions can be made to that policy upon approval by Council. VOTIi ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved 4-0-1 with Counolman Malcolm absenL Traffic Councilman Moore felt there should be a special motion regarding "H' Street which would include timelines. M (Moon) to direct staff to come back with an indepth repo~ to include limPlines, cost eslimates, for Sections of "I-1" Street from 1-805 to I-5, regarding the widening, number of lanes, etc. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated that "H" Street had been proposed as six lanes in the General Plan amendment but Council had sent it back to staff to see what the impact would be with SR 54. Staff has also been looking at other ways to alleviate traffic. Staff anticipates that the report will be before Council within the next 3-4 months. MOTION WITHDRAWN: (Moore) Mayor Nader expressed concern over "H" Street being six lanes. The concern of the Council was that staff would return with mitigation measures to avoid the widening to six lanes of "H" Street benveen Hilltop and Third. Staff is to come back at some time with a report on what changes, ff any, need to be made in forecasted growth or mitigation measures that could be implemented to avoid widening *H" Street in the residential area to meet the threshold standards. Mr. Lippitt responded that staff has also looked at the impact of growth. As the downtown area is revitalized, it will result in increased traffic. Mayor Nader stated that each increment of growth creates more traffic on that stretch of east *H" Street. Staff and Council should be looking for revisions necessary in the general plan to avoid that result whi]e still meeting the thresholds. Boardmember Peter stated that traffic was always related to cars, freeways, and roads, and not enough emphasis was placed on getting the people out of the cars and alternate ways to move people. 1~. Lippitl: referred to the proposed nansit center at Southwestern College and noted it would add new routes and improve frequency. Minutes July 25° 1991 Page 7 Councilman Rindone noted that not everyone was enamored with the transit system. He felt it was critical to make alternative transportation perceptually appealing in order to encourage usage. He referenced other means of transportation, such as a people mover from Southwestern College, down three blocks to the trolley. Mr. Gray stated that if Council agreed to the recommendation of changing the Traffic Threshold Standard to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual method, staff would come back with the appropriate amending ordinance in the future. Counc~man Moore cautioned staff to review the ballot measure, Proposition V, to ensure that any amendments were legal. Mayor Nader agreed with the recommendation to change the Traffic Threshold Standard but expressed concern regarding references in the report to road widenings and six lanes. He also supported the use of alternative transportation as a solution to current traffic problems. He hoped that as recommendations were developed and brought back to Council that they not only deal with street widening but include mitigation measures in order to avoid possible widening of streets through residential areas. MS (Nader/Moore) to adopt the recommendation to change the Traffic Threshold Standard from the lntePsection Capadty Utilization method to the 1985 Highway Capadty Manual method. Councilman Rindone questioned whether the motion was appropriate as staff would have to bring back an amending ordinance. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader/Moon) to direct staff to bring back an amending ordinance which would change the Traffic Threshold Standards to the 1985 Highway Capadty Manual method. Approved 4-0-1 with Councilman Malcolm absent. School Thresholds Councilman Rindone stated the two school unification issues were ones that the City should not believe were done deals. There is another consideration, that of a district-wide unffication, which is being discussed informally at this time. The unification issue should be craTefully monitored for progress, or lack of progress, but the City should not take a position at this time. The school districts should come up with recommendations for the County Board and voters. Mayor Nader stated that the GMOC did not take a position but recommended that a study be done regarding the ramifications on the City and meeting the schools threshold. He questioned whether studies would be done by the districts or if the City would be responsible to have it done. Councilman Rindone responded that two studies were under consideration now. It is not anticipated that the merits of the two proposals will be ruled on until the end of September or early October. The State Board will then have to decide whether to allow public vote. If not, the issue dies, if they do approve the election it w~l have to be decided on who votes, districts, boundaries, etc. It is an extremely complex problem and he felt the City should assist by providing information only. The best procedure would be to have staff meet with the district and come back to Council with their recommendations. MSC (Nader/Moore) to direct staff to initiate contact with the districts and County Board of Education in order to keep infonned regarding r3mifications of unification on the City and ab~ity to meet the educational fl~esholds. Apprnved 4-0-1 with Counr~lrnan Malcolm absent. Minutes July 25, 1991 Page 8 Councilman Moore felt liaison with the districts was important. He stated there had been no effor~ by any of the districts to obtain funding for schools through the State as they have continued to utilize development fees and Mello Roos funds. Mayor Nader questioned whether there were any recommendations regarding the Mello Roos. Chairperson Fuller responded that there were none. Mayor Nader stated there was a reoccurring theme of joint consultation, sharing of information, etc. in the report. He noted that it had been a past policy of the Council to have joint meetings with the school distrias and suggested that a joint meeting be set. Chairperson Fuller responded that meetings in the past were so infrequent that they were perceived as not accomplishing anything. The Committee felt the that meetings should have "give and take" in order to solve the problems facing the disndcts. Councilman Moore stated that the elementary school board did not want to meet as a body but preferred to meet with a Council subcommittee. He had taken the position that he would no longer serve on subcommittees but felt in this instance, a subcommittee would accomplish more than a joint meeting. 'Chairperson Fuller recommended that the Mayor meet with the presidents of the boards to see how to handle this situation. Mayor Nader expressed his concern over meeting with only one member. He felt all members should be invited to a joint meeting and then it would be up to the individual districts as to whether they all wanted to attend or if they wanted to designate one representative. Staff is to make sure the GMOC is invited to attend the joint meeting also. He felt a meeting should be held in the fall. Councilman Moore stated he could not accept a joint meeting if it involved all three district simultaneously. Councilman Rindone stated he would support meetings with one school board at a time as the issues facing each of the d/strict are immensely different. The districts have joint meetings amongst themselves to address academic issues. He felt the districts should be contacted regarding items for the agenda. Mayor Nader felt there was dear direction to not pursue a simultaneous meeting with all districts at this time. He questioned whether the districts would have common concerns or problems with the City regarding policies. He felt that one or two representatives should be invited to meet with City staff. He noted the concern expressed by the Committee regarding the proposal to locate a twin port international airport at the U.S.-Mexico border and the impact it may have on overcrowding schools in Chula Vista. There is a meeting tomorrow at SANDAG at 8:30 a.m. in the Civic Center regarding this issue and invited anyone that could to attend and address the school specific perspective. Terms of Members Councilman Moore stated that since being changed into a Commission all terms will expire at the same time and a decision will have to be made in the future as to the rotation of the membership. Chairperson Fuller felt it was beneficial for a member of the Planning Commission to serve on the GMOC. She assumed that lots would be drawn in the future regarding terms. Minutes July 25, Page 9 Mr. Gray informed Council that staff would be bringing an agenda item to them in the future regarding terms of office. Economics CounciLman Moore stated it was not his intent to have the GMOC go into great detail regarding the economics of the City. It was his intent that the GMOC review all the fees to see they were collected, on time, and utilized for the specifics intended. MOTION: (Nader} to direct staff to bring back an amandment to the ordinance which would: 1} set up a new City fiscal threshold leax~ng the GMOC to deal solely with the ~scal impacts of growth, including reports on collection and expenditure of development impact fees; 2) x~allocate the economic monitoring fimction of the GMOC to the Economic Development Commission and staff. No action taken. Councilman Moore stated he would like to hear the pro's and con's of the recommended change. Mayor Nader stated the City Clerk could ITanscribe the motion, attach the Economic's section of the GMOC report and agendize the issue at a later date. Councilman Moore stated he would rather wait on the motion and questioned whether the GMOC would deal solely with the impacts of growth on the City. Mr. Leiter responded that the GMOC would deal with the impacts on the City regarding fees from new grovah. Boardmember Hyde stated that the GMOC would monitor the impacts of growth on Chula Vista's fiscal well being and review whether the costs of new development balanced with the revenues of new development. Counc~man Moore agreed as long as it pertained to new development only. Boardmember Hyde stated he had taken the liberty of interpreting *growth' as new development. The Economic Development Commission should monitor the economic health of the community which was a broader issue. Councilman Rindone questioned whether this part of the Economic Threshold looked at infrastructure or only examining the new revenues versus the new costs of services. He felt that should be defined and was part of the frustration of the GMOC, they did not understand the charge. Boardmember Hyde felt the GMOC understood the charge but that evaluating the overall fiscal health of the community was not limited to growth, and was better served by being reviewed by the Economic Development Commission. Mayor Nader felt the recommendation of the GMOC was clear. The first dealt with the fiscal impact to the City regarding growth, and the second was the overall health of the community, i.e. job opportunities, standard of living, etc. Councilman Moore stated that Council should have h~d this information as part of the budget process and that it should be done earlier. Minutes July 25, 1991 Page 10 Assistant City Manager Morris stated that when dealing with that type of information the drawback was that often only six months of information was available or information could be as old a one year. MSC (Nader/Moore) to approve the recommendation in the GMOC Economic Repor~ Approved 4-0-1 with COIln~lman Malcolm absenL Councilman Moore requested a one page memorandum detailing what would be done regarding the separation of economic issues. Mayor Nader informed the public that two of the Councfimembers had prior commitments and would have to leave the meeting at 6:30 p.m. He questioned whether the GMOC would be able to continue with the meefing/worksession if continued to the regular meeting/worksession to be held at 4:00 p.m. on August Chairperson Fuller responded that the GMOC would meet with Councfi on that date. * * * Adjourn the Joint City Councfl/GMOC Meeting * * * ORAL COMIVlUNICATIONS a. Paul L. Greene, St., 141 Lotus Drive, Chula Vista, CA, referred to past legal problems with the City and requested that he be allowed to address the Council in closed session. OTHF, M BUSINESS 5. tilt MANAGERS REPORT(S) - None 6. MAYORS REPORT(S) - None 7. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT 4t~DJOURNMENT AT 6:26 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on August 6, 1991 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A AUTHF. I.~T, CMC, City Qerk by: Vict~i C. S~derquist, Deputy Cider