Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/01/14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, January 14, 1992 Council Chambers 6:04 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Grasser Hotton, Malcolm (arrived at 7:55 p.m.), Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, CityAttorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. pI.I~I"~GE OF ,AIJ.RGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINt.rI'ES: None submitted. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Ottiee: Julia Wubenhorst - Youth Commission. Oath of office was administered by City Clerk Authelet, certificate of appointment was presented by Councilman Rindone. b. Introduelion of new Town Manager - Joan Campbell. Introduction was made by Mr. Don Swanson, President, Downtown Business Association. c. Proclaiming the week of February 9 - 15, 1992 as *I Love A Cop Week*. The proclamation was presented by Councilman Rindone to Adele Neves, Special Events Administrator of the San Diego Police Officers Association and Agent Cha~es Pugsley, Officer of the Year for the City of Chula Vista. CONSENT CAIS. NDAR (Item pulled: 7) BALANCE OF CONSENT CALF. NDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text passed and approved 4-0-1 with Councilman Malcolm absent 5. -~VRITI'i/~I COMMUNICATIONS: C]~irn~ Against the City - Claimant No. 1: Eucalyptus Grove Apartments, c/o James F. Sexton, Esq., Chapin Fleming & Winet, Attorneys at Law, 1320 Columbia Street, San Diego, CA 92101; Claimant No. 2: Richard L. Brannen, 434 "E" Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Staff recommends Council deny the two claims. 6. RESOLUTION 16464 DESIGNATING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AS THE LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (LFA) FOR SOLID W/~-rE ISSUES - The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) requires that a local jurisdiction designate an LEA to ensure that minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal are met. The law requires that the Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 2 designated LEA meet stringent technical/and professional certifications for staff and programs. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Manager) 7. RESOLUTION 16465 APPROVING A REVISION OF A THREE PARTY AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, ROBERT BEIN, ¥VllJJ~V[ FROST AND ASSOCIATES AND BALDWIN VISTA ASSOCIATES, L.P. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREF-MENT - Additional development processing work is being requested of Robert Bein, William Frost and Assoc. over and above the original scope-of-work for the Otay Ranch project. Staff recommends approval ofthe resolution. 0Deputy City Manager I(rempl) Pulled from the Consent Caiendar. Councilman Rindone requested clarification regarding adequate security for the trust fund by Baldwin Vistas Associates. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the City required first u'ust deeds to three model homes to secure the umst fund obligations. It was estimated that the equity of the property was $750,000 which would cover the City's $600,000 exposure. It was his judgement that the security was adequate. Also, in addition, the City was limiting the obligation to pay the bill of the consultants to the assets of the Otay Ranch trust fund which resulted in double coverage. Deputy City Manager I(rempl responded that the $460,428.86 was the balance of the trust fund. There was a cap established in the contract of $550,000 and additional payments made monthly by Baldwin were intended to pay down the balance and draw down the deficit. The balance would be paid on June 30th. Councilman Rindone questioned the cause for the tripling of the increase of the monthly cost. ", Deputy City Manager Krempl responded that the project was not tripling in scope of services and the services were consistent with the scope of work that was approved with the previous contract. The contract was somewhat analogous, what had happened was that the payment schedule was phased, not only in this contract but also in the previous contract which led to the $460,000 figure before Council. Baldwin had made payments to draw down previous deficits. The work effort needed to continue and the developer and consultant had reached agreement for phased payment. Councilman Rindone stated the scope of work was not being amended and he felt there had been an inadequate phasing of payments in the past. The information had not been contained in the staff report, therefore he had been unable to fully evaluate the request. Deputy City Manager Krempl responded that more work was being done than what was being placed in the trust fund based upon the terms of the contract. Councilman Rindone stated that with those clarifications he could support the resolution. If the item should come back for Council consideration in the future, felt past information should be included in order to avoid further confusion. RESOLUTION 16465 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN RINDONE, reading of the tex[ was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Councilman Malcolm absent. 8. RESOLLrrlON 16445 MAKING FINDINGS ON THE PETITION FOR THE OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK - PHASE I ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 89-3A - This item was continued from the 1/7/92 meeting. However, more time is needed to complete the project, therefore, staff recommends removal from the agenda. (Director of Public Works) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RRI.&TED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 9.A. RESOLUTI ON 16466 CEKTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INClJJDING ADDENDUM FOR THE MIDBAYPRONT CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SUBCOMI~ylu-R ALTERNAlll/E) (FIR NUMBER 8908; SCH ,4/:89062807) B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONCEPTUAL DEVEIiOPMENT ~ USE PLAN FOR THE MID-BAYFRONT - At the 8/20/91 meeting, Council directed the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee to return on 1/14/92 with a concept plan for the Mid-bayfront that resolved issues including density/intensity/bulk, traffic, schools, parks/open space, and potential location for a cultural arts facility. The Bayfront Planning Subcommittee has completed their task and through the staff is bringing forward their recommendation. Staff recommends Council consider, deliberate, and act upon Statement of Preference A, B, or C. (Director of Community Development) Paul Petenon, Attorney, Petenon & Price, 530 B Street, Suite 2300, San Diego, CA, representing Chula Vista Investors, questioned whether the staff report was part of the public hearing and if Councilman Malcolm would be allowed to participate when he arrived, if he was not present during the presentation. Mayor Nader responded that the information being presented to staff had been previously presented by Council and therefore Councilman Malcolm would be able to participate when he arrived. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated that due to the absence of Councilman Malcolm, staff would delete the presentation by the Cultural Arts Consultant as that information was not included in the Council agenda packets. He then reviewed the process taken by the Subcommittee, Planning Commission, and Council. Council was being asked to take action on two conceptual proposals. The proposals were conceptual and not binding on future action. Council was also being asked to recertify the final EIR, choosing from the alternatives presented, and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Staff would come back in the future with more binding discretionary action that could include a local Coastal Plan amendment, General Plan amendment, development agreement, and the project itself. Diana Richardson, Environmental Facflitator, gave a brief update on the final EIR. After review of the conceptual plans it was her determination that the EIR would remain valid for either recommendation. City Attorney Boogaard expressed concern that new information was being brought out that was not included in the staff report and expressed concern that the proceedings would lead to a due process attack. He recommended that Council trail the public hearing until Councilman Malcolm arrived. Mayor Nader suggested that Council trail the public hearing until 7:00 p.m., at which time if Councilman Malcolm had not arrived Council could either proceed without Councilman Malcolm or proceed and allow Councilman Malcolm to view the tapes and take formal action at their meeting next week. MSC (Moore/RLudone) to trail the public hearing to 7:00 p.m. Approved 4-O-1 with Counnlman Malcolm absent. Due to the absence of Councilman Malcolm, Council heard the balance of the agenda then adjourned to Closed Session at 6:46 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m. City Attorney Boogaard recommended that Council listen to the staff presentation and not present new information until Councilman Malcolm was in attendance. Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 4 Councilman Moore requested that the Clerk tape the presentation so that Councilman Malcolm could review the new information upon his arrival. Mr. Peterson informed Council that would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Salomone then reviewed the project and the three alternatives. Councilman Rindone questioned how the Planning Commission recommendation was different than the Subcommittee recommendation. Mr. Salomone responded that the items recommended by staff were General Plan recommendations. Mayor Nader stated that as Chair of the Subcommittee, their last meeting was held jointly with the Cultural Ar'~s Commission and was held after the Planning Commission meeting. All recommendations of the Planning Commission were consistent with the Subcommittee's intent. Ms. Richardson then updated the status of the final EIR. Staff had reviewed the Subcommittee Alternative and Staff Alternative Plans and no new issues from those plans had arisen. Therefore, the Addendure was the appropriate CEQA document to describe and clarify the minor modifications. The CEQA-mandated documents were prepared for the Subcommittee Alternative Plan and were not appropriate for the Staff Alternative Plan. If the Council approved the Staff Alternative, staff would have to prepare the CEQA documents for that Alternative and return to Council for their consideration. Gary Cinti, Cinti & Assoc., Planning Consultant, reviewed the description of the Subcommittee and staff alternative plan. Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance, presented the economic analysis. The Redevelopment Agency hired Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc., to assist in evaluating the feasibility of the proposed development of the Bayfront. Staff felt that the economic analysis could be described as neutral and did not provide a definitive answer as to whether the proposed project was economically feasible or infeasible. The calculated internal rates of return were between 10.06% and 13.69% depending upon the assumptions used for income, expense, and absorption rate. The internal rate of re~urn was below the 15% that had been identified as the target rate but the internal rate of return was also above the 10% which was considered to be the bare minimum to allow the project to proceed. Staff felt the project was potentially economically feasible and as the project proceeded staff would continue with the economic analysis in order to provide further information as decisions were made. Lany Williams, Economic Consultant, Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc., reviewed the economic analysis results. He stated that any lender or investor would utilize the same methodology they had used for the economic analysis. Mayor Nader stated there had never been any consideration by the City or the Subcommittee regarding public financial participation. It was his understanding that it made a very small difference in the economic viability of the project, i.e. 1/2 of 1%. Mr. Williams stated it was their determination that the project, as now conceived, was marginally feasible and should be watched carefully by the developer and the City as the risk was immense. It was a complex program with a development period of approximately 12 to 16 years. Councilman Rindone requested that the City Manager address the differences between the three proposals. Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 5 City Manager Goss responded that he did not feel there would be opposition to some of the language added to the conditions by staff from the Planning Commission or the Subcommittee as they strengthened some of the conditions. He then reviewed the differences between the three proposals. Mayor Nader felt he needed to clarify the Subcommittee recommendation, i.e. they had recommended a larger park and smaller residential development. The Planning Commission did not receive a corrected graphic and the difference was two acres less residential development and two additional acres of parkland. Councilman Malcolm arrived at 7:55 p.m. City Attorney Boogaard advised Councilman Malcolm to abstain from participation, due to the due process argument, tmtil he could listen to the tape of the meeting. Mayor Nader suggested that Councilman Malcolm sit in during the remainder of the presentation as there had been a minimum of new information presented that Council had not already received in their agenda packets. City Attorney Boogaard stated that the developer had the fight to due process and recommended that Council Malcolm listen to the tape that had been prepared. He then requested that staff mark all new exhibits that had been presented that were not included in the agenda packets. Councilman Malcolm felt it imperative that everyone understand that the action before Council was to recertify the EIR and conceptual approval of a land use plan, not Mr. Barketes plan. He wanted to hear the pro's and con's regarding the land use plan. Mayor Nader also felt there was misinformation and stated thai Council was not choosing a developer. The developer had purchased the property from the railroad and not from the City. There would be no presentation by any developer. This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was declared open. John Moot, Subcommittee member, recommended Council accept the Subcommittee Alternative Land Use Plan. The Subcommittee began 5/91, conducted a physical examination of the site, reviewed a myriad of reports and studies, and considered a wide range of alternatives. The Subcommittee in reaching their conclusions contributed enormous amounts of time and energy because they recognized that the bayfront was one of the jewels of the City. They supported a successfu~ project on the bayfront that would include a cultural arts facility. He then thanked the Council and staff for their support. Paul A. Petenon, Attorney, 530 "B" Street, San Diego, CA, representing Chula Vista Investors, thanked the Subcommittee and staff for their efforts and dedication over the last three years. Crossroads, while not a voting member, did attend the meetings and participated in the discussions. He then reviewed the substantial changes in the project since the initial proposal. They would accept the Subcommittee proposal and present it as their proposal. Carl Worthington, derde Company, Architects for the project, stated the plan had been modified to address the issues presented. The site was one of the last developable coastline areas in the Southbay which had great sensitivities in terms of being related and adjacent to the marsh areas. The old LCP was changed from 44 acres of open space to over 55 acres and the residential area was now 10 acres less than previously recommended. He felt this could be a model of environmental mitigation and if scaled down would just become another community. Councilman Rindone questioned what sport facilities would be available to the citizens of Chula Vista. Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Worthington responded that the public would have access to tennis, swimming, health maintenance, childtens special training, etc. for free or at minimal costs. There would also be programs for adults, seniors, and world class athletes. It was a broad based recreational program that was community based. Fred Pierce, Director of the Western Region, Consulting Practice and Real Estate, Price Waterhouse, conducted the Hotel Demand Analysis, felt the project would be a world class development. It was their conclusion, after running a financial analysis on the project and pending the future development agreement and prospective participation by the City, that the Subcommittee proposal was a feasible proposal for the project. They did not feel the same for the staff proposal. Dr. David D. Smith, David Smith Associates, 8384 Sugarman Drive, San Diego, CA, representing Chula Vista Investors, deferred his time. Arthur O. Sellgren, Director of Real Estate and Development, Rohr Industries, 2441 Soledad Ct., La Jolla, CA, stated their property was adjacent to the proposed site. They had considered the proposal when designing their new office complex and felt there would be a direct benefit to Rohr and the City. The conceptual plans being presented were superior to what had been presented in the past, i.e. reduction of density, environmental sensitivities, cultural arts facility, etc. He urged Council to pass Resolution 16467. Judith Sullivan, 162 Mankato Street, Chula Vista, CA, expressed concern over the impact upon local schools. George Haman, 1034 Paseo Entrada, Chula Vista, CA, expressed concern that the project would not serve the citizens of Chula Vista as intended. John I(racha, 358 E. Millan Street, Chula Vista, CA, supported the conceptual proposal as modified by the Subcommittee. He had reviewed the owners plan and found the owner extremely flexible in making changes and felt it was a complete plan. He requested that Council make a decision and not send it back to staff for further study. Ollie Braden, 644 Beech Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Chair of the Safety Commission, addressed the safety and traffic issues and stated she would feel better if she knew who the developer would be. She further questioned how long it would be before the project paid for itself. William Virutis, 1604 Dartmouth, Chula Vista, CA, referred to a letter distributed by Crossroads. He felt it was sensationalism and that the facts included were not correct. He expressed concern that citizens were receiving misinformation and that the vision should be coming from the Council. He felt the Cultural Arts Center should be a minimum of 2,000 to 2,500 seats. He acknowledged that it was a high risk project but felt the City needed to move into the 21st century. Howie Knodt, 321 E Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing Carefree Travel, was not present when called to the podlure. Dave Michelson, 3925 Tim Street, Bonita, CA, representing Jake's, spoke in support of the Subcommittee recommendation. He felt the City needed a development of this type as it would help further the image of Chula Vista as a progressive city. Rick Ghio, 215 W. Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA, representing Anthony's Fish Grotto, was not present when called to the podium. John O'Neill, 540 Carla Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, expressed concem over the proper development of the bayfront, He was impressed over the progress made in the last six months but still had reservations over the feasibility and proposed City participation. He questioned what changes would be necessary to the Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 7 Barkett plan to ensure economic feasibility and if the reduction of hotel units in the staff recommendation would improve the economic feasibility. He was uncertain that the Price-Waterhouse report addressed the San Diego area specifically. Jackie McQuade, 359 East "J' Street, Chula Vista, CA, objected to the massive density and height of the project and felt it was out of character with Chula Vista. She also expressed concern over the removal of underground parking and noise. She recommended that Council turn the project down. Richard L. Batterton, 209 Nixon Way, Chula Vista, CA, expressed his concern over the density of the project and urged the Counc~ to maintain the character of the City. Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, CA, thanked the Subcommittee for their efforts and endorsed their recommendation. He felt it was time to get the project 'on the road~. Tom Pasqua, 760 Monterey Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, expressed his concern over the loss of 'home turf'. He urged Council to reject all conceptual proposals and develop one model for consideration. Tom Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA, felt the proposals did not protect the interests of the citizens of Chula Vista. He expressed his concerns over turning over the bayfront to private developers so that private interests could reap a profit. The proposals would brutalize the bayfront and the citizens were being forced to accept the consequences of that action. The Council should act on behalf of all citizens and reject all proposals. PaU-ick L. Anderson, 1986 Duke Street, Chula Vista, CA, was not present when called to the podlure. Helena Huvak, 1986 Duke Street, Chula Vista, CA, was not present when called to the podium. Russ Bullen, 345 'F' Street, #175, Chula Vista, CA, had worked with the Subcommittee and urged the Council to adopt their recommendation. Don Read, CEO Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, Chair of Economic Development Commission, presented a letter to Council requesting that a decision be made and there be no further delays. Martin J. Kermey, 24000 Avila Road, Laguna Miguel, CA, representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, presented a report on their involvement with the City and Chula Vista Investors regarding the proposed project. Bill Robens, 254 Camino Elevado, Bonita, CA, representing the Sierra Club, South Bay Group, disU-ibuted a letter to Council and stated they had not taken a position on the proposals at this time. He expressed concern over environmental issues and felt the findings and overriding considerations were extremely weak and seriously flawed. Anne Bridges, 615 Cedar Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, felt the City of Chula Vista was an ideal place to retire and that over the last ten years the City had been ravaged due to new development. She questioned how much the project would cost and how much the City would have to pay. Mayor Nader responded that he did not support financial participation by the City and that the Council had not been asked for such participation by the developer. Will Hyde, 803 Vista Way, Chula Vista, CA, representing Crossroads, distributed a letter to Council. He stated that Crossroads had not become involved in the Subcommittee until August with the Subcommittee being formed in May. Crossroads had been opposed to the Barkett plan since 1989. Even though the plan Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 8 had been modified and improved, Crossroads still felt that the project was to intense. They had serious concerns about the numerous adverse impacts of the plan. They were strongly in favor of development of the bayfront for the enjoyment and benefit of all of the citizens of the community. They recommended that Council reject Mr. Barketes plan and start anew. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing Crossroads, addressed the economic aspects of the proposal. They did not feel the project would be built without financial participation by the City and that the approval of the Subcommit'tee recommendation would put the City at great financial risk. Councilman Malcolm stated the City did not guarantee any bonds or pledge any bonds to Mr. BarketL If bonds were ever issued, the City would not be pledging anything, therefore it would not cost the taxpayers anything or affect the credit rating of the City. Mayor Nader reminded the audience that Mr. Barketes plan was not before Council tonight for approval. Councilman Moore questioned what the affect would be upon the City if the developer were to declare bankruptcy if the City aided the developer with bonding. Mr. Christopher clarified that any participation by the RDA/Council, even conceptually, would only be for public improvements, basic infrastructure of the project. Not the hotel, residential, or commercial portions of the project. Mr. Christopher informed Council that assistance would be through assessment district financing or Mello Roos financing. The security behind those bonds would be the real estate that was subject to the assessment district. Given the marginal feasibility of the project, staff would also add additional credit enhancements to make sure that any City participation would be fully secured and there would be a minimal risk to the City. There would be no risk to the City's funds. Councilman Moore questioned liquefaction as it pertained to the uplands. John Goddard, Rick Engineering, Civil Engineer for the project, stated the areas of development were on bay point formation. From what he understood from the soils report, the design could accommodate any problems. Liquefaction was not a problem as far as he was aware. Bill Cannon, 4080 Bermuda Dunes Place, Bonita, CA, representing Crossroads, felt the intensity was still excessive regarding three issues: 1) traffic level of service 'F~ which was gridlock, 2) increase in number of students to an already overcrowded system, and 3) concern over 22 story buildings and the need for reduction in the density regarding the number of hotel rooms and residential units. Mr. Hyde stated they would recommend a development of smaller scale that would allow access to the bayfront, generous areas of open space and parks, visitor serving facilities, and be economically viable. If Council must accept a proposal then they would recommend that Council accept the staff recommendation and that the residential density proposed be reduced to a level that could improve the impacts upon traffic and schools. Councilwoman Grasser Horton questioned whether the same formula would be utilized for a bayfront project as any other project in the City regarding schools. She did not feel that the bayfront proposal would generate the same number of children as other residential developments. Mr. Salomone responded that the same formula had been utilized but that staff had not concluded negotiations with the school districts. The mitigation regarding the school impact would be done at a later date. Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 9 W. T. Gurnee, 980 "F" Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing San Diego Shipbuilding, stated that on the conceptual plan their business would be eliminated and replaced with a park. Due to the economic times, he appealed to Council to consider the number of jobs that would be lost and the economic impact upon the City. Their business must operate on the waterfront and they had contracts that had taken years to develop. They were now within twelve months of starting a new project that would take from 8 - 10 years. To send them out of the community that they had supported for ten years was not justified. He requested that Council allow them to cohabitate with the proposed project. Mayor Nader referred to a letter submitted by Mrs. Stubblefield which opposed the Barkett plan and questioned the fiscal feasibility, traffic, aesthetics, etc. of the development. She did not believe that the cultural arts center justified the project. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Peterson questioned how Council would proceed on the three conditions and stated they would like an opportunity to inform Council on what the developer did not agree with. They would support the Subeommittee's recommendations on conditions. Council recessed at 10:50 p.m. and reconvened at 11:07 p.m. City Attorney Boogaard requested that Councilman Malcolm represent the fact that he had listened to the tapes and reviewed the slides and exhibit. Councilman Malcolm verified the fact that he had listened to the presentation portion of the tape, reviewed the slides, and the exhibit showing the mitigation. Mayor Nader handed out 'Nader's proposal" of the proposed resolution. Councilman Rindone expressed his concern that things were being taken out of sequence. He had a number of concerns and recommendations but felt Council needed the Subcommittee report followed by discussion. Mayor Nader stated the public hearing had been closed and he felt it appropriate for Council discussion and action. Staff had recommended an additional 18 conditions that were not inconsistent with the Subcommittee or Planning Commission recommendations. He wanted to add a Financial Security Condition (Condition C) and Minimal Residential Density to Permit Economic Feasibility (Condition D). City Attorney Boogaard stated 'Nader's proposal' paralleled Resolution 16467 which was included in the agenda packet. Mayor Nader then reviewed the other proposed changes included in his proposal. Councilman Rindone stated the issues would have a major impact upon the City and its citizens, what was done or not done should benefit the citizens of Chula Vista. A major area of discussion was the cultural arts center, contrary to what had been stated there was no cultural arts center included. He was unwilling to move forward a project that did not embrace a cultural arts center and wanted assurances regarding the size of the facility and funding. A second major concern was that the project needed to appeal to the youth in the community as far as finding factors that were decidedly different. He was also opposed to the removal of the ice rink. He was not satisfied that the concern regarding traffic was adequately addressed. There needed to be a balance between the residential, commercial and recreational developments to make the project economically feasible. He had an amendment that addressed the Development Agreement to provide for a full commitanent. There should be a direct tax benefit to the City for those citizens choosing not to use the facility and amenities for those citizens choosing to use the facilities. He felt there were other ways Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 10 .) to mitigate traffic and to tie Chula Vista into the surrounding areas, i.e. trolley extensions, water taxi, etc. The eoncems of Mr. Gurnee were not addressed in any of the proposals and he felt it needed to be reviewed. Action by Council tonight would be conceptual approval only. The three amendments proposed were for the cultural arts center, inclusion of the ice rink, and the development agreement to provide security for fiscal analysis. An additional concern was a legal issue, if Council moved forward and the project would be completely changed down the road. He was pleased with the language contained in the resolution 'nor is it intended ...... ' which he felt was legal protection. Mayor Nader clarified the misconception that the City sold the property to Mr. Barkerr. The City never owned the land in question and it was sold by the Santa Fe Railroad to Mr. Barkett. He felt Councilman Rindone's amendment addressed the Subcommittee's intent that not only should a cultural arts center be included but that property should be set aside. His proposed amendment stated that the 'cultural arts center must go forward before the rest of the project could move forward'. MS (Rindone/Nader) Condition A. Cultural Arts Facility - 'Upon determination by the City Counc~ that a cultural arts facility of the type descn~,d herein is most appropriately placed within the territozy of the Conceptual Plan, the Developer shall dedicate the land sufficient for the facility (including parking for the fac~ity), within the territory of the Conceptual Plan, and develop and present to the Counc~ for approval, feas~le (in the judgment of the City Counc~) financing plan that will pennit the design and construction of a multi-functional cultural arts center with a minimum 2,0000 seat capacity of such a design that meets with the satisfaction of the City council, and which, as pan of said financing plan, wffi provide for significant Developer contribution to such a prnjert, and which may further provide for Port participation' (page 3 of Councilman Rindone's proposed resolution) - to be incorporated in Resolution 16467. Mr. Salomone stated that the preliminary information recommended 1,200 to 1,500 seats in the Cultural Arts ~ Center. Mayor Nader questioned whether Councilman Rindone would amend the motion to state a minimum of 1,500 seats. Councilman Moore questioned whether Councilman Rindone would amend his motion to include 'goal of 2,000 seats'. Councilman Rindone stated that it would be acceptable. Mr. Petenon called for a point of order and stated that Council was dealing with a set of resolutions and conditions that had not been distributed prior to the meeting. He felt the developer should be afforded time to address each of the conditions. Mayor Nader stated he would be willing to continue the item, at the end of discussion, so that the resolution could be amended and then distributed for review prior to final action. Mr. Petenon responded that he felt Mayor Nader's suggestion was fair. City Attorney Boogaard felt that Mr. Peterson should be allowed to comment on the additions as a matter of fairness during some time in the proceedings. Councilwoman Grasser Hotton requested clarification regarding "provide for significant developer contribution to such a project......" (page 4 A). ) Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 11 Councilman Rindone responded that the intent of the motion was to make it clear that for the conceptual plan to be approved, a plan needed to be presented which could incorporate many options. That would open the window of opportunity. VOTE, ON MOTION: Condition A - Cultural Arts Center, amended to state 'minimum goal of 2,000 seals'. /Loproved unanimously. MS (Rindone/Malcolm) to approve Condition B - 'The Developer shall dedicate the space and parking for same, wirhin file territory of the Conceptual Plan, and either catlse the design and consll'uclion of~ or fund the design and consn'ucfion of, an 62,000 square foot, 5,000 seat capadty ice rink of such a design that meets with the satisfaction of the City Council (page 4 of Coune~man Rindone's proposed resolution) - to be incorporated in resolution 16467. Councilman Malcolm stated he liked the "or, in the alternative a park designed and consl~ucted to the satisfaction of the City Council" included in Mayor Nader's proposed resolution. AMENDMF2qT TO MOTION: (Rindone/Malcolm) to include, 'or, in the alternative a park designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Council'. Councilman Rindone stated he would agree to the motion with the understanding that Council was looking at providing amenities for the youth of the community, not just a tennis facility but an ice rink. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. MS (Rindone/Malcolm): to approve Condition C - Devdopment Agreement - 'The Devdoper shall commit, in the form of a proposed and executed Devdopment Agreement, to, and provide the City with sufficient security for, the devdopmant of the land according to the proposed General Plan Amenclmant and L(~ Resubmittal, which shall include the Cultural Arts Facility and Ice Rink in the manner herein provided at such time as same are returned to the City CouncR for their review and approval" (page 4 of Coune~'lmen Rindone's proposed resolution) - to be incorporated in resolution 16467. Councilman Moore stated the motion should be amended to state "ice rink/parks". Councilman Rindone agreed to the amendment of his motion. Councilman Malcolm stated Mayor Nader's proposed language even went further and showed Council's intent that all the guarantees would be in place. Word was clear that if there were no guarantees on the completion of the development there would be no project. Mr. Peterson called for a point of order and questioned whether Council was approving the motions with the resolution coming back at a later date for final approval. Mayor Nader responded that once the amendments were agreed upon the document would be set forth so the public could provide comments before final action by the Council. MS (Nad~/Rindone) to add the following to Condition C - Development Agreement - 'security sufficient (in the judgment of the City to guarantee completion of the project) for, the devdopment of the land, and each pax'c and phase of same, including, but not limited to the design and consauction of all public benefits, such as the Cultural Ar~s Facility" .... "The Council may consider waiving the security sulticiency x~..qulremant for a Devdoper that is a governmental agency" - to be incorporated in resolution 16467. Approved unanlrnOns]y. Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 12 MS (Rindonef/qader) direct staff to look at the concern of the ship building industry impacted by the proposed project and that a portion of the plan to mitigate those concerns be included. Councilman Moore stated the lessee of the proper~ had been notified many years ago that their lease could be terminated. Councilman Malcolm felt the intent of the motion was to txy to preserve jobs within the City. The City should be working with the Port District in order to relocate them in order to retain the jobs in San Diego. Councilman Rindone agreed that was the intent of the motion. No information regarding the ship building facility had been included in the information presented to Council and he felt it should be addressed. Mayor Nader felt it was Councilman Rindone's intent to direct staff to consider, in the course of developing an LCP amendment, to preserve jobs provided by the ship yard. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Councilman Moore voting no. Councilman Malcolm stated that if the City was going to get serious about mass transit they would have to force people to using it. They would have to address that through innovative ideas that had worked in other communities in Southern California. He hoped City staff would meet with the Coastal staff to see what had been done in other cities. MS (Rindone/Nader) to direct staff to devdop a creative plan with traffic levels not less than 'C' with all amenifies added. Councilman Moore stated the Charter imposed a legal provision that all traffic levels must not be below level "C' and expressed concern in duplicating existing laws. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. MS [Malcolm/Nader) to add the following conditions: D - Minimal Residential Density to Permit Economic Feas~ility, E - Limited Number of High Rises, F - Additional Staff Conditions 0therthan Phasing, and G - Staff Conditions Regarding Phasing (page 4-5 of Mayor Nader's proposed resolution) to be incorporated in Resolution 16467. Councilman Malcolm requested clarification of "minimal residential density". He did not believe the height of the buildings would meet the scrutiny of the Coastal Commission and hoped staff would work with the Coastal Commission during this process. He wanted to see a Sea Port Village type of development on the bayfront but expressed concern that the usage of "minimal" was not the right word. He would support the motion but would not vote for a plan without a substantial mount of residential that would make the project economically feasible and inviting to the citizens of Chula Vista. Mayor Nader agreed with Councilman Malcolm, the intent of his motion was to get better data in which to judge what that residential level was. He was not talking about going into a residential density of zero. Councilman Moore felt the change to "no more than four high rises" was a major change he could not support, he also did not know the definition of "high rise' or what would be allowed, therefore he could not support Conditions D and E. Mayor Nader responded that the Subcommittee stated four or five "high rises" and he did not feel the limit of four was inconsistent with their recommendation. The additional staff conditions dealt with parking, bike Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 13 trails, traffic, etc. The Subcommittee had not reviewed those conditions individually but felt they should be included. Councilman Moore felt the City Attorney, Mayor Nader, and Councilman Rindone had done a good job in preparing the amendments. He could not support Condition E and requested it be separated from the motion for voting purposes. VOTE ON CONDITION E: Condition E - I.im{ted Number of High Rises, approved 4-1 with Connefim~n Moon voting no. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. Councilman Rindone stated there were ways to mitigate the concerns regarding the potential overcrowding of schools. The Sweetwater School District was moving towards a 2/4 pattern for the middle and high schools. He wanted it understood that the Council was concerned over the potential overcrowding the project could bring. He felt strongly that the Planning Commission provision for schools should be adopted (page 9B-11 of the staff report) rather than the one presented by staff or the Subcommittee. MSUC (Rindone/Malcolm): to add the following condition to resolution 16467 - *The development shall be restricted until assurances that facilities for students generated by the project be antiable when needed.* MS (Malcolm/Nader) to continue Resolution 16467 for one week in order to bring back an mended document and comments from the City A~omey and public. Councilman Moore stated the public hearing was closed and anything brought back could not exceed anything that had been done this evening or it would require a public heating. City Attorney Boogaard responded that Council could expand the scope of their recommendations without requiting another public hearing. He would evaluate whether a public hearing would be required when brought back to Council. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Malcolm) to reopen the public hearing and continue for one week. Amendment died for lack of second. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. RESOLUTION 16466 OP1.-IsREI) BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Councilman Malcolm stated that Council had not taken action in approving a conceptual plan. Council was waiting for assurances regarding public facilities, ice rink, cultural arts center, and further guarantees regarding development agreements. City Attorney Boogaard stated Council had directed staff to process an LCP and General Plan amendment according to those guidelines. Resolution 16467, as amended, was to come back to Council in one week. STATEMENT OF P~CE A APPROVING THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - STAFF ALTERNATIVE, WITH CLARIFYING TEXT AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 1Jk OF THE REPORT, WHICI-I SPECIFIES CERTAIN ITEMS TO BE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THE LIP RE-SUBMI'I'rAL, THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMIITAL, OR AN AGRRRMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE Ca'IT OR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (if preferred, refer back to staff for proper environmental preparation) Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 14 STATEMENT OF PREFERENCE B APPROVING THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE BAYI~ONT PLANNING SUBCOMMITFF..E/APPLICANT ALTERNATIVE, ~ CLARIFYING TEXT AS CONTAINED 1N SECT[ON 2.A OF TIlE REPORT, WI-HCI-I SPE(;IFIES CERTAIN ITEMS TO BE SPECIFICALLY ADDRF. SSED IN THE LCP RESUBIVII-t-t-AL, THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMI-i-rAL, OR AN AGI~F-FMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE ta-t-Y OR REDEVELOPlVIENT AGENCY STATEMENT OF PREFERENCE C APPROVING THE CONCEFrUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE BAYFRONT PLANNING SUBCOMIVHTrEIE/APPLICANT ALTERNATIVE AS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHI(3-1 CLARIFIES TEXT AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 1.C OF THE REPORT, WI~C/-I SPECIFIES CERTAIN ITEMS TO BE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THE LCP RESUBMrlTAL, THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL, OR AN AGI~MFANT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE ulY OR REDEVELOPMF2qT AGENCY (if B or C preferred, so indicate and adopt Resolution 16467) C, RESOLUTION 16467 MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT I~RI ~,TING TO THE FEASIBHA'TY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR TIlE PROPOSED MIDBAYFRONT CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN; *SUBCOMMITrt~E RECOMMFANDATION* (ALTERNATIVE 8, WITH MINOR MODIFICATIONS) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS / None submitted. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ITEMS pLIlJ.RD FROM THE CONSENT CALRNDAR Item pulled: 7. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 10. CITY MANAGERS REPORT(S) Scheduling of meetings - The Water Quality Control Board would be meeting in Escondido on 1/22/92 regarding the vertical expansion of the San Marcos landfill. Staff was prepared to a~tend the meeting and eneouraged any Councilmember that could to attend. Councilman Moore questioned whether the City would be taking the lead in notifying other cities of the meeting and requesting that they also send representatives. He expressed concern that there would be a lack of support if other cities were not personally contacted. City Manager Goss responded that the County was taking the lead regarding the notification of the meeting but the City could request that the cities in the South Bay send their support. Minutes January14, 1992 Page 15 Mayor Nader suggested that he meet with the City Manager to draft a letter to mayors of other South Bay cities urging their support at the meeting. He would be at the US Conference of Mayor's on that date but urged Councilmembers to attend. 11. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Rindone: a. Discussion regarding number of Counc~ absences from meetings before removal from office. The Charter curren~y contains a thirty day provision regarding Counc~ absences from regular meetings. The provision could have had an adverse impact upon three different Counc~members in the past two years. It had been referred to the Charter Review Commission in the past and he felt it should be referred back to the Commission for teevaluation and recommendations on a clearer way to ensure Counc~ attendance. MSC (Rindoneftqader) to refer the thirty day Charter provision regarding Council absences to the Charter Review Commition for reevaluation with recommendations back to Council. Approved 4-0-1 with Councilman Malcolm absent_ b. Stated he was looking forward to the State of the City address by the Mayor. Mayor Nader stated he had not forgotten and had planned on presenting the State of the City address later in the year. Councilman Malcolm: Letter from Frank Fenceira dated 12/18/91 requesting reconsideration of his agreement with the City of Chula Vista pertaining to a tree farm at 1-805 and "H" Street. MS (Moore/Grasser Horton) to direct the City Manager to reopen nego~ation~ with Mr. Ferreira in order to pursue an agreement for a nee farm at 1-80S and 'H' Street_ City Manager Goss stated that if the outline for the agreement was satisfactory to Council, the policy of understanding would be helpful to staff. If agreeable, staff would like this confirmation included in the motion. AMENDIMEICr TO MOTION: to concur with the data as presented to Council by staff, Le. direct the City Attorney to prepare and finalire the appropriate contract for signature by the Mayor. Approved 4-O-1 with Councilman Malcolm absent_ Councilwoman Grasser Hotton: Stated she had been receiving letters from the public regarding the Design Review Committee's process and questioned whether this was being reviewed by the Economic Development Commission. Mayor Nader responded that many of the complaints did not deal specifically with the Design Review Committee but with the process itself. City Manager Goss stated there was a referral to have a joint meeting between the Council and the Design Review Committee. The referral had been deferred until the work by the EDC was completed regarding the permitting process. Staff was making an effort to include the DRC in the next Council tour. Councilman Moore stated that the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Committee had accompanied the Council on their CIP tour in the past and felt they should be invited to join the Council for their February tour. Minutes January 14, 1992 Page 16 Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated the complaints were not against the DRC but staff and she felt it should be looked into. Mayor Nader stated the information being referred to should be made available to those attending the joint meeting of the Council and Design Review Committee. ADJOURNMENT The City Council met in a closed session at 6:46 p.m. to 7:10 p.m. discuss: Instructions to negotiators regarding personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. Insu'uction to negotiators regarding potential acquisition of property located on the west side of Otay Valley Road between Otay Rio Road and Spy Glass Hill Road (Chillingsworth Corporation) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. ADJOIJRNMENT AT 12:29 A.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on January 21, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy~,~ty Clerk