HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/10/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, October 13, 1992 Council Chambers
6:12 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader (arrived at
6:23 p.m.)
ABSENT: Councilwoman Horton
ALSO PRESENT: Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attomey;
and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. pI.RnGE OF ~,LI.RGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF M1NUTES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Anuro Barrios Invitational 1OK Run - Tim Murphy, Elite Racing, presented race t-shim to the City
Clerk for Council. He stated that the race would be held on 10/18/92 and encouraged all to participate.
Last year $10,000 was donated to the Chula Vista Library for books and tapes for children in the community.
They expected over 2,500 participants this year and also added events for children.
Mayor Pro Tern Malcolm stated that the Arturo Bartios Run has not only brought positive exposure for the
City over the last few years but it had also set great role models for the children. He said that their work
and donations in the community were very much appreciated.
CONSENT CATS. NDAR
(Items pulled: 5a)
BALANCE OF CONSENT CAI.RNDAR OFFI~_,D BY COUNCILMAN RINDONE, reading of the ten was waived,
pa~ed and approved 3-0-2 will Councilwoman Hotton and Mayor Nader absent.
5. WRi-t-i~I COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting the City to donate $1,000.00 to help fund the expense for the students who will
be participating in the Rose Parade in Pasadena on New Yea~s Day, 1993 - De1 Bangle, Band Director, Castle
Park High School, 1395 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that this request for
funding be denied, but that staff notify the news media of this request and air a computer-generated message
during televised Council meetings. Pulled from Consent Calendar.
Minutes
October 13, 1992
Page 2
)
Mayor Pro Tem Malcolm asked that a representative from Castle Park come forward and indicate whether
they would be willing to participate in City events and provide service to the City as needed.
Chris Carrillo, 1765 #B Rios Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91911, student, stated they would be honored to
participate.
Del Bangle, Band Director, concurred that they would be happy to help out in any way.
MSC 0~indone/Malcolm) that the City assist the Castle Park High School Trojans and provide $1,000 toward
Charles Withers, 4208 Palm Ave., #88, Chula Vista, CA 91911, student, on behalf of Castle Park, presented
Council with Rose Parade pins.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Cotmcilwoman Horton absent.
b. Ciairn~ Against the City:. Claimant No. 1 - Michael Garcia by Steve Garcia, his Guardian Ad Litera,
c/o Colon, Pineiro & Quinones, Attorneys at Law, 3114 W. Beverly Blvd., Montebello, CA 90640; Claimant
No. 2 - Tai Lashon Bennett, 8009 San Felipe St., San Diego, CA 92114. It is the recommendation of the
City's claims adjustors, Carl Warren & Company, and Risk Management staff that the claims be denied.
c. Letter requesting the Port Commition do a feasibility study on Floatport - Joseph E. Leafy, President,
Float Inc., 850 State St., # 113, San Diego, CA 92101. It is recommended that the request be referred to staff
to meet with any interested members of the Commission.
Mayor Pro Tem Malcolm thought it would seem more appropriate to forward the letter on to the Port
Commission.
Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager, and the maker of the motion, Councilman Rindone, concurred.
Mayor Pro Tem Malcolm stated that the Consent Calendar would then have a new recommendation that the
letter on that study be forwarded to the Port l)islrict.
6. ORDINANCE 2531 AMENDING SECTION 2.30.060 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO STAGGER THE TERMS OF EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVFjDPMF2~ COMMISSION
(second reading and adoption) - At the meeting of 9/22/92, Council directed the City Attorney to prepare
the necessary amendments to that section of the ordinance creating and structuring the Economic
Development Commission to provide that General Ex-officio Members have staggered terms. Staff
recommends Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney)
7. RESOLUTION 16837 AMENDING COLINCIL POLICY NIRdBER 840-02 BRIATING TO SMOKING
IN NON-PUBLIC AREAS OF ta'tY BUILDINGS - In January 1986, Council adopted Policy Number 840.02
concerning smoking in non-public (employee) areas of City buildings. The policy was amended in October
1988 and is proposed to be further amended by this resolution. CITYFOLKS is a model worksite tobacco
education project sponsored by ADAPT. Part of the project was an evaluation of the Cit3/s current worksite
smoking policy. Representatives from management, the CITYFOLKS committee, and all employee
associations met to re-evaluate the policy. The amendments presented with the resolution are the result of
those meetings and are supported by all employee associations. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations - Management Chief Negotiator)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
'i
.,/
Minutes
October 13, 1992
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ]~RI~TED RESOLUT[ONS AND ORDINANC~-q
The City Council recessed at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened at 7:20 p.nL
8. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFI~-r~ LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, AND CORRESPONDING AMENDMF. NTS TO
THE ta-tY'S GENERAL PLAN - At the meetings of 1/14/92 and 2/4/92, Council directed staff to process and
return to Council for approval: a Local Coastal Program (LCP} Resubmittal (amendment), a General Plan
amendment, and a Redevelopment Plan amendment consistent with the Subcommittee Alternative and
including their modifications and informational items. The proposed Chula Vista LCP Resubmittal is the
document that has been prepared in response to the Council directlye. Additionally, the General Plan
Amendment has been prepared to make the General Plan consistent with the LCP. The Redevelopment Plan
Amendment will be prepared following approval of the plans. Staff recommends Council place ordinance
on first reading and approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
ORDINANCE 2532 ADOPTING, ON CONDITIONS, THE *CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN-THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN* AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE
APPLICABLE TO THE BAYFRONT, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MIDBAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ~MITrAL NUMBER EIGHT AMENDMENT (EIR 89-0 ~)
AND ADDENDUM THERETO; AND MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING THE Mri1GATION
MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF O~ING CONSIDERATIONS (fit-st reading) -
Alternative coune of action.
RESOLUTION 16838 CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MIDBAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBlVU-i-rAL NUMBER EIGHT AMENDIVlF, NT (EIR 89-08)
AND ADDENDUM THERETO; AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE RLRMENT, LAND USE
CIRCULATION DIAGRAM AND PARKS AND RECREATION RI.~MENT, AND BAYFRONT AREA PLAN;
ADOPTING THE CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITrAL CONSISTING OF THE LAND
USE PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN AND WITH THE CHANGES DENIll, lED ]; AND MAKING FINDINGS
OF FACT, ADOPTING TI-IE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVF, RR1DING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MIDBAYPRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITrAL NUMBER EIGHT -
Alternative course of action.
Mayor Pro Tern Malcolm stated the item would start afler the Mayor arrived. Council would take up the
remainder of the agenda and the Redevelopment Agency agenda.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated in January 1992, Council directed staff to
return with a General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan
Amendment that would accomplish the Subcommittee's recommended Conceptual Plan. Council directed
staff to look at the specific issues of economic feasibility of the Midbayfront Project, the ability to provide
a Cultural Arts Facility and skating rink, affordable housing mitigation, agreements with the schools in a
development agreement, residential density determination, and that shipping jobs in that area were
accommodated. The Planning Commission recen~y reviewed the project and recommended approval of the
General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Amendment, and Redevelopment Plan Amendment
pending review of the Economic Feasibility Summary Report prepared by Willlares Kuebelbeck & Associates
by the Council.
Diana Richardson, Environmental Facilitator, reviewed the environmental impacts. On 8/20/92, Council
directed the Bayfront Planning Committee along with staff to create a new plan; the new plan was called
the Subcommittee Alternative. Council also directed staff to process the LCP Resubmittal document, the
Minutes
October 13, 1992
General Plan Amendment, and the Redevelopment Plan Amendment consistent with the Subcommittee
Alternative, which was the project being presented that evening, minus the Redevelopment Plan. The Final
EIR was again before Council for re-certification. Ms. Richardson informed Council that letters were received
on 10/13/92 from the California Coastal Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and were
provided to Council. Staff recommended incorporation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments in
the Midbayfront Planning documents.
Gordon Howard, Principal Planner, discussed the General Plan Amendment issues. He stated that the
General Plan Amendment was needed in order to accommodate the Local Coastal Plan and the Bayfront
Specific Plan.
Gary Cinti, Cinti & Associates, reviewed the Local Coastal Plan Amendment Resubmittal. He noted that the
LCP required Coastal Commission certification and any Amendment to the LCP required Coastal Commission
approval. Additionally, once approved by the City and Coastal Commission, the Redevelopment Plan would
need to be amended, the Master Plan would then need to be prepared, and the City's normal process would
begin prior to actual development/construction. The Planning Commission*s recommendation included a
number of changes to the document, two of which included the phasing of environmental mitigation and
limiting the amount of residential that could be built prior to substantial implementation of the central
resort. The Planning Commission also recommended that the Economic Feasibility Summary Report be
provided to Council prior to action by Council.
Mr. Salomone stated staff recommended, in order to expedite the process, that Council certify the Final
and Addendum, make the Findings of Fact, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of
Overriding Consideration, amend the General Plan, the Land Use Element, the Land Use Circulation Diagram,
the Parks and Recreation Element, the Bayfront Plan, and adopt the Local Coastal Plan Resubmittal. He
stated that those actions were being done in such a fashion that all entitlements could be deferred until a
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) was approved by Council and that the applicant would
indemnify the City against any actions arising out of those actions. He noted that the economic data was
inconclusive, that analysis was ongoing with the City consultant, Wflliams Kuebelbeck & Associates, and the
applicant's consultant, Price Waterhouse, and that the data would be further refined. He further noted that
the economic data showed that without some participation by the Redevelopment Agency, the project was
not feasible.
Mayor Nader wanted a project that was feasible for the City. He asked if staff had conducted an analysis
of the fiscal impact to the City.
Mr. Salomone replied that the preliminary report indicated there was a positive fiscal impact for the City
and that Ann Simpson of Willjams Kuebelbeck & Associates was available to answer questions about the
P~eport.
Ms. Simpson noted that Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates' figures differed from those of Price Waterhouse
and that was to be expected as both firms were using different phasing plans to arrive at their numbers.
Mayor Nader asked if the LCP Amendment Resubmittal being forwarded to the Coastal Commission
contained the wording that no permit would be pulled or no development rights would exist prior to a
Phasing Agreement being adopted by the City.
Mr. Salomone noted that was correct and that a General Phasing Plan was included in the LCP Amendment
P, esubmittal.
Minutes
October 13, 1992
Page S
Mayor Nader asked if there was a requirement in the LCP Amendment Resubmittal that a more specific Plan
be adopted before any development occurred.
Mr. Salomone responded yes.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
John S. Moot, 1933 Rue Michelle, Chula Vista, Vice Chair of the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee, pointed
out that the Subcommittee had not met in the eight months since the issue was last before Council and that
he was not speaking on behalf of the Subcommittee. He offered his personal comments based on sixteen
meetings over a period of eight months at which the Subcommittee analyzed the project. He urged that the
project keep moving forward. He also stated his belief that it was important that the Subcommittee meet
and analyze the financial feasibility of the project and what the City may be asked to commit to the project,
how those funds would be committed, and what the return would be to the City.
Paul Petenon, Esq., Peterson and Price, stated that he and Matt Peterson, Esq. represented Chula Vista
Investors and they concurred with the staff recommendation as verbalized by Mr. Salomone with certain
exceptions.
Carl Worthington, AIA, Jerde Partnership, presented an overview of the project. He stated the Developer and
Architect were very pleased with the modified plan and a ttemendous mount of work was accomplished
working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Nature Interpretlye Center to mitigate issues of concern.
Mr. Petenon stated the important issue was to ascertain how to weave the financial feasibility into the Plan
itself. The City Manager's Office, City Attorney, Community Development, and Planning Departments, along
with the Developer spent months meeting on a weekly basis formulating the basis for a DDA. It became
clear that until the negotiating parties had further direction from Council in the form of the approval of the
LCP and other issues, the DDA could not be finalized. The next step would be ~nalization of the DDA in
which the financial feasibility, City participation, and fate of the Cultural Arts Center was to be determined,
Mr. Peterson handed out revised versions of the Ordinance and Resolution. He stated the problem the
Developer had with the Ordinance and Resolution, as prepared by staff, was that it mandated that there be
a Cultural Arts Center and that the Developer would provide it. The Cultural Arts Center was a very
expensive item, approximately $35 million, plus land. The Developer believed it was premature for Council
to mandate that the Developer provide a Cultural Arts Center before feasibility was determined by Council.
The Developer wanted the Cultural Arcs Center to be included in the DDA process and not contained in the
Ordinance or Resolution.
Mayor Nader informed the Developer that the condition, as stated by staff, was that the Cultural Arts
Complex would be done and that it would be part of the DDA and fairly early on in phasing.
Mr. Peterson responded that his reading of the conditions were somewhat different.
Councilman Rindone asked Mr. Petenon if he did not think the items before Council were premature and
if the Development and Disposition Agreement should be approved first.
Mr. Peterson did not agree. He believed in order to keep the project moving forward Council needed to take
the process incrementally. Council approved a Conceptual Plan and was now asked to approve the LCP
Amendment and related action, and then approve the DDA. Mr. Peterson stated that the project needed to
go before the California Coastal Commission and that could not happen until the LOP was approve&
Minutes
October 23, 1992
Page 6
Councilman Rindone thought the DDA needed to be done first as part of planning before processing. He
was very supportive of the project as outlined but felt that one of the major thrusts for support of the project
was the amenitles, i.e. the Cultural Arts Center. He was interested in addressing that issue unless it could
be proven that there was a justified reason for going to the Coastal Commission immediately.
Councilman Malcolm thought Council was very clear in its direction that land be dedicated for the siting
of a Cultural Arts Center, but that did not mean it was necessarily going to be where it appeared on the
Conceptual Plan because of possible objections by State and Federal agencies ff their concerns could not be
adequately addressed. He agreed with Mr. Peterson's statement that there had been no agreement reached
on funding of the Cultural Arts Center but that Councilman Rindone did not imply that the Developer would
pay the entire cost, only that at a minimum the Developer would make the land available. How it would
be funded had to still be determined.
Mayor Nader informed Council that the Subcommittee, of which he was a member, and staff met with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife and there were tentative terms agreed to that addressed their concerns. He noted that
when he voted for the Conceptual Agreement at the January 1992 meeting, he intended that the Cultural
Arts Center be part of the Plan. He needed to be assured that the Cultural Arts Center was part of the Plan
prior to voting on the LCP amendment and related actions.
Mr. Peterson acknowledged that the Developer was committed to provide four acres west of Marina Drive
on the site as contemplated by the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee and as shown on the Conceptual Plan
rendering for a Cultural Arts Center. The concern he expressed was the impression that the Developer was
to provide the land and complete funding for the Cultural Arcs Center, but now he understood that was not
the case. He stated that the Developer and Attomey agreed with the Ordinance and Resolution as prepared
by the City Attorney and staff.
William Pack, 883 Dorothy Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911, informed Council that he was a resident of
Subarea 4, West Fairfield, the southern segment in the project. The residents in Subarea 4 wanted to
maintain their residences in West Fairfield and it was his understanding that by changing the zoning of the
area they would be in violation and could be asked to move. He would be glad to have Council approve the
Conceptual Plan for Subarea 1 but requested that Subarea 4 be tabled and not be part of the Conceptual
Plan.
Councilman Moore wanted to know what rights would be taken away from the residents of Subarea 4 based
upon approval of the LCP Amendment and related actions.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that the Specific Plan constituted a zoning by Council and requested that the
consultant, Mr. Cinti, advise of the change from the current zoning on the site.
Mr. Cinti noted that the current zoning for Subarea 4, West Fairfield, was San Diego County Zoning
Ordinance for Subarea 24A, General Impact Industrial Number 16 of the South Bay Community Plan and
that zoning was not changed by the Specific Plan. The Counvfs zoning allowed mixed use and that there
would be no change from the current zoning which would allow continued mixed use of that area.
Mr. Howard stated that zoning on the area in question was County Zoning M-52 which allowed only
industrial uses and did not allow residential uses. However, existing residences there were legal non-
conforming uses and would continue into the future. The Montgomery Specific Plan covered the area and
designated it as the subject of a future study to consider the ultimate use of the property. That was why
the County Zoning M-52 was left, in the interim, until the City completed the West Fairfield Area study to
determine the most appropriate use of the site.
Minutes
October 13, 1992
Page 7
Councilman Moore asked if residential in County Zoning M-52 was non-conforming.
Mr. Howard responded yes, they were there prior to the institution of industrial only zoning on the area and
therefore they had non-conforming rights to continue with the existing residences that were there.
City Attorney Boogaard asked if the pre-existing non-conforming use rights continued when the City adopted
its zoning instead of the County zoning.
Mr. Howard stated yes, they would continue. The legal non-conforming use followed with the use and not
the ownership. As long as the property was continually used as residential it would maintain a legal non-
conforming status regardless of the ownership of that property.
Councilman Malcolm stated the question was whether to include Subarea 4 in the deliberation or have the
City continue with the study and bring back a plan that would allow Council to address the existing housing
and present uses in Subarea 4. Currently, the City could change the zoning without Coastal Commission
approval. Once the LCP Amendment was certified, zoning could not be changed without Coastal
Commission approval.
Mayor Nader concurred with Councilman Malcolm's assessment and noted the that Council voted the
previous week to proceed with the study on the West Fairfield area.
Mr. Salomone commented that the City had applied to the State for a Grant to perform the special study,
preliminary work had been completed and the study could be completed within nine to twelve months. It
would involve the owners in public hearings to designate zoning. The action Council would take that
evening would have no effect on existing zoning in Subarea 4.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included Subarea 4 and it was
proposed to delete Subarea 4 from the project. There was a discrepancy now introduced between the project
as evaluated and the project that was being approved. The discrepancy needed to be analyzed.
Mayor Nader stated that the EIR focused on the Midbayfront area, Subarea 1. There would be no
conceivable environmental impact to leave Subarea 4 out of the project in the LCP Amendment Submittal
and that the area should be left for the special study.
City Attorney Boogaard asked for verification that Subarea 4 was not the subject matter of a currently
certified LCP.
Mayor Nader responded that Subarea 4 was not the subject matter of the current certified LCP.
Will Hyde, 803 Vista Way, Chula Vista, CA, representing Crossroads, asked how staff recommendatlous
changed from the staff report to the verbal staff recommendation given by Mr. Salomone.
Mr. Salomone clarified that the staff recommendation articulated in the staff report was distributed to
Council and the Public on Thursday, and on Friday City Attorney Boogaard drafted a resolution that deferred
entitlement until a Development Agreement and the feasibility of the project had been determined. The
applicant would indemnify the City against any and all legal actions that could arise out of Council's action,
and deferred any entitlement that would normally be granted in an LCP P, esubmittal until that Development
Agreement and Feasibility Study issue had been determined by Council. Staff offered the Alternative Courre
of Action which was that Council could adopt the LCP Amendment and various land uses, and environmental
actions.
Minutes
October 13, 1992
Page 8
Mr. Hyde stated that if that were the case, he would not speak in support of staffs report. He stated that
Council should approve the DDA first and then the LCP Amendment. He asked if the City would be in a
more advantageous position to negotiate the DDA if the Plan was already approve& He suggested that
Council concur with Councilman Rindone's proposal to approve the DDA prior to approval of the LCP
Amendment and related actions.
Mayor Nader noted that staff was now offering the Alternative Course of Action as their recommendation
as City Attorney Boogaard crafted the resolution in a manner that clearly stated there were no enti~ements.
Councilman Rindone stated that to approve the LCP Amendment prior to approval of the DDA was putting
planning before processing. He was not convinced that the proposal put before Council would be legally
defensible.
Councilman Malcolm stated that because of severe staffing problems at the Commission level, the City
needed to get in line to have its project reviewed. To take the land use portion of the Plan to the Coastal
Commission required that Council approve the LCP Amendment and related actions. The City needed to
keep the project moving fortyard in the process. The City had not vested any rights to the Developer.
During the several month process the Coastal Commission was reviewing the LCP Resubmittal Amendment,
the City would be negotiating the DDA. The Coastal Commission staff had informed City staff that they
wanted to have, even though it was not mandatory, a DDA signed that would require the public
improvements phased and put in at the beginning of the project. He believed it was proper to more forward.
Councilman Kindone stated he did not want to delay the project but before he could vote for the project he
needed to be ensured that it would be the type project which contained those amenities. The DDA needed
to be negotiated first before the City moved forward.
Mayor Nader stated that it would be inappropriate for staff and the developer to negotiate a precise DDA
prior to an approved plan from the City that stated what types of amenities the City expected to be in the
project and that Council would approve subject to an appropriate DDA and phasing plan.
Mr. Hyde responded that to approve the LCP without a completed economic analysis seemed to be approving
the LCP for purely administrative reasons. He could not believe that a project that went before the Coastal
Commission would not be considered on its own merits in a timely fashion. While he thought Council
wanted to do the best for the City, he did not think that for the mere expediency in a time of low building
activity that it was necessary to ramrod the most complicated, expensive, and important single land use
project in the history of the City just to get in line at the Coastal Commission.
Mayor Nader noted that one reason for bringing the LCP before the Coastal Commission was the fact that
by having the Cultural Arts Center and the other amenities in the LCP up front, the Council was making sure
there would be no room in the DDA negotiations to negotiate out of those items. That was illustrative of
doing the planning of the LCP Amendment prior to the processing of the DDA. Once the LCP Amendment
was adopted, a DDA that did not comply with that condition would be illegal.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he and staff jointly crafted an alternative course of action on the presumption
that Council would not want a delay. The conditional General Plan Amendment and LCP addressed and
basically created specific plan rights in the General Plan Amendment and should those conditions fail to
occur the General Plan was not amended, the LCP Resubmittal was not changed, and the Specific Plan did
not occur. A DDA had to occur before either the General Plan or the LCP was changed. There was a specific
arrangement on phasing that not more than 25 percent of the residential could be built until 50 percent of
the commercial was completed. No building permits, either residential or commercial, could be applied for
until the City had approved an Implementation Plan assuring the City of financing, designing, and
Minutes
October 13, 1992
Page 9
construction of the Cultural Arts Center. No building permits could be applied for until a similar
Implementation Plan had been approved by Council showing the fmancing, maintenance, improvement and
continued operations of the Nature Interpretlye Center. No entitlement rights were generated in the
Developer until the City had an Indemnity Agreement. Irrevocable dedication of land both for the Park and
Cultural Arts Center and all Mitigation Measures had to be implemented or the City had to be given
adequate assurances, satisfactory to the City, that they would be fully mitigated. No building permits would
be authorized until the City was confident that all mitigation measures were either implemented or
financially secured. When the Redevelopment Agency understood that the City could grant that type of
conditional entitlemerits it would be an adequate basis for going forward. That was the sequence of events.
Mr. Hyde asked what, if any, action taken enhanced the value of the property prematurely, would be the
impact of the action on getting the Port Disttict to acquire the land.
Councilman Malcolm believed the argument was over nothing, that the Port District would be buying the
land and, by moving the process along, it would enhance Port participation. His personal preference would
be for the Port to acquire the land. Mr. Barkett had been a good corporate citizen in Chula Vista, but he
believed valid concerns had been raised in the community about the Developer's ability to go forward with
the project. The actions that evening would help close the deal with the Port District. It was not Council's
intent to have the Developer bear the burden of $35-$40 million to build the Cultural Arts Facility, however,
the property owner had to give the acreage to the City for the Cultural Arcs Center.
Mayor Nader noted that by the Council action taken in January 1992, due to economic feasibility issues, the
City would probably not have an ice skating rink in the project but would, instead, have a much larger park.
Councilman Rindone responded that he did not recall that information coming before Council.
Mayor Nader stated that an economic report provided in January 1992 concluded that the ice skating rink
was probably not feasible.
Councilman Rindone responded that Council put the ice skating rink back in the project.
Mayor Nader said that Council's action reflected that if the ice skating rink made the project infeasible that
the land could be made a park and was given that land use designation. The information before Council
did not indicate that the ice skating rink was any more feasible now than it was in January 1992. Should
the final analysis bear that out, then the land would revert to an underlying land use of a park.
Councilman Malcolm noted that Council did not have all the answers as they related to the ice skating rink.
Should the Port acquire the land, then having the ice skating rink in the project would be more feasible.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Moore stated the key element to the success of the project was the lagoon and that it was a
destination site. He was concerned that the lagoon would negatively affect the economics of the project and
that when a Cultural A_tts Center and more parks were added into the project, as well as cutting back the
number of hotel rooms and residential units, did not help the economics of the project. He thought the
project was a winner and hoped it would be developed.
Councilman Malcolm wanted to be sure all technical changes requested by U.S. Fish and Wildlife to the LCP
were made and that the assessment district was included in order to maintain the Nature Interpretive Center,
as well as the enhancement and on-going maintenance of the wildlife area. The City would need to make
that aspect part of the DDA whereby the property was going to be assessed to fund the Nature Interpretive
Minutes
October 13, 1992
Page 10
Center and to enhance and support the wildlife areas. It should have been contained in the LCP document.
Additionally, the problems with placement of "rip rap' at the mouth of the lagoon needed to be addressed
during the next phase of the project, that was in the DDA.
MSC (Nader/Rindone) to amend the Ordinance and Resolution to delete all references to the West Fairfield
Area and to separate out of the LCP. Approved 4-0-1 with Councilwoman Horton absent.
RESOLUTION 16838 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived.
City Attorney Boogaard read into the record the consensus on changes made to date at the meeting, that
being: all changes contained in the Errata Sheet for the Land Use Plan that was circulated just prior to the
meeting by staff to Council, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife comments dated 10/13/92 should be incorporated
in both the Land Use Plan and the Specific Plan.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader/Rindone) to amend the Ordinance and Resolution to delete all
references to the West Fairfield Area and to separate out of the LCP, add changes contained in the Erram
Sheet for the Land Use Plan and the Plan be mended to conform with the comma. fits made in the October
13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services cornms~rlication. Approved 4-0-] with Councilwom3~t Horton absent.
Councilman Rindone reiterated that he was for the Bayfront Project but was against the way in which it was
being processed that evening. His "no" vote reflected his opposition to the method of processing and did
not reflect his view on the project which he thought was excellent.
VOTE ON AMENDMF2qT: approved 4-O-1 with Councilwoman Horton absent.
Councilman Malcolm stated he would like, when the DDA comes before Council as a public hearing, that
an LCP Amendment also be noticed at the same time to incorporate those items that Council wanted to place
into the LCP, such as the Assessment District, Detailed Phasing Plan, and anything else Council believed
needed to be removed from the DDA and placed in the LCP. The California Coastal Commission staff would
work with City staff relative to the content of what needed to be put in the LCP Amendment.
MSC (Nader/Malcolm) to specify that the LCP Amendment before the Council tonight be revised to include
wording to the effect that a Special Beneficial Assessment Diswict will be formed to support the Nature
Interpt~dve Center. Approved 4-0-1 with Councilwoman Horton absent.
RLe~LUTION 16838, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved 3-1-1 with Counc~man Rindone opposed and Councilwoman Horten absent.
Councilman Malcolm asked that staff work on the question of the "rip rap' at the mouth of the lagoon, bay
side, to arrive at a solution of other then the "rip rap.'
Mr. Cinti noted that the wording of "rip rap" could be replaced by 'appropriate barrier' as opposed to 'tip
rap barrier" which is just one type of balTier.
MSC (Malcolm/Nader) to delete all reference to Subarea 4, and incorporate all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sendee
changes as contained in their letter of 10/13/92 to the text of the Specific Plan. Approved 4-0-1 with
Councilwornsn Honon absent.
ORDINANCE 2532, AS AMENDED, pLAf:F.I) ON FIIL~T READING BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of
the text was waived, passed and approved 3~L2 with Councilmembevs Honon and Rindone absent,
MSC (Malcolm/Nader) refer to the Bayfront Planning Subeotnmittee for their allalysis alid recommelldations
on the DDA and the Economic Feasibility Report. Approved 3-0-2 with Cottne~menlbex$ Horton and Rindone
absent.
Minutes
October 13, 1992
Page 11
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· William E. Claycomb, 457 Delaware St., Imperial Beach, CA 91932, stated that ff he remembered
correctly, the City had a $6 million reserve and really did not need to force the Port to give the City money
for Bayfront development. If the City had such a healthy surplus, it would be nice ff they repaved Main and
Broadway and a few other streets. He said it would be nice of Chula Vista to let San Diego have that $14
million San Diego thought it would get so they would not have to lay off police, firemen, etc.
Councilman Rindone stated that the Broadway project for paving had already been approve&
· Richard P. Hermosillo, 3323 Alvoca Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911, representing the Otay Committee,
invited Council and the public to the Third Annual Otay Community Fair, Saturday, 10/17/92, at Otay Park,
1600 Albany Avenue, from 9:00 a.m. to dusk. He noted there would be live entertainment, a sky-diving
show, kiddie rides, games, crafts and food booths, as well as Mario Lopez and D~lon Diamond, both from
the T.V. show "Saved by the Bell" on NBC. He acknowledged the presence of Mayor Nader and Councilman
Moore at last year's successful fair with an attendance of over 2000.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMIMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
None submitted.
ITE1VIS PUIJ.RD FROM THE CONSENT ~AR
Items pulled: 5a. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
9. t;rlY MANAGER~j REPORTfS) - None.
10. MAYORS REPORT(S)
· Mayor Nader stated he had just returned from the League of California Cities Conference. The focus
at the conference had a lot to do with what the State had done to the cities budgets and various proposals
for constitutional amendments and initiatives, The conference adopted, with only three or four member
cities dissenting, a resolution that he authored on behalf of the Public Safety Committee, calling on the State
to put a bond issue on a State ballot to build no-frill prisons for drug dealers. The reason for doing that was
because the State Legislature had claimed that they could not afford to imprison drug dealers and had to
turn them back into the community because of the expense involved in putting them in prison,
· Mayor Nader stated there was a meeting the previous week with the five port city mayors and a
press conference held afterward. The basic outline was that they would not be pursuing a cutting up and
distribution of the Port Disu-ict reserves into city general funds. Their preference would be a combination
of measures including Port takeover of certain operations which cities had been funding out of their own
budgets and operating on behalf of the entire region and a possible bond issue to fund additional job
generating capital improvements in the port area. Since that time the City of San Diego had prepared and
Minutes
October 13, 1992
Page 12
circulated a memorandum of understanding which purported to, but did not, reflect the negotiations among
the five city port mayors thus far.
Councilman Malcolm stated that the money needed to go to Chula Vista. He felt a workshop was needed
to discuss the reserves.
MSC(Rindone/Malcolm) toestabllshaCouncilworksho specfficallymdiscussdism'butionofPortDistrlct
reserves. Approved 4-0-1 with Councilwoman Horton ~t,
s Policy direction to staff on relocation mobile home park.
Mayor Nader stated that there was a related item on for closed session that evening so he would trail the
item to follow the closed session. He asked staff if they concurred with the applicant's request for a
c0ntinuarice.
Mr. Salomone stated that staff concurred.
MSC(Malcolm/Nader) tofollowstaffrecommendationtodenysettlementoftheCervantesdaim Approved
3-0-2 with Councilmembers Horton and Rindone absent.
11. COUNCIL COMMF2¢IS
Councilman Moore
a. Councilman Moore recommended having SANDAG do a Study involving a Southem California
Veterans Home site within San Diego County, not to exceed $1,000, a minimum of 20 acres, and provide
the City with the names, addresses, etc. of those ownerships to be tumed over to the service entities so they
could make a personal challenge to those property owners to see if someone would donate the land.
MSC (Moore/Malcolm) direct staff to forward a local technical assistance program to SANDAG to pursue
the ownerships of property, a minimum of 20 acres where major grading was not required. Approved 44)- 1
with Councilwoman Horton absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 9:34 p.m. to the Regular City Council Meeting on October 20, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
City Attorney Boogaard stated there was no need to go into closed session because one of the issues had
previously been discussed.
Acquisition of Property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 - 100 Woodlawn Avenue
(Richard A. Hall Company, owners)
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Cervantes vs. City of Chula
Vista.
A Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency was convened at 7:05 p.m., recessed at 7:20 p.m., reopened
at 9:34 p.m. and adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
Car tr