HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/10/27 MINIrI'F~ OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE rdI-IY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, October 27, 1992 Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Horton, Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. pI.RFSGE OF .~IJ.RGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 30, 1992 and October 6, 1992.
MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) to approve the minutes of September 30, 1992 and October 6, 1992 as presented.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. State of the City Address was delivered by Mayor Nader. A copy of the Address will be on file in
the City Clerk's Department.
b. Proclamation declaring the month of Novamber 1992 as 'MEALS-ON-WI-~-R!_~ MONTH' was
presented by Mayor Pro Temp Malcolm to Jim Richards, Director of Development of Senior Adult Services.
c. Proclamation declaring October 24, 1992 through Novamber 1, 1992 as 'RED RIBBON WRRIe was
presented by Mayor Pro Temp Malcolm to Robeno Cavazos.
d. Oath of Office: Maureen McNalr - Resource Conservation Commission. Ms. MeNair was not present
to be sworn in.
e. Special Presentation - City Manager Goss presented Council with an "Orchid" received during the
annual Orchids and Onions banquet. The award was given for the Norman Park Senior Citizens Center in
three categories: architecture, landscape architecture, and interior design. It was his understanding that it
was the first Orchid ever given in three categories.
CONSENT CAI.RI~q)AR
(Items pulled: 6, 11, 12, and 15)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OIq'ERED BY COUNCILMAN RINDONE, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved tmartimously.
S. WRI'I'I'EN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter of resignation from Montgomery Planning Commi-tsion - Antonio Castto, St. It is
recommended that the resignation be accepted and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according
to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 2 .~
6. 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 RESUBMI-I-I-AL NIJIVIBER EIGHT AMENDMENT (E1R 89-08)
AND ADDENDUM THERETO; AND MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION fsecond reading and
adoption) - 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 directive. 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 the ordinance on second reading
and adoption. (Director of Community Developmen0 Continued from the meeting of 10/20/92. Pulled
from the Consent Calendar.
Matt Peterson, Peterson and Price, representing Chula Vista Investors, asked as a point of order what could
be brought up in a second reading of an ordinance. The Coastal Commission staff had indicated they would
not accept the Cit~fs application to certify the LCP until the second reading was complete and he expressed
concern that the delays and re-opening of the public hearing at the second reading could cost the project
serious delay.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that a full and complete review by the Council was permitted.
Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that any member of the public, by State law, had the right to
address the Council on any agendized item.
Will Hyde, 803 Vista Way, Chula Vista, CA, representing Crossroads, spoke in opposition to the staff
recommendation. He expressed their concern that the project would not be economically feasible without
public subsidy. He urged Council to support the first staff recommendation which was to continue the
process until such time that the economic feasibility problems were resolved.
Mayor Nader referred to a statement that had been previously made regarding the negotiations with the Port
Commission and stated that the Council Subcommittee had been formed during a regular City Council
meeting by a public vote. Regarding the economic feasibility, neither he nor any other member of the
Council had committed to a public subsidy of the project. The reports regarding economic feasibility were
somewhat mixed but in the absence of a significant public subsidy it was ultimately the risk of the
developer. He would recommend that the City develop, as the LCP was being processed and negotiations
with the Port continued, a program under which net revenues, revenues after any public expenditures,
obtained from the project be earmarked for certain purposes. Those purposes would be: child care, public
safety services, job creation and training, and cultural arts, including the operation of the cultural am center
that was proposed as part of the LCP Amendment.
ORDINANCE 2532 PLACED ON SECOND READING BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was
waived.
Councilman Moore stated he had originally said that there should not be a public subsidy for development
on the bayfront but due to the addition of the lagoon and other amenities the development was now a
destination site which would draw people. Due to that fact he stated that a public subsidy may not be
inappropriate as that was what redevelopment was all about.
Councilman Rindone felt the processing of the project was flimsy. As public officials they had a '/
responsibility to know what the amenities were and if they were contained within the project. He did not
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 3
feel a delay of seven days to process the procedures to obtain the best project was much of a delay after
twenty-five years. He wanted to ensure that those items were in the project they were voting for. Until the
DDA was negotiated, the financial feasibility study was finalized, what participation, if any, was expected
on behalf of the taxpayers, the action was inappropriate. He expressed concern that the action taken would
also increase the value of the property. He was not convinced that the Port of San Diego would not support
the project without the action being taken.
Mayor Nader stated he had never heard of a Development Agreement preceding a land use decision. He
questioned whether it was legal for the Council, regarding a land used decision, to make their decision for
the purpose of affecting the value of the property.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that it was not legal for that direct purpose.
Councilman Rindone questioned whether the appropriate process was to change the zoning prior to the DDA
being negotiated.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that the previous staff recommendation was to have a DDA before the
LCP. However, it was an acceptable step to move forward if the Council desired to do so. The protection
of the City was adequate in the sequence.
~MFANT TO MOTION: (Nader/Malcolm) direct staff to proceed, while the LCP was proceeding
through the Coastal Commlnsion, to work on negotiating terms of a potential DDA with the properly owner
or anyone else that may become the property owner.
Mayor Nader stated his motion was to vote on the two simultaneously and amend the motion on the floor,
to adopt the Ordinance, to concurrently give direction to staff.
VOTE ON MOTION: apprnved unanimously.
Councilwoman Horton stated she felt her actions should be in the best interests of the citizens of the Chula
Vista. She agreed with Mayor Nader and Councilman Malcolm and did not feel that by approving the action
she was enhancing the Barkett property to the Port. Until there was a signed DDA the City was in control
and the property owner had nothing. She felt the project was desirable, would enhance the Cit~fs image,
and give the citizens something they really wanted.
Councilman Rindone stated the vote was not on the conceptual plan or desirability of the project, it was on
the way of processing the project. He was interested in the amenities and what the project would bring to
the citizens.
VOTE ON ORDINANCE 2532 WITH CONCURRENT DIRECTION TO STAFF: approved 4-1 with Rindone
opposed.
MS t'Nader/Malcolm) direct staff to come back to Council with an implementing policy that would earmark
net future revenues from the project to the City for purposes of providing sentices in the areas of: child care,
public safety, job creation and training, and cultural am.
City Manager Goss questioned if net revenues were after the cost of City sentices provided to the project.
Mayor Nader responded that was correct. The motion would be that staff would come back with any
necessary implementing resolutions or policies to earmark anticipated revenues to the City, i.e. tax revenues
to the City that were derived from the project after expenses of the project to the City for services, etc. were
subtracted for the purposes listed. The purpose was to ensure the public that the revenues from the project
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 4 ~
would be used for certain specific purposes that would enhance public services and would not be used to
fatten the bureaucracy.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
7. ORDINAN(~ 2533 ESTABLISHING ~ TRI J~GRAPH CANYON SLAVER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE TO PAY FOR IMPROVF. MENTS TO THE TFJ.EGRAPH CANYON I BASIN (first readinR) - In
compliance with the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Monitoring and Gravity Basin Usage Agreement between
the City and EastLake Development, the City entered into a contract with Willdan Associates for preparation
of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan. This plan and a subsequent
addendure provide recommendations for sewer system improvements needed to accommodate ultimate
wastewater flows in the basin and proposes a fee of $184 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) to f'mance
the construction of these improvements. This is a one time fee paid when building permits are taken out
and is not an ongoing fee. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of
Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 10/20/92.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the ordinance was not prepared and should be continued. He requested that
Council reconsider the item.
MSUC (Nader/Moore) to reconsider Ordinance 2533.
MSUC (Moore/Nader) to continue Ordinance 2533 to the meeting of 11/3/92.
8. RESOLUTION 16847 APPROVING A REVISION OF A TI-IREI PARTY AG!n$~-RMENT FOR OTAY
RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROCF-e-SING BE~ THE CITY OF CHIJLA VISTA, ROBERT BEIN, I~V]IJJ~LI~
FROST AND ASSOCIATES AND BALDIglN VISTA ASSOCIATES, LP. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGI~F-I~.MENT - Additional development processing work is being requested of Robert Bein,
William Frost and Associates (RBF) over and above the original scope-of-work for the Otay Ranch Project.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl)
9. RESOLUTION 16848 APPROVINGAGI~RRMENTBETWEENTIEUlY'OFCI-IUIAVISTA,JI-fl(AND
ASSIXIATES AND BALDWIN VISTA, LTD. - Additional work is necessary to prepare for and attend various
joint City and County workshops; respond to directives given by joint City/County staff; prepare for and
attend community and local planning group meetings and attend project coordination meetings. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl)
10. RESOLLrlqON 16849 ACCEPTINGLIBR/MR.YSERVICESANq)CONb-fRUCTIONACT{LSCA),TIII$_.
VI, LIBRARY LITERACY PRO GRAh'I GRAIqT FIJNDS FOR THE D~PIViENT OF A SI'(ha,.LL GROUP WRfFING
PROJECT WITHIN THE ADULT LITERACY PRO GRAlV[, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AMENDING 'rile
FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 BUDGET - The Chula Vista Literacy Team has been awarded Federal LSCA Title VI
funds in the amount of $32,800 to develop model, small-group writing classes for adult learners, as a
supplement to the one-to-one tutoring program. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Library
Director) 4/Sth's vote re~.
11. RESOLUTION 16850 ALrrHORIZINGTHEMAYORTOSIGNTHECONSENTIXEUMENTTOTHE
ASSIGNIVIENT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CITY'S DEVELOPIdENT AGBRRMENT WITH
EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COIVIPANY ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS SALT CB I~.RI~ 1 FROM FN PROJECTS
TO FN DEVELOPMENT - The Development Agreement in question was approved on 2/26/8S between the
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page S
City and EastLake Development Company for the EastLake I Planned Community. Section 12.11 of the
Agreement provides that the Cit,fs consent is required for any transfer of rights and obligations under the
Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consent
Calendar.
Amy Mendez, 9800 S. Sepulveda, Los Angeles, CA, 90045, representing FN Projects, stated she was in favor
of the staff recommendation and was available to answer any questions.
Councilman Malcolm questioned what the benefit was to the City. He did not see any reason for the Council
to give their approval and he would rather see EastLake part of it whereby they clearly understood that they
were not being released from any of the responsibilities they had committed to under the prior agreement
or waiving any of their contractual obligations if FN went bankrupt, etc.
City Attorney Boogaard stated staff had interpreted the Consent to Assignment not to be a release of claims
against EastLake. He did feel it would be a good idea to modify the contract to state specifically that
EastLake nshall not be released by virtue of the City's consent~. He questioned whether there would be a
problem with a continuance of the item.
Ms. Mendez informed Council they had planned to close the transaction by the end of the month, therefore,
the delay would cause a problem.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the agreement could be approved subject to EastLake's consent. He
questioned whether EastLake or FN would object to the provision that Chula Vista's consent would not
release them.
Ms. Mendez stated she could not speak for EastLake and was unsure what the relationship was now between
EastLake and the City or EastLake and FN Projects. It was her understanding that there was no continuing
relationship between FN and EastLake. The point of doing it was that FN Projects was no longer going to
be a party to it and all the responsibilities, rights, and obligations under the agreement would be transferred
to the new entity. She would have to consult with their attorneys.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the concept was that the City would first look at FN Development Company,
secondly FN Projects, and thirdly to EastLake for any failure to perform the duties in the development
agreement. The assignment did not release them but because it was silent it would be better to clarify that
it did not release either of the prior owners of the property from their obligations in the development
agreement if FN failed to perform.
MSUC (Nader/Malcolm) to authorize execution of the contract provided that an amendmant~ drafted by staff,
was accepted by the other parties. If the amandmant was objected to by any of the parties then the
agreement would come back to Counc~ in two weeks for further consideration.
12. RESOLUTION 16851 ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF GLOVER
AVENUE ADJACENT TO 360 "IT' STREET - Dr. Roberto Gratianne, owner of the property at 360 "H" Street,
has requested a right-of-way vacation by the City in order to reduce the impact on the developable area
resulting from the dedication of right-of-way for the future widening of "H" Street. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilman Malcolm stated the property owner was getting credit on "H" Street where no one else would.
City Attorney Boogaard stated his office had been consulted and he had encouraged the settlement for legal
reasons.
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 6
RESOLUTION 16851 OI, I,I~RED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
13. RESOLIJTION 16852 APPROVING FOUR ALL-WAY STOPS FOR BONITA LONG CANYON - At the
6/12/90 meeting, Council approved a temporary trial period for all-way stops at four intersections within
the Bonita Long Canyon subdivision. Staff has completed their evaluation of the all-way stops and is
recommending that they be made permanent. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Public Works)
14. RESOLUTION 16853 ALFrHORIZING THE UI-IY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEl! TO EXECUTE, ON
BEHALF OF THE I.;I-IY, ANY AGRRRMENT REGARDING STREAM OR LAKE ALTERATION WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME - The City is required m enter into a stream bed alteration agreement
with the State of California Department of Fish and Game for every project impacting weftands. This
resolution will authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign such an agreement. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
15. REPORT ENDORSEMENT OF THE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT PLAN FOR THE
OTAY RIVER V/~IJ.RY - The City received an $88,000 grant from the State Coastal Conservancy to prepare
a Resource Enhancement Plan for the area of the Otay River Valley from the Bay to a half mile east of I-805.
In addition, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated $10,000 to extend the study area of the Plan to the
eastern reach of Otay Valley Road. The finn of Wallace, Roberts and Todd, Inc. CVVRT) was selected to
prepare the Resource Enhancement Plan. The Plan has been completed and is ready for endorsement by
Council. Staff recommends acceptance of the report and approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and
Recreation and Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilman Malcolm stated he would abstain from participation and voting due to the location of property
he owned adjacent to the area.
Councilman Moore felt that the fact they were dealing with private property should be reinforced. On page
81, Goals and Objectives Statement, he felt it would be appropriate to add 'In the pursuit of the above, due
diligence would be provided with respect to the rights of local property owners'.
MS ClVloore/Nader) to add the following sentence to page 81, Goals and Objectives, second paragraph, 'In
the pursuit of the above, due diligence would be provided with respect to rights of local property owners*.
Mayor Nader stated the U.S. Constitution required due diligence in regard to the right of property owners
and he felt the addition was probably not needed.
Second to Motion Withdrawn: (Nader) Motion Seconded: (Rindone)
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-O-0-1 with Malcolm abstaining.
RESOLUTION 16855 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved 4-0-O-1 with Malcolm abstaining.
RESOLUTION 16855 ACCEPTING THE OTAY RIVER VAI-I.EY RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT PLAN
AND ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NUMBER IS-92-37 WITH REGARD THERETO
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
Minutes
Ocwber 27, 1992
Page 7
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RF_SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
16. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
NUMBER 123 ALONG 'E" STREET FROM BROADWAY TO TOYON LANE INCLUDING TOYON LANE, CORTE
HI~..IJ~I\IA AVENUE, AND GUAVA AVENUE (CANDY CANE LANE) - On 8/15/92, Council ordered a public
hearing to be held on 10/20/92 m determine whether the public health, safe~ or general welfare requires
the formation of an underground utility district along "E~ Street from Broadway to Toyon Lane, including
Toyon Lane, Corte Helena Avenue, and Guava Avenue (Candy Cane Lane). Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 10/20/92.
Mayor Nader informed the Council that he owned properc~ in the district and Councilman Pindone owned
property adjacent to the district and they would therefore abstain from participation. The meeting was
turned over to Mayor Pro Temp Malcolm.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Those speaking in opposition to the staff recommendation were:
· Vernon Whitley, 197 1st Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
· Linda Navarro, 264 "E" Street, Chula Vista, CA, felt reimbursement should be spread out evenly on "E"
Street, not just single family residences.
· Sher A~uilar, 170 "E" Street, DS, Chula Vista, CA, representing Mission Gardens Home Owners
Association, questioned whether there would be a provision for replacement of existing securit~ lighting.
· W.W. Huffman, 48 Toyon Lane, Chula Vista, CA suggested there be a vote among those in the district.
· Bob Blake, 267 Minor, Chula Vista, CA, representing Pilgrim Lutheran, questioned what would be done
for the non-profits regarding reimbursement.
· Glen Smith, 198 Minor Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, referred to previous improvements installed at his costs
and expressed concern that they not be destroyed during the project.
· Mary Willardson, 509 Carvalos Drive, Chula Vista, CA
· Elizabeth CallageL 466 "E" Street, Chula Vista, CA
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Mayor Pro Temp Malcolm questioned whether there was an existing policy addressing non-profit
organizations and whether everyone in the district had been notified of the estimated costs.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded there was no existing policy but staff was checking to see
what other cities were doing regarding non-profit organizations and commercial. The individual costs were
unknown when the property owners were notified of the public hearing. They had been notified of the
reimbursement costs.
Mayor Pro Temp Malcolm questioned whether the gentleman on Minot and "E~ Street would have to pay
for any undergrounding.
Mr. Lippitt responded that if power was taken from Minor, unless there was a difficulty with the location
of the pole, there would not be a problem. He would have to do further research regarding that proper~.
MS (Moore/Horton) to file the item due to the timing of the project. Staff is to come back with an updated
policy and concerns expressed tonight are to be addressed at that time.
Mayor Pro Temp Malcolm stated he would rather move forward with the formation of the district and before
any work was done Council would devise a policy regarding the non-profit organizations and commercial.
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 8
He recommended that no contracts be awarded or bind any proper~ owners to money until the project came
back in another public hearing before Council where it could then be decided whether to proceed.
MOT[ON WITHDRAWN: (Moore)
MS (Malcolm/Moore) to form the district, direct staff to review the policy regarding non-profit, COmmerCial,
and mulli-f~mfly. Prior to awarding the conlract all property owners are to be noriced, and another hearing
would be held before Council prior to committing any propelly owners to any extNnlse. Staff is to nol~fy
Council of any property owner, singie f~rnfly, ltml: would not be fully reimlRlrsed.
Councilman Moore stated he wanted staff to bring back information on how much money would be saved
in the normal bidding process, in today's economic times, and what it would cost if everything was
subsidized.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-0-0-2 with Nader and Rindone abst~inlng.
RESOLUTION 16846, AS AMENDED, OI.'I.I~D BY MAYOR PRO ~ MALCOLM, reading of the ten was
waived, passed and approved 3-0-0-2 with Nader and Rindone absfninlng.
Councfiman Moore requested that the report include costs with and without Toyon Lane.
RESOLUTION 16846 ESTABLISHINGUNDERGROUNDUTILITYDib'fRICTNUMBER123ALONG
'E' STREET FROM BROADWAY TO TOYON LANE INCLUDING TOYON LANE, CORTE I-~-I-~-NA AVENUE,
AND GUAVA AVENUE (CANDY CANE LANE) AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALLOCATION
FIJNDS TO SUBSIDIZE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSIONS
17. PUBLIC HEARING GPA-93-2, PCZ-93-B, PCM-93-3; CONSIDERATION TO; 1) AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN FROM *VISITOR COMMERCIAL ' TO 'RETAIL COMMERCIAL*; 2) REZONE FROM C-V-P AND
A--8 TO CC; AND, 3) ADOPT A SPECIFIC PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS *BONITA GATEWAY* FOR 2.23 ACRES
OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF BONITA ROAD AND 1-805 - ROBINSON
PACIFIC, INC. - Staff recommends the public hearing be continued to 11/10/92. (Director of Planning)
MSC (Malcolm/Honon) to continue to the meeting of 11/10/92. Approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent.
18. PUBLIC HEARING PCM 90-19, PCZ 90-M; CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY PRE-ZONE FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH, LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF 1'HE
SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, WEST AND SOUTH OF MOTHER MIGUEL MOUNTAIN, AND NORTHEAST OF
PROCTOR V~IJ.EY ROAD - SAN MIGUEL PARTNERS - The project is a proposed development of 1,654
dwelling units, a commercial center, a community park, and an elementary school site on 2,590 acres. The
property is divided into two parts by lands owned by SDG&E, and is generally located south of the
Sweetwater Reservoir, north of East "H" Street and Proctor Valley Road, and west of the San Miguel
Mountains. The site includes Mother Miguel Mountain. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Planning)
REPORT CONSIDERATI ON OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENT AL IMP ACT REPORT FOR
THE RANCHO SAN MIGUEL G~ DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EIR-90-O2 (SCH #90010155)
Mayor Nader stated because there was material that several of the Councilmembers had not been able to
review, Council may want to continue the matter in order to review the materials.
Councilman Malcolm stated his concerns would not be answered by a weeks continuance. In going through
the Planning Commission's minutes he found it interesting they voted yes for all the individual votes but
when the project came forward they voted no. He also found it strange that staff had previously
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 9
recommended approval and were now recommending denial. He was uncomfortable with the feedback
received from the Planning Commission, i,e. not enough time, not having documents, not able to understand
the information presented, It seemed that Council needed to give policy decision because the project was
designed on the assumption that SR125 would be built. He would rather have the project go back to the
Planning Commission for review and input and then find out what their recommendations would be
regarding changes that would make it acceptable, and what their reasoning was for the recommendation
of denial when the individual aspects of the project were approved, The developer stated that residential
should be next to the SDG&E substation and he did not feel there was any question that the facility would
be expanded in the future. The commercial should be next to the substation.
Mayor Nader stated he was not unsympathetic but if the Planning Commission felt they did not have enough
time to study a project they should continue it. He did not understand why a recommendation would be
voted upon and sent to Council on the grounds that they did not have enough time to study all the
documents. It was his understanding that different advice had been given to the Commission by staff and
he hoped that when that type of situation arose that staff would inform the Commission that it was
appropriate to continue the item.
Councilman Rindone felt the frustration of the Planning Commission wasn't focused on lack of time but a
misunderstanding of what was before them on 10/19 from the 9/30 meeting. It was his conclusion after
reading the minutes that four of the five major issues had been resolved with the issue of biological
resources being deferred. The basis of denial of the EIR was the assumption of SR12S, which could have
been an error on their part by opening the forum for the discussion of issues not specifically before them,
He concurred that it should be sent back to the Planning Commission, not because they were not prepared
but because they needed appropriate legal advice regarding issues before them.
Councilman Malcolm stated there was some confusion as to when SR125 should be discussed, what were
the rules and parameters, etc, After reading the minutes he was at a loss as to why the Planning
Commission had voted no.
Councilman Rindone stated he was disappointed that the current stuff report did not include all the
references to the 9/30 meeting. He expected full information from staff and felt the report was incomplete.
Councilman Moore stated he would be agreeable to a continuance but felt Council should clarify the three
to four items the applicant and staff had not agreed upon. He referred to the staff report which stated there
had been an interpretation of Council direction and noted that direction by Council was only given by a
majority of the Council. There was some intent of the Council to say that for the northern development X
number of units on X number of acres would be all that would be allowed and, therefore, there would be
no transfer of density. So they came up with 3S7 acres with an average of one unit per acre which was
what the applicant had requested, Contrary to that, there was 1,490 acres of open space and they were
allowed one dwelling unit per acre, therefore, the developer was allowed to have 149 units transferred to
the south and he had requested 35, He felt that was one of the items that should be cleared up, It was his
understanding that the biological resource report and SR125 were not required until the SPA level. If that
was true it should be elatifled at the beginning. Regarding SR12S, there was a Traffic Threshold in the City
that must be Level C, If that level was not met permits would not be issued, the cheeks and balances were
there. Density transfer, biological resource report, SR125, and lot sizes were the main issues.
Gordon Howard, Principal Planner, stated that staff recommended denial and to send the project back for
a redesign. The three major issues were: l) General Plan consistency involving the southern parcel; 2)
biology concerning the northern parcel; and 3) circulation issues involving roads in the southern portion
of the property. He then reviewed the issues and staff recommendations included in the staff report.
Barbara Reid, Associate Planner, summarized the second addendure to the EIR.
Mr, Leiter summarized the two Planning Commission meetings that were held to review the project.
Councilwoman Horton stated that in the General Plan it stated that a transfer of density was permitted from
an open space area designated on the General Plan and questioned whether that was correct.
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 10
Mr. Howard stated it was allowed but the question was whether there was a special consideration given to
the northern parcel at the time of the 1989 General Plan update that would not have allowed it in the
particular circumstance. It was generally allowed throughout the City otherwise.
Mr. Leiter stated it was not a grant by right but did allow the Council to approve such a density transfer.
Councilman Rindone referred to a statement that the recommendation by staff would include placing lots
on top of Horseshoe Bend and questioned why staff had made that recommendation. He felt the two
suggestions by staff, i.e. to protect the open space and then to build on top of Horseshoe Bend was
incongruent.
Mr. Leiter responded that after looking at studies of the property that there could be an alternative that
would allow some limited development on a portion of Horseshoe Bend. It could be done in a manner that
would not create a visual impact. Staff recommended that the final decision be deferred to the SPA level.
A similar type of development had been approved in the Salt Creek Ranch project on a ridge.
Mayor Nader stated that if the item came back to Council he would want more follow-up on how that would
be achieved.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Mayor Nader felt it was clear that a majority of the Council was not inclined to vote on the project for a
variety of reasons and noted members of the public might want to pass if they were able to attend the
meeting when the item was to be rescheduled.
· E. J. Burley, 6500 San Miguel Road, passed.
· George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Road, Bonita, CA, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic
Association, stated they were not against development but expressed concern that Service Level C for traffic
be kept in mind during the planning. He requested that Council keep the public health and welfare as their
number one consideration.
· John C. Ray, 1777 Yale Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated the confusion at the Planning Commission level
was because they were given two sets of mitigation and monitoring plans. One by staff and one by the
applicant which raised the concern as to which one the Commission was voting on. The Commission did
not feel that based on the General Plan wording that Gobblers Knob and Horseshoe Bend were significant,
therefore, the grading and development should be allowed. They did continue the biological study.
Regarding the EIR, when asked a specific question they did vote individually but when everything was
culminated, because one significant impact could not be mitigated to his satisfaction, it meant a no vote on
the entire EIR. Each Commissioner had specific concerns.
Councilman Malcolm questioned whether sending it back to the Commission to work out the biological
issues, planning issues, and Council concerns would be beneficial.
Mr. Ray responded it would provided they would receive one set of documents, one direction that stated the
applicant and staff had agreed or disagreed without a new response coming from both sides. The time
element was not a circumstance of that particular project but was due to a number of on going projects.
They needed to know that the Council would agree with them that the General Plan was something they
should follow in terms of Horseshoe Bend and Gobblers Knob, information on SR125, etc. He felt the EIR
was inadequate due to water, specifics relating to biology, and traffic mitigation. He also felt the project
was the type needed in the City and would improve the quality of life for the residents.
Mayor Nader questioned whether Mr. Ray felt it would be productive to refer it back to the Planning
Commission provided that direction was provided that the Commission come back with specific
recommendations as to the issues on which concerns were expressed on the adequacy on environmental
adequacy or mitigation.
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 11
Mr. Ray responded that Mayor Nader was correct and it was his feeling that staff took an interpretation on
specific issues in the General Plan to come up with their recommendation. The Commission in some
instances did not agree with their interpretation and that was why straw votes were taken, There was still
a discrepancy between the applicants viewpoint and interpretation and staffs interpretation. Because
responses were received by both the staff and the applicant the Commission felt those issues were unresolved
and therefore the EIR was inadequate.
Councilman Moore questioned whether staff agreed that the biological study and SR125 was appropriate
at the SPA level.
Mr. Leiter responded that staff agreed that the basic approach in the biological mitigation plan was a good
approach and would use the NCCP as a future study to work out the problems. Staff would like to have an
opportunity to review additional comments received from Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife and work
out those concerns with the agencies. Staff felt SR125 was a SPA plan issue, the General Plan designated
SR125, therefore, it was taken as a given that the facility would be available at buildout.
Councilman Moore stated there was also the interim four lane facility.
Mr. Leiter stated HNTB was doing a financing plan for an interim SR125 facility that would be financed
locally. That could bring earlier relief to the problem. That was mentioned briefly at the Planning
Commission meeting. Staff intended to hold a full briefing with the Planning Commission on traffic to bring
them up to speed on the issues.
Mr. Ray responded that given the CEQA requirements, the EIR and mitigation presented to the majority of
the Commission did not adequately address alternatives to some of the specific issues. Without the tangible
mitigation standards there would be a level below "C" which was not something that would be approved at
the Planning Commission level. Before ground was broken or anything further approved he would continue
to vote the project down from an environmental standpoint if an alternative were not agreed to supplement
SR125 as it was currently in the EIR as a mitigation measure.
· David Naime, #950-4350 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, CA, representing San Miguel Parmers, felt
they had received direction from the Planning Commission on certain issues, particularly as they arose for
the four issues outstanding on the General Plan. He would like to see direction from Council as to whether
those issues had been resolved and ff Council agreed with the decision made by the Planning Commission.
The second addendum was prepared to address the vote previously taken by the Commission. When they
appeared before the Commission the staff recommendation was that the General Plan issues had been
amended to reflect the direction given from the Commission and, therefore, there was a consensus on the
General Plan issues. The biology issue had been resolved to the satisfaction of the staff and other interested
parties. The north mitigation plan had also been resolved by staff. Regarding the density transfer bonus,
it was their position that only the Council could tell them whether the General Plan and its plain language
should be applied or whether there was some other intention of Council that they should respect. He
wanted to know if there was closure on those issues which the Planning Commission voted on, i.e. lot size,
compatibility issue, and Horseshoe Bend and Gobblers Knob issues. He would also like direction on the
SR125 issue confirming that from Council's perspective it was a reasonable assumption at this level of
approvals. They would continue to monitor and resolve the issue before moving to the SPA level approval.
He requested clarification on the density transfer issues since that was a decision they had recommended
be left solely to the Council.
· Peter Watxy, 81 2nd Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, passed.
· Michael d. Roark, 231 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, 91910, stated he was not opposed to the project per
se but suggested that the lots in the northwest comer be at least one acre parcels to be consistent with the
existing development.
· Nancy Gilbert, 2730 Loker Avenue, Cadsbad, CA, representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stated
the service concurred that the site was one of the most rich and diverse assemblages of unique and sensitive
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 12
biological resources in southern California. The proposed project, with the second addendure, would result
in significant unmitigable impacts to biological resources. The site to the north was extremely important
biologically. The Fish and Wildlife Service had reviewed the proposed mitigation and second addendure and
felt that proper use of mitigations would include a plan that would identify specific actions, contain
sufficient details to determine whether the plan was feasible to implement, and include binding
commitments. The mitigation plan should contain sufficient information to determine the level of
compensation that would occur. It was unclear after reviewing the second addendure what level of
mitigation would actually occur. She felt the important issue was that once build out had occurred within
the whole region, not just that project, that the open space needed to have a good preserve design to
maintain the species they were attempting to maintain. A concern of the Senrice was that the open space
that did get dedicated be viable for the long term or it was a wasted effort. The Service recognized that the
City and the applicant had to deal with new circumstances, i.e. new listing of species, new processes, etc.
They remained willing to work with the City and the applicant to develop mitigation that was specific
enough to contain assurances that would meet the objectives of concern.
Mayor Nader stated the NCCP process was still underway and questioned whether it was feasible to approve
a development plan in advance of completion of the NCCP process. He questioned whether it was her
opinion as a professional biologist that the City could approve a land use plan at this stage and still leave
themselves open to implement the NCCP to achieve the objectives of the NCCP.
Ms. Gilbert responded that from the standpoint of how the Service approached a mitigation plan, generally
it was against their policy to allow projects to go forward with a mitigation plan that was not clear. In her
opinion there should be specific mitigation requirements now in the event that the NCCP took a different
route, budgeting problems, etc. Due to the lack of significant mitigation it was difficult for them to review
the document and provide input.
Mayor Nader questioned whether Ms. Gilbert was saying that the Fish and Wildlife Service could work with
the City and the applicant to develop more specific mitigation and with such specific mitigation a project
could be devised while the NCCP process was still pending that would meet reasonable environmental
objectives.
Ms. Gilbert stated the Service had been working on the project since 1990 and they remained willing to
continue to work with the City and the applicant. She suggested that specific mitigation be developed at
this time rather than in the future.
Mayor Nader questioned whether she had specific mitigation measures in mind that would reduce the level
of impact of the project to an acceptable level.
Ms. Gilbert responded that the Service had recommended that specific criteria be used on the north in
conjunction with criteria in the south that would reduce impacts to below significance. It did not allow
development, per se on the north. The information was included in a 8/10/92 letter to the City from the
Service.
· Carlos Vital, 421 E. Sth Street, National City, CA, was not present when called to speak.
· Eugene J. Spirofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, Ca, Legislative Analyst #580, registered with the City
of San Diego, questioned whether the applicant had withdrawn his appeal. A public hearing had been held
and the Planning Commission had denied the project. The Council had not heard the appeal but reopened
the public hearing and he did not condone the Council's actions.
· Muriel Watson, 3120 Anderson Street, Bonita, CA, passed.
· Gretchen Burke, P.O. Box 321, Bonita, CA, passed.
· Robert Thomson, 6503 San Miguel Road, Bonita, CA, felt the meeting had turned into a great deal more
than an appeal process. He had been informed that SDG&E had plans to add an additional twenty
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 13
transformers at their site and the Sweetwater Authority had abandoned all the run-off protection for the
northern project. If the project was sent back to the Planning Commission it should be sent back from
ground zero. Council should either overrule the appeal or deny the appeal as that was all they were there
for.
Mayor Nader responded that the Council was there to hear the appeal but a great deal of evidence had been
presented to Council at the last minute end he felt that in fairness to both sides he would not be prepared
to vote in a fully prepared way on the appeal until he had time to look at all the evidence.
Councilman Moore asked for a clarification of the due process of an appeal.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that the Council had de novo jurisdiction over the entire matter and that
was a practice the City had been following for many years. Councfl's choices were to either approve or
aff'n-m the action the Planning Commission, i.e. denial of the project, grant the appeal or modify the
proposed appeal as per Section 19.12.110.
· Warren H. Oakland, 4201 Bonita Road, #242, Bonita, CA, stated he owned property in Haley's Edition
which totaled approximately forty acres with thirty-five owners. The property owners felt they were being
ignored and they would soon be surrounded by the City. He questioned if there were plans to straighten
out the roads and whether Proctor Valley Road would be paved on both sides all the way.
Mr. Leiter responded that it would depend on whether Proctor Valley Road was ultimately relocated. If kept
in that location on the interim they would be required to improve it. A decision could be made to build a
road in a different location that would serve the same needs in which case it could be left in an unpaved
condition. That would be dealt with at the SPA level.
Mr. Oaldand expressed his concern that there were no plans to include them in the project and felt the least
the City could do would be to give them a right-of-way and possibly a water and electrical extension into
the northern portion of their forty acres.
® Toni lngrassia, 4463 Acacia Avenue, Bonita, CA, representing the Sweetwater Community Planning
Group, passed.
· Sheri Todus, 6001 Bonita Meadows Lane, Bonita, CA, passed.
Mayor Nader stated it was his sense that the Council wanted to refer the project hack to the Planning
Commission with the new information presented and questioned what the appropriate procedure would be.
Mr. Leiter stated the Planning Commission met on 11/12/92. Another option would be to schedule it to
11/12/92 and the Commission could then be polled for a date for a special meeting if their ease load was
too heavy.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the public hearing would have to be renoticed if there was not a date certain.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
MS (Nadar/Malcolm) refer the matter back to the Planning Cornmi-~sion, direct staff, aftcar the p]annin~
Commition has an opportunity to consider the it~rn~ to put it back on the Counc~ docket and renotiee the
public hearing.
Councilman Malcolm stated the specific concerns he would like to have addressed were: 1) how would the
homes in the area be affected by the zoning that was being planned around it and how would they be
protected, horse trails, etc. to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. He agreed with the Plarming
Commission that the land forms were not significant and felt the rational and reasoning was correct at the
Planning Commission level. He did have a problem with commercial, homes should not be subjected to
visual blight, radiation from power lines, etc. He wanted to know why the commercial could not or should
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 14
not be used as a buffer. The forty acre parcel was also a concern and the property owner should have
probably been required to plan the property to see how it would or would not fit in. He also wanted to
know the rationale for that omission. The Planning Commission had recommended against the density
transfer and he did not have a problem with their recommendation. He did not feel it was appropriate to
sent the project back to the Commission telling them what was appropriate regarding density. He wanted
to hear their unbiased recommendation regarding land uses. He did feel that Council needed to give
direction on SR125, whether it was properly considered at the SPA level or not. If the professional staff felt
it was appropriate at the SPA level and Council had agreed with that in the past that clearly needed to be
communicated to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Nader hoped that the Council comments would be provided to the Planning Commission and also be
considered by staff in any future Council meeting. He was concerned with the issue of SR125, no one was
certain that it would be built but there were laws that required that the level of service C had to be met or
the project could be shut down at a certain stage. It seemed to him that the EIR should analyze at what
stage that would occur. If it was already known that the project could not be seen to any where near
completion because the traffic threshold would kick in so early that it could not proceed, Council should
now say either that approval was premature or at least define the project, in terms of how far it would be
able to go without SR125. He did not see that definition in the GDP or EIR. The EIR should analyze that
to be complete, different alignments for SR125 would have different implications for the project and that
should be taken into account. Staff indicated that there was a way to build homes on top of the ridges
without visual impact and he would like to see a more detailed explanation. Regarding density transfer and
issues of interpretation of the general plan he wanted the Planning Commission's independent analysis. He
felt that the applicants in all cases needed to keep in mind that the density transfers were not a matter of
right but an option for the City. He was also interested in the specific mitigation measures, addressing the
concerns raised at the Planning Commission in regards to traffic, biology, and water availability. If there
were mitigation measures missing from the EIR that should be considered or implemented. He would like
to know what those were and look at amending the EIR before certification. If there were no mitigation
measures that would adequately address those impacts then he felt the Council should probably not vote
for the project.
Councilman Moore stated there were three Councilmembers that agreed there was no policy pertaining to
transfer of density from northern to southern areas. Therefore, it was up to staff and the Planning
Commission to make their own decision. He felt Council should tell staff that the project needed SR125 or
a four-lane alternative. If that was not available at the SPA level then no permits should be issued. Staff
stated the logical time to review the NCCP and biological resource study was at the SPA level. Regarding
the forty acre contiguous parcel, he agreed with Councilman Malcolm's requested recommendations. He also
agreed with the review of the location of commercial properties. He agreed with the initial thrust of the
Planning Commission that the land form was not significant as it pertained to Horseshoe Bend and Cobblers
Knob. He felt that covered the concerns expressed and questioned whether any issue had been left out.
Mr. Leiter stated the General Plan issue of lot sizes, i.e. mix of estate and non-estate lots, had not been
discussed.
Councilman Moore referred to page 71 and questioned whether staff could come back to Council with their
recommendation, the applicant's recommendation, and the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mayor Nader suggested that Councfl's comments be passed on to the Planning Commission with a motion
so they could address Councfl's concerns. It was not a direction to the Planning Commission to come back
with a certain answer on any of the questions but that they were specific issues Council would like them
to look at.
VOTE ON MOTION: apprnved unanimously.
RESOLUTION 16854 DF. NYINGAGE, NERALDh'VF, LOPME/4T PLAN AND PRIi-ZONING FOR THE
SAN MIGUEL RANCIt PROJECT
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 15
ORAL COM~L,"NICATIONS
· Sherry Aguilar, 170 "E" Street, #D8, Chula Vista, CA, representing Mission Gardens Home Owners
Association, was not present when called to speak.
· Patrick Towns, 368 Anita Street, Space 36, Chula Vista, CA, 91911, representing the American
Legion Post 434, had previously requested a citation of appreciation by the Counc~ for Homart on behalf
their "Spirit of the Giving Tree" program. He requested that Council reconsider the request.
Mayor Nader apologized for the oversight and agreed that the program was worthy of special recognition.
He requested that the Council aide prepare a proclamation in recognition of Homart for the "Spirit of the
Giving Tree" program.
BOAIll) AN]) COIV~VilSSION RECOMlkSENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
None submitted.
ITEMS pUIJ.RI~ FROM THE CONSENT C~T.RI~IDAR
Items pulled: 6, 11, 12, and 15. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTfS) - None
20. MAYORS REPORT(S}
a. Mayor Nader announced there would be a Special Council Meeting on 11/9/92 at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room to interview and appoint members to the Planning Commission and Growth
Management Oversight Commission.
b. Mayor Nader stated he had been made aware of a plan by the County to use Wolf Canyon as a
possible open landfill. He had talked to Supervisor Bilbray in which he indicated that the County's preferred
site for a future landfill would be much further east on Otay Mesa near the prison. The Wolf Canyon site
was also being looked at as an alternative or fallback if the Otay Mesa site fell through. He requested that
the issue be placed on a future agenda for Council action on a position regarding the issue.
c. Mayor Nader reminded the public that the alection would be held on Tuesday, November 3rd and
urged everyone to vote.
21. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilwoman Hotton:
· Councilwoman Horton stated that several months ago she had proposed having staff come back with
a report on local enterprise zones and as an outgrowth of recent meetings on the issue, she recommended
Minutes
October 27, 1992
Page 16
that the original staff referral be expanded and to include the general parameters, advantages, disadvantages,
and viabilin/of a program that would allow for completion of a master EIR overlay, sight specific, tailored
to bio-medical and bio-technological uses. Staffs assignment would be to work with representatives of the
bio-med and bio-tech industries to determine general needs of the industry and apply the information to the
master EIR project. Staff should also evaluate how a master EIR program could interface with existing state
and local programs and identify existing state programs or propose legislation as possible funding sources.
It was possible that ff approved by Council, such a program could be funded as a pilot project and, therefore,
have little economic impact on the City. Although the concept was not new, as it was used by
Redevelopmerit Agencies, it was new to general development outside redevelopment areas. It would
accomplish a number of goals: 1) it would be consistent with past Council action to assist with development
of quality jobs; 2) would assist fast tracking development plans as the master EIR overlay would help
eliminate the need for individual EIR's for individual projects; and 3) would help to retain businesses in
California and possibly attract new businesses to Chula Vista as a result of a more reasonable environmental
review process.
MS tHorton/Moore) to expand the original referral regarding local enterprise zones to include
Councilwoman Horton's comments.
Mayor Nader requested that staff contact his quarter-time aide who had been working as a liaison with the
bio-med industry.
VOTE ON MOTION: appreved 4-O-1 with Malcolm absent.
Councilman Moore
· Appointing two members of Council to the, soon to be constituted, San Diego Area Waste Water
Management District: with the State Legislators approval in forming the aforementioned special act disuict
to administer the expanded metro sewer system, the Council has the authority to appoint two of its members
to the District. With early appointment, the members would be encouraged to attend the monthly
Governance Advisory Group meetings until the District is formally instituted.
Mayor Nader questioned when the first meeting would be held.
Councilman Moore stated it could be months. What the Governance Advisory Committee was doing was
what the committee should be doing. The next meeting of the Governance Advisory Committee was on
10/30/92 at 1:30 p.m.
MSUC (Nader/Moore) to appoint Moore and Nader as voting members and Honon and Rindone as
alternates.
City Attorney Boogaard stated there was one year, or date of issuance of bonds, regarding the right to break
free. If there was an earlier issuance of debt the City would not be able to withdraw. It was his
understanding that there was an immediately planned issuance.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated that the City of San Diego would be issuing debt but the
District would not be issuing debt for as long as two to three years.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he would have to research the issue.
Councilman Rindone
a. Southbay Maintenance Facility - 90 new employees. Councilman Rindone announced that the
Southbay maintenance facility would be set-up at 36 Main Street in Chula Vista by MTDB,
Minutes
October 27° 1992
Page 17
b. Councilman Rindone informed the public that a meeting would be held on 10/30/92 at 9:30 a.m.
regarding the transit center/transfer center to be located by Southwestern College. He questioned whether
the notices had been mailed to the interested parties.
John Lippitt, Public Works Director, stated they had been mailed.
AI)JOURNMENT
The City Council met in closed session at 10:45 p.m. to discuss:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Settlement of Otay Valley
Lawsuit - Siroonian vs. City of Chula Vista.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. Otay
Municipal Water District.
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:07 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on November 3, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk