The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 1979-9846RESOLUTION N0. 9846 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. That the City Attorney and Special Counsel for the Redevelopment Agency are hereby authorized and directed to initiate litigation to compel certification of the City's local coastal program, and Section 2. That the City Council hereby requests that the Pacific Legal Foundation, a non-profit public interest law firm, serve as co-counsel in such litigation. Presented and Approved as to form by George D. Lindberg, Ci y Attorney ADOPTED AND APPROVED b~~ the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of November , 1979, by the following vote, to-wit AYES: Councilmen Cox, Hyde, McCandliss, Scott, Gillow NAYES: Councilmen None ABSENT: Councilmen None ATTEST: (.J ,c,Q.Q, ~ l,~•~r Mayor of the City of Chula Vista // -CITY CLERK 0 STAT(EE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, City Chula Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY tha true and correct copy of Resolution No. not been amended or repealed. DATED Clerk of the City of t the above is a full, and that the same has City Clerk -, - November 8, 1979 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Counc i1 Vl.l\: Lane F. Cole, (;ity Manager ~- FRm1: Paul G. Des roc hers , r:ommun i t~eve 1 opmen ~__ D~ rec tor ~ _I --I SUBJ ECT: Local Coastal Program Report : Yesterday, November 7, this author, Mr. Robens and Agency Special Counsel met with two representatives of the Pacific Legal Foundation here in our City. Previous to this, ~Iith Agency concurrence and the backing of our Chamber _ we had invited the Foundation to review our situation regarding the State Coastal Commission's d2cision on our Local Coastal Program. The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) attorneys toured the Bayfront, reviewed our fires and discussed their opi~ions with your staff. As a result, they are prepared to ask the Foundation's Board of Directors to "take on" our case and seek legal direction throu9h the Courts on our behalf. That is, if we accept. PLF is privately funded and only takes on matters of which precedent has not been established. They do not charge a fee for their services but do ask for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. They advise us that the 50-day period in which to challenge the State Commission's action is due to expire November 19. Special Counsel Reed is here to advise the Counsel as to PLF possible involve- ment for the City.- While we have always considered this an Agency item, our LCP is actua 11y a Ci ty document. Therefore, 1 iti ga ti on woul d be on behalf of the Ci ty but wi th Agency reimbursement. Sta ff recommen dat ion wi 11 be based upon Attorney Reed's input. If it is deci ded to go with PLF, then an appropriation from the Bayfront Bond fund of $20,000 will be requested at the next Agency meeting. Our other options with regard to the LCP are to accept the State Commission offer of $30,000+ to restudy the project. Their letter with this regard is pro- vided herewith. Our other option with the Coastal Conservancy has only been discussed via telephone. They have invited me to discuss this matter further with them next week. PGD:as Attac:lmen t q~~ ", ~ ~h :":-:~:c:~~(,,!b::::"~:~ :,~'"":':c,"_;,.l: -~."",".';"':~" .... .' ..' -,,,,, .,,,,.' , ...~-. ... '~""""'''''' )..... .. . - .' , ~t(ifi lJ California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 October 30, 1979 Mr. Paul G. Desrochers Community Development Director City of Chu1a Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chu1a Vista, CA 92010 Dear Paul: In response to your letter of October 12, enclosed is a copy of the staff report on the Chula Vista Bayfront LCP. As you know, the Commission approved the LCP with the conditions and findings set forth in the staff report by a unanimous vote at its meeting of September 18, 1979. The staff report notes several times that grant funding is available to assist the City in revising the plan to carry out the Commission conditions. On page 2: "Staff is willing to assist the City in preparing a work program and budget for planning and economic studies to enable their funding from the Commission's LCP budget." On page 24: I1To facilitate the proposed revisions in the Chula Vista Bayfront plan, the Commission would encourage the City to submit a work program for Commission review which could be funded from the LCP grant program. This work program could include provision for an updated market and fiscal analysis which would re-evaluate the feasibility of a destination-resort complex on the waterfront area between "ElI and lIF" Streets as well as the feasibility of concentrating more moderate cost units on the Vener farm portion of the Bayfront. II Commissioner comrnents in certifying the LCP with conditions further emphasized their willingness to provide the necessary assistance to the City. AS to the amount of funding involved, we have tentatively budgeted about $30,000 for the City's use in finalizing the LCP. We are, however, flexible depending on the scope of work the City feels is necessary, and we would be receptive to a grant request over that amount if the need is well-documented. We agree (and the Commission's findings and discussion bear out) that fiscal and marketing considerations are relevant to achieving a successful LCP for Chula Vista, and thus we encourage updating of the previous fiscal and marketing studies be included in the grant request. We generally believe that adequate ecological ~\o I .' - Mr. Paul G. Desrochers October 30, 1979 Page '2 ' , " data has already been devel~ped upon which to base Commission's certification conditions specify. land use decisions, as the As required by the State and Regional conditions that more precise development standards be submitted so as to constitute the zoning phase as well as the land use phase of the LCP, we concur that some "site planning" (e.g. designation of height, bulk, setback standards, intensity and type of use standards) is needed in the work program. This should not, however, be at the level of detail nor include. the site, building, or engineering planning normally done at the time of a specific development proposal. AS indicated in the staff report, our staff is prepared to work closely with you in developing a work program and undertaking plan revisions and refinements necessitated by the certification conditions. I am very encouraged by your willingness to consider the Commission's action in the constructive spirit in which it was made, and share your hope that we will see a mutually satisfactory conclusion. I would also be glad to attend your Redevelopment Agency/City Council discussions on this matt~r if you would like me to. Sincerely, .GAr Robert B. Lagle Chief Planner aw cc: Michael Fischer Tom Crandall Kathy Ohlson - ;?, q 3Lf'b /2#1;-;'" /~ / '171 UNANIMOUS CONSENT, FOill1 IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED by the undersigned that the follovling item, with the unanimous consent of the City Council of the ,City of Chula Vista, be considered and acted upon by the Council pursuant to the provisions of Sec.2.04.090 of the Chula Vista City Code. _ .,..., .. ~_".l-.,;t, Resolution - Authorizing the Commencement of Litigation -. -~ ~~~ -X/<,- ~ . '-~<' . ('Signature) V Unanimous Consent of' the City Council, signatures: as indicated by di /r11 ;l<l ArvJo ~-'O the following (t, C?< g.~ ) 9'lfb CA-30l ..........,..... ", ~oi',;,:-::""' .::. _' '. ~ .~ " :\., .. )