HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1979/11/08 CorrespondenceNovember 8, 1979
T0: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Lane F. Cole, City Manager
FROM: Paul G. Desrochers, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Local Coastal Program Report
Yesterday, Povember 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, with Agency concurrence and the backing of our Chamber
we had invited the Foundation to review our situation regarding the State
Coastal Commission's decision on our Local Coastal Program. The Pacific Legal
Foundation (PLF) attorneys toured the Bayfront, reviewed our files and discussed
their opinions 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
through 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 60-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 actually a City document. Therefore, litigation would be on behalf of
the City but with Agency reimbursement.
Staff recommendation will be based upon Attorney Reed's input. If it is decided
to go with PLF, then an appropriation from the Bayfront Bond fund of $20,000
eaill 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
Attachment
~~~
~ir~.e c,f California, Edmund G. Brown Jc, Governor
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street, 4th floor
San Francisco, California 94105
(415) 543-8555
October 30, 1979
PQr. Paul G. Desrochers
Community Development Director
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula 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:
"TO facilitate the proposed revisions in the Chula Vista Bayfront clan,
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 "E" and "F" Streets as well as
the feasibility of concentrating more moderate cost units on the Ve ner
farm portion of the Bayfront."
Commissioner comments in certifying the LCP with conditions further em_Phasized
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. P7e 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. ide generally believe that adequate ecological
~ ~ll
L~`
• Mr .' Paul G. Desrochers
October 30, 1979
Page 2'
data has already been developed upon which to base land use decisions, as the
Commission's certification conditions specify.
As required by the State and Regional conditionsthat 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 matter if you would like me to.
Sincerely,
`C/~'~Y
Robert B. Lagle
Chief Planner
aw
cc: Michael Fischer
Tom Crandall
Kathy Ohlson
~-,
/Zen ~ i~ i 97~
UNANIMOUS CONSENT FORM
IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED by the undersigned that the following
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.
Resolution - Authorizing the Commencement of Litigation
Unanimous Consent of the ~ity
signatures: !
,~
T~
i ~ i/
_._
I / rte-
v t ( ( ~ ~(,,~~_ i ~ r
~ ~~{b
~•
Council, as indicated by the following
i /1
~-, C~x
CA-301