Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1981/02/07 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHDLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Saturday, February 7, 1981 Council Conference Room, City Hall ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Scott, Gillow, Cox, McCandliss Councilment absent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, City Attorney LINDBERG, Development Services Administrator Robens, Director of Planning Peterson 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP - Administration Introduction City Manager Cole referred to the City's current growth management plan which he felt "limited the possiblities" and discussed the City of San Diego's adopted policy of growth management. 2. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION DSA Robens commented on the agenda proposed for this morning which is to provide the Council with additional information on growth management and to receive Council's desires and concerns concerning this matter. Director of Planning Peterson, using flip charts, discussed the three types of growth management plans: (1) regulating locations in which growth can occur; (2) allows for development anywhere that the market wants to have development as long as public facilities can be served; (3) regulates the number of building permits issued in one year and fosters competition for permits. 3. SEQUENTIAL DISCUSSION AROUND THE IDEAL GROWTH P~I~aNAGE~NT SYSTEM DSA Robens: (1) City cost; {2) nature of thc development in terms of open space and maintaining a sense of rural areas; {3) housing; (4) energy; (5) timing of lower concern. Director of Planning Peterson: (1) City cost; (2) try to preserve agricultural land and existing open space as well as possible; (3) nature of the development. City Manager Cole: (1) it should facilitate the extension of City services- the transit system should be put in as soon as a subdivision is approved and built. Principal Planner Pass: (1) timing to be done on a sequential and phased basis; (2) determine the utlimate population of this City; ~3) commitment on a steady basis. City Council Meeting -2- February 7, 1981 Councilwoman McCandliss: (1) questioned the continuing opposition to growth; (2) people feel overcrowded - City services must be expanded; (3) insure transportation and additional facilities; (4) people are afraid there will be a change in the character of the City; (5) consider revenues to the City taking into account providing public facilities and open space; (6) discussed developments from 1-805 to the college; (7) a good growth management plan takes technical staff to develop. Councilman Cox: (1) the basic infracture set up and paid by the developers; (2) should relate to City goals and costs., i.e., housing costs; (3) consider the west to east development policy; (4) provision for public facilities - schools; (5) practical/political concerns. Mayor Hyde: (1) should neither favor nor oppose growth but where it does occur, it should be managed in a logical way and meet the City's objectives; (2) keep an eye on the urban core - strengthen it and reemphasize it to see if it meets the City's current needs; (3) concentrate on in-filling the lands - peripheral growth before going into the new areas; (4) should have balance in terms of types of development to serve the needs of a total community; (5) preservation of natural resources such as water, air quality and energy; (6) think in terms of broad open space relief such as a Balboa Park or a greater area such as Poggi Canyon or Proctor Valley as a protection against the sprawl syndrome. Councilman Gillow: (1) provide the facilities for water, traffic, sewer, police, schools, etc; (2) should merge the General Plan with the Growth Management Plan; (3) the need for housing, industry, commercial and residen- tial areas; (4) base it on natural boundaries and think of it in terms of the regional area; (5) provide for a quality of life by providing open space and recreational facilities; (6) look to the urban core for the high densities where the facilities are already in; (7) look at the mass tran- sportation system. Councilman Scott: (1) provide sufficient housing that meets the needs of the community - affordable housing that won't injure the quality of life; (2) discussed the issue of leap-frog developments and noted Houston's plan which is "no plan at all" and is probably the best plan; (3) look at the needs and find out how best to satisfy those needs; (4) no matter what plan, it will change because of the political structure of the community - what is good one year is not necessarily good the next year; (5) question of whether the City really needs a plan. General Council discussion: Mayor: should determine what the current population and forecast is for the area including the sphere of influence; then tailor the plan to that demand. City Manager Cole remarked that the City had only 74 single-family unit permits last year and 330 multiple- family. 4. PLANNING DEPART~FFINT PRESENTATION - Advantages and Disadvantages of various Growth Management Plans Director of Planning Peterson again described the three basic types of growth management plans listing the advantages and disadvantages of each. A recess was called at 9:40 a.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m. City Council Meeting -3- February 7, 1981 5. COUNCIL/STAFF DISCUSSION AROUND PRIMARY CONCERNS RELATING TO THE TYPES OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT The Mayor's comments were centered on the development factor indicating that the Council is not so much concerned with telling someone to develop as to the timing of the development. The problem is deciding where the development should occur. When that determination is made, the developers can proceed without any constraints other than meeting the requirements of the development. Councilman Scott said he had no problems with developments along the Long Canyon area as long as they were contiguous to areas that are developed; then it can be an on-going line as it is developed west to east. The line should shift and be flexible. Councilman Scott gave an example of drawing a line from Telegraph Canyon Road around the College Estates down to Bonita Road stating that the eastern section of that can be developed if it is contiguous to developed areas and subject to a number of criteria. The agricultural land to the south can be "agricultural preserve" which can eventually be developed sometime in the future. Then, with the in-filling of those lands and other policies (high densities etc.) it would meet his philosophical needs as to a growth management plan. Mayor Hyde suggested drawing a one-half mile line. Councilman Scott indicated that the topography must be considered. City Manager Cole remarked that consideration must be given to major facilities and level of services. He added that one landowner cannot just plan for a one-half mile of development - many of them plan for developments that will take 20 years or longer. Councilman Cox commented that he would not like to see the plan locked into a one-half mile line. Councilman Scott declared that he would like to see the staff come back with a recommendation on this - the concept being that the Council is looking for contiguous and logical basis for developments. There would have to be strong reasons that developments would be allowed beyond the line. Councilman Gillow noted that one year it could be a one-half mile, and the next year, it could conceivably go the three-quarters of a mile. MSUC (Scott/Gillow) for staff to look into a developmental plan which wonld be based upon the outlined discussion and come back to Council with pros and cons on it. 6. Item 3 - DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE STAFF/COUNCIL SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IDEAL GROWTH MANAGEb~NT SYSTEM In response to DSA Robens' request for comments, the Council discussed the list briefly stating they would like to see the "broad open space relief" considered; however, there is a question as to whether or not the City can afford it and staff should not spend a great deal of time on it; the terrain should be considered along with the ~FFDB corridor. As to the timing for the staff's report, the Council concurred it should be in July 1981. Dick Brown, representing the Gersten Companies, discussed the San Diego Plan and the reasons it was not working. He stated that growth will occur and the Council cannot set a maximum population for its community, it can, however, set a sphere of influence. Mr. Brown th~n commented on the plan adopted by the County of San Diego which he said had a lot of conflicts with the County's General Plan. In the end, the General Plan won out. Mr. Brown added that the best way to control development is through a General Plan rather than a growth management plan. The cost of public services, topography and housing must be considered, and all developments should be done in a logical and orderly fashion which is not accomplished through zoning, since zoning never addresses how a development is done. City Council Meeting -4- February 7, 1981 Bob Santos, representing Cadillac Fairview, commented that what is being discussed today is planning objectives; however, he contended that there is no substitute for a "good and best" plan. He added that this City is unique as compared to other cities that have hundreds of property owners affected by a growth management plan - this City has, perhaps a half-dozen. Mr Santos added that the growth management plan must be a viable one with the abilities to implement the housing that will attract industry, and commercial to serve the areas. He cautioned against a rigid general plan amendment and suggested a more flexible one which would allow for a planned community which is one used successfully by many cities. Craig Beam discussed with the Council a clarification of the motion made and noted that there could be developments occurring beyond the one-half mile limit line as such is justified. 7. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT School Heeting. City ~anager Cole stated that the next School District/City Council meeting is tentatively set for March 19 in the Council Conference Room, City Hall. 8. MAYOR'S REPORT League of California Cities Policy Committees. Mayor Hyde listed the Policy Committees noting that 'Councilwoman McCandliss will be reappointed to the Community Services Committee. The Mayor asked the Councilmen to let him know if they were interested in appointments to any of the other committees. 9. Cot~mil Comments - None ADJODRNMENT AT 10:4S a.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 10, 1981 at 7 p.m. Jennie M. Fulasz, CMC City Clerk