Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1982/04/22 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday, April 22, 1982 - 4:00 P.M. CR's 2 & 3, Public Services Building ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers McCandliss, Scott, Moore Councilmen absent: Councilman Gillow Commissioners present: Commissioners Williams, Green, R. Johnson, G. Johnson Commissioners absent: Chairman Presutti, Commissioners O'Neill, Stevenson Staff present: City Manager Cole, Development Services Administrator Robens, Director of Planning Peterson, Contract Planner Gray Mayor Cox declared that the purpose of this joint meeting with the Planning Commission would be to hear the first General Plan progress report by the City's Contract Planner, Bud Gray. Director of Planning Peterson referred to the work undertaken since the last conference on the General Plan in January; with respect to Mr. Gray'e presentation, the Director of Planning noted the main objective to be accomplished at this meeting was to obtain the concurrence on a preliminary basis of the City Council and Planning Commission in defining the areas suitable and unsuitable for development. Contract Planner Gray noted the first phase of the work to be undertaken and the focus of this presentation on areas east of the City limits. He stated that the work involves two separate but related items: Task I dealing with revision of the residential densities on the existing General Plan; and Task II which deals with updating the General Plan east of the City limits. Mr. Gray displayed the following planning maps with comment and explanation as indicated: MAP TITLE Metropolitan Area Shows extent of other city and county plans around the Chula Vista limits and planning area. Elevations The land is well defined in terms of physical constraints and boundaries. Slope Showing portions of the eastern area which are in excess of 25% slope. Vegetation Reflecting that agriculture is the predominant land use activity. Soils There are some limitations to development due to soils. Drainage Basins Extensive sloping in excess of 25%. Annual Precipitation No imported water is available to lands beyond the eastern boundaries of the San Diego County Water Authority (these lands depend upon ground water). Environmental Resources Some archeological sites along the river valleys; few mineral deposits; few biological resources. City Council Meeting - 2 - April 22, 1982 Fault Lines Fairly free of documented earthquake activity. Special Studies Zones Existing Land Use Accuracy is questionable since map is approximately four years old. Reflects extensive concentrations of dry farming and truck crops. County Zoning Most land is zoned heavy agricultural. Otay Mesa area southerly of Chula Vista Planning Area is in a 20-acre minimum zone which is likely to remain until future of Otay Mesa is determined. Sewer Agencies Water Agencies Fire Protection Agencies School Districts (and locations) Traffic Circulation There is a striking lack of traffic congestion because of excellent freeway service. Mr. Gray then displayed a map designating strategic areas divided into major and minor areas. He explained the criteria for selecting major versus minor were mainly the lack of environmental constraints on the land as well as its key location with regard to accessibility and utilities. He noted that the corridor along Telegraph Canyon Road is the third major strategic area to look at and discussed the potential for future development to the east of these strategic areas and EastLake. (Councilwoman McCandliss arrived at this time - 4:25 P.M.) In summary Mr. Gray presented analyses of areas considered to be suitable or unsuitable for development and those that are unavailable for development because they are in public or quasi-public ownership. The total area considered is approximately 22,000 acres; suitable land is slightly less than 2/3 of the total area (13,500 acres); the unsuitable lands (i.e. Poggi Canyon, Wolf Canyon, Salt Creek, Rock Mountain, etc.) constitute approximately 22% (5,000 acres) of the entire area. He commented on the attachments to the staff report, the boundaries of the City's sphere of influence, and requested Council approval, in concept, of the development boundaries and designations of suitable and unsuitable as a first step in developing land use concepts and configurations for the July conference. Council questions and comment concerned the spheres of influence in the suitable and unsuitable areas; the need to make decisions which will have far reaching effects in too short a period of time; the criteria used to determine suitable and unsuitable land; and whether in-filling would be considered. In response, Mr. Gray stated that unsuitable means land that is unsuitable for urban development (because of topography) and that in-filling would not be considered. Further Council discussion concerned narrowing the unsuitable designation down to factors of ownership constraints and physical suitability in order to give clearer definitions. Regarding the Chula Vista sphere of influence, City Manager Cole noted that Council had previously adopted nearly all of the areas, but the property east of Salt Creek was unilaterally taken out by San Diego. The City of San Diego accepted Chula Vista's sphere of influence, but revised it and moved the boundary over to Salt Creek. City Council Meeting 3 April 22, 1982 Mr. Gray responded to Planning Commission questions concerning applicability of this research to the General Plan Amendment for EastLake to be considered at the May 19 meeting of the Commission. He noted discussions with the Development Services Adminitrator and Planning Director on ways to complete this evaluation in time to be of benefit in considering EastLake; he indicated that this effort may be of no value, however, stated that location of EastLake on the fringe of the north-south corridor would severely limit options for future development of the other major area southerly of EastLake. Mr. Gray referred to Attachment 5, ~Development Concepts,~ stating that the Commission may wish to consider EastLake as a New Town Development. Mr. Gray was asked to attend the May 19 meeting, and by general consensus, the Planning Commission agreed to meet with him at 6:00 P.M. Wayne Clark, Bonita Road, Bonita, commented on designation of suitable or unsuitable possibly affecting property he is involved with and said that the lines on the map appear to split ownership of that land. He asked that a determination not be made until after his application with the County has been processed; expressed concern over the apparent split of ownership at the western boundary of the Otay Subregional Planning Area; and requested that the ownership stay within one area, whether inside or outside of the sphere of influence. David Malcolm, 625 Third Avenue, referred to earlier Planning Commission comments on applicability of this study (to EastLake) indicating that since it has come before the Council, why would it not be considered equally important to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gray responded that this study initially began with an effort to maximize input and that at the first meeting in January it was agreed that quarterly Joint conferences be held over an 18 month period so that the City Council, Planning Commission and the public could make comment at those regular conferences. Mr. Gray responded to Planning Commission's query regarding the rationale used in recommending Transportation Corridor A over B. He noted the problems encountered in considering different land use plans and lack of adequate north/south trnsportation. Corridor B may cause problems by limiting options closer to town - instead of having north/south access traffic will go to 1-805 and overload intervening intersections. In further comment concerning Route 125, Mr. Gray stated that he was not recommending that it be put back in. Development Services Administrator Roberts said that it was not entirely eliminated, but is shown as an arterial road. ACTION ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS By general consensus, Council approved in concept the sphere of influence boundary; the areas identified as suitable and unsuitable for urban development; and to hold a July conference with the Planning Commission. MSUC (Moore/Scott) that wherever the word "unsuitable" appears that it be revised to reflect ownership and physical constraints. ADJOURNMENT at 5:05 P.M. to the regular meeting of Tuesday, April 27, 1982 at 7:00 P. M. ~ty Clerk STATE OF CALIFOP~NIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER COUNTY OF S~2~ DIEGO ) Ss OF ADJOURNS. tENT OF MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Jennie M. Fulasz, being first duly sworn depose and say : That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City. Council of the City of Chula Vista; That the C0unci] Conference meeting of the Council of the City of ,. Chula Vista was held Thursday, April 22, 1982 and said meeting was adjou, rned to the time and place specified in __ the order of adjournment ATTACHED HERETO: That on Frida~_~ril 23, 1982 at the hour of 9:30 a.m. I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said me'ting of April 22, 1982 was held. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 Notary Public in and for said County and State of California MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR. blEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held April 22 at 4:00 p.m. April 23, 1982 Date The City Council met in the ~X~X~?~v~v~/Council Confercnce Room, 276 Fourth Avenue on the above date at 4:00 p.m. with the followii, g: Councilmen present: Mayor Cox, Counci]members, Scott, 8il]ow, Moore Councilwoman McCandl~ss arrived late ' Councilmen absent: None ADjOURNM~HT The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 5:0.5 p.m. until Tuesday, April 27, 1982 at 7:00p.m. in the Council Chambers/C~~~ 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, City C16rk of the City ~of Chula Vista, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that this is a full, true and correct copy of an order adopted by the City Council at the meeting of April 22~ 1982 JBN~I~M. FULASZ, CHC, Ci~y~Cler~ City of Chula Vista, C~lifornia