Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1981/08/08 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Saturday, August 8, 1981 - 8 a.m. Council Conference Room, City Hall ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen McCandliss, Scott, Gillow, Cox Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, City Attorney Lindberg, Development Services Administrator Robens, Director of Planning Peterson GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY Mayor Hyde referred to his plan submitted at the meeting of July 30, 1981, stating that he is now proposing an alternative plan which was sent to the Council yesterday (August 7). This proposal covers the goal, general objectives, statements of policy and growth phasing schedule. Councilman Scott noted his concerns about a "phased growth" - what should or should not be permitted. He felt a goal should be set (under general objectives) and if a development met the criteria, it should be allowed to go ahead. The development should be a self-contained unit without cost to the City to deliver services. Council discussion ensued on the following: (1) allowing anyone to develop within the sphere of influence; (2) providing for equitable supplementary costs to service the development (detached from the community), such as maintenance of roads, sewer facilities, street sweeping, park, fire and police services, etc.; (3) the Mayor's proposal that initially developments can take place within any area within the City boundaries plus an additional one-half mile around the perimeter; (4) beyond the perimeter, if there are exceptional circumstances to the development, adjustment could be made for an additional quarter-mile beyond; (5) annually, there would be a review of the border line; (6) by virtue of this plan, EastLake would not be considered for total adoption because it contains elements that will be developed 15 to 20 years downstream; (7) question of zoning areas that will not be developed until 1990-2000; (8) concurrence by the Councilmembers that United Enterprises ranch should not be considered for development in the near future but should remain in an agricultural preserve. In answer to the Council's query, Director of Planning Peterson remarked that a "typical" planning period Would be 20 to 25 years, but in terms of a "precise" plan, there is no specific period. As for the EastLake area, Councilman Scott said he couldn't see anything wrong with looking into this development. He would like to have all the facts and figures, however, before making any determination. If the developers can prove that it will work, that it is good sound planning and it won't cost the City any money to provide the services, then he will vote for it. Mayor Hyde indicated that the Council "should hear the developer out in advance" before making any costly plans. If the Council likes his proposal - if he can convince the Council of these plans - then he can be given the go ahead as to whether or not the proposal would be acceptable. Councilwoman McCandliss reminded the Council of the west-to-east development policy (mainly to get East H Street); however, with the pressures of having the water from this easterly area drain onto Telegraph Canyon, the Council is now permitting developments along Telegraph Canyon Road (putting aside the west-to-east policy). Her point is that this policy, whatever it might be, will be at the discretion of the Council at that time. Councilwoman McCandliss added that the growth policy will be "sending out messages" to the community and to the developers and the Council must ask itself what messages it wants to be sending. She cautioned the Council against limiting the developments that may come in. Councilman Gillow said he doesn't have any problem with any proposals that might come up - the only message he would like to send out at this time is that he wants to wait - that he doesn't want to consider any detailed plans for a few years - there are too many unanswered questions, such as what is going to happen to schools, water, peripheral Council Conference -2- August 8, 1981 canal, air quality tactics and sewerage problems. Councilman Gillow added that he would like to look at the whole plan, doesn't consider phasing a good idea and would like to work with the developer for an agreement without going into rigid boundary lines. In considering the Kuda and Fuda lines, the Council is saying that the development is "premature" and that they want to wait at least five to l0 years before considering it. Councilwoman McCandliss reiterated her concern about sending out the message (to Cadillac-Fairview for the EastLake development) that nothing will happen if they submit a plan. She felt they should be given the opportunity to present their proposal and "negotiate" for a phased development. Council discussion centered on the requirement for an annual review, an advance proposal by a developer to get a conceptual approval by the Council prior to spending a lot of money on development plans; zoning the area for the development. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Council must get at the zoning - such as establishing a P-C zone (as was done for E1 Rancho del Rey) but it does not mean that development can take place except in accordance with a program for the devel- opment - the City Council still has this control. Mayor Hyde commented that once a P-C zone is approved, it indicates where certain types of development can take place and immediately the land value is changed. Once the land starts turning over in sales, (the Council) has, in a sense, locked it into that plan. This means that it is almost impossible for a City Council, many years later, after the land has turned over several times and very large amounts of money have been spent, to then say that "sorry, guys, the General Plan approved in 1981 is simply not realistic today in 1990." Councilman Scott remarked that this did not happen in the E1 Rancho del Rey plan, adding that it didn't seem to him that the P-C zone was "set in concrete." Councilman Cox commented that the Kuda and Fuda plans in the County have not worked that well for them. He added that he can support the Mayor's new proposal if the statements under the policy section #3 and #5 and the entire Section "D" were deleted. Councilwoman McCandliss suggested leaving in the first sentence of #5: "It is the policy of the City to encourage in-filling rather than peripheral development at this time." Councilman Scott noted how slow the growth is in Chula Vista and that the Council is now trying to solve a problem that should have been solved five or ten years ago. Now the era is one of a real drop in housing due to creative finance and high interest rates - there is no pressure at this time. Commenting to the Council's question, the City Attorney remarked that an annexation policy could be established in the Growth Policy requiring annexation of the pro- perties prior to development. City Attorney Lindberg referred to the Southwestern Institute Program commenting that (the City) can no longer establish a fixed zoning pattern which they believe will be stable over a long period of time - it should be flexible and should be deter- mined through a total growth management plan - annexation policies and development policies that will encourage economic, aesthetic (inner-growth management plan) - the actual physical patterns become great concern to the community -- how your community grows physically is something that contributes to the character of the City. A hal~mile fixed growth pattern is not necessarily good physical planning for the City. This is now what the courts are looking at - they are saying that you can now actually make these determinations in a growth management plan. Mayor Hyde explained that when he was trying to determine borders between the Kuda and Fuda, it was difficult to explain it orally; however, if there is to be such a policy, the map should be designed very carefully taking in the peculiarities of the terrain and the pattern of development that exists realizing that this is just the initial starting point. Thereafter, annually or when the Council feels it appro- priate, the line can be revised in the light of existing conditions. Council Conference -3- August 8, 1981 Mayor Hyde presented the following provision for a growth management plan: "Proposals for substantial development (of the P-C type) in the Fuda area will be considered; however, the Council may consider the annexations of part or all of the projects set for proposals in a manner which best suits the interest of the City in terms of the pace of the developments which shall occur." Councilwoman McCandliss rema~ed that this concept was already defined in the various Statements of Policy. A recess was called at 9:20 a.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:30 a.m. Consideration was now given to Mayor Hyde's Proposal submitted to the Council on 8-7-81 marked "Exhibit A" (as attached to these minutes). A. Goal No objections from the Council. B. General Objectives No objections from the Council. C. Statements of Policy 1. No objections from the Council. 2. No objections from the Council. 3. MS (Hyde/Gillow) that in this paragraph #3, the Council accept the first two sentences knocking out the word "increments" where they appear and delete the rest. Discussion of the motion centered around adding this to the Planning Depart- men~s workload, noting other assignments which should have an annual review but "get slipped back because there is not enough time." Councilman Cox felt that those people that have properties adjacent to the City that want to develop, let them come to the City and the Council can consider their plans rather than have the Council, as a City, try to establish those areas that are suitable for development. There must be two parties involved: the City and the developer - United Enterprises does not want to develop their land in the foreseeable future; Union Oil is too far removed from the City. Councilman Cox added that perhaps they (Council) are creating more of a burden on the Planning staff than is necessary. Councilman Scott declared that this motion is whether or not the Kuda/Fuda areas are to be established. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Hyde, Councilman Gillow NOES: Councilmen McCandliss, Scott, Cox Absent: None MS (Cox/Scott) to delete paragraph #3 entirely. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Cox, Scott, McCandliss NOES: Mayor Hyde, Councilman Gillow Absent: None 4. No objections from the Council. 5. MSUC (Gillow/Scott) to delete everything after the first sentence leaving off the words "at this time." The paragraph to read: It is the policy of the City to encourage in-filling rather than peripheral development." 6. Councilman Scott discussed this paragraph indicating that if it was followed to the letter, there would be no development in the City from the standpoint of public operational capital cost and he is not sure this can be done in light of Proposition 13 - it is a "no-growth" statement. Council Conference -4- August 8, 1981 6. Continued -- City Manager Cole said he was concerned with the words "shall be" since it puts the burden on someone to determine that it will be and wondered what criteria would be set up for this. Councilman Scott remarked that he could approve the paragraph if the wording was changed to state: " . . and would not place a significant or on- going burden . " The sentence to read as follows: "All growth within the Eastern and South- eastern Territories should be self-supportable from the standpoint of public operational and capital costs, and should not place a significant and on- going burden upon the economic or financial capacities of existing local governmental agencies (City, schools, water districts). It was the concurrence of the City Council that the paragraph, as revised, is approved. 7. No objections. 8. No objections. 9. City Attorney Lindberg stated that #9 and #10 are the same as the State 10. requires the cities to look at their Growth Management Plans on an annual basis coordinating with the County. MS (Scott/Gillow) to delete #10. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Scott, Gillow, Cox, McCandliss NOES: Mayor Hyde Absent: None D. General Pattern of Development MS (Cox/Scott) to delete Section "D". Mayor Hyde said he felt there should be a map depicting those areas that the Council feels a development can proceed without question; plus those areas that will not be approved at that time, and further, that there be a phase in between the two where an exception could be considered. Councilman Scott suggested a simple statement (rather than lines) - look at the map, see what areas can be developed and put in something such as this: "The Council feels United Enterprises should be in agricultural land and would be con- sidered premature development at this time, and only those areas that are contiguous to the City of Chula Vista would De considered for development and all developments would be looked at under the objectives of the City Council." Councilman Scott added that this would eliminate United Enterprises area, Bonita Miguel and the others the Council would take a look at. The areas not only have to be contiguous - they have to be significantly developed and contiguous. Councilman Scott clarified his statement: "United Enterprises to be put in an agriculture zone (south of Telegraph Canyon Road) and those areas that are ready for development - those that are contiguous and significantly developed to that point of contiguity and all others would be considered premature." These would be Bonita Mi§uel, United Enterprises and all those areas on the other side of the landfill (dump). Councilman Gillow questioned the United Enterprises area west and south of Community Hospital. Councilman Scott declared that this area would be put in agricultural zone and development considered premature. As to the Western Salt property, Councilman Scott commented that the Council could look at i~ but it could not be developed until after Long Canyon. Council Conference -5- August 8, 1981 In answer to Development Services Administrator Robens, Councilman Scott agreed that approved tentative maps could be developed; however, questions may come up that need defining and the staff should look into this. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: MSUC (Hyde/McCandliss) that there be a paragraph "B" along the lines as stated by Councilman Scott. MSUC (Scott/Hyde) under #7, as a final statement: "The growth management policy should be reviewed on an annual basis in October." NEXT COUNCIL CONFERENCE: At the concurrence of the Council, these minutes are to be presented to the Council prior to the Conference of August 27, 4 p.m., at which time the Council will continue consideration of this matter. CITY LIBRARIAN: City Manager Cole announced the appointment of Rosemary Lane from Albuquerque, New Mexico, as the City's Librarian. MSUC (Hyde/Scott) to endorse the appointment. ADJOURNMENT at 10:15 a.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August ll, 1981, at 7 p.m.