Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1981/07/30 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday - July 30, 1981 Council Conference Room, City Hall ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde; Councilmembers McCandliss, Scott, Gillow, Cox Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, Assistant City Manager Asmus, City Attorney Lindberg, Development Services Administrator Robens UNANIMOUS CONSENT ITEM RESOLUTION NO. 10580 EXTENDING THE TIME FOR EXECUTION OF A NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDER- STANDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981/82 TO AND UNTI~L AUGUST 10, 1981 PROVIDING FOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID MEMORANDUM TO BE RETROACTIVE TO THE FIRST PAY PERIOD IN FY 1981/82 RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN GILLOW; the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, ~assed and approved unanimously. 1. CONSIDERATIDN OF REVISED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN City Manager Cole noted the various meetings held by the Planning Commission and the City Council on this subject. The last meeting was on Saturday, February 7, 1981. Director of Planning Peterson noted that the Council's comments at the February 7 meeting focused on a delineation of develooment phases which they felt should be abandoned in favor of a development line which would move from west to east. This line would be reviewed annually by the Council and adjusted eastward depending upon the extent of development west of the line during the precedi'ng year. Referring to flip charts, Mr. Peterson commented that the original plan contained 15 phases. The westerly phase would have to be 80% developed before construction can begin next to the easterly phase. This plan did not leave much room for Council discretion. The revised plan is a goals and policy plan with emphasis on Council discretion. The goals of this plan would bring about the orderly growth, development, and con- servation of easterly territories. The revised plan would continue the west to east development pattern; would establish the development line corridors one-half mile in width; provides for annual review of the development line; growth beyond the develop- ment line can be considered by the City Council on a case-to-case basis; the "new town" must be separated from the City by substantial ope~ space - there must be a sound basis for going beyond that line; facilities must be adequate to serve that development~ Regarding in-filling: the Council will review the rate of develop- ment in E1 Rancho del Rey. Mr. Peterson added that the advantage of the policy approach was that it was flexible and would allow the exercise of Council discretion. The advantage of the regulatory approach was greater clarity, and certainty and better assurances that the development will occur from west to east. In answer to Council's queries, Mr. Peterson said he preferred the regulatory olan that has the development phases and boundaries delineated. Council discussion related to getting a letter from the developers (si~i'lar to the school district letters) assuring construction on onsite and offsite public facilities to serve the development. Councilman Cox questioned the rationale for the in-filling Las opposed to peripheral development) clause. Mr. Peterson explained its purpos~ was tha~ services could be provided easier to the closer-in areas than those further out and that there is value in preserving agricultural and open space areas as well. Mayor Hyde submitted a statistical sheet on land developments in the Otay Land Company area. Out of a total of 3,140 acres, 323 acres or 10.3% has been developed since 1971. With the City's housing rate absorption of 800+ units a year, E1 Rancho could accommodate 8.5 years of total city growth. City Council Meeting -2- July 30,1981 Councilman Cox indicated that the in-filling clause would give E1 Rancho a monopoly on the developments occuring in Chula Vista. Mayor Hyde submitted a paper listing his suggestions concerning a growth management proposal as follows: Land development shall be handled in the following manner: 1. All land Withinlthe Sphere of Influence of the City of Chula Vista will be divided into 2 zones for development purposes: a. Zone No. 1 -- land which is currently available for development. This area shall be designated "Current Urban Development Area" (CUDA). Land so designated may be developed whenever the property owner wishes in accordance with current zoning and building requirements. Basically this category will include all property within the existing boundaries of the City. b. Zone No. 2 -- land which is considered to be not ready to be developed. This area will be designated "Future Urban Development Area" (FUDA). Proposals for development of such property will not be considered by the City Council except as noted in the following paragraph. 2. Properties in the FUDA area which are located within approximately ~ mile of the CUDA/FUDA boundary line may be considered for development provided the property owner can demonstrate that such development will provide a unique or unusual benefit to the City which would justify earlier than normal development. This ½ mile area may be adjusted slightly to accommodate special problems such as topography, streets, major utility and public works facilities. 3. The City Council will consider revisions to the Land Use Development Plan annually in October. At that time, revisions to the CUDA and FUDA areas will be considered at appropriate hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Conceptual approval of long-range plans for development of FUDA properties may be considered by the City Council. a. Property owners in the FUDA category may request the City Council to give "conceptual approval" for development of their property at some unspecified future date. Such proposals will be considered in general detail only and would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council under regular public hearing procedures. b. "Conceptual approval" by the City Council would mean only that the City Council looks with favor upon the proposed development at the time that it is considered. However, such approval would not commit the City Council to any future General Plan amendment or zoning for the property in question. Conceptually approved land use proposals would be reviewed by the City Council annually in October to determine whether or not the Council wishes to continue, modify or terminate its conceptual approval in the light of changing conditions. Council discussion followed regarding the merits of the Mayor's proposal. Councilman Scott felt it was a "straitjacket planning" approach; Director of Planning Peterson remarked that a solution would be to require the developers to annex immediately to the City; Councilman Cox indicated that the more the Council talks about growth management plans, the more he feels there is no need for one -- he would, however, support a plan that would give more latitude to the Council but could not support one with too rigid a growth policy. Further Council discussion centered on the FUDA and CUDA boundary lines; the awareness of the water shortage in the County and the consideration of the air quality factor; the merits of having a growth management plan; desirability of having a flexible plan; having too rigid a plan would force developments in the easterly areas to go to the County; hopes of having a part of Poggi Canyon developed as an industrial park; require- ment for Council to review the boundary development line every year. MS (Gillow/Hyde) to refer back to the Planning Commission the plan as outlined by the Mayor. City Council Meeting -3- July 30, 1981 Comments were made by the Councilmembers that more time was needed to digest the report before sending it back to the Planning Commission. The motion was withdrawn by Councilman Gillow and agreed to by the second. Councilwoman McCandliss expressed her concern with adopting a plan "by default" and adding that thevCouncil needs to know what concepts they will or will not accept. By concurrence, the Councilmembers agreed to continue the matter to another meeting. MSUC (Hyde/Gillow) to schedule a meeting on Saturday, August 8, 1981 at 8:00 a.m. to continue consideration of the Growth Management Plan. MSUC (Hyde/Scott) for a Closed Door Session for personnel negotiations. The Council recessed to Otos~dDoor Session at 5:52 p.m. The City Clerk was excused and the City Manager reported that the Session ended at 6:12 p.m. ADJOURNMENT at 6:12 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 4, 1981at 7:00 p.m.