Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1976/09/02 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday September 2, 1976 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on the above date beginning at 5:00 pomo in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Hyde, Cox, Egdahl, Hobel Councilmen absent: None Staff present: Assistant City Manager Asmus, City Attorney Lindberg, Director of Public Works Robens, Director of Planning Peterson Others present: Carmen Pasquale, Executive Vice President of Gersten Companies, San Diego; Jim Hutchison, Vice President of Project Design Con- sultants (formerly Wilsey & Ham); John M. Williams, Assistant Vice President of First National City Bank, New York 1. PUBLIC HEARING - The City Council had set the date of August CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF 3, 1976 as the date for conducting a public A MORATORIUM ON A 450 ACRE hearing to consider the imposition of a mora- PARCEL OF EL RANCHO DEL REY torium on 450 acres of E1 Rancho del Rey, previously known as the Plaza del Rey area. Subsequently the Council rescheduled the public hearing to this Council Conference of September 2~ In answer to query from the Council, Director of Planning Peterson said he felt a moratorium was not needed at this time as he is not aware of any imminent development plans; however, if a plan should be submitted, staff would go back to the Council with the suggestion that a moratorium be imposed. Council dissatisfied with Discussion followed concerning the possibility General Development Plan of legal actions being filed. City Attorney Lindberg stated there was astrong possibility of an action being brought against the City and that it was his opinion that the Council should undertake a review of not only the General Development Plan for the 450 acres, but for the entire E1 Rancho del Rey project as the Council has indicated a dissatisfaction with the terms and conditions of the General Development Plane He further stated that a moratorium could not be declared unless the Council determines to undertake a study for the modification of the existing plan. Order of agenda changed Following discussion of the chronology of events and Council actions concerning the E1 Rancho del Rey area, Mayor Hamilton announced that the order of the items on the agenda would be changed and the Council would consider the staff report first (Agenda Item No. 2) and conduct the Publlc Hearing second (Agenda Item No. 1). 20 STAFF REPORT REGARDING A written staff report (on file in the office PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT of the City Clerk) was submitted which included PROPOSALS IN EL RANCHO DEL a schedule regarding the following assignments: REY Adjourned Regular Meeting -2- September 2, 1976 A report of which ridges and canyons should be saved; an overlay of that onto the plan of record which involves a re- vision of that plan and thereby estab- lishes the alignment of "H" Street; the other major collector streets in the area; and the location of the basic utilities, plus the determination of the assessment plan for spreading the COSTS. City Attorney opinion Assistant City Manager Asmus called the Council's on plan of record attention to a written report submitted under date of September 2, 1976. Included in this report as Exhibit 1 is the City Attorney's opinion as to the legality of the original General Development Plan, adopted in 1970-71 which states that this plan is valid and rep- resents the official plan of record. Mr. Asmus noted that anyone owning land within the area has a right to develop it in accordance with the adopted plan. Recommendation of Mr. Asmus also stated that on page 2 of the City Attorney report, under Item 3 concerning recommendations, that the City Attorney proposed the following method of handling development during the period that the General Development Plan might be under review, should the Council approve the proposals of the staff: "During said period of review, any pre- cise plans submitted . . including any tentative subdivision maps, shall not be approved even though they conform to the general development and schedule, unless the Planning Commission and City Council shall make a finding that said precise plan is not only consistent with the General Development Plan, but is also not in conflict with the proposed General Development Plan under study by the Planning Commission and City Council." Property owners In answer to query from Mayor Hamilton, to be involved Director of Planning Peterson said he felt all property owners should be invited to meetings of ACCORD, Planning Commission and Council involving development plans for E1 Rancho del Rey. Mr. Peterson also commented that the time schedule presented for the development of plans is a very optimistic one from October 1976 to April 1977 - but may take longer. Outline of major facility Director of Public Works Robens presented construction and financing an outline for the E1 Rancho del Rey major facility construction and financing, including background information, timing, description of major facilities such as major streets, collector roads, Rice Canyon sewer, Telegraph Canyon drainage channel and utilities. The outline also included traffic conditions, use of 1913 Act with 1915 bonds for financing, need for consultants, and front money required. (Report on file in City Clerk's Office). Adjourned Regular Meeting -3- September 2, 1976 Estimated cost Mr. Robens gave a brief explanation of the magnitude of the project with an estimated cost of between ten and fifteen million dollars for construction of the major facili- ties. Front money would be needed, according to Mr. Robens, until the City could be reim- bursed through use of the 1913 Act with the sale of 1915 bonds. 1913 Act Procedures The procedures that would be required under the 1913 Act were described by Mr. Robens. The timing process between the time when the General Development Plan is completed and the time when the work is actually started is approximately two years. Council discussion The Council discussed the procedures, including the time schedule, spread of assessments, the City's liability, pay-off of the bonds, the role of the property owners, and the effect of possible change in land use or ownership of property. Councilman Egdahl stated that in his judgment, based on the report from the staff and the results of the meeting recently with tho bond consultants, the best way for the Council to proceed is to use the 1913 Act with the 1915 Act bonds. Motion to revise the P-C It was moved by Councilman Egdahl and seconded General Development Plan by Councilman Hyde that the Council at this time states it no longer accepts the plan of record and does, in fact, request in the light of previous directions to the staff and the land owners, that the Council requests of them a revision of the P-C General Development Plan. Discussion of motion Discussion of the motion followed concerning the direction the Council really wishes to proceed in regard to the density in the P-C zone and having tho property owners work with the staff. Mayor Hamilton stated he would llke to have a report back to the Council after four or five meetings have been held as to how the plans are proceeding. Clarification of motion Councilman Egdahl clarified his motion, stating that the intent was for the Council to say whether or not they want the staff, landowners and ACCORD to work on reconsidering the General Development Plan, or does the Council again give its stamp of approval that this is the plan of record and move ahead with it. Carmen Pasquale Mr. Pasquale asked if the Council, by this Vice President motion, is indicating that it no longer Gersten Companies considers this (the P-C General Development San Diego Plan) the plan of record. Substitute motion It was moved by Councilman Egdahl and seconded by Councilman Hyde that the Council register, at this time officially, that the plan of record be reconsidered. Adjourned Regular ~eeting -4- September 2, 1976 Additional comment by ~k. Pasquale commented on the procedure for Carmen Pasquale development under the P-C zone stating that the current General Development Plan gave the flexibility that was needed in this area. The Council discussed in detail Mr. Pasquale's concerns, and further clarified the intent of the motion. Substitute motion carried The substitute motion carried unanimously. RECESS A recess was called at 4:55 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 5:15 p~m. Letter from Mrs. Gladys Koven Councilman Hobel called the Council's attention 134-A South McCarty Drive to a letter received from Mrs. Koven, owner of Beverly Hills, CA 90212 property in the E1 Rancho del Rey area, out- lining problems she was having in selling the property to potential developers. Councilman Hobel said he felt there was some confusion as to what is happening in this area and asked if the staff could clarify the situation for the Kovens. Discussion of Koven property Council discussion ensued, including the P-C zoning, access streets (the property in question is land-locked) possibility of hillside ordinance being applied in this area, and the alternatives that might be avail- able to the Kovens. Request for letter Councilman Hobel asked if the Council could direct staff to draft a letter outlining the Council discussion and clarifying the possibilities for the Kovens. Mayor Hamilton asked that the letter be referred to the Mayor's Office for review by Council members before it is mailed. Motion for ACCORD participation It was moved by Councilman Cox and seconded in development of revised plan by Councilman Hyde to expand the charge of ACCORD to include their participation in the development of the revised plan for the entire area of E1 Rancho del Reyo Carmen Pasquale Mr. Pasquale stated he is not in favor of Gersten Companies expanding ACCORD to the rest of the area as he did not feel they have proper represen- tation and there is too much area to cover in a short period of time. However, he had no objection to having ACCORD review plans. Discussion of ACCORD Discussion followed concerning the extent involvement of ACCORD involvement and clarification given that the intent was not to involve ACCORD as a committee, but for input° Amendment to motion Councilman Hobel suggested that the motion be amended to ask that ACCORD input be ex- panded to the point that they would be allowed to comment at staff determined major milestones in the process but not delay the study of the potential revision, and that they fit in so there is no delay in the overall schedule° Councilman Cox agreed to the amendment and Councilman Hyde agreed to the second. Adjourned Regular Meeting -5- September 2, 1976 Eugene Coleman Mr. Coleman spoke in defense of ACCORD, stating 1670 Gotham Street he felt the delays thus far were caused because Chula Vista citizens were not consulted until it was too late. He asked for total involvement of ACCORD. Discussion by Council The Council discussed Mr. Coleman's request and further defined the intent of the motion to involve ACCORD at strategic points for their comments and input. Motion carried The motion, as amended, carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - (See page 1 of these minutes) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A MORATORIUM ON A 450 ACRE This being the time and place as advertised, PARCEL OF EL RANCHO DEL REY ~4ayor Hamilton opened the public hearing. John Williams Mr. Williams voiced City Bank's opposition Executive Vice President to placing a moratorium on this property, First National City Bank stating it would place an additional cloud New York, New York over the area. They also felt there was no need for the moratorium as any plans for development would have to be approved by the Council anyway. Mr. Williams restated their intention to cooperate fully with the Council in any development plan submitted in the future. In answer to a question from Mayor Hamilton, Director of Planning Peterson again stated he did not feel there was a need for a mora- torium. Carmen Pasquale Mr. Pasquale remarked that they did not feel Otay Land Company the moratorium is necessary~ He said there E1 Rancho del Rey are only two property owners involved and their concern is, in getting involved in discussions with bond salesmen and bond con,panics, the word "moratorium" could have an effect on future bond issues in regard to assessment districts. Eugene Coleman Mr. Coleman asked if there was a change in 1670 Gotham Street ownership of the land and if the new owner Chula Vista submitted a plan, would the City have to honor it since there is an existing plan, or without a moratorium is it possible for the City to reject the development, if the study is not completed. Reason for moratorium City Attorney Lindberg said the City does have good control in handling approval of plans. If a precise plan was submitted that conformed with the P~C plan, the Council could say they are making a study and impose a moratorium at that juncture. He explained the prime reason for the moratorium is to avoid the expenditure of money and time by a property owner in bringing in plans conforming to the existing General Plan during a period when there was a study going one Public hearing closed There being no further comments, either for or against, the public hearing was declared closed. Adjourned Regular Meeting -6- September 2~ 1976 Motion not to It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded impose moratorium by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously carried that no moratorium be set on this 450 acre site of E1 Rancho del Rey as defined. Motion to accept staff It was moved by Councilman Egdahl, seconded recommendation, Item 1 by Councilman Cox and unanimously carried that the Council adopt staff recommendation Item 1, page 2 of the written report submitted by Acting City ~nager Asmus under date of September 2, 1976: "1. Council adopt the time schedule contained in this report." (Exhibit 2 of the report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Motion to accept staff It was moved by Councilman Egdahl, seconded recommendation, Item 3 by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that the Council adopt staff recommendation Item 3, page 2 of the written report dated September 2, 1976 beginning with "the P-C zone be amended . . "to the end of the paragraph. "3 .... the P-C zone be amended to provide that any general development plan and general development schedule be subject to review by the Planning Commission and the City Council four years from the date of adoption if said general development plan and schedule have not been completed. During said period of review, any precise plans submitted to implement the general development plan, including any tentative subdivision maps, shall not be approved even though they conform to the general development and schedule, unless the Planning Commission and City Council shall make a finding that said precise plan is not only consistent with the general development plan, but is also not in conflict with the proposed general development plan under study by the Planning Commission and City Council°" Clarification of motion Councilman Egdahl commented that the first part of the paragraph related to previous Council action and in effect the Council was adopting the entire paragraph: "If the City Council approves the proposals of staff, in- cluding the schedule of actions to be under- taken in amending the general development plan and establishing an assessment district, the P-C zone be amended . . ." etc. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.mo to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 1976 at 7:00 pom. JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC City Clerk Deputy Ciky clerk