Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1986/03/27 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE Thursday, March 27, 1986 Council Conference Room 4:00 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Cox; Councilmembers Moore, Scott, McCandliss MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Malcolm STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Asmus, Assistant City Attorney Gill Mayor Cox announced that two years to this date, the City received approval from the State Coastal Commission for the Bayfront plan. Councilman Scott noted that Councilman ~alcolm was not present at the meeting today and the meeting was called by Councilman Malcolm specifically to discuss the Guidelines for the Future Growth of the City. 1. GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE GROWTH OF THE CITY Director of Planning Krempl stated that at the meeting of February 27, two members of the City Council heard the presentation on the guidelines. The purpose was to hire a consulting firm to do the study and to discuss the issues of processing major developments. Referring to exhibits and transparencies, Director Krempl discussed the following: presented a map showing the sphere of influence for the City; presented a map showing the general plan communities including the eastern territories: Sweetwater/Bonita, Montgomery/Otay and the central Chula Vista Bayfront areas; discussed the State mandated elements of the existing Chula Vista General Plan which are land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, seismic safety and safety and noise. The additional elements are Parks & Recreation, public buildings, scenic highways and bicycle routes; presented a chart showing the planning organization for the program. Council Conference - 2 - March 27, 1986 Director Krempl noted that he will be put in a "block' for his title to work along with the City Manager to coordinate the works of the Library Director and the Public Works Director in this planning process. The next chart was the planning process, in which Director Krempl noted the various General Plan amendment preparations. The Director then noted the timing schedules in going out for the RFP'S and the estimated time of completion for the General Plan amendment, the Master Library Plan, the Master Public Facilities Plan and the Transportation Plan. Next, the Director presented charts showing: (1) the General Plan Issues which included: (a) public participation in the planning process, (b) Council expectations of consultants, (c) participation of Otay Ranch in the General Plan program and, (d) planning for EastLake II and the Greens community. The next chart discussed by Director Krempl was the Public Participation in the Planning Process. Director Krempl noted the following options: public opinion survey, technical committee, overall City committee, committees for sub-area, Planning Commission/City Council and open workshops by sub-area. Under the Council Expectations of Consultants chart, Mr. Krempl noted the following: (a) a four-year university, (b) regional park, (c) medical complex, (d) the timing, (e) role with major property owners. The next chart was headed "Participation of Otay Ranch in the General Plan." Under this chart, Director Krempl discussed: (a) how to resolve the sphere of influence, (b) how to treat the 25,000 vs. 10,000 acres, (c) the County role and, (d) land splits. The next chart discussed by the Director was titled, "Planning for EastLake II and the Greens Community.~ Under this chart Director Krempl discussed: (a) public facilities and their financing which includes the water, sewer, infrastructure, circulation and drainage, (b) growth trends and management - settlement pattern and form, open space greenbelts, phasing of growth and development growth rate and planned holding capacity. The last chart discussed by Director Krempl was titled, "Alternatives for Planned Processing in the Eastern Territories." The chart depicted: (1) accept the General Plan Amendment, prezoning and annexation for (a) all of EastLake II, (b) the Greens Community only, (2) hold off on accepting any applications within EastLake II for General Council Conference 3 March 27, 1986 Plan Amendment until the General Plan update is completed and, (3) authorize certain studies and analysis to occur but stop short of any final application of public hearings scheduled, to reevaluate this periodically. In answer to the Mayor's question, Director Krempl stated that the major property owners in the eastern territory are McMillin, Union Oil, EastLake and United Enterprises. Councilman Moore suggested a continual updating of the program and perhaps having a joint meeting with the Planning Commission in the near future. In answer to Councilwoman McCandliss' query, Director Krempl stated that the proposed studies would have no effect on the planned 15-20 year build-out time schedule proposed for the EastLake Development. Mr. Bob Santos, representing EastLake Development, referred to a letter that he had delivered to the Mayor on Monday. (It was acknowledged that no letter was received by the City Council.) Mr. Santos stated that they are great supporters of planning and willing to withdraw their annexation request of EastLake II Spa Plan, etc. and work with the consultants; however, they would like to go ahead with the Greens extension development. Mr. Santos handed out copies of the EastLake policy plan which was adopted by the City Council on August 24, 1982 noting the highlights of this plan. He added that the actual development will average 3.7 dwelling units per acre and not 6.1 as noted in the staff report. Annexation of the golf course properties to Chula Vista cannot be made until the General Plan Amendment is approved; therefore, they are "dead in the water" at this time. They would like to move ahead with their developments of their Greens and the golf course which would not jeopardize the plans discussed today. Mr. Bob Walters, representing Union Oil, stated they are currently contributing to the study of Route 125. Their hands are tied until something happens as to access to their property. They are interested in the studies and will be annexing to the City of Chula Vista since they have no desire to develop within the County jurisdiction. Mayor Cox questioned whether the properties could be annexed to Chula Vista with the current County zoning. Director Krempl stated he talked to LAFCO about this and they would not be agreeable to having properties come in with a "holding zone" but staff may be able to come up with a general plan and zoning design for urban designations. Mr. Walter added they are going ahead with their own studies which will take 6 to 9 months - these will be completed before annexation is requested. Council Conference 4 March 27, 1986 Michael Spata, attorney for Rose Patek, United Enterprises, stated his client wants time to review and evaluate this program; they want to be sure of all the facts; they recently submitted a very detailed information sheet to SANDAG transportation study (EastLake and Union Oil also participated); and possibly, would like to be invited on the 125 Route study. Mr. Spata added that they are not opposed to the development of EastLake Greens they do not want to hold up this development. As to the balance of the Eastern territories, they are already participating in the studies on the periphery and will be participating in further studies of the plan. MS (Cox/Moore) to accept the Council position on lb (accept General Plan Amendment, prezoning and annexation for the Greens Community Only) and suggest continuing it for a reasonable time until United Enterprises comes back with their comments. Council discussion followed on the motion with Councilman Moore stating he would prefer to approve #3 of the Alternatives and Councilman Scott indicating #2 would be the one to go with. SUBSTITUTE MOTION MSUC (Scott/Moore) to approve #2 (hold off on accepting any application within EastLake II for General Plan Amendment until the General Plan update is completed) and lb, the Green Community expansion area. It was moved by Councilman Moore to authorize alternative #3. Councilman Moore noted that these studies will have to come back to the City Council in order to be approved and it would include other lands in the eastern territories. The motion died for lack of second. MSUC (Scott/Moore) to approve options a, b, e and f of the Public Participation in the Planning Process. Under the Council Expectations of Consultants: MSUC (Scott/Moore) to approve a, b, c, d and e. Under the participation of Otay Ranch in the General Plan: MSUC (Scott/Cox) to continue these items until input is received from Otay Ranch (United Enterprises). Mayor Cox stated by their actions this afternoon, EastLake Greens can go ahead and be developed. He does not understand LAFCO's policy regarding the process in the annexations of Council Conference 5 - March 27, 1986 these properties in question. The period that they are dealing with is 20 to 25 years for this development. If an area is already included in the City's sphere of influence, that property should be able to be annexed with some type of "holding zone." MSUC .(Cox/Scott) for staff to prepare a letter to LAFCO raising this question and try to provide some logic as to why that shouldn't be changed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MAYOR'S REPORT a. Mayor Cox stated that Senator Deddeh has introduced SB 2061 - Urban Waterfront Restoration Projects. In the contents of the bill there is a $5 million figure which is to be used for enhancement of the south San Diego Bay. MSUC (Cox/Scott) for the Council to take a position in support of this bill and authorize the Mayor pro Tempore to attend the committee meeting scheduled'for April 8 in Sacramento to testify and also for a resolution to be prepared for Tuesday night's meeting. The Mayor discussed State Route 252 which is the inter-connection between I-5 and 805. That route was deleted from the 6 year plan. The state will take action later this month as to whether or not they want to sell off the rights-of-way. There is now renewed interest on the part of National City to hold these lands in reserve. MSUC (Cox/Scott) to bring back a resolution of support for 252. COUNCIL COMMENTS a. Councilman Moore stated he attended the Port District's meeting in which they are asking for City support of their Master Bayfront Plan. There is a scheduled meeting on April 3 from 9 to 4 p.m. at which he would request that the Mayor pro Tempore attend or he would be willing to attend as representative of the Council. Mayor pro Tempore McCandliss stated she would welcome Councilman Moore's attendance at this meeting on her behalf. MSUC (Scott/McCandliss) to authorize having Councilman Moore represent the City at the April 3 meeting. ADJOURNMENT AT 5:40 p.m. ~City Clerk