Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1989/11/30Thursday, November 30, 1989 Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. City Council Conference Room Minutes of Adiourned Joint Workshop of the Chula Vista City Council and Planning Cornmission CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL C~IJ-- Councilmembers Malcolm, McCandliss, Moore, Nader, and Mayor Cox. Commissionmembers Carson, Cannon, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe, Tugenberg. BUSINESS 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT 2a. Growth Management Element - Mr. Bob Leiter, Director of Planning introduced the members of the Growth Management Oversight Committee. He stated the approval by Council of the first phase is expected in July. Willdan had been hired to assist the City with the update. He then introduced Mr. Tony Latefie and Mr. Dick Jacobs from Willdan who will review the Growth Management Element, and Mr. John Lippert, Director of Public Works, who will review the Intersection Study. Mr. Latefie stated the Growth Management Element contained current issues and the City's responses to the issues. He then gave an oral presentation of the report. 2b. Rate of Growth Management - Mr. Jacobs gave an oral presentation of the report. 2c. Intenection Study - Mr. Lippert referred to the Intersection Location Map and summarized the current Threshold Standards adopted by voters and Council approximately one year ago. He then gave an oral presentation of the study. Commissioner Cannon questioned whether traffic counts included counts and size of road or ff other criteria was utilized. Mr. Lippett stated only counts taken every fifteen minutes were utilized. He stated that city wide the results were not bad end a lot of more detail was included in the study. Councilmen Nader questioned where in Phase lI of the Growth Management element would environmental issues, air and water, be addressed. Mr. Leiter stated air quality was integral to planning and was projected at staff level and implemented due to Proposition C. A regional Growth Plan is done at the county level and is included in the work program. The City could do it independently at the Council's direction. MINUTES 2 November 30, 1989 Councilman Nader felt that Council had requested specificity on environmental issues in July. These were to be a part of the report. Mr. Krempl noted these could be included in the public facilities section and stated staff would do so immediately. Councilman Nader stated that ff these issues were not addressed he would go for building caps. City Manager Goss recommended the City initiate and develop a water plan which would include performance standards and would also monitor other agencies. Councilwoman McCandliss stated staff should draaff recommended standards for Council to review. Councilman Nader questioned how otcen staff would report back to Council. Mr. Leiter stated the report would be quarterly. Councilman Nader questioned whether other growr. h inducement activities, such as commercial and industrial, would be considered in traffic monitoring and projections. Mr. Leiter stated they would be considered. Councilman Nader stated he questioned the use of SANDAG projections and that his approval of the Growth Management Study was not to be considered as support of those projections. Mayor Cox stated SANDAG projections were predicated on information given to them from the agencies. Mr. Leiter stated the forecasts would only be used as forecasts and not policy. These should be update every two to three years. Councilman Nader noted the City of Escondido adopted a policy of 75% of the SANDAG projections which would be a slow growth policy. He stated his concern over where SANDAG was taking the City. He stated he would be interested in the Planning Commission's comments and questioned when the report would be submitted for their review. He hoped they would work in more specificity and details or refer the report back to staff. Commissioner Fuller stated they would submit the report for public review but would not change. Councilwoman McCandliss stated the report could be referred back to the staff for more detail. Mr. Leiter stated the General Plan document was not specific on time sensitive topics but it was good to get public and Planning Commission input on issues that need to be more clear. He noted that a workshop could be held. Councilman Moore questioned when the specifics would come in. Mr. Leiter stated they would be in the action plan that is adopted by ordinance. Councilman Malcolm noted the growth rate had been 1-2%. He stated that ff we worked in a perfect environment, thresholds would be all right, but ff the City of San Diego said no building permits for one year, it would increase pressure on Chula Vista. MINUTES 3 November 30, 1989 Councilman Malcolm stated a #6 should be added to the Policy Area 2 - to consider the number of building permits in order to prevent external forces putting pressure on the City. Staff should look at a CAP on the number of permits issued. Councilman Nader stated it would be difficult to implement if adopted. Councilwoman McCandliss stated the City did not have the capacity to monitor the pent up permits. She was glad to see the Council discussing these issues as she would not like to fred out later that the conditions are unacceptable and then call for a moratorium. She stated she did not feel a CAP was necessarily the solution to the problem. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that population growth was out of our control and that a CAP was not necessary. Commissioner Cannon expressed concern over the lag time, particularly with the traffic study. Councilman Malcolm stated a CAP was not needed and that Council should review in order to reduce lag time. Mayor Cox expressed concern over everyone rushing in for a permit whether they were ready to use it or not. He felt it would rush developments and it would be better to refine and update the ability to get information to monitor thresholds. Councilman Moore stated there was no difference of time from issuance of permit, information was still good in the future and that staff knew what was on the backburner. Mr. Leiter stated there would be a closer accounting of traffic and other public facilities in the development phasing included in Phase II of the report. Commissioner Cassfllas stated there were significant other factors to be considered. Several of these were: 1. Department of Defense cutbacks could impact the region dramatically - there should be a good transitional plan, 2. slow down development and growth and address the issue of affordable housing, and 3. elections in San Diego could impact the area if a slow growth council was elected and imposed growth limits. He also stated Policy #5 in Policy Area 2 should be monitored on a more real time basis and methodology should be refined. He felt the environmental impact reports were not addressing water issues and did not require the developers to insure a means to provide water or the assurance that there would be water. Any action taken that diminishes the quality of life to the citizens is a disservice. Reports should be more indepth and reviewed even closer than they are now. Commissioner Cannon agreed with Commissioner Cassillas and stated that any road could be brought up to Level C if widened but noted that there would be an impact on the quality of life in the neighborhood. He also stated that water was a regional problem and questioned what would happen if these issues were not addressed. Councilman Nader stated that he had voted against certification of many of the EIP,'s because they did not address the issues of air, water, etc. Councilman Moore stated the Water Task Force was compiling a lot of information and the report was due in May. Councilwoman McCandliss stated the Urban Land Institute, San Diego Growth Management Plan should receive an A for effort but an F for implementation. She stated there needed to be a balance and an ability to phase or pace the growth of the community. She noted that CAP's carried bad connotations and MINUTES 4 November 30, 1989 should be used only when growth was out of control and it would amount to a virtual stopage of growth. She felt the tools needed t9 phase or pace growth were not included in the current reports and she was not convinced that the market alone would dictate growth. Councilman Malcolm felt the counts should be cumulative. Mr. Leiter stated there needed to be a long term solution for the phasing of facilities with growth. Councilwoman McCandliss questioned whether Mr. Krempl had concerns over the level of growth or development. Mr. Krempl stated his concern was over the two to five year horizon versus a month or year. He further stated that staff was gathering information from the Otay Water Allocation program and felt things were moderated in the short term. Councilman Nader stated he did not want to move toward a building CAP and felt it was an inferior solution. He noted the City had been working on the General Plan update for three years and that the Growth Management element was part of the General Plan update. He felt the City should move quickly regarding environmental concerns and review thresholds and whether the approach curren~y being taken on environmental issues was working versus building CAP's. He stated this information should be for backup only. Commissioner Fuller disagreed with the CAP and felt there was not a need. She stated there were thresholds in place and the City was now dealing with problems they did not have in the past. Plans should be reviewed, not growth, and noted that growth was not bad. Councilman Malcolm wanted directe staff to look into a CAP and/or other alternatives which would keep the quality of life. He also stated the plan should be kept on track. Councilwoman McCanclliss stated the developments to the east were well designed. Councilman Malcolm noted the staff and Council should take time and do the document correc~y. Mayor Cox stated he was interested in alternatives other than a CAP for a two to five year time period. He noted the ultimate growth conu'ol would be by the Otay Water District. He stated they had a CAP and they would be the pace setter in the eastern territories. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to refer the balance of recommendalions to staff. Councilman Nader stated that if the report was referred back to the Planning Commission, the Commission would then have the option of saying it was adequate or could refer back it to staff. Commissioner Cannon stated the Commission does not make policy but reviews. Councilman Nader stated he assumed the Planning Commission was making policy recommendations. Commissioner Cannon stated they review projects. Mayor Cox noted that the Commission can make recommendations. Commissioner Cannon stated the Council had heard their comments. MINUTES S November 30, 1989 Councilman Moore stated there would be additional printed material regarding these issues, which would contain specifics. 3. cr[Y MANAGERS REPORT(S) - none 4. MAYORS REPORTf S) - none 5, COUNCIl, COMMENTS - none ADJOURNMENT The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:03 p,m. to discuss: County vs. Rabin. ADJOURNMENT AT 6:47 p.m. to the regular City Council meeting of December 5, 1989 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vicki Soderquist, Deputy Ci~erk