HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1986/09/25 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Thursday, September 25, 1986 City Hall
4:00 p.m. Council Conference Room
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Cox; Councilmembers Malcolm, Moore,
Campbell
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman McCandliss
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Goss, Assistant City Manager
Asmus, City Attorney Harron
1. DISCUSSION GUIDELINES FOR PROCESSING MAJOR PROJECTS DURING
THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Director of
Planning)
Director of Planning Krempl submitted a report to the Council in
which he listed the following:
A. Proposed/Commitment To Process
1. E1 Rancho del Rey, SPA I 747 ac. 2,193 d.u.
2. EastLake Greens 911 ac. 3,768 d.u.
3. U.E. land sold (partial) 104 ac. 400 d.u.*
4. CVIC LCP Amend/Subdivision 190 ac. 543 d.u.
Map Bayfront
Sub-total 1,952 ac. 6,904 d.u.
B. Proposed/Other
1. Otay/Palm GPA 242 ac.
2. Fenton Land GPA Otay Valley 450 ac
3. Otay Valley Road - South 233 ac
4. Bonita Meadows 260 ac 490 d.u.
5. U.E. lands sold (balance) 596 ac 2,384 d.u.*
6. Bonita Miguel 2,600 ac 3,400 d.u.
Sub-total 4,381 ac 6,274 d.u.
GRAND TOTAL 6,333 ac. 13,178 d.u.
*Calculated at the low end of the GPA range of 4-12 du/ac.
Director Krempl submitted to the following:
1. The processing of the major projects represents a workload
substantially beyond the capability of the existing staff
resources.
Minutes - 2 - September 25, 1986
2. The Council adopted the Growth Management Policy on October
27, 1981 which states that "lands develop in a general pattern
from west to east and that undeveloped lands be considered
ready for development if they are substantially contiguous
with the City limits.
3. The portions of the Eastern Territory under the ownership of
United Enterprises and Union Oil Company carry the
Agricultural and Reserve Open Space designation and will
remains so at the present time."
4. On March Z7, 1986, the Council voted to hold off accepting any
major new applications within the vacant lands east of 1-805
for General Plan Amendment until a General Plan update is
completed.
5. A portion of the United Enterprises property (700 + acres) has
recently been sold and the new owner would like to annex to
Chula Vista and start processing plans for the development of
that area.
6. PRC Engineering, Inc. entered into a contract with the City on
August 5, 1986 to update the General Plan. This is to be
completed by October 1987; however, the Eastern Territories
concept plan is by mid-May 1987.
7. The Planning Department has 3 independent planning consultants
working on the following projects: Montgomery Specific Plan,
E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan and EastLake Greens Project.
8. Hiring consultants are not a panacea and do not fully
substitute for the necessity of staff review, input and
decision making on technical issues.
9. The Planning Department staff has a myriad of other
responsibilities and assignments to respond to.
10. Staff has been working at peak capacity for the last 2 years
based on expanding City planning interests.
11. The Director and staff feel they are being "pushed" in terms.
of workload.
12. Discussed AB 4127, the Growth Control Bill and Moratorium
which is now on the Governor's desk for signature.
Council discussion followed regarding the process of annexations
through LAFCO; noted the people in the San Ysidro and South San
Diego area who need more direct access to Community Hospital in
case of emergencies and have approached Council to use their
Minutes 3 - September 25, 1986
powers of eminent domain; relocation of the Public Works yard
moving it mo~,e toward the center of the City and the negotiations
with the School District for a joint yard; EastLake is the key to
Route 125; the timeframe for the items listed under "B"; and a
possible revision to the Growth Policy.
Mr. Jim Dawe, attorney representing Rancho Del Sur, stated that
unless the City can accept application, they cannot go forward
with the annexation. Their application is consistent with the
City policy and because they do not want to see too much delay,
they are willing to pay for additional consultants to work on
their plans.
Director Krempl noted that LAFCO processes all annexations,
however; the City must prezone the property prior to annexation.
It could be the same zoning that now exists in the County.
Councilman Malcolm commented on the designated zonings on the
General Plan and indicated it would not prejudice his review on
the development of that area (commercial a~ld other zone changes).
Director Krempl noted that they still need to have the General
Plan as an overview - as a basic framework of the proposed
development.
Mayor Cox noted that the processing of their plan would not
preclude having the annexation considered by LAFCO.
Councilman Malcolm commented that the applicants could bring in
their first draft, staff could allow them to proceed with the
Environmental Impact Report work for the annexation and then their
precise plans could be accepted in May for processing.
Director Krempl noted the steps the applicant must take. He must
first file an annexation with LAFCO; (2) file a prezoning request
with the City, this could follow County zoning and would not
significantly impact staff, (3) they would have to do their
Environmental Assessment and this too, would not have a
significant impact on staff time, (4) staff would encourage them
to make available all data and studies they have with Mr. Bud
Grey, who is doing the General Plan update. This timeframe would
follow closely the General Plan update.
Mr. Kruer stated they would agree with this and further reiterated
they would be willing to hire an outside consultant. All they are
asking is for staff to work with them in assisting the development
of their property so that at the end of a nine month period of
time they would be at a point to finalize their precise plan.
Their concern at this time is not to lose that nine month period
of time.
(Mayor Cox left the meeting at this time - 5:30 p.m.)
In the absence of the Mayor, Councilman Campbell presided over the
meeting.
· I T
Minutes - 4 - September 25, 1986
Council discussion followed regarding the timeframe for processing
the precise plan and annexation proceedings through LAFCO.
(Mayor Cox returned - 5:36 p.m.)
Councilman Campbell suggested staff get together with the
applicant and discuss the issues and timeframe brought up at the
meeting today.
MSUC (Campbell/Malcolm) to refer to staff and the applicant this
matter for final accomplishment.
(Councilman Malcolm left the meeting at this time 5:45 p.m.)
2. REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES TO SHORTEN COUNCIL MEETINGS
City Manager Goss referred to the written report submitted by
Deputy City Manager Thomson stating the Council has already taken
a number of procedural actions to streamline and shorten the
regular City Council meetings. At a meeting of Department heads,
a brainstorming session was held in which the following
suggestions were made: limit people speaking from 5 to 3 minutes;
require all presentations to the Council to have speaker slips;
delay Council's responses to public comments until all members of
the public have spoken on a particular item; limit the amount of
time for Council debate on particular items and establish a set
time for the end of the City Council meetings.
Council discussion ensued regarding due process; noted the length
of the meetings -- whether they begin at 4 or 7 p.m.; having the
Mayor have a "heavy gavelH.
(Councilman Malcolm returned to the meeting - 5:50 p.m.)
Councilman Malcolm commented on the way the State Coastal
Commission handles its meetings whereby they allow anyone wanting
to speak on an item to make their presentations, the public
hearing is then closed and no further testimony is allowed. He
suggested a yellow light be put on the time clock at 4 minutes to
indicate they have 1 minute to summarize their presentations.
Mayor Cox suggested the cover sheet (blue sheet) of the agenda be
more specific as to the "request to speak" items.
MSUC (Campbell/Moore) to recess for Closed Session for pending
litigation. (Sierra Club vs Coastal Commission)
The Council recessed at 6:00 p.m. and the meeting adjourned at
6:20 p.m.
City C1 rk
0884C