Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1987/03/05 MINUTES OF A COUNCIL CONFERENCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, March 5, 1987 Council Chamber 7:10 p.m. Public Services Building ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Cox; Councilmembers Nader, Moore, McCandliss, Malcolm MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Goss, Assistant City Manager Asmus, Deputy City Attorney Moore Mayor Cox announced that this conference has been called to consider the report on the development moratorium issues for the City for the properties east of 1-805. City Manager Goss presented an overview of the growth management issues in the City including: permit history and pending gro~th management activities by City; noted the total number of dwelling units per year averaged 500 to 800 units as a low to a high cycle of 1,000 to 1,300 per year; referred to a graph comparing the growth of Chula Vista with that of the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista noting that the lowest growth was in 1983 and the highest in 1986; recounted the City's history since November 1978 when the Council adopted a Growth Management Policy; generally discussed the Public Financing and Facilities Plan established for the EastLake area and the moratorium of the issuance of building permits; discussed the annexation of the Montgomery area and the service levels which have been maintained; listed the pending activities such as the project to widen East "H" Street to 6 lanes, the Telegraph Canyon Road widening to 6 lanes and an update of the traffic signalizations at various intersections throughout the City. Gary Wood, consultant working with PRC Engineering Corp., and Project Manager for the General Plan Update, testified to the following: they started their study in August 1986 and expect to have it completed by December 1987; the eastern territory concept plan will be subject to review in April or May; they feel the General Plan Update should focus not on the number of people in Chula Vista or the growth rate to the year 2005 but instead on the issue of what type of community Chula Vista wants to have; as to their philosophy on growth management, they feel the infrastructure and community services should be in place ("pay as you go" philosophy) also to have a threshold on all checkpoints; Chula Vista should oversee growth that takes place within its Sphere of Influence. Minutes - 2 - March 5, 1987 Council Conference Mr. %~ood stated that as to the occupational profile as a supplement to the General Plan which was requested at the Council's last meeting, it would cost approximately ~28,000. This would be to identify the program of job skills which would involve taking a survey of 200 residents in the area and from that to develop an analysis and recommendation to Council. George Krempl, Director of Planning, reported on: the range of options for a moratorium; the General Plan Amendment relationship; staff recommendations and rationale; and the tentative map consideration and projects affected. In his presentation, Director Krempl noted: Planning staff felt there should be some delay in the process of plans especially those east of 1-805; the Council generally concurred except for excluding the EastLake Greens; Council also discussed deleting some portion of the E1 Rancho del Sur; the Council discussed having a moratorium on building permits and processing of tentative subdivision maps for the area at Otay Valley Road; however, this did not come to any fruition. As to choices, Director Krempl stated Council could order a hold on annexing any future lands and processing of the General Plan Amendments or a hold on the SPA levels at the tentative map stage since the tentative map is an implementation of zoning. Staff is recomme~]ding that should Council wish to adopt a moratorium, it should be on processing future annexations east of 1-805 for a period of 120 days. Director Krempl listed the projects now at the tentative map stage. There are seven projects listed totalling 77,000 acres and 1,000 units. They are as follows: 1. Rancho del Sur (Phase I) 2. Bel Air Ridge 3. Brehm (Preliminary) 4. Rio Otay 5. Terra Nova (Preliminary) 6. FieldStone (Preliminary) 7. Mission Verde Staff is also expecting McMillin to be filing a tentative map shortly for Rancho Del Rey SPA I which will also include a puDlic facilities financing plan, development phasing and a development agreement. Director Krempl then gave the 10 items referring to the major project status: Minutes 3 March 5, 1987 Council Conference 1. Bonita Meadows (Central Savings) 2. Bonita Miguel (Unocal) 3. EastLake Greens 4. EastLake II 5. Mary Birch Ranch (Great American) 6. Rancho Del Sur (Great American) 7. Rancho Del Rey I (McMillin) 8. Rancho Del Rey II-IV (McMillin) 9. Rio Otay Business Park (Chillingworth) 10. General Plan Udate (PRC, et al) Deputy City Attorney Moore stated that the City Council can take no legislative action tonight because the notice was posted for a conference. They can; however, make a motion to refer this to staff. She noted that an interim ordinance requires a 4/5th vote and would be effective for a 90 day period of time after which time it can be extended twice. As to the vested rights of a developer, it is when they have a building permit. %~ill Hyde, 803 Vista Way, representing Crossroads, stated the presentation was being made because Crossroads believes that quality of life in Chula Vista is being seriously threatened. Chula Vista is experiencing a development explosion, the most rapid growth in its history and they believe that the existing mechanisms to handle this growth are inadequate to protect the City from a deterioration of its quality of life. The proposals from Crossroads would be: 1. To adopt a moratorium this evening on all development east of 1-805 until such time as the review of the General Plan has been completed. 2. To include appropriate thresholds of performance criteria in the General Plan. To insure that the thresholds are adequate and adhered to, Crossroads is recommending that a General Plan Oversight Committee be established by the City Council which would be an integral part of the General Plan process and would have as its only duty the annual review of the thresholds and policies of the plan. The findings of the Committee would be published and forwarded to the Planning Commission and the City Council on an annual basis. Mr. Hyde then spoke on the traffic circulations as it relates to the problems of development and recommended some levels of service (LOS) which are directly related to traffic flow and can be written into the General Plan as acceptable traffic flow conditions in the City at any one location. Minutes - 4 - March 5, 1987 Council Conference In answer to the Mayor's question, Mr. Hyde stated that if the City has not approved a tentative map, then Crossroads would recommend that that development be placed under a moratorium. He further stated that in his opinion, he finds it difficult to support a moratorium on annexations because some annexations are desireable to come into the City (such as United Enterprises) over which the City can have some control of the development. Mr. Bud Pocklington, 656 Glover Place, stated he is concerned with the quality of life in Chula Vista. He gave a short history of the early developments, especially those R-3 multiple family developments ("K" Street); noted most school enrollments are over their limits which happens as a result of destroying R-1 areas and approving them for multiple family developments. Councilwoman McCandliss noted that these projects were approved by the Planning Commission and at that time, they did not automatically come to the City Council. Mr. Bob Santos, 701 "B" Street, San Diego, representing EastLake Development Company, referred to his letter dated March 5 in which he requested that the Council not reverse its previously adopted policies on the processing of the EastLake Greens plan and proposals for the period of 120 days. Director Krempl, in response to Council's questions stated it would be the intent of the staff to spend some time with the developer in the processing of EastLake Greens. Staff presently has received a new SPA Plan and and new development agreement for this development. In answer to Councilwoman McCandliss' question, Mr. Santos stated that attempts have been made to annex EastLake Greens to the City through LAFCO; however, LAFCO stated that they wanted some type of prezoning prior to the annexation. Mr. Ken Baumgartner, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City 92050, representing McMillin Development Company, requested that the Council not impose a moratorium on any of their Specific Plans which were approved by Council in November 1985. At this time the staff has on file a Precise Plan for the first phase of this project which consists of 2,100 units and 84 acres of employment park. The subdivision map for this Precise Plan will be submitted to the City within the next 4 to 6 weeks. Mr. Charles R. Gill, Attorney from the firm of McDonald, Hecht & Solberg, referred to his letter dated Marc~ 5, 1987 on behalf of their client, the Chillingworth Corporation for the proposed development known as Otay Rio Business Park strongly protesting the imposition of a processing of building moratorium on their Minutes 5 March 5, 1987 Council Conference property. They are concerned with the moral obligation of the City Council; indicated it would be a breach of good faith; the Otay Rio area was encouraged to de-annex from San Diego and annex to the City of Chula Vista; the development proposes industrial land and not residential land uses; the development would produce jobs and revenue to the City. John Ochsner, 600 "B" Street, San Diego, representing Great American, stated that in August, Great American purchased over 700 acres from United Enterprises. They discussed this with the City Council at the last workshop and at that time, Council "tied their hands" until such time as the concept plans for the General Plan Element were updated. However, they were allowed to proceed with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and annexation. Mr. Ochsner stated they would appreciate the Council's consideration of not placing the moratorium on their project. Mr. Richard Callahan, 1232 Tobias Drive, Chula Vista, speaking as a concerned citizen stated that everyone is concerned with controlled growth and asked Council to be aware of organizations such as Crossroads opposing any type of growth. He spent the last week in Santa Barbara and heard about their efforts to control growth in their City. He said it was refreshing to come back to Chula Vista to see the vibrant place that Council has made it and questioned why the discussion to place a moratorium on the properties east of 1-805. Mr. Callahan further commended the City Council on the way they are handling the growth in Chula Vista. Mr. Gene Grady, 6275 Otay Mesa Road, San Diego, representing himself, stated he objects to the placement on any moratorium on any of the properties in the City. He has been living in the City of Chula Vista or just on its outskirts for the past 45 years. He noted there are traffic problems in the City but there are as many, if not worse, traffic problems in the City of National City. Mr. Grady testified as to how the City of San Diego was able to annex the properties at Otay Mesa; asked Council to look at the developments which have occurred in the San Ysidro community by the City of San Diego. Councilman Nader questioned the Director of Planning as to whether there were any other projects east of 1-805 other than the 100 acres for Great American that do not have Specific Plan approval that could go through the tentative map stage. Director Krempl stated it would be the Otay Rio Business Park which can go from zoning to the tentative map stage. A recess was called at 9:06 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Minutes - 6 - March 5, 1987 Council Conference Mr. Bob Fox, 1466 Lilac Avenue, Chula Vista, representing himself, stated that the "balloon growth has burst all over the place" sometime ago when the area of Montgomery was annexed. He would support a moratorium but would caution having moratoriums on annexations since the Council could protect open spaces and greenbelts such as that for United Enterprises territories. Deputy Attorney Moore stated that during the break, she reviewed the notice for tonight's meeting and since it was noticed as a "meeting" the City Council can take whatever legislative action they wish. Councilman Nader's comments: referred to statement by one of the speakers that Chula Vista is the best place in the world to live and he would like to keep it that way; the City is now in the process of a General Plan Update; however he feels it is clear that if they do nothing pending that General Plan Update, major land uses will be made and committed to in some way; he would recommend that those that have already had tentative map approval be exempted from a moratorium. Councilman Moore's comments: his biggest fear is what is going to happen on the Otay Mesa and the traffic problems which will be generated for that development; staff is working with McMillin and EastLake for public improvements; questioned how Council can "break faith" with these solid agreements; noted the public improvement projects for East "H" Street, the Rancho del Sur project, the Rio Otay Business Park, the problems with some of the off-ramps built by CalTrans including 1-805/Bonita Road. Councilman Moore stated that all of these improvements will be a great asset to traffic flow and infrastructures in the City and constitute good planning. Councilwoman McCandliss' comments: would like to see the very best General Plan and is looking toward phasing of developments; how much development does the City want to have over what period of time; there are now over 1,150 acres of land currently under consideration for General Plan Amendments which will have a tremendous impact on the City until they can control that direction. Staff needs some guidance as to what the City Council would like to see; Council wants to maintain its integrity of the Council and still be sensitive to the commitments which have been made; she is concerned that the future plans of the City are in jeopardy since the City is growing too fast; supports giving staff more time in which to develop these plans. Councilman Malcolm's comments: questioned Mr. Hyde as to the previous Council's policy guidelines of having east to west developments and asked whether Crossroads has a better solution to controlling growth. Minutes - 7 - March 5, 1987 Council Conference Mr. Hyde responded that they are proposing a moratorium in order for the City to develop better tools which would not degrade the quality of life in Chula Vista. If it means an east to west development, that policy would be agreeable to Crossroads. Mr. Hyde responded to Councilman Malcolm's further questioning concerning the number of units which should be built each year; Council should consider phasing of developments; EastLake is one of the developments that turned out better than he had expected it would; as to the Fifth Avenue closing, Crossroads has not taken a position on it; however, he personally feels that if Homart will leave the City if they do not get the closure, he would reluctantly agree to have it closed. Further discussion with Councilman Malcolm revealed that the City has approved only 235 units in the last 5 years in the City or approximately 50 units per year, excluding the EastLake/Long Canyon area; noted that it was the prior Council which voted on the developments back in 1980 now taking place since very little was built from 1981 through 1984. Councilman Malcolm added that for the Long Canyon/E1 Rancho del Rey development, there will be approximately 30,000 traffic trips generated per day which he doesn't feel is much of a moratorium. McMillin's project is proposed for 2,100 units on 84 acres. Mayor Cox' comments: suggested another approach and that is to "have a moratorium on all moratoriums" in the City for a set period of time; the City Council has worked long and hard over the last years to make it a quality place to live and retire; noted Design Review Board's processing of developments; the different approaches that have made significant impacts in the City such as the EastLake developments for which public improvements have to be in place before future developments can take place; Financing and Facilities Plans were approved; moratorium has been in effect since last September therefore, there is a management growth program in the City that is working; that is the type of mechanism which the City needs to utilize in the future; problem with EastLake is that they were too successful in selling their homes; next Tuesday the Council will hear the agreement between two forces who are joining together to put in the ultimate 6 lanes along East "H" Street, which will have a significant impact on other streets in the City; Telegraph Canyon Road is expected to be improved; there is no single solution to the management growth but he is content that with the extra staff hired for processing plans, the signalizations going in the City, public improvements being put in, connections with other roads in the City, lighting, completion of Route 54 all are going to be helpful to resolve the traffic problems in the City. Minutes - 8 - March 5, 1987 Council Conference Mayor Cox cautioned the Council to temper their enthusiasm for a moratorium with reality since moratoriums will not stop traffic and it may jeopardize the agreements the City now has with McMillin Corporation for the improvement to East "H" Street; as to Crossroads' proposals, he has no problem with establishing levels of service and is willing to explore the General Plan Oversight Committee as proposed. MS (McCandliss/Nader) to implement a moratorium on the General Plan/Specific Plans and annexations to the City of Chula Vista. DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION Council discussion followed with Director of Planning Krempl answering questions pertaining to the projects which do not have Specific Plan agreements. CLARIFICATION OF MOTION Councilwoman McCandliss clari~fied that her original motion was for a moratorium on the General Plan Amendments and on annexations. AMENDMENT TO MOTION MSC (Nader/Malcolm) to delete the annexations from the moratorium and to exempt the Otay Rio Business Park. The amendment passed with Councilwoman McCandliss voting "no." CLARIFICATION OF MAIN MOTION Councilman Moore clarified the main motion as noting it will be for an ordinance to be brought back for a 90 day moratorium on the General Plan/Specific Plans and to exempt Otay Rio Business Park and annexations. The main motion carried with Mayor Cox voting "no." MS (McCandliss/Nader) to refer to staff proposals 1 and 2 from Crossroads and the question of the components of development agreements for inclusion in the General Plan. Proposals 1 and 2 are as follows: 1. Adopt a moratorium on all development east of 1-805 until the review of the General Plan has been completed. 2. Include appropriate thresholds or performance criteria in the General Plan. SUBSTITUTE MOTION MSUC (Moore/Cox) to delete Proposal 2 and direct staff to include the performance standards such as for the EastLake Development Agreement: Public Facilities Plan, etc. Minutes - 9 - March 5, 1987 Council Conference NEW MOTION MS (Nader/McCandliss) referring to the November 1978 Growth Management Policy: to direct staff and the consultant to look at the merits of an annual review and on the proposal for a General Plan Oversight Committee. DISCUSSION OF MOTION Councilman Malcolm indicated it was the Planning Commission's assignment to annually review the General Plan rather than set up another Committee to do this. He would rather see it referred to the Planning Commission and see if they have time to do it. AMENDMENT TO MOTION MS (Nader/McCandliss) for the results of the staff report to be referred to the Planning Commission for their input. The amendment and main motion carried unanimously. Mayor Cox thanked Crossroads and the rest of the people in the audience for coming tonight to testify on this important issue. Mr. Hyae extended the appreciation of Crossroads for Council's consideration of their proposals. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:57 p.m. to the Council Tour scheduled for Saturday March 7 at 8:a.m., to the joint City Council/School Board meeting on March 9 at 4 p.m. and to the regular scheduled meeting of March 10 at 7 p.m. /J~nnie M. Fulasz, C~C ~ ~/C i ty Clerk ~' 0984C