The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-08-12; City Council; Minutes,. i - citg o€ aaralsoae Meeting of: JOINT LIEETIldG OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLAWNII”4G COYMISSION Time of Meeting: 7:OO P.M. Date of ;4ee‘Ging: August 12, 1980 Placs of 3leeting: Counci 1 Chambers 256 t . ROLL CALL: I Present A1 so present were Commissioners Schick, Leeds and Marcus. Commissioners Larson, Jose, Friestedt, and Rombotis were absent. Commissioner Rombotis arrived at 7.:17 P.M. (77) 1 . GROkJTH WNAGEMENT PLAN. The Planning Director gave introductory remarks regarding the prel imi nary report of the interim Growth Management PrograWpresented to Council earlier, and introduced Rod Jeung of Sedway/Co.oke, and Lynn Sedway and Janet of Lynn Sedway & Associates, the consultants who prepared same. He stated the consul tants would be presenting a report to Counci and Commission and would respond to questions. :4r. Jeung began the presentation by explaining the backgrour ad purpose of. the study. He then explained the methodology and assurnptions.used in determining the City’s growth po ten ti a1 . i I Commissioner Rombotis arrived. Mr. Jeung continued with the presentation d,isplaying a transparency showing a chart reflecting the city‘s histori- cal and future growth trends , with the population at build- out shown as 100,831 (as shown on page 5 of the report). Mr. Jeung explained that the main difference between the . Growth Management study and the Pub1 ic Facil i ti es Fee study was that the PFF study u,sed gross acreage and net acreage .was used in the Growth Hanagement study. He then displayed a transparency showing the city divided into subareas, which were used in their report preparation (as shown on page 8 of the report). The next transpare.ncy displayed a chart showing the develop report). . me-nt potential by subarea .(as contained on page 9 of the Transparencies containing charts reflecting estimated development phasing, residential phasing, and commercial and industrial phasing that would occur in the ci ty (as shown on pages 17, 19 and 20 of the report). Lynn Sedway then reported on the publ ic service imp1 ication of the growth potential. She indicated it was found that a publ ic facility fee is necessary, but that the initial fee charged should be 42 as opposed to the currently charged 2%. , Janet then report in detail as to the methodology used in developing the proposal for the fee. In summary, Mr.- Jeung emphasized that the Plan is interim facilities fee, but suggested it be re-evaluated every five years. He proposed a benchmark concept which would monitor development and tell how the development is affecting pub- 1 i c services . , . and can be .updated. He recommended retaining the public - The consultants responded to questions from Council , Commi ss ion , and’ members.;of the publ ic regarding thei r assumptions used in the development of the program, and the contents of same. COUNCIL cttp Ot c(Lar1swaa Page 2 COUNCIL - I* :. 1 -r i August 12, 1980 In conclusion, the City Manager stated the program would receive further review and study to include such ,issues as service levels, phasing, facility deferment, and projection figures . It was noted that during the review, a meeting would be held with interested citizens to also receive their comments and concerns. Following same, the P1 an would be returned to Council at the second meeting in September. RECESS: Mayor Packard called a recess at 8:56 P.M. and Council and Commission reconvened at 9:07 P.M. with five Council Members present and four Planning Commissioners present. (29) 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. I The City Manager gave a brief report on the matter referenc- i ng the report dated August 12, 1980, and the chart contain- ed therein. He outl ined the proposed process to be fol lowec during consideration of the Capital Improvement Budget. In that regard, he. stated the matter was being presented to Council and Commission for information at this time. The Finance Director responded to questions regarding p'roposed procedures to be foll owed which -would encourage citizen input in the process. (57) 3. PROGRAM FOR GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY. The Planning D.irector gave a brief report on the matter outl ining the hi story of same, and current problems. tie explained that if a density range is maintained, the actual range is decided in accordance with amenities. In this regard, he outl ined problems in that no set standards exist which relate specific amenities to specific densities. Council and Commission discussion reflected concerns and questions relative to different definitions of an amenity. A1 so discussed was the possibility of control 1 ing density by zoning. Also discussed was the possibility of establish ing one density in an area for condominiums, and.a higher density in the same area for apartments to encourage the bui 1 ding of apartments. It was the consensus that the General Plan density ranges be maintained and utilized. .. Council requested an additional staff report to contain examples of a site plan reflecting different densities; said report to a1 so address the problems re1 ating to apartment densities , consideration of low-income housing, and relationship to the redevelopment area. (79) 4. WATER RECLAMATION POLICIES. The City Manager gave a brief report on the matter and referenced the recommendation contained in the Memorandum dated August 12, 1980. Council and Commission expressed concurrence with the recomlnendation contained in the Memorandum. aitp ot VLar10uao Page 3 COUNCIL - I & August 12,'1980 258 A (76) 5. ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION. The City Manager gave a brief introduction to the matter referencing the Memorandum dated August 12, 1980. Commissioner Schick expressed concern that i.f the Commission desires a report or action from staff, they must recommend that action to Council, and Council then directs staff to proceed. Mayor Packard expressed.the desire to attempt to shorten the processing time for projects. He questioned whether more items could receive final action at the Commission level. Council Member Anear expressed concern that park dedications are accepted without processing through the Parks and Recreation Commission. , The City Manager acknowledged problems with previous park areas being accepted, and referenced an item on the forth- coming agenda for Council which would relate to hiring a consultant for updating the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. Council expressed concurrence with Mayor Packard's concern and requested a report as to all items which are processed through the Commission and Council, and those which could receive'final, action by the. Commission. Council also concurred with the concern that park dedication should.be processed through the Parks and Recreation Commission concurrently with other actions so as not to 1 engthen processing time. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:21 P.M. The following Ordinance was adopted: Council Member Lewis stated he had 1istened.to the tapes of the meeting of August 5, 1980, and therefore .felt qualified to vote on the matter. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: The City Manager distributed copies of a Resolution urging the State Water Resource Control Board to restore funding €0 the Encina Joint Powers Agency, and indicating timing required action on the matter at this meeting. I . Council unanimously agreed to add the item to the agenda. The following Resolution was adopted: 1 citp o€ car1e;oau - Page 4 COUNCIL - 1 t kg$ .Pn?J3$? August 12, 1980 259 \ A 1 The City Manager distributed to Council a Memorandum dated August 8, 1980, regarding the Bris to1 Cove Assessment District Contract which explains a problem which requires approval of a change order in order to proceed with the work. Council unanimously agreed that the matter be added to the Agenda. for consideration at th?s meeting. Council approved the change order for $1 0,476 to realign Motion X the Bris.tol Cove storm drain. Ayes x xx The City Manager stated a.request had been received from the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau to address Council directed the City Manager to the Bureau that Council had expressed no desire to provide funding. Mayor Packard called an Executive Session at 10:30 P.M. for the purpose of discuss.i ng 1 i tigation. Cou.nci'l reconvened at 10:59 P.M. with all Council Members present and the Mayor announced that 1 itigation had been discussed. ADJOURNMENT: Respectfully submitted, I