HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/05/14MINUTES OR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, May 14, 1996 Council Chambers
6:08 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Councilmembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia. Rindone, and Mayor Horton
John D. Goss. City Manager; Brace M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 25, 1996 (Special Joint Meeting/Workshop of the City Council,
Planning Conunission and Growth Management Oversight Commission)
MSC (A!evy/Rindone) to approve the minute~ ot' April 25, 1996 as presented, approved 4-0-0-1 with Padilia
abstaining.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Introduction of Miss Chula Vista - Joe Amaro, Director of the Miss Chula Vista pageant, will present Mary
Perez, Miss Chula Vista 1996 and Codie Winslow, Miss Chula Vista 1995. Cnntinued to the meeting of 5/21/96.
b. Proclaiming the week of May 19-25, 1996 as "National Public Works Week." The proclamation was
presented by Mayor Pro Tern Moot to John Lippitt, Director of Pnblic Works.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Itetns pulled: none)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were nn repnrtable actions taken in Clnsed Seision on
5/7/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
6. ORDINANCE 2671 MODIFYING THE FEE RATE SCHEDULE OF THE "EASTERN AREA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR STREETS" (secnnd readinl! and adoption) - Currently the TransDlF
program does not consider the land use category "Community Purpose Facility" (CPF). Staff proposes to correct
this inconsistency by adoption of an exemption policy lbr types of development consistent with the CPF land use.
and exempting development prqiects of this class from the TransDIF. If approved, rethnds or rei~nbursetncnl of
certain fee payments previously made by Community Purpose Facility Projects would be made. Staff recommends
Council place the Ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Pnblic Works)
7. RESOLUTION 18280 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH JOSEF AND LENORE CITRON, DBA
BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P., FOR THE DEFERMENT OF PARK ACQUISITION
(PAD) FEES AS AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 17.10.100 OF THE CITY CODE - On 4/16/96, the
Redevelopment Agency authorized staff to negotiate a loan with the developers of th~ Broadway Business Homes
project to cnver the cost of development permit fees, including PAD fees. PAD fees must be paid prior to
M inures
May 14, 1996
Page 2
recordation of the final map for the pn~/ect which is a condition tier escrow to close. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Colnmunity Development)
8. RESOLUTION 18281 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO SELL SIX (6) AUTOMOBILES
TO THE CITY OF TIJUANA - The City of Tijuana has requested permission to purchase six automobiles (Police
Patrol) from the City fbr a sum of $1,750. These are vehicles that have been damaged beyond economic repair
and/or have had essential parts removed and are being stored at the Public Works Corporation Yard. Staff
recommends approval of the resolntion. (Director of Public Works and Director of Finance)
9. RESOLUTION 18282 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TREE TRIMMING
SERVlCES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INCREASE QUANTITIES TO
EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT - Funds lbr tree trimming services are included
in the fiscal year 1995/96 budget. The std2iect contract includes the trimming of a total of 2,932 trees located at
various locations thronghout the City. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 18283 AMENDING PART II, CHAPTER XI OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AS
IT RELATES TO THE COST OF CERTAIN STREET SIGN INSTALLATION MATERIALS - Staff has
received notification that certain materials used in the installation of street signs have increased in cost. Since these
costs are billed to developers as part of the costs associated with new development, it is necessary to update these
costs in the City's Master Fee Schedule. The changes are minor and reflect the cost passed on to the City from
the manufhcturer of the posts used to install street signs. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works)
Councilmember Alevy questioned who winrid pay the 40% increase.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, responded that it would be a pass through cost
to the people using the services which was primarily developers. The approximate increase was $5,000/year.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
11. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT SUBAREA PRESERVE PLAN FOR THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLANNING AREA - The City is preparing a draft Subarea Preserve Plan which
is intended to imple~nent the draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) tbr the entire Chula Vista
General Planning area. The MSCP is a cooperative effort by the City of San Diego; the County of San Diego; the
cities of Santee, Poway, and Chula Vista: other jurisdictions in the southwestern area of San Diego County; state
and federal wildlife agencies: other special purpuse agencies: and representatives of the land development industry
and environmental organizations. Staff recommends Council provide policy direction regarding the Subarea
Preserve Plan and direct staff to forward the draft Plan to the City of San Diego ti>r inclusion into the environmental
analysis document for the MSCP. (Director of Planning)
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
MSUC (Horton/Rindone) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 5/21/96.
12. PUBLIC HEARING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PCA-96-05; CONSIDERATION OF MINOR
AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 15.04.060 AND 15.04.145 (EXCAVATION, GRADING
AND FILLS) - CITY INITIATED - Staff recommends that the oublic hearing be continued to the meeting
of 5/28/96. (Director of Planning)
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 3
MSUC (Horton/Rindone) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 5/28/96.
13. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-96-14; AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.15 ACRES BY COMBINING THE
EMPLOYMENT PARK 1A AND EMPLOYMENT PARK 1B DISTRICTS INTO A SINGLE EMPLOYMENT
PARK DISTRICT, AND MODIFYING THE PERMITTED, CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED, AND
PROHIBITED LAND USES ALLOWED THEREIN -CINTI LAND PLANNING REPRESENTING VARIOUS
PROPERTY OWNERS - Staff recnmmends that the public hearinl~ be continued to the meeting of 5/21/96.
(Director of Planning)
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
MSUC (Horton/Rindone) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 5/21/96.
14. A REPORT EIR 95-01; CONSIDERING CERTIFYING THE FINAL OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE AND ANNEXATION FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (ElR) AND ADDENDUM AS COMPLYING WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) - On 3/28/96, the Planning Conumssion closed the public bearing and review period and
directed staff to prepare the Final EIR with Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of
Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. On 4/24/96, the Planning Comnxission certified the Final EIR
as complying with CEQA. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Prt~lect Director, Otay Ranch
Project) Not a public hearint, but a related item.
A-I. RESOLUTION 18284 CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FEIR 95-01) AND ADDENDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) ONE PLAN MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning Projects Manager, stated 14A, 14B, and 14C related to the annexation application
pending before LAFCO. Staff would be making a presentation on the EIR and associated i~npacts of the pr~ject
for SPA I, the annexation application, and the detachment of the landfill from the city. The Planning Commission
recommended certifying the second tier of Final EIR tier Otay Ranch SPA 1 annexation and addendum.
· John Bridges, Cotton/Beland/Associates, reviewed the process that was used to develop the EIR, issues and
conclusions of the EIR. He addressed the noise impacts on the California Gnatcatcher and the increase of the
threshold to 65 dBA's t't~r noise. The analysis tk>r transportation in the EIR was based upon a transportation study
and phasing analysis. He stated that Mineral and Aggregate Resources needed to be added to Significant and
Unmitigable Cumulative Environmental Impacts.
· Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing Village Development, felt the issue of the
Gnatcatcher noise environmental review was important due to the sensitive nature of the Gnatcatcher, noise issues,
and that the project had been previonsly subjected to some litigation. He t~lt the issue should be clear to the pubhc
and Council before action was taken.
· June Collins. 605 Third Street, Encinitas, CA, representing Dudek & Associates, emphasized that there was no
proposal to change the preservation standard fi~r California Gnatcatcher that was established as part of the GDP EIR,
i.e. it would remain at 52%. She retbrred to the response from Dr. Anita Hayworth, Expert Ornithologist with
Dudek & Associates which stated that new inlbrmation had become available since the GDP EIR was certified which
indicated that Gnatcatchers could thrive in noise environments greater than 60 dBA's which was the reason they
were proposing to change the standard.
Councilmember Moot stated Council had received a letter ffmn Remy, Thomas & Moose, which addressed several
issues in the EIR with attorney/client privilege and questioned if staff would address that letter.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 4
Mr. Boogaard stated he intended to request that certain matters that involved perspective litigation be discussed in
closed session. He requested that Council hear testimony regarding the EIR and then met in closed session to
address the three legal issues raised in the letter.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the 83 % of steep slopes that would be maintained was standard.
Mr. Bridges responded that it came from the GDP findings, i.e. it was the standard established earlier when the
GDP was approved. It was a ranch-wide standard. There were areas on the edge of the SPA I development,
Villages I and 5, along roadways that were preserved as open space. A steep slope was anything in excess of a
25 % slope.
Councilmember Moot requested further inti~rmation regarding the scientific evidence supporting the decibel levels
fi~r the Gnatcatcher.
· Barry Jones, 3838 Calnino del Rio North, Suite 270, San Diego, CA, President, Sweetwater Environmental
Biologist, stated the Gnatcatcher was an issue that they were addressing county wide and they had met with the
resource agencies. There were a number of recent studies that were conducted by the private consulting industry
as well as staff of the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Work done tier Caltrans had indicated that birds were
successfully breeding adjacent to I-15 and I-5 in areas where noise levels were in excess of 70 dBA's. Work was
also being done at San Diego State University which indicated that noise levels in excess of 70 dBA's were not
detrimental to the Gnatcatcher. There was more intk~rmation available that supported 65 or 70 dBA criteria. There
was no data that supported 60 dBA's.
Councilmember Moot questioned it' the studies were accepted in the scientific community.
Mr. Jones stated they would fidl into gray literature, i.e. they had not been peer reviewed at the present time. They
were done by what people would consider competent scientists. The recon work was done by staff members of the
US Fish & Wildlife Service so they f~lt comf~rtable that the data had been collected adequately, It was antidotal
at the present time, he could not say that there was a volume of literature that stated 65 was the correct number,
bnt there was no data that supported 60. All the data suggested the higher number.
Councilmember Moot questioned if there was scientific data available when the 60 dBA level was chosen.
Mr. Jones replied that it was based on the threshold that was established for the Least Bell's Vireo which was a
small pasturing bird. It was based entirely on theoretical modeling tbr the Vireo which had a very different call
frequency than the Gnatcatcher. In his professional opinion 60 was not an appropriate number.
Mayor Horton questioned if 65 dBA's was being used Ibr other pn~jects.
Mr. Jones responded that they had met with the resource agencies and in some projects they had used 65 dBA's
as the standard tier noise monitoring. They hoped to get a ti~rmal resolntion from the resource agencies but at the
present time they were looking at the issue. It was his prol~ssional opinion that 65 dBA's was appropriate and they
had used it as a standard on other prc~iects that the Service had accepted.
Councilmember Alevy stated Council had approved an amphitheater in the general area and questioned if Council's
action, if approved. would impact the amphitheater.
Mr. Jones responded that 65 dBA's would be less restrictive as it was a more accurate number. He had been
responsible for a majority of the initial research that had been done on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, had been
consulting in California t-~,r over 15 years, his primary expertise was in small pasturing birds and permitting issues,
he had completed in excess of 100 Gnatcatcher surveys, and his firm had been responsible for a number of the
studies that were being looked at in relation to the noise issue, i.e. they were also collecting anecdotal data that
supported the finding that 60 dBA's was not the appropriate number to use.
· Bruce Sloan, 900 Lane Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing EastLake Development Company, stated that
the issues they wanted to address regarding the SPA stemmed from the EIR. His legal counsel had advised him
that there were some considerations that needed to be looked at regarding potential action by Council on the EIR.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Boogaard questioned if Mr. Sloan would allow, instead of entering objections on the record at the present time,
to have Council grant them the right to enter their objections at a later time in order to move fortyard with the
hearing.
· Craig Beam, Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps, stated that he was not there to ol2ject, hut to follow through
with Mr. Sloan's comments, i.e. they had concerns regarding the EIR. Consistent with their correspondence, they
wanted to see if an agreement could be reached on a condition of approval with the proponents of Otay Ranch SPA
I. If the EIR was certified Council could pass an opportunity to include whatever was agreed upon as part of the
conditions of approval in the Mitigation Monitoring Agreement.
Mr. Boogaard stated rather than confuse the administrative record, if Council gave them the right to make their
objection as part of Item D, the record would not be confused with a matter that existed between EastLake and
Baldwin. He proposed consideration of approval of the EIR at the end of the meeting and not part of Item A.
Mr. Beam stated that was consistent with their request. They were not there to make a record, but resolve a
problem and resolution of that problem conld include doing something with the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
Mr. Boogaard stated there had been substantial discussions between his office, EastLake, and Baldwin. He felt it
could be addressed by amending Condition 60 in the SPA. If approved he did not t~el they would have to raise
their objection as part of the record.
Mayor Horton questioned if Mr. Beam agreed with the comments by the City Attorney.
Mr. Beam felt it was sound advice and they were trying to keep all of the issues open.
Mr. Boogaard requested that Council grant them the right to raise their objections to the EIR as part of Item D, and
proposed to discuss the issue in closed session.
MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to meet in Clused Session to discuss the EIR legal issues.
* * * Council met in Closed Session at 6:58 p.m. and recunvened at 7:43 p.m. * * *
B. PUBLIC HEARING PCA 96-03; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO CREATE THE PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE: PCA-96-02; CONSIDERATION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE; AND PCZ 96-A; APPLICATION OF
MODIFIED PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE BY PREZONING CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND
WITHIN PLANNING AREAS ONE AND THREE OF THE CHULA VISTA 1995 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
UPDATE, PREZONING THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT PARCELS TO PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ)
AND PREZONING THE NELSON/SLOAN ROCK QUARRY PROPERTY TO AGRICULTURE (A-8) -
Three related applications have been initiated by the City as a result or' non-Baldwin owned parcels being annexed
into the City. Staff recommends Council place the ordinances on first reading and approve the resolution. (Special
Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project)
B-1. ORDINANCE 2672 AMENDING CHAPTER 19.47 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE THE
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE (PCA 96-03) (first reading)
B-2. ORDINANCE 2673 AMENDING CHAPTER 19.48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE (PCA-96-02); AND APPROVING THE PREZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 600.09 ACRES TO THE PC ZONE, PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE AND THE
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONE (PCZ 96-A) (first readinl!)
Beverly Luttrell, Prqiect Planner, reviewed the Public/Quasi Public Zone. Planned Community Zone, and
Prezoning. Prior to the meeting representatives of United Enterprises met with staff and it was agreed upon that
rather than Agriculture Prezone it would be acceptable to both parties that the Planned Community Prezone be used
for the Rock Quarry.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 6
Mr. Jamriska stated staff had met with the property owners of the Southwest Corner and stated the issue was a
matter of who paid fi~r the General Plan amendment. The Planning Commission t~lt it should be paid for out of
the General Fund. Staff had recommended that the property owners pay their thir share of a larger General Plan
amendment process that wotdd probably occur within the next year.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if there would be fi-~rther comment regarding the difference between the staff and
Planning Commission recommendation regarding that item. He also questioned the philosophy regarding the
Planning Commission's recommendation and whether that would have occurred with the county if annexation did
not occur.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Cindy Elred, 401 g Street. San Diego, CA, representing United Enterprises as owner of the Rock Quarry
property, requested that the property be prezoned Planned Community. They f~:lt the PC zone was more consistent
than the A8 zone with both the existing and potential uses of the property. They also felt that the PC zone was
more like the county's General Plan landuse designation and zone classification the property currently enjoyed.
United Enterprises was very concemed that they not lose any qnality of it's current landuse status or entitlement
in the annexation process. United Enterprises had not applied fi3r annexation and could not agree to an A8
designation.
· Jack Burns, P.O. Box 93, Jamul, CA, property owner in Southwest Comer, requested that Council approve the
Planning Commission recommendation.
· Abel Parra, 845 East 8th Street, National City, CA, representing Mr. Bums and Mr. Hofer, property owners
in the Southwest Corner, stated their only issue was to request that Council support the Planning Commission
recommendation. A grading permit had been granted by the County of San Diego on both parcels.
Councilmember Moot questioned if Mr. Parra would co~nment on staWs recommendation that the property owners
pay their "hir share" of a larger General Plan amendment.
Mr. Parra [~lt that anyone would be interested in doing whatever they could to obtain their request. He t~lt Council
should address the prnperty owners.
· Ernie Hofer, 7048 San Miguel. Bonita, CA, property owner in Southwest Comer, requested that Council
approve the Planning Commission recommendation.
Ms. Elred stated it was her understanding that the existing landuse designation was multiple rural use and the
existing zone classification was S87. That landuse and zone was much broader than A8; the PC zone was a broad
zone that did not limit it to a specific type of landuse. They did not want to lose what they already had. An A8
zone also created an additional hurdle in the future when the existing use had mn it's life span and they needed to
look at a future use.
Councilmember Moot referred to Ms. Elred's comments regarding annexation, i.e. why they would not be in favor
of annexation.
Ms. Elred stated that she had not meant to imply that, they had not asked for the annexation, therefore, her client
was in the position of deciding as to whether he needed to object to annexation in order to maintain it's existing
entitlement. At the present time, they had no inclination to object and they were working with staff and the process.
Mr. Jamriska stated the S87 zone was basically a holding zone similar to the city~s PC zone. Staff concurred with
that analysis. Staff was not opposed to the request.
Councilmember Alevy questioned if the redesignation would affect their ability to operated as they were at the
present time.
Ms. Luttrell responded that it would be transb~rred over as a legal non-conlbrming use in the city regardless of the
zone it was placed in. They would have to apply fi~r a CUP l~ar any change to their business.
Minutes
May 14. 1996
Page 7
C. PUBLIC HEARING PCM 95-09; CONSIDERATION OF SEVEN GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Two amendments address
processing requirements for the first SPA. Five amendments address text amendments to clarify General
Development Plan language and requirements. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Planning
Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project)
C-1. RESOLUTION 18285 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM 95-09)
Mayor Horton stated that the public hearing had been declared open.
Richard Rosier, Senior Planner, reviewed the amendments that had some degree of opposition. There were seven
areas of the GDP that needed additional attention either to clarify issues or to bring standards up to date. Of the
seven, three had agreement with staff, the applicant, and the Planning Commission. The/'our with outstanding
concerns were: 1) Master Plan inverted "L" as part of Village 14; 2) agricultural irrigation; 3) amending the
performance standard for Gnatcatcher noise; and 4) alnending performance standard tbr grassland species.
Councilmember Moot questioned the proposed change in the language regarding Transit Policies, Item D.
Mr. Rosler responded that the GDP indicated that the alignment of transit should be dedicated at the SPA level.
In the normal development process dedication occnrred on the final map. [t was clean-up language to put the
dedication at the right level of planning. If dedication was done at the present time the dedication wuuld have to
be vacated which was an extra step. Staff had planned, in coqjunction with MTDB, to have the trolley line in the
median of Palomar. The right-of-way would be landscaped until the trolley was put through.
· Kim Kilkenny, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing Village Development, stated the applicant
supported the staff and Planning Coinmission recommendation regarding all s~ven of the General Plan amendments.
The amendments had been reviewed by the Resource Conservation Commission, a body that was dominated by
professionals from the biological profession, and they had not expressed any of the concerns of the resource agencies
and supported the recommendation of staff and Planning Coinmission.
D. PUBLIC HEARING PCM 95-01; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE OTAY RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN INCLUDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES
FINANCE PLAN, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES
REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY
CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN, AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT - The first Otay Ranch SPA Plan governs Villages One
and Five. SPA One covers 1,061.2 acres generally located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo
Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. The Otay Ranch SPA One application is the first SPA/specific plan
submitted to implement the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP jointly approved by the City and County on 10/28/93. Staff
reconunends Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Special Planning Prqiects
Manager, Otay Ranch Project)
D-1. ORDINANCE 2674 APPROVING THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS {PCM 95-01B) (first readink,)
D-2. RESOLUTION 18286 APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE OTAY RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN (PCM 95-01), WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL
DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES
REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON-RENEWA BLE
ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
D-3. RESOLUTION 18287 APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEMNIFICATION
AGREEMENT
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 8
Mayor Hnrton noted that the public hearing had been declared open.
Mr. Rosier presented the SPA I Plan. The project applicant was discussing with the wildlife agencies, as part of
an overall general development plan, a change in density to 14 dwelling units per acre in the Village Core. Staff
was in the process of reviewing the tentative map and fi~und some flexibility of the area designated as multi-family
and CPF. West Coast Land was concerned with the location of the Village Core and the uses in the area. Staff
t~lt the plan presented and recnmmended by the Planning Commission implemented the policies of the GDP in the
best way.
Councilmember Rindone questioned the projected population at full build out lbr Villages 1 and 5 and what portion
of that wonld be within walking distance to the trolley,
Mr. Rosier responded that it would he approximately 16,000 people and according to the policies, 2/3rd's of the
population nf the villages wonld have to he within walking distance.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated the population of the two villages would be higher than any of the
individual SPA's tbr Rancho del Rey or EastLake I, II, or Ill. He t~lt it could be as much as 1/3 larger in terms
of population. Staff would report back with comparable intbrmation.
Mayor Horton stated density was a concern tbr Council and requested that staff supply that inti3rmation before
Council was asked to vote on the SPA.
Cnuncilmember Alevy stated he was concerned that a town center was being created and the affordable housing was
located on several sides of the center. He questioned whether that would discourage people living in other areas
from shopping there or if it would he better to spread the affordable housing out rather than concentrating it in one
area.
Mr. Rosier stated there were two levels of affordable housing, i.e. moderate, which would be met by the market
rate fi~r single family units, and the low income units. The criteria was that the people living in those units needed
access to the commercial areas, transit, schools, and recreational areas and should be located next to the village
Core.
Councilmember Alevy questioned if having gated communities on the periphery of the low income units would
create a problem of classes.
Mr. 'Rosier stated staff had also been concerned with that issue. The areas that were proposed to be gated were all
single family areas so one would nnt have to go through a gate to reach the multi-family units. Staff felt there
wonld be enough variety and density within the village core that the affi>rdable housing opportunities could be
provided and not be detrimental to the success of the village core and commercial areas. The low income units
would be rental units. Out of the three sites, only one site was totally needed so there was flexibility to split-up
the affordable requirement between two of the villages. Both villages had elementary schools and the Elementary
School District had indicated that they wanted the school centrally located in the village, but did not want it located
off the transit line.
Councilmember Moot requested to see the design concepts tbr the multi-family units.
Councilmember Padilia requested clarification of the Alley Product and Auto Court designations.
Mr. Rosier responded in the that Alley Product the house would not have a driveway going back and the garage
would be accessed from the alley. The Auto Court would have a single driveway with 6-8 homes utilizing that
access. Staff would provide the design concepts tBr those designations.
Councilmember Rindone questioned the definition of regional when referring tn a "regional benefit district" for the
construction of the trolley line.
Mr. Rosier responded that it would run from I-5 to Otay Mesa and back to Otay Ranch. The project applicant
would not oppose the formation of the benefit assessment district.
M inures
May 14. 1996
Page 9
Councilmember Moot stated he was concerned as to whether there would be a high school site available in the thture
and had a hard time conceptualizing Orange Avenue being built in five years to provide access.
Mr. Rosier responded that the district, in their comments on the EIR, asked to add additional flexibility to the
language to allow them to make the decision as to when they needed the high school site. That had been included
in the approvals. Baldwin had started the formation of the Mello Roos District with the High School District. The
high school site was to be delivered to the District at 2,650 units. Conditions 45-48 in the Conditions of Approval
addressed the timing of the high school site. He t~lt the high school and community park site would have to be
identified within the next year. Staff had worked closely with the high school district to assure that they were
satisfied with the conditions, but staff would go back one more time and review with them and report back at the
next meeting.
Councilmember Alevy questioned any plan for a middle school.
Mr. Rosier stated that staff had been assured by the high school district that the middle school on the Rancho del
Rey site, across Telegraph Canyon Road, had sufficient capacity tier SPA I.
Councilmember Rindone referred to the initial access to Villages I and 5 and questioned stafUs recommendation.
Mr. Rosier responded that Baldwin Company proposed, and the Technical Committee and Policy Committee agreed,
that development should be allowed to occur in both villages at the same time.
Councilmember Rindone stated he was concerned that there be satinguards that the other portions of the
infrastructure be addressed and then if there was a change of ownership or Inultiple owners the city would not be
left holding the bag to see that portion of the infrastructure be constructed.
Mr. Rosier replied that the Planning Commission had similar concerns and as each one of the neighborhoods came
in for a final map there would be dedication and requirements to provide for off-site and on-site roads. Those roads
would be bonded so if the development t:ailed the city would have the bonds to complete the infrastructure.
Councilmember Rindone requested that staff review that issue prior to Council w~ting on the SPA to ensure that
those safeguards were in place.
Mr. Kilkenny stated there were 10 issues under Item D to be discussed and he questioned if testimony would be
received after each item. The Planning Commission had dealt with it item by item.
Councilmember Moot preferred that comments he received itc~n by ite~n.
Small Park Credit/Criteria
Ms. Luttrell stated the applicant proposed 6 small pedestrian parks less than 5 acres ~n size throughout SPA I and
requested 100% credit tbr the small parks because they exceeded the requirement for neighborhood parks in SPA
I. There was a condition that stated any small park located within a gated community would not receive any park
credit.
Councilmember Rindone stated the small parks were very difficult to maintain and were not as beneficial as a large
park. Therelbre, he would not support full credit for small parks. He also advocated zero credit for parks within
gated communities.
Councilmember Padilia felt the larger parks gave more utility and benefit to the comn~umty. He wold not support
full credit, but a range of partial credit. He also t~lt it should be clear that the small parks would not be maintained
by the city. He requested that some determination be made as to what criteria would be used in d~ternfining the
park credits given.
Councilmember Alevy stated the city's threshold was 3 acres/l,000. He preli~rred a larger park, but if any credit
was given, those parks needed to maintain the same level of maintenance as the larger city maintained parks.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 10
· William Tuchscher, Planning Commission, stated small parks had a character diftbrent than large parks and were
utilized liar diflbrent purpuses. The Planning Commission tblt that was important to the village concept. If the
small parks were eliminated SPA I still met their park requirements. The small parks were an added benefit and
they felt the developer should receive some credit. A Parks & Recreation Commission representative was not
present at any of their hearings, therefi~re, they were unable to obtain their input.
Mr. Kilkenny stated they shared some of the concerns expressed regarding densities in SPA I - Village Core. They
had discussed with stag the possibility of a General Plan amendment to alluw for lower densities in the Village Core
similar to what staff had recommended three years ago, i.e. a reduction of approximately 250 homes in each Village
Core. The aflbrdable housing requirement liar low income housing located in the Village Core would be
approximately 150 low income housing units. Each Village Core had approximately 1,500 units so the concentration
would be less than 10 %. The quality and nature of the development would ensure that it would be indistinguishable
from the remainder of the product type. It was his understanding that an assessment mechanism tbr a transit facility
could only be imposed on those properties that bene~ted from a transit facility and had to be within 1/2 mile from
the transit line. Theref~lre, the whole population of the city would nnt be assessed.
Councilmember Rindone reqnested that staff return with more infbrmation regarding the transit assessment
mechanism and the areas within the city that would be affixted.
Mr. Kilkenny stated the General Plan identified two high school sites in Otay Ranch, i.e. Villages 11 and 7. The
high school district expressed concern that the site in Village 11 was too close to EastLake High School and
preferred that it be rotated southward. It was apparent to the high school district, and they concurred, that the
Village 7 site was too remote and had to be rotated northward toward Village 1 and 2. They agreed that at the
1,150th unit they would do an analysis which would identitZy a new high school site. They were required to deliver
a site at 2~650 units which was approximately 500 high school students or 1/4 of a high school. While the unit
numbers sounded large the nnmber of high school students generated was not that large. SPA I at build out would
generate the need li/r 1/2 of a high school.
Councilmember Alevy stated it was his assumption that until the high school was built EastLake High School would
cover the area. He questioned if there would be direct access connecting EastLake and Otay Ranch.
Mr. Kilkenny stated they assulned it would be EastLake High School, but it would be wherever the district directed
the students. The develuper had recummended pedestrian access and staff reconunended that there be vehicular and
pedestrian access.
· Kent Aden, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing Village Development Company, presented a
slide presentation on the project. They t~lt the pedestrian parks were key elements of the total recreation system
and that they provided a cnmpleteIy different experience than the large parks. They requested that up to 100%
credit be given subject to the criteria yet tn be developed. Their studies indicated that there could potentially be
a higher cost of maintenance ti3r the smaller parks so Village Development agreed to have them maintained by a
private entity.
Councilmember Rindone stated that cart paths were part of the village design but there was no provision to make
electric cars available as part of the home sale. He felt it they wanted to develop the village concept an electric car
should he considered. He also noted that an important consideration would be additional storage li3r carts within
garages.
Mr. Aden responded that it was in the realm of possibility. They leli in place the road sections that would
accommodate an off-street cart path to link the village cores. They were putting the infrastructure in place in case
the carts became more viable. In the present market and the price ranges of the units it was not feasible to provide
a cart with every home.
Mr. Tuchscher stated the Planning Commission received testimony from MTDB regarding the Village Core density
being beneficial and condncive to light rail. The Planning Commission f~lt the potential of getting high density there
made the possibility of light rail more likely. The Commission took a different stance on the phasing issue, i.e.
access either from Paseo Ranchero or La Media.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 11
Councilmember Moot recommended that Council provide tentative non-binding votes on each issue so staff would
know where there was a general area of agreement.
MSUC (Moot/Padilla) non-binding approval of the Planning Commissiun recommendation: pedestrian parks
shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50% park credit pursuant to city-wide small park credit
criteria.
Timing of Credit for Neighborhood Parks
Ms. Luttrell reviewed the staff recommendation and applicant request.
MS (Rindone/Horton) non-binding approval of the staff recommendation: assign park credit upon acceptance
of the park by the city of Chula Vista after the mandatory 9-12 month maintenance period.
Mr. Aden stated they had agreed to a condition that required them to maintain a level of 2 acres per 1,000 of parks
at all times within the community as it built out. He was concerned with the length of time associated with the
different phases. They requested that they not be held hostage for the one year period. All the money was in the
ground at that time.
Councilmember Moot questioned whn maintained the park during the one year period.
Mr. Aden stated the developer hired a contractor to construct the park which included the maintenance portion of
the contract for the one year period.
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated the maintenance period was necessary tbr the park "to
take." Since approximately 1990 the city recognized the 9-12 month maintenance period. The city did not want
to accept a liability that they would have to repair and the public would not be able to use. During the maintenance
period the park would be fenced off and the general public would not be able to use It. Once the city accepted it,
it would be ready for active recreation.
Mr. Tuchscher stated there was a dift~rence between park credit and a dedicated park. The Planning Commission
voted to deny staff reconunendation because they recognized that difference. The applicant was suggesting that it
be acknowledged that the park was built, not that the city accepted th~ park or that it was dedicated to the city.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
Access to EastLake Parkway
Mr. Rosier reviewed the staff recommendation, Planning Commission recommendation, and the developer's request.
Mr. Aden gave a brief slide presentation regarding the fourth access point to Village 5. Adequate access existed
with the three access points and the fourth was not needed from a circulation stand point or from a safety or
emergency stand point. They did not see the need to spend $3~$4 million to construct the roadway. They pret~rred
to see the Paseo Ranchero option which would encourage people to walk and ride rather than drive cars. It was
important to note that SPA I ~vas surronnded by $23 million in infrastructure and major arterials which were to be
used for regional circulation. It was detrimental to add some of the internal connections as they brought in traffic
through the villages which was contrary to the pedestrian goals they were trying to achieve. They requested that
Council consider pedestrian and bike access only.
MS (Moot/Horton) non-binding approval of the Planning Cnmmissinn recommendation: dedicate the right-of-
way for potential vehicular access and provide access for pedestrians, bicycles, and carts.
Mr. Sloan stated they were not supportive of the connection across 125 and through the EastLake project. He noted
that the line on the map went through the site designated liar their affordable housing project in EastLake Greens.
At the time they looked at that site the Palomar trolley line was not on the map. It did have some ilnpact and he
requested that Council direct staff to continue to investigate alternative routes.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 12
Cooncihnember Moot stated it was understood that it was not written in stone.
Mr. Tuchscher stated the Planning Commission reserved thll right-of-way tbr future vehicular access if it ever
became necessary. If pedestrian access was relocated it would probably be done outside of the right-of-way and
they l~lt that was important tier the timIre.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
Gated Communities
Julia Matthews, Planning Technician II, reviewed the proposal by the developer for gated communities.
Councilmember Rindone re/erred to the MTDB response which stated that gated communities were contrary to the
village concept and pedestrian friendly and qnestioned stafl's response.
Ms. Matthews stated one of their concerns was that when certain roads were gated off, secondary access roads were
not encouraged becaose it would increase the number of gates. The proposal by the developer did not preclude
pedestrian, bicycle, or cart access anywhere among the gated community.
MS (Rindone/Padilla) non-binding apprnval nf the Planning Commission recommendation: to prohibit the
use nf gates to restrict public access in SPA I.
Mr. Aden gave a slide presentation of gated communities and their design concepts. Their proposal would allow
completely unrestricted bicycle, pedestrian, and cart access. There would be no public facilities behind the gates
and there would be full access to neighborhood schools and parks. The streets behind the gates would be built to
public standards but privately maintained. There would be a tiered master homeowners association and there would
be only minor impacts on the exterior of the community. They t~lt the gating provided a greater sense of
community and would increase pedestrian activity. City maintenance costs would be reduced with the roads being
privately maintained and there would be increased vaunes lk~r the units behind the gates. They would be able to offer
something different which would bring a different type of buyer to the city. The gated community would address
the number one consunler response ~>r safety and security.
Mayor Horton stated she agreed that a gated community offered marketing benefits, security, and a feeling of
exclusivity. Theretbre, she would not support the motion.
Councilmember Alevy concurred with the Mayor's connnents. He felt the criteria placed upon the developer
guaranteed that there were levels of access.
· Fred Borst, 1265 Pearlbush, El Ca. ion, CA, stated he was a property owner in the city and believed the applicant
was making a statement in the county, i.e. the Southbay had the ability to put forth a gated community and be
competitive with many of the communities being developed in North County.
Councilmember Padilia t~lt it important to point out that there were gated communities in Chula Vista. He felt it
was inconsistent with the concept and atmosphere of the pr{:iect. There were also public safety considerations that
would never be totally mitigated.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-2 ~vith Hnrton and Alevy opposed.
Resnurce Management Plan - Joint Powers Agreement
Mr. Jamriska reviewed the requirement fbr the Resource Management Plan. The Resource Conservation
Commission and Planning Commission did not lbel it should be a city and county responsibility, but a third party
should act as the preserve owner manager. Staff recommended that it be the city and county and the County Board
of Supervisors took action to recommend that the city and county be the preserve owner manager.
Mr. Kilkenny stated they supported the staff recommendation.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 13
MSUC (Alevy/Horton) non-binding approval of the staff recommendation: approve the JPA which designates
the city and county as the preserve owner manager for a period of five years and defines their respective
responsibilities.
Resource Management Plan - In-Lieu Fee
Mr. Jamriska stated he was not aware of any outstanding issues regarding the in-lieu fee plan. Staff supported the
Planning Commission recommendation to explore a mechanism to tie the in-lieu fee charged to the value of the
conveyance land for SPA I.
Mr. Tuchscher stated the Planning Commission position was to not explore a mechanis~n to tie the in-lieu
charged to the value of the conveyance land, but to have an agreement with Village Development in which the m-
lieu fee would be set. The fee would correlate directly to acreage that they owned to be conveyed. With that, if
they lost the property or sold the property, any entity within SPA I would have to pay the in-lieu fee and the city
could immediately buy acreage in the preserve area.
Mr. Kilkenny distributed a letter and requested that Council refer the item to staff. They supported a fee in-lieu
program in place betBre approval of the first final map. With respect to when actual conveyance would occur. the
official staff reconunendation was that when half of SPA I was developed they would he obligated to convey half
of the open space land of the SPA I requirement. Subsequent to that, the Phase II RMP recommendation was
modified that proportionally with each final map that occurred in Otay Ranch, open space should be conveyed. The
problem that created was that the initial conveyance would be a very small an~ount of open space. It was apparent
that 150 acres should not require the gearing up or activation of the preserve owner manager which would he an
expensive operation. in response, the staff recommendation was that in addition to conveying the land the applicant
should be required to maintain the open space land until such time the preserve owner manager had sufficient
revenues to operate. They suggested that if the preserve owner manager so selected, the applicant could be required
to convey an open space easement, limit the use of the property to those uses in the RMP, and that the fidl title
would be conveyed at such time there were revenues sufficient to maintain the property.
MSUC (Alevy/Horton) non-biding approval of the in-lieu fee program and direct staff to work with the
applicant and return to Council with a recommendation that would work best fiw all parties.
Councilmember Moot stated the next items, i.e. Project Phasing, Trigger Points, and Multiple Ownership Conditions
were lengthy and difficult issues and recommended that they be brought back in the 1-2 weeks. He questioned if
Council could not deal with the SPA EIR and prezoning issues.
Mr. Jam~ska responded that staff would strongly recommend that sn they could process the annexation request
which was dependent upon action by Council on Items 14A, 14B, and 14C.
· Michael S. Woodward, 555 South Flower, Los Angeles, CA, representing West Coast Land Fund, requested
that the item be continued in hope that there would be resolution regarding their ownership issue with the Baldwin
Company and Tiger Two Development. They had filed their motion tBr relief fi~om stay in the bankruptcy case and
a hearing date should be set within two weeks. The hearing by statute should occur within 30 days from May 9th.
Hopefully, at that point they would know whether their foreclosure sale could go fbrward. [f the items were
continued, he would reserve his colnments until then.
Mr. Boogaard reconnnended a closed session on the multiple ownership property issue. He proposed an amendment
to the SPA, PFFP, and Findings and had secured the agreement of both the Baldwin and EastLake representatives.
"The PFFP shall be updated not later than six months after approval ot the PFFP IBr the EastLake Ill General
Development Plan area and the conclusions of that update including, but without limitation, the nature, sizing,
extent, and timing for the construction of the public facilities caused by SPA I should become a condition
subsequent SPA I entitlement including tentative and final maps". He recommended that it be added as a modified
Condition 60 to the SPA and a condition to the PFFP.
Mr. Sloan and Mr. Kilkenny stated they agreed with the city attomey's summary.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 14
Mr. Boogaard stated that EastLake's attorney had submitted written letters of cormnent to the Council and his office
and questioned if it was their design to withdraw any objections they might have to the EIR and entitlement
approvals.
Mr. Sloan responded that was his nnderstanding.
® Tina Thomas, Remy Thomas and Moose, stated she wanted to make sure that both of the Luce Forward letters
and prior correspondence and testimony t~om EastLake dated I 1 / 1/95, I 1/8/95, 3/24/96, and 4/24/96 were all being
withdrawn from the record.
Mr. Sloan stated the thrust of one of the letters in November dealt with the phasing issue which was resolved by
the revised language presented by Mr. Boogaard. There could have been other issues unrelated to phasing in the
letters that had not been addressed.
Ms. Thomas stated Mr. Beam's current letter outlined the documents she had reti~rred to. She corrected that the
proposed language by the city attorney would also be lk>lded into the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
Mr. Boogaard qnestioned if it w{mld be part ~f the Findings or the Mitigation Program.
Ms. Thomas responded that it would be in both documents.
Mr. Boogaard stated the motion would be to use that language as amending conditions to the SPA, PFFP, Mitigation
Monitoring Program, and the Findings.
Mr. Beam felt a hir way to approach the issue and consistent with their correspondence was to acknowledge that
the condition which was read into the record satisfied their concern and as an additional mitigation measure
alleviated the concerns raised in the two letters, i.e. the letter to the Council and city attorney dated yesterday and
today from Luce Forward. As Mr. Sloan pointed out, there were other issues associated with design and everything
else in the four letters including testimony in front of the Planning Commission. He could not rewrite the EIR or
final EIR and he did not libel it appropriate to ask Mr. Sloan to withdraw those letters because they covered a lot
of different topics.
Ms. Thomas stated that a cl~ndition was being added to the PFFP, but Mr. Beam was saying on the record that he
would not rewrite the EIR and they were saying that the PFFP and the EIR were two separate concerns. She felt
alier reading Mr. Beam's letter that she rcspectfifily disagreed with the letter because it contissed the requirement
to look at cumulative impacts under CEQA and the separate requirement that was in the GDP to prepare a PFFP
and a Phasing Plan. Those two things had been confused within the letter and by EastLake in prior testimony and
correspondence. In looking at the list of pr~iects included in the cumulative impacts Ibr the project and the GDP,
it included EastLake Ill. In the PFFP, which they had addressed via Condition 60, EastLake III was not included.
It was not included because it did not have a tentative map and that was the condition upon which the PFFP was
constructed. If the condition was to be added, she wanted to make it clear that Mr. Beam and his clients no longer
had any problems with the EIR and the cumulative impacts section in particnlar.
Mr. Beam responded that was correct. He understo{~d what the Council was trying to do, but they were merely
suggesting that the new condition of which they had asked lbr in the letter ameliorated their concern regarding
CEQA compliance and with that the adequacy of the PFFP in terms of looking at it's phase by phase impacts. The
letters also addressed design and other issues as well.
Councilmember Moot did not t~el that Council needed to meet in closed session. Council had made it clear that
CEQA had been complied with, they had looked at cumulative impacts, and that there was no problem in certifying
the EIR. EastLake's concern was with the PFFP and a resolution had been reached. He felt the record was clear
that there was nothing wrong with the EIR. EastLake was telling the city that if they addressed it in the PFFP there
was nothing wrong with the EIR.
Ms. Thomas stated that she did not mind if EastLake maintained the issues regarding design on the record. She
was trying to withdraw t?om the record any objection to the EIR.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 15
Mr. Boogaard stated he was not as comli>rtable as Councilmember Moot with the record and he would appreciate
it if Mr. Sloan would acknowledge that the letters of 5/13/96 and 5/14/96, on behalf of EastLake Development
Company, were withdrawn from the record of the proceedings.
Mr. Beam stated that he would agree to Mr. Boogaard's comments.
Mr. Boogaard questioned whether Mr. Beam would agree that references in prior letters to the extent that they
addressed the issues in the two letters were withdrawn, but not other aspects of their prior letters.
Mr. Sloan responded that would be acceptable, i.e. any issues regarding to phasing could be withdrawn.
Mr. Boogaard stated that was an acceptable understanding.
Mr. Kilkenny stated they did not have any comment on the SPA.
Mayor Horton stated that staff recommended that the remainder of the items be continued to the 5/21/96 meehng.
MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to amend the SPA, PFFP, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Findings - The SPA
I PFFP, at the applicants expense subject to a reimbursement agreement, shall be updated not later than six
months after approval of a PFFP fur the EastLake Ill GDP area, and the conclusions of such update,
including without limitation, the nature, sizing, extent, and timing ~r the construction of public facilities
caused by SPA I shall become a condition for all subsequent SPA I entitlement, including tentative and final
maps.
Mr. Boogaard stated that prior to taking action on the E[R, as part nf 14D there was a proposal t6r approval of an
indemnification agreement and conveyance. He recommended Council approve the agreement and make it a binding
agreement prior to the certification of the EIR.
MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to approve Resolution 18287 as presented.
MSUC (Alevy/Horton) to approve Resolutinn 18284 as presented.
ORDINANCE 2672 AND 2673, AS AMENDED, PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER
MOOT, reading of the text was waived, passed and apprnved unanimously. Ordinance 2673 amended to
remove the Agricultural Zone and replace with the PC zone.
Councilmember Rindone requested that when the balance of 14D was brought back to Cnuncil that the presentation
regarding prqiect phasing be brought back at that time.
RESOLUTION 18285 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimnusly.
MOTION: (Moot) to continue the balauce of 14D, i.e. Project Phasing, Trigger Points, and Multiple
Ownership Conditinns.
Mr. Jamriska stated Baldwin was behind in their deposit accounts and had stated they would make their payments
available at the end of the month. Therefi~re, he recommended that the item be continued to 6/4/96.
Councilmember Moot suggested that the carry-over items be discussed prior to final action, i.e. at least one week
before Council took final action. That would allow time fi>r staff to incorporate final comments and allow the
applicant to respond.
Mayor Horton stated that staff should alsn take into consideration concerns uxpressed by Council regarding the
density of the project and the phasing of the schools and transportation issues. She requested that the next two
meetings be scheduled tier 5:30 p.m.
MSUC (Moot/Alevy) to continue the balance of the items to the meeting of 5/28/96 at 5:30 p.m.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 16
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
® Christine A. Smith Malone, 70 El Rancho Vista, Chnla Vista, CA, requested Conncil's support in reestablishing
childrens activities at the Chula Vista Farmers Market. She presented a petition signed by 36 area residents
supporting the return of the pony rides and Astro Jnmp.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
15.A-l. RESOLUTION 18261 APPROVING THE PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE OTAY RANCH - The proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement sets forth the
financial terms and conditions that have been negotiated by City and County staff to be applied upon annexation to
those portions of the Otay Ranch that are included in the City's current Sphere of Influence as well as those portions
of the Otay Ranch that are anticipated to be added to the City's Sphere of Influence at an upcoming meeting of the
Local Agency Formation Commission. The Property Tax Transfer Agreement is contingent upon the adoption of
the companion Landfill Agreement. The proposed Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program, which is required by Otay
Ranch General Development Plan, is also related to the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement. Staff
recommends approval of the resolutions. (Deputy City Manager Thomson) Continued from the meeting of
4/30/96.
A-2. RESOLUTION 18288 ESTABLISHING THE OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND PROGRAM
B. RESOLUTION 18262 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
REGARDING JURISDICTION OVER AND OPERATION OF THE OTAY LANDFILL - As a component
of the pending actions on the proposed Sphere of Influence fi~r Otay Ranch and subsequent property tax agreement
and annexation of the western parcel. the County wishes to ensure that the City will not interfere with the ongoing
operation or expansion of the Otay Landfill. They do not wish the current litigation and potential early closing of
San Marcos Landfill to be repeated in the South Bay as a resnlt of actions of the City. The agreement addresses
thal protection. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Manager) Continued from the meeting of
4/30/96.
M r. Goss stated the goal of the staff negotiations had been to make the possibility of adverse economic consequences
to the city remote. If there was any action taken by the city that generated the activation of the severe economic
consequences. i.e. the poison pills, the city would have control over those actions.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated that staff had been working closely with the county to fine tune the
language of the agreement. Ninety~nine percent of the changes in the document on the dais were administerial and
non-substantive. There were two points that were substantive: 1 ) how interest was computed on poison pills A and
B and Item #21 - Assignment of Rights. The county wanted it to be acknowledged that if they determined to
transfer ownership, operation, or maintenance of the landfill to the Solid Waste Authority that that was acceptable
for them to do so to the successor agency and assign the rights of the agreement, but not the obligations under the
agreement. An issue not included in the agreement dealt with a citizens initiative and whether it would trigger some
breach of the agreement or have a poison pill application. A potential risk would involve an initiative that was
initiated by residents of the city or placed on the ballot by the council. Staff had discussed that with the county and
their staff position was that they were not willing to put in additional language into the agreement covering that
circumstance. They felt that the breach circumstances were directed at the City of Chula Vista as an entity, either
its citizens or elected body. and if the voters decided to bring tbrward an initiative they would be made aware of
the consequences under the agreement. City staff t~lt the circumstances of a citizen's initiative were limited and
remote and would only apply to an action taken by the city itself. Staff suggested to the county that a middle
position was if an initiative came forward and was opposed by the city, it could be a circumstance that would not
result in a breach under the agreement. That was not acceptable to county staff. At the present time there was a
stalemate on that issue.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 17
Councilmember Moot stated the item included "or other entity" and he questioned if there was another entity the
city needed to be worried about other than the Solid Waste Authority. If not, hc l~lt the language shonld bc
removed.
Mr. Krempl responded that he was not aware of any other entity.
Councilmember Padilia stated the county retained its right to assign its rights but not obligations. He questioned
if the collection of penalty fees was a right of the county under the agreement rather than an obligation.
Mr. Krempl responded that technically it was probably a right, but the county infbrmed the city and the Authority
that any penalties stipulated by the agreement would go to the county with the possible exception of poison pill C.
Councilmember Padilia felt the language should be clarified to make that clear.
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manger, stated the contract language rel~rred to Chula Vista so he t~lt it was very clear
that the Authority was not Chula Vista and thereti~re would not trigger a breach.
Councihnember Rindone referred to Condition #8 regarding the 1,000 It. bu~'~r zt>n~ and questi<~ncd whether
conunercial or industrial uses would be included.
Mr. Krempl stated he had been advised that they were still looking at the city's zoning and General Plan
designations and had not yet advised staff. The agreement required them to advise staff within 30 days of the
execution of the agreement. The county staff had discussed extending that to 45 or 60 days and city staff had
objected. The 30 days gave staff ample time to get input, bring any issues to Council, and do so within the time
frame of exercising the walk-away provisions. If conunercial or industrial use was not included the buffer zone
would be an open space use and there would be the potential of inverse condemnatu~n and taking issues. If that
were the response, he ti~lt that staff may advocate walking away from the agreement.
Mr. Goss stated the county had been clear that some type of use would be appropriate liar some type of economic
use. The nuisance easements and restrictions thereon would go away when the landfill closed.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the county was open to thrther discussion regarding anything that would
trigger a breach would have to be within the city's control. Anything outside of the city's control would not trigger
a breach.
Mr. Goss stated it was his understanding that the county t~lt it could be a tnajor loophole in the agreement, i.e. an
action could be taken by the Council in opposition with the individual councihnembers working to facilitate the
initiative. He felt one of the points was what was meant by the city having control over the circumstances, i.e. the
city council or electorate.
Councilmember Padilia questioned whether there was a consensus as to the item being a major issue. The
possibility was very real, but he t~lt it was extremely remote. Hc wanted to make sure that if it was a significant
issue that could damage the city someone would tell them so that Council would uot approve it at the present time.
if it was something that it was so retnote, Council should move fi>rward.
Councilmember Alevy agreed with Councilme~nber Padilla's comments. He qnestioned lithe citizens initiative.just
being on the ballot caused the breach or if it had to be passed.
Mr. Krempl responded that it would require an action that would have some consequence related to the breach
circumstances. The Board of Supervisors would have to determine that there was a breach and the city would have
the opportunity to challenge that as well as an opportunity and notice ti~r cure.
Councilmember Alevy asked if the city would then still have legal recourse.
Mr. Krempl responded that process would still be in place.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 18
Mr. Boogaard stated because they rettised to exempt citizen initiative the initiative action would be considered city
action.
Councihnember Alevy stated it was an extremdy important isstie and if it was the only sticking point he did not
Feel it was a problem because there were so many elements that would have to happen that were not likely to
happen, He was in favor of moving tierward with he agreement.
· Chris Lewis, President, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, stated everything was fraught with risk but felt the
greater risk was not moving fi~rward. The developer needed to move tbrward and the city would benefit from the
revenues generated.
Councilmember Rindone stated ~t was nnportant liar the community to tinderstand that the city could not move
fi}rward on the annexation unless there was an agreement by the county. The lbeling conveyed to the Council was
that the county was not willing to mnve tierward on annexation with<rot concurrence on the landfill agreement. He
did not feel any of the Council was pleased with the terms and conditions of the landfill agreement. The key would
be what would cause the breach which he tblt would be extremely unlikely. Two of the three triggers had been
negotiated out of the contract and he commended staff on their effbrts. It was as close to being risk free as
possible.
RESOLUTION 18261, 18288, AND 18262 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text
was waived.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the FINE model numbers did not materialize under the Master Tax
agreement, i.e. if it was less than anticipated the split would still be 50/50.
Mr. Thomson stated the 50/50 split was not dependent upon the FINE model. The transfer payments for the first
20 years were based on the FINE model which would bring the city up to zero plus 3 % of the net combined surplus.
The FINE model would be reviewed yearly.
VOTE ON RESOLUTIONS: approved unanimously.
16.A. RESOLUTION 18289 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97; THE ENTERING INTO AN AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF
POWERS AGREEMENT; THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A 1996/97 TAX AND REVENUE
ANTICIPATION NOTE THEREFORE; AND PARTICIPATION 1N THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES
CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM -In order to take advantage of the opportunity to borrow money on a
short-term basis at the lowest cost. the City ~nust join the Calitbrnia Statewide Communities Development Authority.
This is recommended as an alternative to borrowing fi'om other City funds in order to cover the temporary cash
shortfalls that occur in the General Fund during the year due to the cyclical nature of some of the major revenue
sources. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Finance)
B. RESOLUTION 18290 DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE IN THE FISCAL YEAR
1996/97 PROPOSED BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $242,860 FOR TAX AND REVENUE
ANTICIPATION NOTE PROJECTED INTEREST AND ISSUANCE COSTS AND ESTIMATED INTEREST
REVENUES OF $235,000 FROM INVESTMENT OF THE NOTE PROCEEDS
Cotincilmember Rindone stated the quarterly report indicated about a $3 million shortfall. He was alarmed that it
would utilize almost 48% of the total General Fund reserves to close the funding gap for FY 1995/96. He
qnestioned if there would be any improvement on the shortthll.
· Robert Powell, Director of Finance, responded that it was statics best estimates through the end of March. The
revenue estimates were worse than anticipated, but there was a significant amount of expenditure savings in working
with the departments.
Councilmember Rindone felt that was a wake-up call tbr the Council. Council would have to look at cutting
expenditures, but also at raising revenues through other opportunities.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 19
Mr. Goss stated the budget process would be more interactive in terms of pulling the budget together. Staff had
identified possible one-time revenues that could be used to close the gap tier FY 1995/96 or to be utilized lbr the
next fiscal year. Staff was working hard to reach the projections.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the item would be brought back to Council ti>r final decision.
Mr. Powell responded that action by Council would be the final approval. When the notes were priced in June the
city would have the option at that time to participate. If the rates were higher than the city would be able to borrow
internally, he would return at that time and recommend that the city borrow internally.
RESOLUTION 18289 AND 18290 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approve unanimously.
17.A. RESOLUTION 18291 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 BUDGET, APPROPRIATING FUNDS
FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MOU'S - Subsequent to the adoption of the budget, Council approved MOU's
with POA, IAFF, CVEA, and WCE and revised the benefits resolution ti>r Unrepresented and Middle Managers.
As a result of these actions, additional funding was required but not appropriated, and the budget was not amended.
In coordination with this action it is also recommended that all department budgets be evaluated in accordance with
the Council's policy on budget transfers. Staff recommends approval of the resolntions. (Budget Manager) 4/Sth's
vote required.
B. RESOLUTION 18292 AMENDING THE FRINGE BENEFITS FOR MIDDLE MANAGERS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
C. RESOLUTION 18293 TRANSFERRING FUNDS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE BUDGET TRANSFER POLICY
MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to continue the item to the meeting of 5/21/96.
* * * Councilmember Moot left the tneeting at 12:13 a.m. * * *
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
18. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None
19. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rindone
a. Scheduling of meeting, considering ti~rther Solid Waste Transfer Station Agreement. Continued from the
meeting of 4/16/96. Councilmember Rindone requested that staff bring the item back when appropriate.
b. RESOLUTION 18294 TAKING A POSITION TO SUPPORT SCA 26 NOT ADDRESSED IN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM - Councilmember Rindone requested that the item bc continued to the meeting of
5/21/96.
Minutes
May 14, 1996
Page 20
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 12:15 A.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 21, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
CLOSED SESSION
Council did not meet in Closed Session.
21, CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Anticipated litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9
· Tiger Development Two/Baldwin - Inotion fi~r relief' from stay.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee fijr CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF}.
Unreprcsented employee: Executive Management. Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
22. BEPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN 1N CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed
Session.
by:
Respecthdly submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
(~' ~ Clerk
~oderquist, CMC, Deputy City