HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/04/30MINUTES OF A MEETING/WORKSESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, April 30, 1996
6:18 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
ROLL CALL:
ALSO PRESENT:
Councilmembers fitlevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Herton (arrived at
8:46 p.m.)
John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; Ann Moore,
Deputy City Attorney; Jerry Jamriska, Otay Ranch Team; Beverly Luttrell, Otay
Ranch Team; Rick Rosaler, Otay Ranch Team; Julia Matthews, Otay Ranch
Team; John Bridges, Cotton Beland Associates; Bob Leiter, Director of
planning; Bill Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer; and Berlin Bosworth, Secretary
to the Redevelopment Agency
* * * * * These minutes are verbatim minutes * * * * *
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
Mayor Pro Tern Moot informed Council that Mayor Herton was testifying before the Assembly in Sacramento and
would arrive at the meeting directly from her flight back into San Diego.
BUSINESS
3. CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Moot stated the Council would be conducting a general workshop in order to encourage as much
discussion as possible, both by Members of the Council and certainly by members of the public and entrusted
parties. This was an opportunity to flush out some of the many issues involved in the SPA approvals and which
relate to the overall Otay Ranch Project. The Council encourages participation and informality at these proceedings.
Some time ago, because of the complexities of some of the issues involved in the Otay Ranch--with the County
which involved the Landfill Agreement and the Master Property Tax Agreement as well as issues involving the Otay
Ranch and SPA approvals--a City Council Subcommittee was formed which consisted of Mayor Herton and Mayor
Pro Tern Moot. The Subcommittee met regularly with staff over the last eight months and was continually briefed
by staff as to the status of the Otay Ranch and SPA approvals including status of discussions with the County
concerning issues which were necessary before sphere of influence and annexation could ultimately be approved.
On several occasions the Subcommittee of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista met with the Subcommittee
of the County Board of Supervisors to discuss the progress each of the bodies were making, specifically with respect
to annexation and the Property Tax Agreement. This was culminating, in what would be, hopefully, a successful
agreement with the County, at least in concept, allow annexation to go forth for the areas being discussed this
evening. The intent of the this workshop was to go through the issues that impact the SPA approvals as well as
to get an update and status on the Landfill Agreement and the Property Tax Agreement. To that effect, there was
one item which Mayor Pro Tem Moot asked to take out of order--Items 9A and 9B.
4. TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL AGREEMENT
A. RESOLUTION 18261 APPROVING THE PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT
WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR 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 the 5/6/96
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 2
meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission. The Property Tax Transfer Agreement is contingent upon
the adoption of the companion Land fill Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution or, in the
alternative, approve concepts of the agreement. (Deputy City Manager Thomson) Continued from the meeting
of 4/16/96.
B. RESOLUTION 18262 REGARDING THE BUSINESS POINTS OF THE LANDFILL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REGARDING OTAY RANCH AND OPERATION OF OTAY LANDFILL--As a component of the pending
actions on the proposed Sphere of Influence for 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 result of actions of the City. Staff recommends referring this item
to the Otay Ranch Subcommittee for further review and analysis. (City Manager) Continued from the meeting
of 4/16/96.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot informed that the County Board of Supervisors met today and took action on the Property
Tax Agreement and the Landfill Agreement and the South County representative on the Board of Supervisors, the
Honorable Greg Cox, was present and would be asked to fill in the Council on what action the County Board of
Supervisors took.
City Manager Goss presented an overview.
Mr. Goss: Staff of the County made their presentation to the County Board of Supervisors and emphasized the
entire package they were presenting to the Board and recommended in be considered by the Board as a package,
either approved or disapproved, but not be segmented. He commended staff who worked on this agreement as well
as the overall project of planning the Otay Ranch, especially the western parcel. It has been a very long process,
and perhaps not at the point where it was totally conclusive, but at least closer since the Board of Supervisors did
take action this morning to approve their position. Deputy City Manager Thomson was available to answer any
questions on the Property Tax Exchange Agreement, Deputy City Manager Krempl on the Landfill Agreement, and
Jerry Jamriska on the annexation issues. A representative of LAFCO staff was available to answer any questions.
When the process was started with the County, staff felt, in order to accomplish the sphere of influence designation
and then the annexation of the western parcel would take a tremendous effort. It was a potential to take a major
step for the City to create the basic framework for the land use planning for the future of the City for the area
physically bounded by the Bay on the west, the Otay Lakes on the east, the Sweetwater River Valley on the north,
and Otay River on the south. This was a major component to try and achieve Chula Vista's goals of being able to
further expand its sphere of influence and achieving annexation of all the Otay Ranch western parcel. The
advantage was that it would give Chula Vista land use control over this quadrant that was going to have an impact--
one way or another--on the rest of Chula Vista as we now know it in terms of the circulation system, drainage,
sewer, park and library master plans, and fire and police service which were all critical. It was clearly an
opportunity to avoid development of this unincorporated area which rightfully should be the future city of the City
of Chula Vista. The Tax Sharing Agreement was favorable to the City compared to similar agreements that either
the City has negotiated or have been negotiated elsewhere and the Agreement has rome unique features in it such
as the transfer of the money from the County to cover the City's losses in terms of the development of the project.
The other part of it that was aim advantageous to the City was that the County was poised to support the City's
sphere of influence and not oppose the annexation of the western parcel. The Executive Director of LAFCO has
indicated that they were willing to consider the bulk of the western parcel, if not all of it, to be annexed if the City
can get these various agreements resolved. What the County has done, and other counties have done the same, as
the Property Tax Exchange Agreement was really the lest point at which it could influence the process they would
like to have it as a condition of the Property Tax Exchange Agreement and a Landfill Agreement as well. The last
few months have been focused more on the Landfill Agreement, although some work was done in fmaiizing staff s
recommendations on the Property Tax Sharing Agreement. The County's stated purpose was: [a] it did not want
to bankrupt the City of Chula Vista; at the same time they also had a puspose that they did not want their valuable
landfill disrupted by any action of the City of Chula Vista. Staff said fine, let's have a development agreement.
The County turned that down--at least their staff and at the County Counsel level. Instead, their staff was given
direction to pursue, what we would call "economic consequences" if the City took certain actions that would
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 3
interfere with the operation of the landfill. When the negotiations started, (County) staff had significant
consequences very broadly painted and City staffs effort has been to ascertain what were the County's goals and
let's address those specifically rather than broadly. For example, one of the issues that came up had to do with land
use control. The County was very, very sensitive about the issue of what was happening with San Marcos--winch
Supervisor Cox can certainly testify--and was made clear by the comments by (County) Board Members at their
meeting this morning. What has been proposed was that the landfill, winch was currently half in the City of Chula
Vista and half in the County, that the half in the County, as has been recommended by LAFCO staff, would remain
in the County as a Special Study Area and not in the City of Chula Vista and, at the same time, winle the City
pursued the annexation--and that has been approved by the City Council--there was also a detachment of the part
that was in the City so that it would go into the County. Therefore, the County would have land use control over
the landfill, not the City. This also apphed to host fees. Obviously, if the landfill was not in the City, host fees
could not be charged by the City. The County was concerned that the City might have a toll road going to the
landfill. There was a provision that if there were a toll road the revenues would go to the County so there would
be no incentive for the City to restrain access to the landfill by having a toll road. The County was concerned about
incompatible land use around the perimeter of the landfill because of their experience in San Marcos. The people
around that landfill have filed lawsuits that have hampered its operation and appear to be leading towards closure.
City staff agreed to pursue a General Plan Amendment around the perimeter--within a 1000 feet of the perimeter
of the undeveloped part of the landfill to pursue a General Plan Amendment that would come up with compatible
land uses and, at the same time, for the City to go after nuisance easements from the two property owners involved,
that they would acknowledge the existence of the landfill and not pursue a lawsuit against the operation of the
land fill during the life of the landfill itself. Both property owners can address that if the Council wanted. There
are a couple of areas winch he indicated to the Board, that as a City, he did not feel, based upon feedback from
some Members of the Council, that there were certain areas where there would be a breach of the Agreement, that
there would be economic consequences on the City that would probably be too broad. Staff felt that the so called
"Poison Pill C", which County staff characterized as "Vitamin Pill C" was too much of a blank check. There was
some very limited circumstances in winch that would apply, but it involved both a cost to the City of closure of the
landfill plus the relocation of the landfill. The Board today took action to delete that relocation cost, which
basically, he thought, was the one part of that whole process of economic consequences that one could characterize
as a blank check. City staff also had a concern that they didn't want Chula Vista adversely affected by the landfill
by the Board just as they did not want their landfill impacted by the whim of the Council. There needed to be some
checks and balances in there. The County approved the Agreement in its current form by unanimous vote. The
Board deleted the landfill relocation, but they added retroactivity in terms of "Poison Pills A and B ". Staff still had
some concerns. First, the areas agreed to in concept were not necessarily accurately reflected in the Agreement
winch has been drafted by County Counsel at tins point. Staff received a copy of the Agreement this morning.
One of the things the City will need to do was to go back, at least in the areas which clearly on winch there was
some consensus on, and make sure the Agreement reflects that in terms of its language. There may be areas where
there was conceptual agreement and the real test would be to put it in language. Staff was also concerned about
the economic consequence portions of the Agreement. Staff felt it was getting to the point, the details of which
were contained within the staff report, but the so-called "Poison Pills A and B" or Vitamin Pills A and B",
depending on whether the perspective was that of the City or County, were under Chula Vista's control. In other
words, we would control the City's destiny and whether or not those consequences kicked in. The main one, which
was the cost of closing the landfill if the City did something adverse to the landfill. In one scenario, if the City was
going to be detaching--if everything goes through as proposed--the part of the land fill within the City limits. There
was a very remote circumstance where if the City re-annexed it-say going around LAFCO, getting a special act
of the Legislature--and then the City ~ok some action to cause closure of the landfill, then the City would be subject
to "Poison Pill C". On the other hand, that was solely within the control of the City, because the City does not
need to pursue re-annexation of the landfill once it was detached. Secondly, if the City failed to pass the General
Plan Amendment (GPA) or adopt the GPA the County said was incompatible and those actions caused the Court
to order closure that also could apply to "Poison Pill C". However, it would be very difficult for staff to
conceptualize how that would actually lead to a Court-ordered closure. The concern City staff had was the third
category, which was the breach of any term of the agreement that the County at its sole discretion closing the
landfill, subject to notice, opportunity to cure, and judicial review. That was one area where the City would be
working with staff to try and get rid of the sole discretion language of the Board. That was one area City staff had
definite concern about. In staff~s recommendation to Council, that went out in the staff report, staff recommended
this be referred to the Council Subcommittee to discuss this with the County Board upon advice of our representative
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 4
on the Board of Supervisors. It was his judgment that it would be better to have the Board act upon it as a whole
and that the City not pursue Subcommittee discussion. At this point the Board was now prepared to take another
look at any refinements that could be made in the language of the Agreement which, in his judgment, was absolutely
necessary. As indicated at the outset of this presentation, there were areas that have been agreed to, in concept,
that the Board has approved that was not accurately reflected in the Agreement. Those need to be straightened out.
He would not ask the Council to consider or approve an agreement until that has been accomplished. The Board
certainly wanted the same thing. What has been outlined were the areas the City needed to pursue this; the County,
basically, has the leverage because of the Property Tax Agreement and their ability to approve or disapprove that
without any other leverage the City had. Staff could proceed with per any direction the Council should give staff
to proceed with the development of some additional refinements to the Agreement. Refinement may be a minor
word because in some cases they may be major issues, but if they can be placed under the cloak of refinement and
get what was most advantageous to the City then he thought staff should proceed with that.
County Board Supervisor Greg Cox: 647 Windsor Circle, Chula Vista stated it was a pleasure to be back before
the City Council and gave several introductory comments. Over the last few years there has been various stresses
and strains between the County of San Diego and some of the different cities in the County. He did not know that
had necessarily been a problem in the City of Chula Vista but it had been a particular problem with some North
County cities. One of the things he has st~ved to do since being on the Board was to work closely with the cities,
at least within the First Supervisorial District, and took real pride in the fact that we have been able to do some
things that are complementary to the City of Chula Vista that will certainly ensure to the benefit of our residents and
the residents throughout San Diego County. Two weeks ago the Board of Supervisors did take action, with no
request from the City of Chula Vista, but because the Board felt it was an important project, the Board took action
to work with the City of Chula Vista in its efforts to secure a Veterans Home for the City. The Board stepped up
to the plate and said it would assist the City however way it could in trying to mitigate any habitat losses the City
might have as a result of the Veterans Home coming into the City of Chula Vista. One of the projects the
Supervisor thought was important to beth the City and to the unincorporated community of Bonita was
improvements with regard to Central Avenue. He showed a conceptual drawing which showed a new bridge the
County was working on the design which would, hopefully, preclude a lot of the seasonal shutdowns of Central.
The County was working with City staff and hopefully would get some assistance from the City of Chula Vista for
the operator of the Municipal Golf Course to include within the bridge design the ability to have a golf cart pass
which would be a benefit to them and also bicycle and hiking/walking trails, etc. That project, the County would
anticipate being in a position to have under construction by the end of this summer and have it operational before
the next rainy season. He wanted to emphasize the fact that the Board of Supervisors collectively want to work with
cities in a cooperative vein. The issue of the sphere of influence has been an issue of concern with the City of
Chula Vista as it staked out its position early on. The Board of Supervisors took a little bit different position and
only included a portion of that in what was already approved by LAFCO in January 1996. He wantal to try and
get the Board to realize that this was a very important issue to the City of Chula Vista and as much as that was an
impeat issue to the City, the County Board of Supervisors has a real legitimate concern to ensure that there would
not be a repeat of the situation the County has experienced in the North County, particularly with the City of San
Marcos with regard to the operation of the landfills in this County. He saw an opportunity to see if they could come
up with some type of an agreement that could be tied in to allow the County to operate the Otay Landfill without
any interference from the City of Chula Vista. He could not think of any record that indicated that had been any
interference. Anytime attorneys were involved in trying to come together with legal documents, one had to look
at the worst case scenario. Obviously, the City of Chula Vista has been doing its due diligence to ensure that the
City was fully protected as has the Board of Supervisors to ensure that the County can continue to operate the
landfill. What was basically before the Board of Supervisors was an action today that would deal with four different
issues. One was to modify the County's position with regards to the City of Chula Vista's sphere of influence.
By action of the Board of Supervisors today, the Board was saying it would not oppose the expansion of the sphere
to include all of the property that the City of Chula Vista has originally requested, with one exception--the existing
landfill, that would remain in a Special Study classification. The second issue the Board dealt with was, in essence,
the issue of annexation phasing. The City of Chula Vista has maintained it would like to see everything annexed
in one phase. By action of the Board of Supervisors--again, these am all tied together as the City Manager pointed
out--the Board would not oppose the City of Chula Vista moving forward with the annexation of the entire western
parcel of the Otay Ranch. The third agreement was the Property Tax Agreement. When the City of Chula Vista
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 5
and the County entered into a joint cooperative planning effort with the Baldwin Company in 1988, early on it was
agreed that the Master Property Tax Agreement, which was normally the sharing of property tax revenues that the
City deals with would not apply to the Otay Ranch. That meant a clean slate to begin with. The only way there
would be a property tax agreement would be my mutual consent. In essence, the Board of Supervisors of the
County of San Diego, does have, perhaps, en upper hand with regards to that, because without a property tax
agreement, even though property may be included in the City's sphere, the City was not able to move with en
annexation under current law until there was a property tax agreement. Perhaps that was an issue which gave the
County some leverage, for lack of a better term, in regards to the Landfill Agreement, which was an issue
extremely important to the County of Sen Diego. That was the fourth part of the overall package, coming up with
a Landfill Agreement which would allow the County to operate the landfill at Otay without eny undue interference
from the City of Chula Vista. That does not mean the City does not have the ability to raise issues and concerns
in regards as to whether the landfill was being properly operated. If there were violations by the operators of the
landfill, whether it was the County of San Diego, or the Solid Waste Authority, which may be the successor agency,
the City certainly had every right, end he would expect the City to exercise those rights to ensure that the County
was operating that facility in a proper manner and bring in whatever State or Federal resources it needed to ensure
that the County did that. On the other hand, given the experience the County had in San Marcos, the County does
not want to be in a situation where the landfill was in operation for a long period of time end then, through a
development process, homes were approved immediately adjacent to the lendfill. It was somewhat ironic because
the City of Chnla Vista, in its General Development Plan for the Otay Ranch did not put homes immediately
adjacent to the landfill end the County of Sen Diego, in their General Development Plen did. He would have
thought the County would have learned something from the experiences in the San Marcos area. In any event, the
action of the Board of Supervisors today, he thought, was a good deal end a fair deal. If it was going to be a
successful deal, it has to be good for everybody. What the County Board of Supervisors has done today was to
ensure that it would not go by the Master Property Tax Agreement which entitled the County to 59 percent of the
property taxes generated in that area with 41 percent going to the City of Chula Vista. There would be a 50-50 split
of the property tax revenue. When that was quantified, that was a total of about $21 million in revenue that the
County of San Diego was giving up to the City of Chnla Vista. That was revenue that, currently under the Master
Property Tax Agreement, the City would not be entitled to. The Board realized when talking about a project as
large as the Otay Ranch, that it was difficult to apply the existing Master Property Tax Agreement end that the City
needed to be able to be made whole in regards to the cost of servicing whatever future development may occur in
the Otay Ranch. That was en issue that was dealt with in the instance that the City of Chula Vista--not this Council
but maybe subsequent City Councils decide they do not went to have the landfill continue to operate. If the City
did anything to interfere with the operation of it, then there would be en obligation under what has been referred
to as "Poison Pill A" to pay back that $21 million that the County was, in essence, giving up in regard the Property
Tax Agreement. "Poison Pill B" deals with transfer payments. Again, realizing the City has heavier costs in the
early years of development of the Otay Ranch, the County was voluntarily giving up $16 million of its share to the
50 percent revenue that it would be getting under the Property Tax Agreement. If the City ever did do anything
to interfere with the operation of the landfill, the County would expect that to be paid back. That would be a total
of about $37 million penalty if anything was done to interfere with the operation of the landfill. The last element
of the less desirable components, perhaps, of this Agreement from the City's perspective was dealing with "Poison
Pill C" . He realized the way "Poison Pill C" was worded was particularly onerous to the City of Chnla Vista,
particularly the aspect of the relocation costs of the landfill. Having watched the County Board of Supervisors for
a long period of time and focusing on trying to come up with a new landfill in North County, the County has been
looking for a new landfill for the past 15 years and still has not identified en appropriate landfill. He was able to
work with the Board of Supervisors end get the second half of that Poison Pill removed which would have been en
obligation for the City of Chula Vista to pay the cost of relocating and opening a new landfill. What was left in
"Poison Pill C" was the obligation--again, if the City did anything to interfere with the operation of the landfill--to
pay the closure costs of the landfill. What was that obligation? Right now, the best estimate, was that it would be
about $30 million. The City was looking at a potential downside of $67 million if the City took action to preclude
the County from operating the landfill. The $30 million would be offset by whatever revenues were collected end
a portion of the tipping fee does include a component for closure costs. Over the next 30-year life of the Otay
Landfill, which was probably the best guess estimate of how much longer it would be operating, each year there
would be additional revenue which would be coming in to go into a separate fund that was accounted for to pay the
closure costs. In theory, at the end of that 30 year period of time there should be adequate revenues to pay the
closure costs. That was what the City had at risk if a subsequent City Council took action to deny the County the
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 6
ability to operate the landfill--$67 million. Would the City do it? He did not think so; partly because of the money
and certainly that was a big part of the motivation on the part of the Board. The Board made it as punitive as it
could to ensure that that action never does occur. He re-emphasized that the County was voluntarily, as a result
of the negotiations in the Property Tax Agreement was giving the City over one-half of that money already. That
was money that would otherwise enure to the benefit of the County's General Fund. If it was going to be a good
deal, it had to be a good deal for everybody. Given the work that the City's staff has done on behalf of the City
of Chnla Vista and the County's staff has done and the amount of time that has been put in by your Council
SubCommittee, he was very pleased to stand before the Council this evening and say that this was probably about
the best deal that could be negotiated and put together to ensure that the County can continue to operate the landfill
and the City of Chula Vista can move forward on the issues relating to the Otay Ranch.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: It was abundantly clear that any approval of the Tax Agreement was conditioned on the
approval of the Landfill Agreement. Stated another way, the City's desire to annex the western portion of the Otay
Ranch to the City of Chnla Vista would not occur unless a Landfill Agreement could be reached.
Supervisor Cox: That was a fair statement, at least from the County's perspective. He did not see any inclination
on the part of his colleagues on the Board Members to move forward with the Property Tax Agreement without the
Landfill Agreement.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot then understood the two issues were directly and irrevocably linked, at least in the County's
eyes.
Supervisor Cox: That was a fair statement.
Member Rindone: He and Supervisor Cox had the opportunity to discuss this once before and he had a chance
to talk with Supervisor Cox on a couple of occasions, including today, on the status of where the negotiations were.
He thought good progress had been made. Obviously, the previous comments of the linkage of the Landfill
Agreement with the Master Property Tax Agreement was from the County's perspective. From the City's
perspective, the two should have no relationship at all. One may be saying, they are trying to hold our arm behind
our back in hopes of getting a sweeter deal for something that was very important to the County pending the desire
and anxiousness of this current City Council to achieve annexation. He thought everybody was interested in
annexation but he thought, also equally important to understand was that it was not just the City of Chula Vista that
would benefit from annexation, the County would benefit as well. Sometimes a casual observer would not
understand what the County was giving up. But, with the western parcel being under the sphere of influence of the
City of Chnla Vista, the llkelthood of development is nil as far as the County was concerned. Without annexation,
the current property taxes, which go to the County, would remain, but the growth, because there would not be
development in the western parcel, would also not be in the County's best interest. The point being reinforced, and
it was important that everyone understand, it was also mutually beneficial to the County that the annexation
agreement was worked out. Not only would it permit development in a Master Plan but also would mutually benefit
both public agencies. He thought it was regrettable that the County has continued to say that the one must be linked
to the other, because it was in the County's best interest for the annexation as well. Supervisor Cox was to be
compliment~l because he understood the importance of these issues. He has a difficult situation in the County
representing those views. One thing that still was not fully flushed out would be the terms. Where do we go from
here? Was this good enough? Was the current City Council willing to swallow these Poison Pills or not? He
thought that was a legitimate, debatable question. He thought the Council was not going to force that issue tonight
because there was still some clarification that he wonld hope to see. That was, looking on the front end Supervisor
Cox, if the City could get a better delineation of a description of what the proposed, alleged breaches would be and
an analysis of those descriptions--because this was a major vote, this was a major ooncero because, while the desire
for annexation was thrust upon all of us in our anxiety for that, must not stumble and put in a precmious position
future City Council who might be backed into, inadvertently, if it was not fully understood. He thought the City
Manager was equally in agreement with that and he would just submit to staff, working with the County and our
Supervisor, if, before this came back to the Council, this kind of information with better detailing would help foster
a clearer and better understanding. He offered that as a suggestion. His position, as he has said privately and
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 7
publicly, he does not want to see any of the Poison Pills there. That was tough to swallow and he was not prepared
to do that.
Supervisor Cox: There were other perspectives on the Board of Supervisors and he was only one of five. There
are other Supervisors who may take the attitude, in regards to the development of the Otay Ranch being good for
the County, there may be Supervisors who would rather see development in the North County, for whatever reason,
where the Master Property Tax was in effoct. If one accepted the theory there was only a finite amount of
development that would occur that can be absorbed in the County in any given year, that Supervisor for the North
County may take the attitude that it would be better to have more development in the North County where the
County could get 59 percent of the property taxes as opposed to future development being in the South County
where the County would only get 50 percent. He did not know that that was a fair representation of that person's
view, but he thought one could look at that argument from both sides. But clearly, the County does benefit by
future development of the Otay Ranch for the revenue to be generated but at a smaller percentage amount than it
would be under the Master Property Tax Agreement.
Member Rindone: I want to make one other comment. At least for Item 9.A, which was the Property Tax
Agreement, he thought there had been major strides made. The analysis that staff has provided the Council since
the last time the subject came before it, was greet. By itself, without the landfill situation, he would not see a
problem; he was comfortable moving forward on that.
Supervisor Cox: If there wasn't a Landfill Agreement he did not think the County would have been willing to go
to the 50 percent. He realized the City does not necessarily look at it as a peekage deal but the County did look
at it as a package deal so therefore he thought the County was very responsive as to the Property Tax Agreement
with that thought in mind that there was going to be a Landfill Agreement as part of the overall package.
Member Alevy: Thank you Supervisor Cox for what was obviously a lot of progress that has taken place. A
couple of weeks ago be, personally, had a number of questions that he asked and thought a number of them had
been answered by staff in the meantime. Both parties have taken great strides on our Agreement between the
County and the City as to what was going to be the future of this Agreement. Like any legal issue, there was going
to be two sides to every story and there certainly going to be---call them Poison Pills/Vitamin Pills-- whatever, that
was going to protect both elements of any agreement. This was a very complex issue. He thought both parties
could move forward with this sort of thing; first of all, just because there was poison doesn't mean you are going
to swallow it. He thought the City could create, internally, some vehicles by which the City could create an antidote
that allowed the City to catch itself before something like that happened. He thought it preposterous for the City
to pretend it was going to be the most intelligent City Council that was every going to sit in this City; there was
always going to be a level of intelligence at this dins and in this City Hall that would stop the City before it made
a mistake like that. The County has come a long way to the center and he thought the City had come a long way
to the center and was on the verge of a monumental agreement. The City should not be afraid to take action just
because it thought it was going to be forced to swallow something that had an antidote anyway. He thanked
Supervisor Cox for bring this to the center point. Where it might not have been comfortable several weeks ago,
it was very comfortable now.
Mr. Goss: Another point to be made was that, in terms of the fact that the Agreements were linked by the County
and there was one major element that was not included which was to the City's advantage that could have been
insisted on by the County which, he thought, could have caused a great deal of consternatlon on the part of the City,
and that was the issue of flow control. He wanted to highlight the fact that that was not in the package of
Agreements. From staffs perspective, if the Council did accept the framework that staff had been, basically, forced
to work within and not the framework staff had originally suggested, he thought it was clear to him that there was
an Agreement he could not recommend at this point. Both parties are close in getting there. What may happen in
the next few days was going to determine whether or not there would be an Agreement which staff could
recommend to the Council. He was saying that in light of the fact that the Board did take unanimous action today
and he felt, that they felt, the County had gone the extra mile to try and reach agreement with the City of Chula
Vista as well as protect their own interest. Again, he did not think the parties were quite there, but were close.
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 8
Any feedback the Council might give to staff, in terms of the next few days, when staff talked to the County would
be useful and appreciated.
Member Padilia: I also want to acknowledge to Supervisor Cox the appreciation for the fact that he lolew the
negotiators on both sides of this issue had made sem6 significant progress. He understood the efforts the Supervisor
made with regard to the closure cost item, the "Poison Pill C" item; that was significant. H6 thought both sides
were trying to get to the same point. He wanted to reiterate points he had made before, both in meetings with the
staff and with Supervisor Cox and others. The first point he noted with the standard that was included in the
language on the determination of a breech or 'Poison Pill/Vitamin Pill provisions A and B", requiring the
termination to be reasonable and be based upon substantial evidence reviewable by Court was an upgmd6 in the
initial legal standard that was provided for initially. He thought that was important, but it brought to mind an other
point. When you look at the context of the other security measures that have been moved forward by the Chula
Vista staff including the detachment issue, the nuisance easements, entering into Development Agreements for
certain land use designations around the site, and some others, to have those provisions put in there--they are clearly
spelled out in the Agreement-and he would just note in the event of a material breach by the City, there would be
legal remedy open to the County in any event that would or ennid involve monetary sanctions. Those would vary,
depending upon the circumstances and the kind of breach that occurred and where in the term of the Agreement the
breach would have occurred. It prods to his mind the question as to why the City has had some insistence on the
part of the County that the City go the extra mile, notwithstanding the San Marcos experience, which he understood
was very, very negative for the County. There was the potential, for example, in one of these provisions for a $37
million penalty in 90 days on the City of Chnia Vista. That was delineated in the Agreement apart from standard
legal remedies that would be available and it wouldn't, from his reading of the Agreement, basically have any force
and effect in the normal timeframe, in normal legal action. That was obviously a major deterrent to the City of
Chula Vista and a major fiscal impact and he was not so sure that needed to be delineated or agree to that because
of the potential fiscal impact it has on the City and what it would do to the fine models estimates and what would
it do to the yearly estimated deficits of the City of Chula Vista in the early part of the term of the Agreement.
Some of this he found was overkill and redundant, but he understood where it was ooming from and wanted to make
sure the parties get to the point where an Agreement can be concluded. Just for staff, he had made it very clear
also in briefings with the staff that--he did not know that the City's position was exactly-he would characterize it
the way it has been characterized to some, and he knew that staff knew he was of the belief that the City had a
stronger position in terms of deeling on this issue than they maybe would agree to. The perspective of the City,
again, and what Councilman Rindone spoke of, was there are fiscal consequences that may not be able to be
sustained by the County, on the County's perspective, in the event that the Otay Ranch did not proceed according
to the previously agreements, the General Development Plan or proceed in the City of Chula Vista with the Property
Tax Agreement, it would have to be proceeded only in the County and those types of things are on his mind as to
that. So the cost of that was not just to the City of Chute Vista, it was very much to the County, especially given
the County's cursent fiscal situation. So, he thought both those perspectives had to be borne in mind. He was very
relieved, at least with regard to the third provision, "Poison Pill C" on the closure costs, that the City has dealt with
that, at least in part because as it was he was not going to be able to support the Agreement and he wanted very
much to be able to do that. He wanted to throw those comments on the record so that the staff can hear them. He
noted that staff comments, at least tonight, that the City needed to take a look at the language that was in the most
current County draft, certainly before the Council can vote on that. Obviously, the Council would not be in a
position to be giving any conclusion or direction tonight. He looked very much forward to seeing what the latest
draft on the County looked like.
Mr. Goss: As staff went through this, he was not sure about the $37 million penalty in 30 days, he thought there
had been some changes as they have gone through this, but he thought the main point City staff would like to stress
was that none of this would happen, and staff was trying to create a situation where it would not happen, because
it would be under the control of the City. It would not be at the whim of the Board of Supervisors. That was
where City staff was headed.
Member Rindone: That was key, that was a significant change from two weeks ago when we talked about that;
and, in order to facilitate the discussion and in an effort to try to clarify the issues he just wanted to reinforce one
comment he made earlier--when staff comes beck to the Council, that component was significant in his mind to
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 9
analyze and also to understand, in greater detail, what potential breaches may allegedly put the City in that situation
and an analysis of that. The Council was looking at these worst case scenarios and he wanted to see some focus
of staffs presentation on that component so the Council fully understand. Life was a risk, everything was a risk.
But, the degree of risk Council would have to see and so, when that comes back, that was what he would be looking
for. That would help the Council have a bettar undemtanding and be able fully analyze the recommendation prior
to determination.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Some final comments. He thought it was obviously critical, and he knew he had the
advantage of being on the Council Subcommittee so he had been fully and completely briefed and he thought he
understood what a major breach was, what the City of Chula Vista do to cause a major brief. He thought it
important for all the Members of the Council to fully and completely understand that particular issue. He did not
know whether staff was prepared to go over what a major breach was tonight, but certainly it has been an element
of the Agreement for some time and it has been always a consideration, at least of his that the City have control
over, whether the City breached or not. The type of thing that the County was asking of the City of Chnla Vista
was really not uncommon when you enter into agreements over financial issues as large as this one was. In fact,
from his experience as an attorney, he could think of very few settlement agreements that he had worked on in
which each side has not gotten to the point where they were prepared to sign an agreement and one side or the other
said they wanted some provisions in there to encourage you to not to breach. Usually, that provision was onerous
and the common response on the other side was, well if you are not going to do it, what was the problem with it
being in there. So, the type of dilemma that the Council was in, if you will, was not one that was certainly
uncommon to agreements of this size and magnitude. Frankly, the key in working out an agreement on this issue
was an understanding of what was a breach and whose control a breach was under. Certainly, as has been pointed
out by Councilman Rindone, if the City does not breach then the City does not get into any of the scenarios that
the Council was concerned about. If the City has the ability to control and determine if a breach occurs, and if the
standard for determining whether a breach occurred was in the hands of an independent party-such that it cannot
be unilaterally determined by the County-then the City was really in control of its own destiny so to speak. The
City was the party which would determine whether any of the provisions "A, B, or C' ultimately would apply.
That was really the key. The Council, tonight, if the Members were all to stay on the Council for several terms--
which we cannot because of term limits--it would always be in this Council's power not to make the mistake which
would trigger items 'A, B, and C' under the penalties. But, there would be future Councils and those future
Councils may take action 10, 15 years from now and this Council has to make sure that there was a procedure in
place, that before a future Council was tempted to breach the Agreement, that they know what the consequences
were and were given numerous opportunities to avoid the consequences to the taxpayers of the City of Chula Vista.
It was not this Council that would ever consider breaching the Agreement, because this Council was familiar with
it, this Council knows it and understands the benefits to the City of complying with it. His concern was, what if
a future Council should be tempted to want to close the landfill. Frankly, that was what the County does not want.
The County does not want a future Council, differently constituted than this one, to be tempted to close the landfill.
The County feels that that issue has important economic consequences to them as was clearly borne out as a result
of litigation that has gone on in North County. The County has experienced huge financial ramifications to them
because of cities that have decided to take action to close a landfill. What the County wants was not unreasonable.
What the City of Chnia Vista wants was to be the master of its own destiny and wants to make sum that it will not
commit a breach or if a breach was thought of or inadvertently committed that there were enough cheeks and
balances to avoid the consequences of the penalties of that breach. Again, he stated he concurred with Councilman
Rindone. The Council needed to fully understand what constitutes a breach, what checks and balances can be put
in place so people are not tempted to breach. The last point he wantad to make was that it was his understanding
from attending the Subcommittee meetings that development could go forward in the County if the City was not to
annex or proceed with this Agreement. It was further his understanding that a party has already made an application
with the County, or a pre-application to do some development in parts of the Otay Ranch. He asked if his
understanding was not correct. To say that if the City did not take the necessary steps to proceed with an
annexation that there would not be development in that area. To his understanding, that would not be accurate,
development could occur, it could occur with and through other jurisdictions other than the City of Chula Vista.
Of course, the unfortunate consequence of that was that there could be development occurring on the City's borders-
-perhaps certainly not by the current Board of Supervisors, but maybe another constituted Board of Supervisors who
may not care about the impacts of the development of this area on the City of Chula Vista. The importance to us,
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 10
as a City, was that if development was going to occur on our borders, that the City had the ability to determine its
scope, its magnitude, and its affect on our City. That was really as important as the financial consequences of this
Agreement. Probably, at least in his mind, of morn importance was the City of Chula Vista's ability to control
development in the areas whera itwould clearly impact the City's existing citizens. The danger, ifyou will, ofnot
sitting down and working out these final steps of the Agreement with the County, was that we, as a City, would
loose control over our destiny. The City would loose control over what happens in an area that would impact the
City's roads, its citizens, and quality of life. What the parties am trying to come to closure on, in his mind--one
of the most significant issues that would impact the people who live in Chula Vista over the next 25 and 30 years-
was that it was impextant that the Council proceed slowly and cautiously. It was also important that the Council
understand the implications and ramifications of not being able to conclude an agreement with the County. Those
implications and ramifications could be as dramatic to the citizens of this City as the ramifications of the su--c. alled
'Poison Pills'.
Mr. Goss: City staff had discussed with County staff the possibility that development could occur if it remained
unincorporated. The County's perspective was that it could occur but that it would be more difficult than if it
occurred in the City. That was because the County, clearly, does not have the service infrastructure to support it
without using special districts, which could be done and has been done, and which would mean there would be
higher costs--basic cost of land as far as the units of housing and other commercial and industrial units. It was
possible. The other side of it was, as Supervisor Cox pointed out, that if it did not annex into the City and stayed
unincorporated there may be other areas that the County may want to stress for development and that could mean
that that property could remain stagnant for a period of time. There was certainly some benefit for the City to be
able to control this property as it tied in an alternate levels to the existing City. Finally, he wanted to commend
County staff, even though City staff did not agree with them on point by point in a lot of different areas, they have
worked very hard to try to address the City's concerns as City staff has tried to address their concerns. He wanted,
also, to offer a great deal of credit to the Supervisor [Cox] to addressing some of the concerns of the City and also
to the Board itself, because he thought that the Board felt like they had been trying to be sensitive to the City's
issues, not only in terms of the position they have taken but some of the positions they did not take but could have.
Mayor Pro Ten Moot: stated he would give the opportunity--as each item was gone through--for any members
of the public who wanted to speak on a particular item to have an opportunity to do so. Before the Council moved
away from Items 9A and 9B--which it was his understanding that because Council did not have the written
Agreement it would not take any action on them tonight. Was that correct?
Mr. Goss: That is correct, staff would not recommend that.
Mayor Pro Ten Moot: It was clear, at least it was the consensus of this Council from the comments, that no one
desires to take final action on 9A or 9B tonight. He asked if any members of the public wanted to discuss anything
related to Items 9A and 9B, he would give them the opportunity at this time to do so. He thanked Supervisor Cox
for appearing at the meeting.
Member Rindone: When does staff anticipate returning with these items.
Mr. Goss: That was difficult to answer as staff needed to go through the Agreement with County staff. A meeting
was scheduled for Thursday afternoon and then would have a better idea as to where we stand at that time. The
Board of Supervisors was actually expecting a response, in terms of the refine of the Agreement, by their next
meeting next week. As staff has gone through the Agreement subsequent to this morning' s meeting, he would find
that more difficult to believe that could be accomplished. Staff would try and expedite and bring the item back
because he thought the Board had an expectation to bring it back quickly and the City did as well because part of
this was the whole sphere of influence and the annexation process. LAFCO staff was sensitive to the desire of the
property owners to try and pursue this quicker rather than later. Staff would be bring this back as soon as it could.
Member Alevy: If the County Board actually took action today or just make it clear that they were in agreement
to move to certain points.
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 11
Mr. Goss: The Board took action.
Meflaber Alevy: Is it appropriate for the Council to take a semblance of action to acknowledge movement or was
it best to not just do anything?
Mr. Goss: Best to leave it as it was at this point.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: The City Council Public Hearings on following items will be continued to May
14, 1996:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
EIR 95-01; Certification of the Final EIR and Addendum
PCA 96-02; Planned Community (PC) Zone Amendment
PCA 96-03; Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) Zone
PCZ 96-A; Annexation Prezones
PCM 95-09; Otay Ranch General Devdopment Plan (GDP) Amendments
PCM 95-01; Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
PCM 95-01B; Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: Mr. Jamriska, Otay Ranch Team, how do you want to guide the Council through the
public hearings.
Jerry Jamriska: Items 2A through 2G were advertised public hearings for tonight's meeting and consideration.
Since the Planning Commission has not concluded their deliberations on these issues, it was staffs recommendation
that Council take an action continuing all these items until May 14, 1996.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: I would entertain a motion to continue them.
[MOTION] Alevy/Moot to continue, approved 4-0-1, with Herton absent.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Technically, the public hearings should be opened. Why don't we go ahead and open the
public hearings. He asked if anyone was there to speak to Items 2A through 2G. Again, seeing none, he closed
the public hearing. Technically, the Council should re-vote. It was continue it to May 14, 1996.
[MOTION] Alevy/Moot to continue the public hearing to May 14, 1996, approved 4-0-1, with Herton absent.
PROCESS AND CURRENT STATUS
A. Background
1. Technical Committee
2. Policy Committee
3. Council Subcommittee
B. Document Organization
C. Planning Commission Actions
D. Annexation/Sphere Status
E. Project Schedule
Mr. Jamriska described where the Otay Ranch Team was at the present and the process the Team followed to-date
in processing the SPA and all the related documents with that item.
Mr. Jamriska: At the last hearing of the General Development Plan on February 28, 1993 the City Council
adopted the Goals, Objectives, and Policies for Facilities. Thresholds were established as well as the processing
requirements for the adoption of a General Development Plan and a Sub-Regional Plan for the County of San Diego.
The next step in that process, where we are at right now, and that was processing the Specific Plan as well as the
Tentative Map. That document, while in itself was very short and brief and to the point, it does not clearly show
the many activities that the staff was going on right now processing this project and how the process of the Otay
Ranch and the various projects associated with this was meandering throughout the entire City structure and
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 12
organization. At the current time we are in the process of submitting and presenting to the Council tonight the SPA
One Plan and the various documents associated with that relating to the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan, the
various General Plan amendments as well as an Issue Paper. Tied and relating to that was the SPA One
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the variety of the separate components of that document. While that
process is going on through the SPA One approval after the Council takes action on the SPA One approval, the
applicant, and we have it scheduled before the planning Commission; we will be submitting a Master Tentative
Map. Once the City Council approves the SPA One, a key component of the SPA One is the Annexation EIR.
The Annexation EIR will deem complete our application with LAFCO, so that would make the Application to File
as relates to our filing. However, there are several other additional components to that Plan, as mentioned
previously, the Property Tax Agreement, the Landfill Agreement, and there are cef, ain detachment issues relating
to that as well as negotiating a Reserve Fund Condition with The Baldwin Company pursuant to the General
Development Plan. After that Application is deemed complete and LAFCO takes action, the Master Tentative Map
will be processing through the City structure relating to facility and permits plans as well as the establishment of
homoowners associations, street and landscaping districts, will all be establishing all prior to the approval of the
approval of the Final Map. While annexation is being considered, there are certain considerations that we are
looking at, exsmlnlng right now, relating to pre-annexation agreements with the Foundation, United Enterprises,
as well as the Foundation. Certain issues relating to that may affect other items currently in front of the City
relating to river crossing issues, sewer spheres as well as was mentioned earlier, the County application that was
filed for Village 3 development and then certain pre-development agreements relating to the implementation of the
Landfill Agreement such as usage easements as well as certain General Plan Amendments that will be triggered as
a result. Again, while this is going on, there is certain on-going activities will have to be done as a requirement,
as not ouly the Specific Plan or the SPA but also relating to the General Development Plan as relates to annual free
model updates. We have to implement the mitigation requirements as part of the Environmental Impact Report,
the Preserve Owner Manager will have to be crested if the City and the County deem the Preserve Owner Manager
as well as everything from implementing the Joint Powers Agreement as part of Preserve Owner Manager and
establishing certain Maintenance Districts, and implementing the Phase 1 as well as Phase 2 Resource Management
Plan. Again, while this is going on, certain General Development Plan amendments will have to be processed as
well. One, of course, will be the General Plan amendments that may be required as [inaudible] the Multiple
Species Conservation Program, dealing with the university site as well as the active recreational areas in the Otay
River Valley. One of the key components of the MSCP program is the proposal by The Baldwin Company in
agreement with the wildlife agencies to relocate and allocate certain densities on their property that is in agreement
with the resource agencies but at this time are in violation of, or not in conformance with the General Development
Plan of the City. So there will be a proposal being submitted by The Baldwin Company to amendment the General
Development Plan. Also as part of the pre-annexation as well as the Development agreements there may be some
additional General Development amendments being processed concurrently. So the fingers of the Otay Ranch
Project stretch and meanders throughout the entire City structure. I am not going to spend a lot of time on this,
but just to kind of bring you up-to-date where we are as relates to the Sphere and Annexation studies, the LAFCO
has taken action on establishing our Sphere boundary, apparently following the Otay Valley Road including Village
3 and the Landfill site. This was our Application that you gave us direction to file, which is the inverted "L" , the
Resort site and the plsnnlng Area 1. As I mentioned, LAFCO took action to add to our Sphere this boundary.
However, we have filed for an Annexation Proposal that includes the entire western parcel excluding the Landfill
in the County as well as the detachment from the Otay Landfill in the City as City Manager Goss stated earlier as
well as the inverted "L" and the Ranch House. That is currently before LAFCO staff analyzing it and hopefully
will come to fruition in the very near future.
Member Moot: Mr. Jatmriska, if I could just stop you, could you go back to what is called the "finger". I think
it is probably important to understand. ha order to be able to annex that, what we call the 'finger" portion, that
is what has created the necessity to discuss the Landfill issue. Because, under what the County was willing to agree
to, they wanted to keep control over that white portion [referring to the "white portion" as shown on the slide being
exhibited] we call the "finger" and that would effectively prevent the City from being able to shut down the Landfill.
Mr. Jamriska: Yes, that was indeed one component. The other component was that if the City ever prohibited
access to the existing Landfill and to the extended Landfill, the County could be able to, through the Unincorporated
area, provide at least some form of access to the Landfill. While, typographicaHy it would be very difficult to do,
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 13
they at least wanted to preserve their options, in that case if the City every took any steps to close access to the
Landfill. So there is a two prong approach in that regard.
Mr. Jamriska: The Planning Commission has been meeting on a very regular basis to look over the various actions
that is being presented and we are meeting again tomorrow night. They have taken some tentative actions and some
final actions but they have not concluded in their deliberations. So the schedule that we have currently pending,
again the City Council, tonight, is considering the Workshop for the SPA as well as the EIR, but on the 14th of
May the City Council will be hearing the entire package. That is again assuming the Planning Commission, on May
1, tomorrow night, concludes their deliberations. They have already taken actions recommending to you
Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and they have various reports and studies to consider in concluding
their deliberations on the SPA. Ifthe Council takes action on the 14th, there are certain ordinances there are certain
Ordinances that we will be recommending for adoption and the Second Reading would be on the 21st. LAFCO is
scheduled to hear the County's position related to the "finger" approach for the Sphere of Influence. It appears at
this time that that action may not happen due to the negotiations relating to the Landfill Agreement. Then where
we go from there is that it is hopeful that, again, LAFCO will take action in June--this is the June calendar--if the
Planning Commission takes into consideration on June 5 for the Tentative Map issue. At that time, and we are
hoping that if everything proceeds well according to the way our timeframe for processing it, then Council will hear
the Tentative Map on June 25; then after that date, it would be somewhat totally dependent upon LAFCO to set the
timelines in terms of when the Final Map could be prepared and construction can commence. So, Mr. Chairman,
that concludes -- one other key point in this process. As was mentioned earlier with the process for decisionmaking
for this project. If you will recall, the last time the General Development Plan was adopted was a joint planning
process between the City and County. Since the County only played a very small role, they only had to take into
consideration four items of the myriad items before the Council tonight, there was a project team formed composed
of the Project Team staff and certain individuals assigned to the Project Team from the Public Works Department.
We worked very closely with those development as well as certain outside agencies as the Otay Water District and
MTDB. As issues were being developed and the plans being crystallized for the SPA, we worked very closely with
a Technical Committee composed of four key departments and then as other issues were created and surfaced, we
brought in other City departments reviewing not only the issues but the recommendations. That, in itself, the
decisions did not stop there. While we may have been in agreement, we may have been in disagreement between
one department and another department, or a department and the Project Team, we surfaced all the issues to, what
we called, the Executive Policy Committee. The Executive Policy Committee was chaired by the City Manager
and all the department heads were invited and did, indeed, participate in not only formulating certain directions that
the Plan would evolve over time, but resolving any difference of opinion that may have surfaced between staff; and,
indeed these were many times when staff did not agree. So the issues that we will be presenting to you tonight and
on May 14 will be issues that have bean decided by the Executive Policy Committee, not the Technical Committee,
not the Project Team, but the entire City position. While this was going on, we did indeed keep the City Council
Subcommittee, composed of Mayor Hotton and Council Member Moot, well informed as to the progress, the lack
of progress, or the issues that were surfacing through the processing this development. They in turn, of course,
worked closely with the Board of Supervisors Subcommittee relating to the Landfill issues or relating to the Land
Use issues or the Resource Management Plan with another Subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors. So this
process, while it has been very time consuming, I think it has received a very thorough and extensive review, not
only by the Project Team but also through the entire Executive Policy Committee.
Member Rindone: One question please. Them are two Board of Supervisors Subcommittees working on this?
Mr. Jnmrlska: Yes. One was dealing primarily with the Property Tax Agreement and the Landfill issues. The
other Subcommittee dealt primarily with the Land Use issues and the Resource Management Plan. The County had
four areas where the General Development Plan required their review. Three of them relate to the Resource
Management Plan and one relates to the Village Design Plan. The Board of Supervisors, again, working through
the staffs of the various departments and outside agencies did recommend to the Board of Supervisors, and they,
indeed, did take certain actions supporting what the City staff is recommending for action as relates to the Resource
Management Plan.
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 14
Member Rindone: But it is my understanding that the Board of Supervisors, from the hearing that we had tonight
and it had been presented to us before, linked the Landfill Agreement to the Mater Property Tax Agreement. Is
that not correct?
Mr. Jamriska: Yes, that is indeed correct as relates to those options. As it relates to the Resource Management
Plan and the Village Design Plan, this Committee has recommended [did not fmish sentence].
Member Rindone: The point I want to make here, they should not have done that because the two Subcommittees
comprises a majority of the Board of Supervisors and that is violation of The Brown Act if they were linked together
in the negotiations because you got three different Supervisors involved. That is not cricket.
Mr. Jamriska: This Committee [pointing to the "overhead' be'rag exhibited on the screen] did not deal with the
Landfill or the Property Tax Agreement. This Committee did. This Committee did not look at any of the Resource
Management Plan issues nor the Village Design issues. So the issues were clearly separated and delineated between
the two Committees. Our Subcommittee did, indeed, deal with both of those issues--Resource Management Plan
end Village Design as well as the Property Tax and Landfill Agreement.
Member Rindone: I am in agreement. We did it correctly. I am disturbed to see the structure that was set up.
I did not realize they had two separate Subcommittees which comprises a majority of the Members when they linked
the two together and that is what I really think is [inaudible]
Member Alevy: Axe those standing Subcommittees that specifically, you know, refer to all issues to Resource
Management, in the case of the Subcommittee on the right [indicating the 'overhead" be'mg exhibited on the screen];
Property Tax Agreements and those sorts of issues, or are these specifically set-up Subcommittees in relation to this
project.
Mr. Jamriska: The latter. It is set up specifically for relationships of this project. Again, this Committee
[pointing to the "overhead"] dealt, like I said before, with the four areas that the City required--the GDP end the
SRP required them to participate in. When the GDP and the SRP were adopted, those issues were not contemplated
and that was a Committee set up, very similar to the Subcommittee that was set up to look specifically at the
Landfill and Property Tax issues.
Mr. Jamriska: That complete the short presentation I had on the process and current status. If there are any other
questions I will be happy to answer them.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: Axe there any members of the public who would like to speak on any issues related to the
process or the current status? If not, we will move on to Item No. 4 which is the Second-Tier EIR.
SECOND-TIER EIR
A. EIR Presentation
B. EIR Issues
Mr. Jam~ska: Thank you Deputy Mayor. Again, as I said earlier, one of the key components of any project of
this scale and magnitude is the requirement to comply with CEQA and the City hired the firm of Cotton Beland
Associates to do the environmental analysis. At this time I would like to call upon John Bridges of Cotton Beland
Associates to make this presentation.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you Jerry. Deputy Mayor, Members of the Council, it is a pleasure to be here with you this
evening. I am John Bridges, Principal, with Cotton Beland Associates and we prepared the Second- Tier EIR for
the SPA 1 Project. I would like to just run through a brief description of the process and the type of EIR that you
have before you for this project. We will be making a more formal and in-depth presentation at your public hearing
COming Up on the 14th [May]. But in the interest of time tonight, we felt it would be important to focus on certain
aspects of the environmental process that would be helpful for that hearing that will be coming up soon. I
mentioned that this is a Second-Tier EIR; end, basically, that means that there was a First-Tier EIR, and I ara sure
Minu~es
April 30, 1996
Page 15
you recognize that that war, in fact, the EIR that war done for the General Development Plan for Otay Ranch. So
that First-Tier EIR provided a lot of environmental information about the overall development of Otay Ranch. The
Second-Tier EIR, then, focuses in on SPA 1 and the Annexation areas that Mr. Jamriska har described tiffs evening
for you. It essentially looks at the Otay Ranch SPA 1 area and development of that area; amendment of the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan, there are several amendments to the General Development Plan that are described
in the SPA 1 document and in the EIR; and then, annexation of the two major Planning Areas that Mr. Jamriska
pointed out along with the Mary Patrick Estate Ranch House. I might mention this EIR also har an Addendum that
war prepared for the Landfill which you have discussed this evening. And so, there war a component of this EIR
called an Addendum that dealt directly with that issue. Now, it is important to recognize that this Second-Tier EIR
looks at the SPA 1 Plan ar it war propose, d in 1994. You might ark why does it look at that particular project, why
not what we have before now. The reason is that particular project sets forth a worst-case scenario for assessment
or analysis of environmental impacts. And, the EIR Alternatives than, that are examined in the document, look at
modification and refinements to the SPA 1 Plan that are aimed at reducing those impacts. Now, the process that
is used for an Environmental Impact Report involves preparation of a Draft EIR and, in this case, there were
actually two Drafts that were prepared. The original Draft was circulated for public review in September 1995;
new information related to the EIR became available after that document was circulated and a re-circulated Draft
war made available for public review in February [1996]. The review period closed for that on March 28 [1996].
All comments that have bean received, then, have been responded to and are incorporated in the Final EIR that you
will have, that you have a copy of now and will be before you for consideration on May 14 [1996]. Now please
keep in mind that since there were two Draft EIRs, them are actually comments and responses to both the first set
of comrnenta in the original [first Draft] EIR and comments and responsar for the re-circulated Draft. There are
a number of issues that were identified in that re-circulated Draft that are now all completely inoorporste~d into your
Final EIR. So for your purposes, you do not necessarily have to go beck and look at the two Drafts, you need to
look at the Final EIR and everything that war in those two Drafts is now incorporated in that document. Let me
go ahead and point out the conclusions of the EIR. This can be gained, ar well, by looking at the Executive
Summary that is in the front of the document. The important conclusions fall into three categories: first, for
Project Level Environmental Impacts--and then I will talk about Cumulative Impacts. For Project Level
Environmental Impacts there are a number of impacts that are listed at the top here [referring to the Executive
Summary] the first eight bullet points are Significant Impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. That is, they are
impacts, mitigation has been developed, but those impacts cannot be reduced to a Level of Less Than Significant
for this projects. Those categories are important, because, in order to approve the Project with these Significant
Impacts which cannot be mitigated, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration. So, you will see
with the Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration accompany the EIR, the reasons for these impacts,
the reasons for mitigation, and the reasons that those impacts cannot be fully mitigated in spita of everything that
har been done. The other two areas are Significant and Mitigable Impacts or impacts that are Less Than Significant.
Those are Project Level Impacts. Then we also look at Cumulative Impacts, which would be impacts of the Project
or impacts associated with other development. And for those impacts, Cumulative Impacts, we have the same areas
for Significant and Unmitigable Cumulative Impacts, those would also be included in a Statement of Overriding
Consideration if the Project is to be approved. The other impacts, then, are either Mitigable or Less Than
Significant. It is important to understand that these impacts am very much the same ar the types of impacts that
you see in the Program EIR for the General Development Plan, and in many cares, in virtually every case, the
Significant and Unmitigable Impacts are the same ar those identified in the Program EIR for the General
Development Plan. With that, we can answer questions you may have the process, this evening. Also with me is
Dan Marum from BLW. BLW developed cl the traffic analysis and transportation analysis for the EIR. It is a very
important issue and one that the Planning Commission spent some time on. In the interest of time tonight we can,
rather than having Dan Marum make a presentation, we can simply be here to answer questions that you might have
of either or both of ns. With that I will turn it back over to Mr. Jamriska and answer questions you may have of
uS.
Mr. Jnm~ska: Deputy Mayor, we can, if you so desire, but again, like Mr. Bridges said in the interest of time,
we prefer to make the full presentation on May 14 [1996] because there we have to establish the record in a
discussion, so I think it is more important that we defer this until May 14, but we would be happy to entertain any
questions that you have right now.
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 16
Member Alevy: Just a quick question. By the way, I was listening in back [referring to his having left the dins
and be'rag in a hallway/room containing loud speakers wherein he could hear the proceedings] and not playing
bookey. How would you eharactefize--I know there have been some periods of comment from the public on the
initial EIR and hearings with the Planning Commission; how do you characterize the comments? Are they consistent
with other projects? Do you find there is more or less negative declaration?
Mr. Bridges: I would say they are consistent. The main issues with this EIR relate to biology and traffic--or
transportation. There are some other issues that are important as well, but the bulk of the comments related to those
two subject areas as we expected because, those as you saw, there are impacts there that are not unmitigable in some
cases. The number of comments is about the fight number for a project of this magnitude. Between the two EIRs
there were some 43 Letters of Comment. But, keep in mind, some of those were from the same agency that
commented, for example, on the original Draft end they commented again on the re-circulated Draft. The number
of comments on the first Draft was higher, I think about 28 Letters, the number of comments on the second Draft,
or the re-circulated Draft, was 15. So, we saw a reduction as a result of some changes that were made to the
document as a result of that first round of Letters.
Member Alevy: [Inaudible] documents obviously being works in progress until they are finally approved. Do
you attest, then, that virtual having of the Comments, negative comments, is testimony to the fact that you have
mitigated the complaints end concerns of the first E1R?
Mr. Bridges: I think that is a good indication that they have been addressed. Some of the original Comments were
addressed; particularly a lot of those comments, in some eases dealt with questions of fact or factual information
that needed to be corrected for one reason or another, end a lot of that occurred as a result of doing a second Draft.
So, yes, you had a reduced number of Letters as a result.
Member Alevy: Thank you very much.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: Any other comments or items of discussion from the Council? Are there eny members
of the public who had eny questions or comments on the Second-Tier EIR? Okay, then we will go ahead end move
to Item 5 on the Agenda which is the Code Amendments and Annexation Prezoning.
CODE AMENDMENTS AND ANNEXATION PREZONING
A. PCA 96-02; PC Zone Amendment
B. PCA 96-03; PQ Zone Amendment
C. PCZ 96-A; Annexation Prezones
D. PCM 95-09; Otay Ranch GDP Amendments
Mr. Jamriska: Yes, Mr. Deputy Mayor, in implement the recommendations that was in the SPA as well as the
Annexation proposal, certain amendments had to be adopted as well as the Prezone. At this time I would like to
call upon Beverly Luttrell who will make that presentation on the Code Amendments and the Annexation Prezonings
that am occurring. And, again, in the essence of time what we are going to do here is just primarily focus upon
some of the major issues that have surfaced during the processing of this project.
Ms. Luttrell: Deputy Mayor end Members of the City Council, in conjunction with annexation of the Otay Valley
parcel, the City of Chula Vista has implemented--or initiated--three separate items. The first is en Amendment to
the existing Planned Community Zone; the second is the creation of the proposed PQ Zone, or Public/Quasi-Public
Zone; end the third item that the City initiat~l was the Prezoning of all the non-Baldwin owned parcels within the
Otay Ranch within the Otay Valley parcel that were surrounded by the Otay Rench. The first action which was the
Amendment to the Planned Community Zone modified that Zone by allowing it to be applied to parcels of under
50 acres in size end not under one single ownership. Under this option property owners would have three avenues
open to them, they could either amend the adjacent General Development Plan and annex to it which would be our
preference. The s~cond thing that owners could do would be to seek en underlying land use which would be
consistent with the City's General Plan, or they could make en application to the City for a General Plan
amendment. And the PC Zone is being applied as a prezoning to the parcels noted in orange upon the screen
Minu~es
April 30, 1996
Page 17
[referring to the viewgraph being shown to the Councilmembers and public]--the Southwest Corner, the Dauz-
Groman-Ross~Gerhardt pieces, the EastLake land swap parcel, and the area known as the inverted "L" (the Watson
and Clarkson properties). In addition to this, we have created what is called the Public/Quasi-Public Zone, this was
originally intended to be applied to the Otay Landfill, but with the problems associated with that and the de-
annexation it now will be applied only to the San Diego Water Reservoir parcel and the Otay Water District parcels.
This particular PQ Zone that we call in the Amendment to the PC Zone should be noted are applicable Citywide.
The PQ Zone is intended for small parcels under maintenance or ownership by public or quasi-public agencies.
Just to go back to the prezoning of the parcels, as I have indicated, the PC Zone is being applied to the parcels
noted in orange [again referring to the viewgraph being shown]. Two of them were problematic parcels with the
prezoning on the rock quarry parcel, which is noted in green [referring to the viewgraph]. This is proposed to be
prezoned A8, which is one of our agricultural zones. This is an existing rock quarry within the County of San
Diego. It has been in operation for approximately 40 years, since the mid-1950s. It is currently what is known
as a vested non-conforming, but legal land use within the County. We have zoned it A8 and have taken the position
that they would be considered a legal, non-conforming use once annexed into the City. They would be allowed to
continue operating, but if they were to increase or expand their use or change it, they would be required to apply
to the City of Chnla Vista for a major use permit. The second of the more problematic pieces that we are annexing
is the area known as the Southwest Corner. This is surrounded by the City of San Diego to the south and also the
west. It is an area which the City of Chula Vista's General Plan designates as Open Space. We were thus
constrained by that Open Space designation what we could prezone it. We have chosen to prezone it, we had
basically two choices--the Planned Community Zone or one of the Agricultural Zones. We felt the Planned
Community Zone would give them more flexibility, give those owners more flexibility in what they could.
Currently, there is a group of parcels--these are owned by several different land owners. The shaded areas
[referring to another viewgraph placed on the screen], the areas in blue and green are two particular land owners
that each own three of the five acre parcels. The parcel colored in blue currently has grading operations which are
going on the site and we understand from the County of San Diego that they do have a valid Grading Permit on file.
The green parcels, a somewhat different situation, there is an active trucking operation that is in existence and we
have not been able to verify the fact that this particular business has a valid permit or is legal to operate. In this
case, we have indicated to the owners of those properties who wish to pursue an Industrial designation that we
would be willing again to look at the possibility of pursuing a General Plan amendment in order to allow them to
continue on with their industrial use. That concludes the presentation on the Prezonings and the Plan Amendments.
I might also mention that we have done seven General Development Plan amendments with the SPA 1. The staff,
the applicant, and the Planning Commission is in agreement on six of those. The one where we have some points
of disagreement deals with planning the Villages as a unit. The applicant is proposing that the eastern urban center,
the area that is designated Freeway/Commercial, they are proposing that this be allowed to be planned on its own.
The staff have some difficulty with that because the broad use of the language that the applicant is proposing. That
concludes staffs presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Member Alevy: Just two real quick questions if I could, related to the PQ Zones. The Public/Quasi-Public Zones
noted for public agencies and that sort of thing and I noticed the two you pointed out were two separate water
facilities. Is there any sort of notation as to whether any consideration has been made for access to those: pipe
access, aqueduct--potentially for the future, no prezoning necessary for that sort of thing?
Ms. Luttrell: No. I do not believe so.
Member Alevy: And these are only the areas that are not part of the Otay Ranch?
]Ms. Luttrelh That is correct. Not part of the Otay Ranch but surrounded by the Ranch and not owned by The
Baldwin Company.
Member Alevy: So then.
Ms. Luttrelh But, however, the PQ Zone would apply Citywide. It is an amendment to the City's Municipal
Code. So it would have Citywide ramifications, although we are only applying it in these two instances.
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 18
Minnber Alevy: So, it is not related strictly to the Otay Ranch development.
Ms. Luttrell: That is correct.
Member Alevy: I noticed also that school district, as well as the utility companies, are involved in that zoning.
Ms. Luttrell: Yes.
Member Alevy: So, would that be for actual school sites or corporate yard type activities?
Ms. Luttre!l: There is that possibility; however, with the particular Otay Ranch SPA One we have allowed schools
to locate in the Residential Zones. It could be used for schools in the future. That is a possibility.
Member Alevy: Thank you.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: The property in the Southwest Comer has been somewhat problematic with respect to the
annexation, because I understand one of the Conditions that LAFCO looks at is the position of the property owners
and whether they agree to annexation or not. The one property in which the grading is going on, have you been
able to determine what the property is being graded for?
Ms. Luttrell: The property is currently zoned for Agriculture, so we can only assume that that is what the grading
is intended for.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Do we have any reason to believe that they are grading for something other than
agriculture?
Ms. Luttrel!: In meetings with those particular property owners, they have expressed a desire to be able to use
their land for industrial purposes. So you might draw that conclusion as that was what they were hoping to grade
the land for in the future.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Rather large plows they were us'rag.
Mr. Jamfish: Deputy Mayor, I might also just add, to bring you up-to-date on what happened this morning at
the Board of Supervisors. Representatives of these two properties spoke at the Board of Supervisors and asked that
the City and/or the County assist them in amending the General Plan of the City and/or the County to facilitate an
Industrial Zoning designation on those properties. They [Board of Supervisors] directed the County staff to work
with these property owners to see what they could do to assist them In achieving that. It has always been the City
staff's position that we, too, would like to assist them in facilitating the processing of a General Plan amendment
and a new Zone classification. To accomplish that, though, would require a separate environmental review along
with a separate timeline, totally separated and isolated from this timeline and process that we are going on. I think
that is what we are going to try and discuss more in detail when the County implements the Board's direction. We
will be participating in those discussions. Again, just to bring you up-to-date on what the Board did this morning.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: What is the effect if that property is included in the area to be annexed--then we will have,
after that point in time land use authority over that property?
Mr. Jam~ska: Yes sir.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: If we fail to annex then, I take it that would be an issue between the County and them as
to whether that is Industrial, Open Space, [inaudible] whatever.
Mr. Janiriska: Yes, that is correct. What happened back in 1989 when the City and County began processing
of the General Development Plan and SRP for the entire Ranch, the property owners attempted to change the
General Plan designation in the County at that time. They were informed by County staff to wait until the Plan was
further along and they may be included into that process. Well, the Interjurisdictional Task Force, at that time,
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 19
made a policy decision and directed staff not to include any non-Otay Ranch properties into this process. That
included EastLake, Sunbow, as well as all these other property owners. So they were excluded from participating
in that process by that decision. I think the property owners here tonight will testify that they were indeed frustrated
by that action and they still endeavor to put their proparty to a higher and better use. And, ~o that is where we are
right now; kind of like they are caught in the middle between the City and the County--two different processes at
this time.
Mayor Pro Te~n Moot: Okay. Are there any members from the public who would like to speak on the Code
Amendments and Annexation Prezoning? Please state your name and your address and we will limit your comments
to three minutes.
Abel Parra, 845 East 8 Street, National City, CA: I represent Ernie Hoefer, one of the property owners of the
Southwest Comer and also Bums of Burns & Sons. Our situation has been well described by Mr. Jamriska and
we would like to add that we would like to work with his staff, and of course, with the City to try to alleviate the
problem that presently exist for these property owners. In our case, if they wanted to continue to be out of the,
let' s say, outlaws as such, but they have tried to change the General Plan Amendment while in the County to a land
use designation that would be more suitable for their purposes. However, as Mr. Jarariska explained to you, it has
been a time consuming situation and now we are caught between the City and the County without any recourse other
than this hearings, and what we would like to do, we would like to go ahead and continue to work with your staff.
We seem to be making some progress toward getting those land use designations changed. We would like to make
those attempts, continue to make them I should say, and hopefully we will come up something that we can live with.
Really and truly I do not think it matters any to the owners or to the quarry operator whether they are in the City
of Chnia Vista or the County of San Diego as long as they are able to continue their operations and do so legally.
So, we are trying to work with the City.
Mayor Pro Tan Moot: Thank you and we appreciate your willingness to work with our staff. Are there any other
people that would like to speak on the Code Annexation, I mean the Code Amendments and Annexation Rezoning?
Again, please state your name and address for the Clerk.
Jack Burns, P.O. 93, Jamul, CA: I own three of those parcels or, my wife and I own three of those parcels.
Abel Parra said mostly what we want to say, but I just wanted back it up with my own words. My wife and I
bought the property in 1985 with the intent of some day being able to put our tracking business there. We bought
canyons, therefore we bought the property at a low price. In 1989 we got a Grading Permit and we have had an
on-going Grading Permit since 1989. It cost us, we had to put up a $360,000 bond for the grading to import
400,000 yards of dirt. We have imported about 200,000 yards of it, so we are about halfway done. The Grading
Permit is a Control Grading Permit. It is stated right on the Permit that, in other words when the grading is done
the property will be able to have a building on it, which is 15 acres and we are grading three quarters of it. That
is a little bigger than an agriculture type building. So I think that the County knew our intention, it's just that we
have not been able to get it done and if you guys annex us and down-zone ns, we would have to go to a lot of
expense that we obviously cannot afford to get a General Plan Amendment. So we were hoping, some way, to get
the City to be able to bend the rules or change something that we could slide in with the Otay General Plan. And,
if you are talking about, I think I overhead Jerry saying, excuse me for calling him Jerry, Mr. Jam. fiska, something
about with the Otay Landfill, maybe they are going to change the General Plan if you make a deal with the County
maybe we could get in on that change. It is just a thought. I just thought of it while we were talking here.
Anyway, that is my two cents. Thank you.
Member Alevy: Is there any kind of a grandfathering clause, or anything like that. Mr. Bums has obviously had
an operation there for some time and plans have been permitted and done everything properly. Is there any kind
of plan in place that would grandfather that sort of use without necessitating a long application process and undue
expense?
Mr. Jamriska: Councilman Alevy, as it relates to these two properties---or all the properties in the Southwest
Corner--I would say no, there is no grandfathering possible, primarily because they do not have a Use that is
currently permitted in the County as bast as we can tell at this time. We have asked the County staff, on several
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 20
occasions, to supply us with information relating to any major Use Permits and a Grading Permit, any Building
Permits, and they have not been able to find that information. In fact, I have a letter from them stating that in
essence. As it relates to the rock quarry, that is indeed a different subject in the sense that they would, indeed, be
grandfathered and be a legal Non-Conforming Use--for several reasons. One, they have a legal Reclamation Plan
approved by the County of San Diego. They do not have a major Use Permit because they were primarily in
operation before the County required such a thing so they accepted a legal Non-Conforming status in the County.
Upon annexation, that legal Non-Conforming status would continue for the rock quarry because we have seen, we
have in our possession, maps to show that designation permitted by the County. That is not the cas~ in the
Southwest Comer. So, the Southwest Comer would not receive the legal Non-Conforming status. In fact, it would
be illegally Non-Conforming. Now, what we will be encouraging them to do upon annexation is either to petition
the Council, which I think they would like to do to seek the City to initiate a General Plan and Rezoning
Amendment on their properties or what we would like to do is ask them to apply for it and pay for that process.
But again, I do believe they prefer the former instead of the latter and they will probably be making that request
before the City Council upon annexation.
Member Alevy: Well, is the current use of the property legitimate, legal according to the County?
Mr. Jamriska: No, it is not.
Member Alevy: Okay.
Mr. Jamfish: As Mr. Hoefer said that he does have, well, he did not say it but there is a trucking operation on
the upper three parcels of the land that the County has been unable to supply us any information relating a properly
issue Permit for a trucking operation or trucking repair. And se, lacking any other substantial evidence, one can
almost come to the conclusion that it is not a permitted use within the County. The County will not follow up on
that unless we file a specific complaint with them. And we have not done so because, if indeed found to be not
in conform0nce with the Zoning Code of San Diego County, then certain enforcement actions would take place, and
I think that it would be better in the applicants' position to wait until that property is annexed to the City and then
apply for proper changes of plan. Because where the property is situated, its relationship to the City of San Diego,
the topography, it almost lends itself to an Industrial designation. But at this time our current City General Plan
designates that as Open Space and we were limited by what we could do in terms of prezoning that parcel. So as
Beverly [Luttrell] mentioned earlier, that is best thought that it be zoned PC with an Open Space General Plan
designation like we have fight now and encourage the applicants to apply for a change to those two things.
Member A!evy: But those parcels and those land uses that are legitimate at this point, that are permitted properly
at this point, will be grandfathered under the annexation.
Mr. Jamriska: Yes.
Member Alevy: Thank you.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Why don't we move on since it is going to be a late evening as it is. We have several
items still to get through to tonight that we have devoted significant thne to. Item 6 will be the SPA One Plan.
SPA ONE PLAN
A. Plan Presentation
B. SPA One Phasing
1. PFFP TransDlF Funding
2. Trigger Points Established
3. Multiple Ownership Condition
4. SPA One Phasing
C. Circulation Issues
1. Access to EastLake Parkway
2. SR 125 Over-crossing Financing
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 21
3. Access to Triangular Property
SPA One Issues
1. Small Park Credit/Criteria
2. Timing of Credit for Neighborhood Parks
3. Gated Communities
Mr. Jarnriska: Yes, and now we get to the real meat of the matter and the SPA One Plan is what it is all about
and this time I would like to cell upon Rick Rosaler who will make those presentations.
Mr. Rosaler: Deputy Mayor and Council Members, Village 1 and Village 5 of the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan make up the first two villages of SPA One. Those two Villages are located here [referring to
the viewgraph being shown], south of Telegraph Canyon Road, the extension of Otay Lakes Road which becomes
La Media on the project, and that will become important later, and the extension of Paseo Ranchero and then
Orange Avenue as it crosses the southern boundary. Village 1 is loca~l in this area [again, referring to the
viewgraph], Village 5 is located here [referring to the viewgraph], and this area in part of Village 1 is called the
area that is west of Paseo Ranchero, we ceme up with a real innovative name for it. It has particular problems in
that it relates morn to the Sunbow project over hem as to topography and public services. It is separated from
Village I by a major arterial. One of the General Plan Development amendments that is being proposed is to amend
the requirement in the GDP that says that our villages must be master planned as a unit. This area [pointing to the
viewgraph] under the policies that are being recommended to you by the staff and the Planning Commission, this
area will develop under its own SPA at a future date. Both of these Villages are transit villages, that means they
are served by the transit lines. On the map it comes through Village 1 here, turns in Village 5 and heads down to
Village 6, then crosses over to the Freeway Commercial area and down into the eastern urban center down into
Village 9, and then follows SR-125 alignment down to Otay Mesa. It will come in and then loop back over to I-5
and 1-805 to complete that South Bay loop. Being a transit village is real key because this was the driving point
that affected the design of the SPA. One of the other General Development Plan amendments that is being proposed
to you tonight is the alignment of the transit as it goes through Village 1. Under the old plan, this transit corridor
came on out Telegraph Canyon and then came up this valley in Village 1 and into the Village core. In working with
the Metropolitan Transit Development Company and getting their specifications for that transit line, we soon
discovered we were not going to be able to go up that slope with the trolley, so we had to back up down Telegraph
Canyon and approach with the trolley line in this alignment and three different alignments were assessed in the
Environmental Impact Report. This one brings it up through a valley in the area west of Paseo Panchero along the
future alignment of Palomar and then through Village 1. We had planned on making the multi-media presentation
to you tonight so you'll bear with us as some of our media has changed here with the change to the Council
Chambers [referring to moving the meeting from Conference Rooms 2 and 3 to the Council Chambers due to the
large number of people in attendance]. This is the SPA Plan that has been developed in conjunction with Village
development. It has been reviewed by your staff, both at the technical and Policy Committee level as Jerry
[Jamriska] indicated. They are both transit Villages as we indicated. The transit line tuns in Palomar. After
reviewing several different locations and alignments for trolley station, it was detern~ined that the center B~nning
medians type of alignment through the two Villages was best due to lights and gates and bells and whistles that are
required by the Public Utilities Commission for that trolley alignment. So even though the trolley alignment clearly
is not funded, and probably will not be built for another 10 to 15 years from what we can currently determine, that
was the driving force behind the design of the two Villages. In Village 1, the transit station is located here
[referring to viewgraph being shown] in the Village core. We have two commercial areas, we have approximately
11 acres of commercial planned; it is planned using the Main Street theme which will provide for commercial uses
right up adjacent to this street with some parking in the back. Across the street is an 11 acre neighborhood park.
And that becomes the focus point of the neighborhood. If you note, all our access roads radiate out from that point.
So the Main Street and this part become the Village focus. Around the transit station within one-quarter mile, the
GDP requires that two-thirds of the population of the Village be located. So most everything in this area is multi-
family. Multi-family ranges in densities from 8.9 dwelling units to 34 dwelling units with an average of 18 dwelling
units per acre as was requested by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board during the GDP Hearings. The
Village core also contains community purpose facility sites which are in blue [shown on the viewgraph]--it contains
our school site. We worked closely with both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union
High School District and the design and timing of the location of both the elementary and high school sites. The
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 22
School District asked that the school sites not be located off of the trolley line and yet somewhat centrally located
in the Village. And I think when you take a look at the dark green area you will see that within the area of Village
I there is the school sites somewhat centrally located. We have, in the outlying areas, in yellow, is the single-
family. The different shades represent varying densities of single-family. Their densities range from about four
dwelling units per acre to seven dwelling units per acre. The area west of Paseo Ranchero, which is this area over
here, you will see that we have a third school site that is going to locate there some day when this area does its own
Specific Plan. Inside SPA One there are a whole set of policies that deal with the development of this area. Mainly
because we have several out parcels that are not owned by Village Development. We are looking for that area to
be master planned as a unit, so that those properties are dealt with fairly and equitably. Focusing on the Village
core, are promenade streets. These are streets, on our cross-sections and plans view of the streets here, you will
see that we have a double row of trees down one side with the six-foot sidewalk separated from the street by a
parkway. We have pedestrian parks that are located out in the single-family neighborhoods. These two Villages
are what we are calling over parked. The two neighborhood parks, the 11 acre and the 7 acre park here, satisfy
the park requirement for the entire Village. These are extra parks. There are issues involved with those that you
will hear about during the Public Hearing. Pedestrian accesses are provided from Village to Village by a bridge,
here, and then we have also planned for accesses to the Regional Trail system that runs along Telegraph Canyon.
One minor change in the Plan that has occurred since this Plan was developed is of the location--a concern of staff
where the relatively lack of park acreage in the northeastern portion of Village 1. We have worked on several
different alternatives for a park location and what we have determined, and the Policy Committee has agreed, is
that this 7 acre park ought to be located just to the north, here, putting it in closer proximity to the single-family
neighborhoods on the eastern side. Village 5 changes to the Town Square concept. As we said, the trolley line
runs along the median, it crosses over La Media, it will cross over in a bridge and come into the center of Village
5. This location of the Village core of Village 5 was somewhat controlled by the requirement that the trolley leave
Village 5 and head south into Village 6. So the location of the trolley exiting Village 5 was a controlling factor;
its entering point was a controlling factor. So this location of the core is somewhat constrained by those two
factors. We have the Town Square, which is approximately a one-acre site with a town park. The trolley station
stops here. It is surrounded on two sides by commercial. This is only about three acres of commercial because
we felt due to the location of the EastLake Shopping Center that there would not be as much as much commercial
demand for this neighborhood because it would be serviced by the existing shopping center. So its less than the
10 acres over in Village 1 where we anticipated a grocery store location. Once again, we have our CPF uses
surrounding it. Village 5 also has a requirement to satisfy the Telegraph Canyon Estates requirement for CPF uses,
so there are a bit more acreage devoted to that in this Village. Once again, it is surrounded by the multi-family,
their variety of acres is multi-family projects and then the densities fade off into the single-family areas to the north.
Again, the school is somewhat centrally located; it is adjacent to the park, but it is separated by a Paseo that rims
up to the neighborhood parks on the north side of the Village. There is also a Paseo that comes over and connects
to these promenade streets that service the eastern side of Village 5. As the project was going through the review
process, staff determined that four access points into Village 5 were necessary. Village Development went along
with that, but they have recently reconsidered this access point that would cross SR-125 and connect with EastLake
Parkway. The plannlng Commission, in reviewing the project last week, agreed with them and this access is going
to be recommended to you by them as a pedestrian/bicycle access only; that the right-of-way for a street be
preserved for some time in the filmre if it is needed. But the three access points, according to the traffic study will
satisfy that demand. The other major issues that are involved in SPA One is its phasing. Currently, Village
Development is proposing that both Villages start their single-family portion at the same time and Phase 1A, here,
and Phase 1B, here. Staff has reviewed both of these, this phasing plan, and has come up with trigger points and
requirements for public facilities based on this. The Public Facilities Finance Plan is based on this phasing pattern
and allows for a pedestrian park in 1A to start the park acreage better and it also allows for a 500-unit deficit at
which time they have to build a neighborhood park and we believe in Phase 2A the neighborhood park ought to be
provided because the school districts said that they would prefer to build the school in Village 1 in Phase 1B. So,
we felt that in the initial phases the large open space areas that would allow for recreational uses should be split up
between the two Villages. One of the concerns that both the Planning Commission and staff had was that with the
initial start of single-family, the key feature of the two Villages--the Village core were being ignored and so we have
come up with Conditions of Approval that will require them at 1400 units, which is the end of 2B, to do a report
m the Cunncil that starts at 1150 and will be completed by 1400. That report to you will identify which arterial
street is to b~ extended to 1-805. At 1400 units Telegraph Canyon Road reaches its capacity and either Palomar
or Orange need to be extended to 1-805 to provide adequate capacity. The High School District has indicated to
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 23
us that the high school is going to be nep_Agd sooner than later in the development process as has the Parks and
Recreation Director asked for the phasing of the community park to be accelerated in the development of the Ranch.
So we are asking, as part of this report, that the high school site and the Community park site be located. Also,
we are asking that they identify which Village should be encouraged to complete, prior to the development of the
other Village. We are asking for them to identify how it can be accelerated and we are also asking them to identify
the affordable housing requirement. Now the Conditions of Approval give the Council the authority to stop Building
Permits in a Village if you so deem. It gives you a wide range of latitude up to and including stopping issuing
Building Permits in one Village until the other Village is built out. We see this as a real key component. The
Village coneapt is real key to the Otay Ranch and we believe that one Village ought to be coneantrated on before
we start developing in other Villages.
Member Alevy: Does that mean before we move on to another Village, another Phase as it were, that we will
make sure that the Thresholds that have been established by Growth Management Oversight Committee and that
are a big part of our overall City, will always be maintained before you move on to the next phase?
Mr. Rosaler: Growth Management Threshold Standards are a big part of those Conditions and yes sir, we will
ensure that those Standards are maintained.
Member A!evy: Thank you.
Mr. Rosaler: Ah. [inaudible] on the action on phasing. The planning Commission, last week, indicated that they
were not satisfied with this phasing. They have asked us to sit down with Village Development and the West Coast
Land Fund, who may or may not take control of this portion of SPA One and see if we couldn't come up with the
Phasing Plan that was acceptable to all three parties. We met a week ago Thursday and were not able to reach that
conelnsion. However, West Coast Land Fund has indicated that they think, they believe, that Village 1 should
develop first and that the first Phase ought to be over here in what is currently called 2B. Those are going back
to the planning Commission toarorrow night and they will make the recommendation to you. We have also looked
at three alternatives, what would happen if all the development was focused Village 5 and we came in off La Media,
here, into the Village core, and up from Telegraph Canyon. We have looked at what happens if you come in off
La Media and do development on both sides. And then we have also looked at what happens if you come in off
Paseo Ranchero and start this as the initial phase. And we will have the report to you on the 14th [May] on the
Planning Commlssion's actions. Anything else?
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: I'm sorry, could you just explain to me the rationale for phasing 2B first.
Mr. Rosaler: Number 1, West Coast Land Fund believes that Village I ought to be the focus of the development.
Several of the Planning Commissioners felt that the development, since the development was further out on
EastLake, that development ought to star on the west side of the Project and work East to meet that, as one
alternative.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: Is there any other rationale?
Mr. Rosaler: Just that these were closer to existing facilities along Telegraph [Canyon Road] and 1-805.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: There is a lot of development that is very much east of 2B.
Mr. Rosaler: That is correct.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Its all EastLake Greens.
Mr. Rosaler: Yes. And that was one of the reasons that The Baldwin Company started, here, with Phase 1A, on
that end--it was closer to existing development, there is the shopping center out there and other [inaudible] services.
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 24
Mr. Jamfish: Deputy Mayor Moot, that is our presentation on SPA One. We are prepared to answer any
questions that you might have.
Mayor Pro Teln Moot: That is the question. Are there any Members of the Council that have questions for staff
before I open it up for public comments? Axe there any members of the public or interested applicants who would
like to speak to the SPA One Plan? Nobody? You are going to save it all up for the 14th [May] and keep us here
until midnight?
Mike Woodward, 555 South Flower, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA: Here representing West Coast Land Fund.
I will come back to answer your questions in just a minute. But, as the prior speaker, Rick, indicated, West Coast
has collateral for a loan that Tiger Development II had of approximately 1000 acres, which is right in the middle
of SPA One. The two diagonal lines, as Jerry's [Jamfish] indicating, they are on the left and on the fight
[referring to the viewgraph], roughly show the boundaries in SPA One. The area then goes much further down into
the heart of your Plan. That collateral that is the collateral of Wast Coast loan. The loan is in default as of
September. Foreclosure action was scheduled in February of this year. That was Stayed at the eleventh by an
involuntary bankruptcy filing by the Civil Engineers and other consultants that are working on this Plan for Village
Development. We have agree with The Baldwin Company to move that bankruptcy action down here to San Diego
as opposed to Santa Barbara and Orange County where it was filed. We believe that the automatic Stay that
normally applies to bankruptcy action applies in this case to prevent the City from taking a final action which will
affect that land because it affects the collateral of Tiger Development II. I understand the Council has taken an
action to instruct the City Attorney to seek relief from the Stay as they have done in other areas of the planning
effort here for sewer lines and whatnot and we would urge you to follow through on that. Our concerns with SPA
One, pending the relief from Stay, and assuming that we have foreclosed on the property and become the owner
of it, with respect to the phasing plan here, beginning at the outside and coming to the center of the land seems to
be designed more to accommodate Baldwin's economic difficulties. It allows them to sell off large superblocks and
defer a lot of the infrastructure. That was one of the comments that the Planning Commissioners made the other
night. We have proposed, instead, as staff indicated, perhaps starting at SPA One-I'm sorry, in Village 1--you
are going to have the school, you are going to have the affordable housing done there, and the West Coast portion
of SPA One--if they become the owner--is single-family, it runs along La Media, there is not much contention that
we have with the proposed land uses there. On the other hand, with respect to Village 5, we do have some
concerns over the proposed land uses. As we have seen the evolution of the SPA One Plan and the Village 5 Plan,
most of the multi-family lands seems to have been moved onto the West Coast collateral; most of the community
purpose facility land has been moved onto the West Coast collateral, the school site has been moved onto the West
Coast collateral, and the-shall we say, more desirable--s'mgle-family areas have been moved off onto The Baldwin
acreage, represented by areas 2A and 1A. It seems this disparate treatment is something we would like the City
to take another look at. We feel a little frustrated now because our hands are tied, because we can't become the
owner because of the automatic Stay of the bankruptcy action; nevertheless, the City or it seems to be until you
instruct the City Attorney the other day, bound and determined to move forward on this. We know it is a
significant Plan, we would like to participate, we are fully prepared to participate with both feet here, etc. We have
met with the staff in January of this year to get up to speed and then, unfortunately, the bankcruptcy action happened.
I have some comments about the Resource Management Plan, if you would want to hear them, at a later time.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: A couple of quick questions for you. Your entity is West Coast Land Fund?
Mr. Woodward: It's a partnership that includes the FDIC and some private funds, or individuals. I am not sure
of the exact components, that became the successor to the, purchased the loan that the RTC had which was
ultimately the bank before the RTC took over on this particular property. So its the ownership entity that owns the
loan that's Tiger Development II, one of The Baldwin affiliates has here on the property.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Do you do any planning or land development or is it purely an investment fund that
acquired an asset?
Mr. Woodward: It's an investment fund that acquired the asset. They would hope to have a developer interested
and acquire the property to then market it to a local development company here. But we are not in that position.
Minute~
April 30, 1996
Page 25
Mayor Pro Tlan Moot: Have you gone ahead and sought any injunctive relief from the bankruptcy court to assert
your position that we should not continue planning this area during the pendency of the bankruptcy?
Mr. Woodward: No, we believe the automatic Stay accomplishes that. We have sent numerous letters to the City
and even to the County informing them of the bankruptcy, informing them of the status of the proceedings, and
finally, the movement down here to San Diego. Because that final action hasn't occurred yet. So far the Planning
Commission has been doing studies, discussions, recommendations, actions. The Council hasn't acted yet. But
I can see from the time schedule that you were talking about earlier that's coming.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Will you be supporting or opposing the Stay?
Mr. Woodward: Right now, we are supporting the Stay.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: So you want us to stop planning? You will be asking the bankruptcy court to have the
City of Chula Vista stop planning this area?
Mr. Woodward: Until we become the owner; to allow us to become the owner. Right now, you have a policy,
as I understand, that the whole SPA One and the GDP should be developed under a unified ownership, unified
control. We submit, that is sort of a fiction, in that a large chunk right out of the middle of the SPA and the larger
Planning area is going to be, we believe, in a different ownership very soon; and also, we understand from other
people that we heard talking to the County that the ownership structure of the whole GDP area, there, seems to be
breaking up. Frankly, what surfaced our concern was the Resource Management Plan. We don't know where
Tiger Development has the 1000 acres of habitat land, sensitive habitat land, that the Rasourc~ Management Plan
talks about being conveyed. It's not there. There are no sensitive resources on that land.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: I did not mean to get sidetracked, I was just trying to get some idea how long West Coast
Land [Fund] is suggesting that we stop planning; when will the banknaptcy be concluded?; how long do you propose
that the City of Chula Vista just put everything on hold and wait for the bankruptcy court to do whatever it's going
to do. Are we talking about a year, two years?
Mr. Woodward: I think it would be more a matter of months. Not being a bankruptcy attorney it is hard for me
to say; say two to four months. As it is, we are the ones who have moved the matter along and have moved it,
in fact, with Baldwin's concurrence, down to San Diego here. We are making it more convenient.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Unfortunately, I am an attorney, and very little happens in these type of things in that
timeframe. But I appreciate your input, thank you. I wish I could be as optimistic on time schedules. Are there
any other applicants or members of the public who would like to speak on the SPA One Plan.
Kim Kilkenny, The Baldwin Company-Village Development, 11975 El Camino Real, Suite 200, San Diego,
CA 92130: It is not my intention to get into an extensive discussion in response to the prior speaker's comments.
However, let me just make a couple of observations. We are of the firm opinion that the Stay that was discussed
does not apply to this action. That opinion was shared by the County of San Diego when West Coast Land Fund
requested that they stay actions on the Resource Management Plan, the overall Design Plan, and a variety of other
issues when they hired Special Counsel that came to the same conclusion that we have come to. So we are strongly
of the opinion the Stay does not apply and secondly, with the oblique references to the ownership of Otay Ranch
breaking up, that is not the case. We are working to get th~s Plan approved so that we can be annexed to the City
of Chula Vista; and after seven and one-half years of planning begin to put a shovel in the ground, sell some lots,
generate some cash to take care of our obligations. I will, in the interest of time, provide each of you a copy of
a letter that I wrote to the planning Commission which addresses many of the ownership issues and the issues raised
by West Coast Land [Fund]. Obviously, if there are any questions, we will be happy to try and answer them.
Thank you.
Minutes
April 210, 1996
Page 26
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: I see the Mayor is here, but until she takes the dias I will go ahead and proceed. Are
there any other applicants or interested members of the public who would like to speak on the SPA One Plan issues?
Okay, then we will move on to Item 7 on the Workshop Agenda.
[inaudible]
Mayor Pro Tei~a Moot: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, we did not do it all at once. Okay, we were breaking it up, so
we'll do the Circulation issues [6.C.].
Mr. Jamrisks: Again, we would like to do in again in the sense of time, is bypass Circulation issues. While there
are certain points of contention between the City and the Applicant and adjacent property owners, I think we would
to just defer those. They are not major issues. I think they can be resolved very quickly when we present them
on the 14th [May]. But one of the major issues that I would like to talk about tonight is the Gated Commuuity
issue. The Baldwin Company applied, and almost amended their SPA One Application to provide for the use of
gated communities within the Otay Ranch SPA One Project. When this application was received we presented, of
course, again, as I said earlier, through the process to the Technical Committee and there was a great deal of
discussion and basically we felt that this was such a major consequence that it could be potentially applicable to
other projects within the City. We transmitted this to the Executive Commitlee. The Executive Committee directed
the Project Team staff to look at and develop a Citywide Position Paper on the use of gated communities throughout
the City of Chula Vista. That report is still in the process. The Executive Committee has not come to a final
conclusion on that. But one of the key components of that document is suggesting certain criteria be utilized. While
that process is on a separate track, for the Citywide Gated Community Policy Paper, we had to make decisions and
take actions and recommendations as relates to the Gated Community concept for the Otay Ranch Project. At this
time to explain a little bit more in detail about both of those processes, Julia Matthews, the other Planner for the
Otay Ranch Project Teem. Julia.
Julia Matthews: Mayor, Members of the City Council. As Jerry [Jamrisks] mentioned we began developing the
Policy Paper on direction of the Policy Committee on this issue. We took a Citywide approach, a general approach
to begin with and basically analyzed seven areas related to gated communities. We looked at pros and cons, really,
with the proposal, gathered data in a traditional research fashion. And, basically what I want to tell you about that
data is that it is very subjective, it is not very concrete. When you look at the issue of safety, for example, there
is not a lot of police information that will tell you gated communities will produce safer neighborhoods. There is
not that kind of statistical information out there at the moment. We did try and gather as much information as we
could, but a hit of it is anecdotal at this time. So I just want to walk through some of the areas that we did look
at and, again, we looked at the pros and the cons. We looked at exclusivity versus community. Looking to see
if gated communities increased neighborhood interaction or do they cause segregation in a community. We looked
at demand and property values. Are gated communities desirable right now. Is there a demand in the housing
market for them. Do they increase property values and do they help homes hold their property values. In that area,
some of our conclusions, again, they were anecdotal, was that there is a demand right now. There is a lot of gated
communities, especially in Southern California that are being proposed and they do seem to hold their property
values in a shaky real estate market a little bit better, in some instances than other communities. Again, the
evidence was largely anecdotal. In terms of security and defensible space, we looked at the issue, the police issue,
are these neighborhoods safer; can we show statistics, or bring forward statistics verified by a police department
that say, yes, we can give you lower crime rates if you put up gates. That information really isn't available. We
had two anecdotal instances where, in one instance, a community did have lower crime rates when they put up
gates; and, unfortunately on another instance, a community set up gates, residents felt more safe, weren't as
conscientious about locking their windows, weren't as conscientious about locking their doors, and unfortunately
after 18 months they saw their crime rates increase. So gates don't necessarily ensure lower crime rates. We also
looked at traffic and circulation issues. One reason for proposing gates is to make neighborhood roads safer for
children, to slow down traffic, and to monitor that traffic, make the neighbors a litfie bit more familiar with the ears
that are driving through, to make it a little bit easier for neighbors to spot cars that aren't typically seen on their
roads, which would be a safety concern. We also looked at emergency access and discussed this issue with the
Police and Fire departments in Chula Vista and also looked at experiences from other outside agencies. Systems
exist right now, 0pticom, Nox-box switches, Nox-box Q carding, that allow paramedics, fire departments, and
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 27
police departments to access gates relatively easily without a major d~crease in their response times. Sometimes
there is a decrease but it is difficult to tell what that decrease in response times is a statistical aberration or if there
is an actual problem because of the gates in those emergency vehicles accessing those communities. So those are
the seven issues we analyzed and from those discussions we developed a set of criteria. That criteria is before you
and analyzed against the SPA One Plan on Item 6.B. I think we went through each criteria step-by-step, analyzed
the SPA One proposal against each criteria and came with conclusions. In general, the criteria, the SPA Plan
against the criteria, showing that they are pretty much in conforms. ace with this draft criteria, if the City were to
adopt it. And I must reiterate that it is draft right now, that it is being worked on, but the SPA Plan was generally
in conforms. ace with that. The issue of numbers, and just to go back a bit, this diagram shows the SPA One
proposal. There are four gates in Village 1 and there are four gates proposed in Village 5. My overhead
[viewgraph] does not show the last gate which connects with St. Claire, you can see it-at least the access road
[inaudible] diagram. The total number of dwelling units that are proposed to be created in Village 1 is 1036 single-
family homes, and these numbers are out of the SPA document at the Tentative Map level, they may change. But
on the SPA level there are 1036 single-family homes in Village 1 proposed to be behind gates; in Village 5 that
number is 1266 single-family homes, 439 multi-family homes. Given that number, the planning Commission was
a little concerned with the number of homes behind gates and their direction to staff, or their recommendation, given
the SPA One Proposal, was to tentatively deny the Plan as proposed. They were uncomfortable with that number
of gates, in general, and that was the direction they came back with. If there is any questions I am certainly willing
to answer them, but that concludes my presentation.
John Goss: I would just like to add one other thing to it, and that is, as was mentioned this is a preliminary
suggestion for criteria and, I think, having reviewed these reports as they have been coming along, I believe that
there is really a lot more research that needs to be gamered from actual experiences, you know, especially in this
County. Because I think there is a lot of information that can be developed that would be useful in making the
policy decision regarding gated communities. I think our staff is collected some preliminary information, but I think
there is more detail information that is out there that would be useful in terms of evaluating this particular issue.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: I recall listening to the radio that this has been an issue that the City of San Diego has
tackled and I also thought I remembered even heating a national radio broadcast touching on the same issue that
even discussed gated communities in Orange County and even all across the country. Have you incorporated their
research on these areas in it as well.
Ms. Matthews: Yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: Has the City of San Diego come up with any conclusions or are they still basically at the
stage we're at?
Ms. Matthews: They have brought their papers, I've received a draft as has other members of staff received their
staff papers that they have prepared for Planning Commission. Planning Commission has reviewed it and continued
it, and reviewed it again and after speaking with [inaudible]. To give you some history and background about San
Diego, they had a policy to deny or prohibit gated communities in San Diego as of, I believe, 1990 or 1989. So
they are now revisiting the issue to allow more flexibility. So they are coming from a slightly different point of
view, but in general, the way their criteria is written is gated communities should be, and I am really paraphrasing,
but them should be a last resort and that you have to have very substantial proof as to why a gated community
would be needed before you can propose gates. You have to look at all of the alternatives. So they're coming from
the issue from a slightly different direction, they are coming from the point of view where they prohibited it in the
past and now they are trying to open the door a little bit. But they have not yet approved that paper. Planning
Commission, when they last heard the issue, continued the item again.
Member Alevy: Are there any locations here in San Diego County where there are gated communities that perhaps
staff could provide us a list so that; I mean, I am out and about a lot with what I do for a living, and would like
to be able to go by and take a look and observe and formulate an opinion. I know there is a marketability
standpoint that really hasn't been mentioned, you know, and it is one of the considerations. I think we need to take
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 28
a look at those options. So, if staff could provide some location where them are gated communities I'd appreciate
it and maybe go out and take a tirst hand look.
Mr. Goss: To the extent marketability is an issue, you know, clearly, I think I have given you statistics on this
on a broad sense in the past and that is that them seems to be more development in terms of major by assessed
valuation occurring in South Bay and Chula Vista than there has been in the past. We've got a bigger share of the
pie. This might even, you know, enhance that, if that is the goal of the City Council. And, yes I think there are
a number of gated communities, you know, in the City of San Diego and around the County that can be cited as
examples. You know, before we have just been visiting some that I have observed myself and it has been, you
know, its interesting to see the various product types because they are diverse. It's not a gated community and they
are all the same, sort of a cookie cutter approach. At least the ones I have observed and I haven't done it any kind
of systematic way at all, just by general observation, just by happenstance, r~mnlng into gated communities here
and there. They are quite diverse in terms of the way they are designed and the product type, and you know, yes,
I think you can come up with them. That why I have said earlier, I am not sure that the staff, I could be wrong
because I haven't visited this issue as the Executive Committee, you know, for three or four weeks, but it would
seem to me that there--I'm not even sore we have really identified all of them ourselves, but I am sure we can give
you at lea.st a sampling of those that might be available.
Member Alevy: I appreciate that. I know there is a couple within one-half mile of where I live here in Chula
Vista. Those happen to be at higher level valued homes, but there are also other places in Chula Vista--
condominium-type developments that do have them as well.
John Goss: I think compared to Chula Vista, I think you will fred that there may be larger numbers behind gates
than other parts of the City of San Diego and the County.
Ms. Matthews: In the larger draft paper that we've prepared on the Citywide issue, we list City of San Diego and
County of San Diego projects that do exist that are gated. Some of them are 900 units, 600 units in size and then
we do provide a list of the Chula Vista projects--Rancho del Rey Estates, BelMonte that exist and the ones in
EastLake Greens, as well, that exist in Chula Vista. We haven't really looked at condominium or apartment
complexes that are gated. We have really hioked at single-family home, a more traditional, more like what is b(mg
proposed here right now. But if you would like we can get more information on condos.
Member Alevy: Is there a mix of use of multi-family, single-family high/low levels of investment planned for Otay
Ranch, or are they just single-family dwellings?
Ms. Matthews: No. In Village 5 there is multi-family and single-family dwellings proposed and they are proposed
on different lot sizes, so you might get a larger lot single-family, smaller lot single-family, and the multi-family.
Member Alevy: And is there a mirror image ungated, so that there is choices, in other words, are all the homes
set up to be gated or is there some that are gated and some aren't?
Ms. Matthews: In Village 1 there is some, I believe, single-family south of East Palomar Street that will be
ungated and the multi-family south of East Palomar Street will be ungated. Mos~y, you are talking about the
housing project north, the housing product north, of the road that will be gated if you look on that map for
reference. So there is some single-family that is proposed not to be gated.
Member Alevy: So there are choices then?
Ms. Matthews: Yes. There are. Are there any further questions? Thank you.
Mayor Pro Tern Moot: Did you also want to do the Park Credits?
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 29
Mr. Jam~ska: Yes, at this time I would like to call upon Beverly Luttrell. There are two issues, if you recall,
relating to parks. Rick covered those in his presentations that relates to the pedestrian parks and Beve~y will
discuss some of those as well as when you actually get credit for the construction of neighborhood parks.
Beverly Luttrell: Mayor Horton and Members of the City Council, Village Development is proposing, as part of
SPA One, six, what we call, small pedestrian parks that are less than five acres in size, and I will point them out
on the map, over here. There is three in Village 5 and four in Village 1. Its City policy in general Plan guidelines
that are parks within the City of Chula Vista bo five acres or greater in size. Baldwin, or Village Development,
felt that the small neighborhood parks were an important component of the SPA Plan and the neo-traditional concept
that small parks be located in neighborhoods and that thes~ parks be able to be gotten to on foot by pedestrians that
live in the neighborhood. Its their request then that they receive some type of park credit for these small pedestrian
parks, and generally, it has been the City's policy that, as I said, parks five acres and under-or under five acres
in size--not receive any type of park credit. This issue was addressed at the Parks and Recreation Commission, and
the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that a range of credit be given to thes~ small parks, the range
being 25 to 50 percent, based on a small park credit criteria which would be developed by the City. I also would
like to note that the small parks would not be maintained by the General Fund, but they would be maintained either
by a homeowners association or a maintenance district. Some of the types of facilities that you might sea within
a small park less than five acres in size are talked about in the Village Design Plan and they are shown up on the
screen [refening to the viewgraph], and the way we would gauge how much park credit one of these parks would
get would be by the number of facilities or types of facilities in the small park. Just on the screen indicating
children's play area, seating and picnic areas, hard court volleyball areas could be contained in these parks as well
as open turf play areas end the green buffer area betwean uses. Related to the park credit issue is when parks
actually receive their park credit. Typically, it has been the case in the City that parks receive credit upon
completion of the park, obviously, and after acceptance by the City; and typically, a park is accepted by the City
after a mandatory 9 to 12 month maintenance period. Village Development has requested that they receive park
credit prior to official ecceptanc~ by the City prior to the maintenance period, but after completion. And at the last
Planning Commission meeting on the 241h of April, they tentatively agreext with this recommendation--or this
suggestion by Village Development as well as tentatively agreeing with the park credit issue of receiving of 25 to
50 percent for small parks based on the criteria yet to be established. That concludes by presentation. I would like
to call upon Bill Ullrich to spcak on TransDif fees. IfyouhaveanyquestionsonparksIwouldbehappytoanswer.
Mr. Jam~ska: Again, Madam Mayor, these will be issues that we will speak to more in detail. I am sure that
the applicant it could even be City staff might speak on these issues at the May 14 meeting. At this time I would
like to call upon Bill Ullrich.
Mayor Pro Tent Moot: I'm sorry, Mr. Jamrisks, we were normally going to allow applicants or members of the
public to speak on topic by topic and I want to give the applicant or members of the public the opportunity to speak
on either the gated community issues or the small park credit issues, if they so desired.
Kim Kilkenny, Village Development: We see the purpose of this Workshop so that the Council can get a
background in the history of an issue and an appreciation of the analysis and work that has preceded your
deliberations. We don't see this as a forum where we are going to be in a strong advocacy position. So, I want
you to know that on a couple issues tonight, we are coming at the issues somewhat differently that what staff is
suggested. The Planning Commission recommendation might be primarily with respect to phasing and the gated
issue. We believe strongly the gating will be an asset to Otay Ranch and to the City of Chula Vista. We will be
prepared to make a full pre. sentation outlining that position at the hearings as part of your deliberations, but in
response to Councilman Alevy's inquiry a little bit ago, we will also forward to you a package of materials which
outlines the experience of other communities that are now doing gated communities so that should the opportunity
present itself and you want to get more information or visit those communities, you will be able to do it. So, we
will get you some additional information on that topic before the hearings and if you have any questions we will
be happy to try and answer them. Thank you.
Mayor Pro Tem Moot: Any one else? Okay. I think at this point I will torn the meating over to the Mayor who
is back and ready.
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 30
Mayor Herton: Mr. Jamriska.
Mr. Jamriska: Thank you Madam Mayor. We would like to deviate again from the Agenda and get into another
major issue and that is the Multiple Species Conservation Program. The Status Report is to become a very urgent
issue as relates to the preparation of the Subarea Plan. At this time I call upon Bob Leiter, the Planning Director.
Bob Leiter: Thank you Madam Mayor. I would like to give you a briefing on some of the key issues that we have
briefly been dealing with with regard to the Multiple Species Conservation Subarea Plan. As I think some of you
may be aware, the City of San Diego last week appreved draft Subarea Plans for review as part of the overall
MSCP EIR that is going to be prepared over the next three months. The County Board of Supervisors is scheduled
on a draft Subarea Plan for the County including a South County component of that at their meeting tomorrow and
the timing of this has become significant in terms trying to bring together the City of San Diego, the County of San
Diego, City of Chula Vista plans into a single environmental document and the intent is to try to complete that EIR
and have final action on that late Summer of 1996. So we have been working on a number of policy issues that
we have discussed with you previously and I would like to run through those with you briefly this evening; let you
know what the status of those issues are, where we're headed in terms of those Policy issues, and also let you know
about the process and schedule that we plan to move on with regard to the Subarea Plan. With that I am go'me to
move up to the diagram and use the screen mike. Probably the major issue that I thinlc the Council is aware of with
regard to this Subarea Plan, and it pertains to the Otay Ranch, has to do with the university site that has been
designated in the General Development Plan for both the County and the City Subarea Plans, and, in our General
Development Plan, that university site included not only Villages 9 and l0 but also a 400 acre area which was east
of Villages 9 and l0 and which was east of Salt Creek Canyon. In our draft Subarea Plan at this point, which this
diagram represents, and I apologize to the audience but we were planning to do this over in the Conference Room,
but as you recall we had indicated that that area should not be included in the MSCP Preserve boundary but there
should be an area that should be allowed for development as part of the university and we are looking in the Salt
Creek Canyon area east of that. The negotiations that we've been recently having with the Wildlife agencies on
that would designate a specific area which would have the least impact on habitat as available for a university site
in that location and would include that in the Plan and we have been having confmuing negotiations with the Wildlife
agencies on that. We have another meeting scheduled later this week where we are hoping reach some agreement
on that. But that has been a key issue that we have been dealing with. The County Subarea Plan, which is up for
consideration tomorrow, the current draft of it would basically just exclude that whole area from their Subarea Plan
which we have some concerns about. We have had some recent discussions with County staff, though, and they
are now proposing, as we understand it as of this afternoon, would be proposing a policy to be added which would
basically have the Board of Supervisors agree that whatever agreement can be reached between the City of Chula
Vista and the Wildlife agencies would be included in their final County Subarea Plan. We think that would be a
good compromise, a good approach for the County to take, and we plan to be there tomorrow to express our support
for that kind of a policy and we understand that the Board would be hearing that recommendation from their staff.
So, with regard to the university, we really need to continue our negotiations to try reach an acceptable conclusion
to that. In the City Subarea Plan we also want to monitor the County Subarea Plan to make sure they take a similar
action in support of that. The next issue has to do with the Otay River Valley. As you may recall, in the Otay
Ranch we had planned in our General Development Plan to allow up to 400 acres of active recreational sites within
the river valley. We bad not designated the specific sites in the General Development Plan; however, we have not
been working with the Wildlife agencies and have designated a series of shelf areas along the northern bank of the
Otay River that we feel would be the least environmentally impacted and would provide some opportunities for
active recreation. We see a concurranco from the Wildlife agencies to include those in the draft Plan and we will
be bring those forward in the Plan that you see in the next couple of weeks. Another area has to do with the
Baldwin properties in the Otay Ranch. The Baldwin Company has been meeting and negotiating directly with the
Wildlife agencies and has reached some agreements where they would put certain areas into permanent open space
in the eastern parcels of the Otay Ranch including a couple of small parcels south of Otay Lakes and Village 15,
part residential pareel east of the Resort Village and some pareels up in the Proctor Valley area. And the tradeoff
for that that they have requested and the Wildlife agencies have tentatively agreed to would be to allow some
additional development on the western parcels, primarily in the Pogee Canyon area and a couple of other areas on
the western end of the western parcel which would be less, in the view of everybody, would be less environmentally
impacting because they are already fragmented. What we would be recommending in the Subarea Plan is that that
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 31
agreement be evaluated and that the City Council would need to act on that in terms of not only the MSCP but also
looking at amendments to the General Development Plan. But what we would recommend is that that be evaluated
as part of the MSCP and that the Council then make final decision on that later this summer when that comes for
final consideration.
Mayor Horton: In Village 14 is it that salmon colored area [referring to the viewgraph] above the lake?
Mr. Leiter: It would be this parcel directly above the salmon colored parcel which is owned by Baldwin Company.
Mayor Horton: Okay.
Mr. Leiter: Now I also want to point that that agreement is between The Baldwin Company and the Wildlife
agencies. There are also some parcels south of the lake that are controlled by Greg Smith and the Foundation that
were also discussed in that agreement but which are not under the contrul of The Baldwin Company. It had been
our understanding that negotiations were occurring between Greg Smith and the Wildlife agencies whereby they
would be looking at actually purchasing some of those parcels and putting those in preserve, the Wildlife agencies,
through the use of [inaudible] and Water Conservation Funds. We recently leamad from Greg Smith that those
negotiations really have stalled and it would be our position, our recommendation, that in the draft Subarea Plan
we include two alternatives, one of which would reflect the adopted General Development Plan with Village 15 as
has been adopted, with another alternative to be studied which would allow for the acquisition of those parcels by
the Fish & Wildlife Service subject to their ability to do that. And, again, those two alternatives could be studied
in the EIR and the City Council would have the opportunity later to make a final decision and at that time we would
find out whether the negotiations had moved forward. As the Council Subcommittee discussed that option, and I
know there was a concern that that would eliminate the oppommity for some high-quality estate housing in the
Project, and so one of the options we would also want to study would be some sort of reduced development option
that might preserve some of the additional habitat in that area but might allow for some limited rural estate type
development. And we will be addressing that in our study, as well. And then finally, with regard to--back to the
Greg Smith parcels, just again, with regard to the County's action, the County tomorrow is recommending, the staff
is recommending, that that area be excluded from the MSPC Subarea Plan. And we really think that does not
comport with the actions that we have previously taken where the City and the County have agreed to have same
Plan designations in their GDPs and to carry those forward and in the MFCP, and so it will be out intent tomorrow,
again, at staff level, to recommend that the Board provide for the same kinds of alternatives that we have just
discussed with you and include those in the Subarea Plan for the County. The last item does not deal with Otay
Ranch, but it is an important component of our Subarea Plan and that is the San Miguel Ranch. And again, what
we're proposing there are two alternatives, one of which would reflect the adopted General Development Plan which
will allow up to 357 residential units on the northern parcel of San Miguel, the other which would eliminate
development on the northern parcel, subject again, to an agreement between the Wildlife agencies and the property
owner where they would provide for some acquisition of that property. And that there is also a tentative agreement
on that that we would be reflecting in the Subarea Plan. So we have been working with all the major property
owners that are involved in our Subares Plan ares to put together these agreements and to put together this draft
Plan. It's our intent to come back to the City Council on May 14 with the draft Subarea Plan that would reflect,
basically, the map you see here with some final refmements as well as the text that would describe the nature of
those agreements and some basic policies. We wouldn't be asking you to adopt it in final form, but would be asking
you to authorize us to forward it to the City of San Diego to be studied in their Environmental Impact Report and
then we would be coming back to the City Council August or September of this year with the final Environmental
Impact Report and present it to you in a public heating format for final action; and wanted to make you aware of
the status of that, the negotiations, particularly on the university site, have taken us to the point where we're sort
of up against the clock as far as these actions, but we think we have reached agreement on most of the major issues,
and would be coming back to you in two weeks with a final draft report. So with that, I would be glad to answer
any questions on this item.
Mentber Moot: Just very quickly, and not to belabor a point, because it did come up at the Subcommittee. You
mentioned submitting for EIR analysis the full-blown Village Development Plan for the areas south and east of the
lakes.
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 32
Mr. Leiter: That would be the per the adopted General Development Plan to be studied in the EIR as one
altsmative. Yes.
Member Moot: Would we also ask that another alternative that would be not as dense but still preserving housing
as a specific alternative? In other words, I don't believe that you will ever get through the existing General Plan
through the resource agencies and it seems that even applicants are moving away from that as a viable option,
though I don't want to speak for them. But something that might still allow development in that area without it
being as dense as proposed in the General Development Plan. Would that be a specific option to be examined?
Mr. Leiter: We have had some discussions recently with Greg Smith along those lines as one of the primary
property owners developing another option. A couple of questions as to whether that would actually be put into
the EIR---one is whether, how far, or to what extant we could really detail such an alternative; the other is that even
if it is not included in the EIR, often times you can do a reduced development version of an alternative that is in
the EIR so that you could, in fact, using the General Development Plan as sort of the worst case analysis, you could
then reduce the development. And those are two options that we will be evaluating and will be reporting back to
you when we bring it back on the 14th.
Member Moot: Thanks.
Mr. Leiter: Any other questions?
Mayor Hurton: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address the Council on this item? Continue on. The
next item, are we going back to Item #7, Mr. Jamriska?
Mr. Jamriska: Madam Mayor, I would actually like to go back since we do have a few moments to talk about
the PFFP and the TransDif funding. This was brought under a lot of discussion at the planning Commission at its
last meafmg, relating to some misunderstandings relating to the TransDif funding and some of the statements in the
PFFP report. Bill Ullrich spent a great deal of time trying to explain this issue to the planning Commission and
was successful. At this time I would like to have Bill at least raise the issue to your Board.
Bill UIlrich: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as Jerry [Jamriska] indicated the Planning Commission
brought up an issue that they thought there was a shortfall in the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
and that came about because of the page in the Public Facilities Financing Plan that showed a shortfall-they called
it a shortfall-at $27.7 million dollars, when in fact, that was not a shortfall. What that means is that if the Village
Company is required to construct all these improvements that they would receive credits towards future building
permit issuances in relationship to the TransDif Program. As I indicated, the shortfall is really not a shortfall, it
would be credits toward futuro progrsms. The other thing you necd to remember is that when we Condition a Map,
we Condition with all the improvements that are required to serve that Map and those improvements might be
overlapped by other developments within the ares. And that is how our TransDif Program is kind of set up. In
this particular ease, we have improvements that are required of the Village Company that will also--or were required
of Sunbow--in addition to that, some projects in the area such as EastLake Greens and Rancho del Rey SPA Three
will be paying fees into a TransDif Program. Those fees are used to construct some of the facilities that are in that
Program and, in paff~cular, we have two projects that are proposed for the 1996-1997 Capital Improvement
Program. They are included in the total cost of the facilities that were listed in the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
In addition, some developers have used Assessment Districts to finsnee roadways; for instance, EastLake Greens
used an Assessment District to finance portions of Telegraph Canyon Road. The whole program is set up so that
some people will pay their fees, others will build facilities and get credits towards future fees; in this ease, some
of the roadways would also be used by future Otay Ranch Villages, such as Village 2 and 6. The Planning
Commission, in addition to being concerned with what was shown as a shortfall, was concerned that if the
development were allowed to go forward and there weren't funds available, then we might be able to get the
facilities put in in a timely manner. One way of preventing that from happening is that the improvements are tied
to the Final Map and with the Final Map we provide bonding. If the project, for some reason, did not go forward,
the City could call in those bonds and put in the facilities it was required as associated with that Final Map. The
other thing that is included in our program, and in the Public Facilities Financing Plan--there is a matrix that kind
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 33
of ties all the improvements together--and they are required as the development moves forward, and we don't
require all the improvements up front, so there would be bonding for the improvements as indicated in the Public
Facilities Financing Plan as the Final Maps. For instance, the first portion of Telegraph Canyon Road is required
with the Final Map that contains a 300-unit within SPA One and then there is another improvement required as the
interchange of 1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road at the 500-unit, and it continues on with other circulation element
roadways that are needed for the facility. So, them really isn't a shortfall in the program and, Commissioner Salas
was the one that brought this up and she was extremely concerned and I did talk to her this morning and she does
say that she was now satisfied. So, at least, it appears that the planning Commission no longer has that issue. With
that, I can go into more detail with the specific example, if you would like; otherwise, I'll just answer questions.
Mayor Herton: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address Council on this item? Mr. Jamfish.
10.
PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ISSUES
A. JEPA
B. In-lieu Fee
C. Conveyance Timing
D. Conveyance Method
E. Maintenance Program
Mr. Jam~ska: The next item Madam Mayor deals with probably one of the major components of the General
Development Plan and that is the Resource Management Plan. One of the requirements of the General Development
Plan was that the Resource Management Plan be implemented through a series of actions to occur prior to the first
approval of the SPA. The shaded area [referring to the viewgraph] sepsesents the ll,375 acres of open space land
that is to be conveyed to a separate entity called the Preserve Owner Manager. The General Development Plan
required that that body be established prior to the approval of the first SPA. The County of San Diego has already
taken action of a process whereby they are recommending the City and the County, at least on an interim basis, be
the Preserve Owner Manager and that process be reviewed every five years. So there would be a Policy Committee
formed consisting of one member of the County Board of Supeqrvisors and one member of the City Council who
would kind of sit as a Policy Committee, giving policy direction to the implementation of the General Development
Plan and the Resource Management Phase II. They would be managed by the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
of the County and the City Manager of the City of Chula Vista. Certain functions were assigned in negotiations
and discussions with the County and the City who best could provide certain functions that would be required as
a Resource Management Plan, everything from law enforcement to maintenance operations to research and
monitoring as well as recreational programs. There would be a certain ability to contract to other agencies to
provide certain specific functions that neither agency could adequately nor efficiently provide, such as restoration
activities or seeking grants and financial aid as well as the planning effort that is going on for the Otay Valley
Regional Park Program. With that in mind, the County did support that proposal and a Joint Powers Agreement
will be presented to the City Council for your consideration reflecting this organization's structure. The other item
required by the County, approval prior to the first SPA, dealt with a Conveyance Program. In other words, the
General Development Plan required that a Conveyance Plan and Schedule be established prior to the first SPA to
the ultimate disposition of the 11,375 acres of open spase to be conveyed. Within your documents is a process that
is based upon a concept that is utilizing the amount of developable acreages throughout the entire 23,000 acres,
divided by the 11,375 acres of land to be conveyed, which boils downs to: that for every one acre of developable
land you have, you must convey to the Preserve Owner Manager 1.188 acres of open space land. All agencies,
the County has agreed to that in formal action and that is what we are recommending to the City Council. During
the public heating process and as well as workshop sessions with the Planning Commission, representatives of Wast
Coast Land Fund felt that that was an unfair situation in that, if they were to take fee title to their particular parcel
ofland, they would not have any lands associated within this ll,375 acres of open space. Staffconcurrsd with their
position and we are recommending that an amendment be made to whereby an in lieu fee could be established
whereby--whether it be West Coast Land or any other property owner that did not have conveyable land for the open
space preserve--that they could pay a fee in lieu of actual conveyance. The Board of Supervisors again supperted
that concept and we, too, are agreeing with that. The next was the timing of the conveyance. The Resource
Management Plan that was sent out for public review had a process whereby land would be conveyed in large
segments after 50 percent of the land was developed and then the balance be when 90 percent of the SPA was
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 34
developed. Staff felt, as well as many of the membem speaking against that issue, that it should be more reflective
as the development occurs. And so, we are recommending that a modification be made that as Final Maps are
processed and approved by the City, that again, that ratio of 1:1.188 acres of land be implemented, whether it be
a payment of a fee in lieu thereof or an actual conveyance of land. So the conveyance method has changed. Tied
with that was that a concern by, in this particular caso, the County, that land might be conveyed in small segments
that would not economically feasible for the County to maintain until there was a substantial block of land available
for them. So we concurred with that and have established a program whereby, until a sufficient block of land,
approximately 600 acres have been conveyed to the Preserve Owner Manager, that responsibility for maintenance
would be upon the property owner with some type of easement to ensure that no use would occur within that area
until it is actually taken over for maintenance by the Preserve Owner Manager. So those ate the issues. They have
not all bean widely accepted by the community, some individuals disagree, some property owners also disagree.
But that is the process that we have gone through. Of the three areas that the County Board of Supervisors relating
to the RMP had to approve prior to it, which relates to the Owner Manager, the conveyance method and the timing
have all been recommended for approval by the Board of Supervisors and we would also support their position.
With that, Madam Mayor, I would be happy to entertain any questions.
Mayor Horton: Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address this issue? Mr. Jamriska.
Mr. Jamrlska: Madam Mayor, that actually concludes all that we wanted to bring to your attention tonight. We
are looking forward to the May 14 Public Hearing at which we will get into a little bit mote detail on the wide
variety of reports and subjects we didn't cover tonight. As you received repofis in the past that covers several feet
high, we will be asking you for your considerefmn and adoption at the May 14 meeting as well as resolution of
several outstanding issues that we still need to have closure on. Staff thanks you for your patience and
understanding.
11. MSCP STATUS
12. WRAP-UP
Mayor Horton: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Goss do you have a wrap-up comment for us this evening?
Mr. Goss: I think Jerry [Jamriska] did a sufficient job of wrapping things up.
Mayor Horton: Thank you very much. Mr. Padilia.
Member Padilia: I just wanted to thank Mr. Jamfish and your staff and the other members who contributed to
the prepatery documents that were sent to the Council in anticipation of this workshop. It helped keep everything
very organized and informative and will come in very handy at the Public Heating. Thank you.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mayor Horton: Thanks. At this time we have Oral Communications. This is an opportunity for any member of
the general public to address the Council on an item that is not on tonight's agenda. I do have one speaker slip.
I am not sure if it is Sam Jones. Mr. Jones, representing Sarah Cattell, please state your name and address for the
record. Your time is limited to three minutes.
Sam Jones, 1042 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista: I appeared before the City Council three weeks ago and request
that you re-issue Sarah Catrell's Building Permits, a no charge re-issue. I attempted to try to explain to you the
reasons why I felt that was the fair thing to do for her, but I got cut off cause obviously I can't go through this very
complex case in three minutes. So what I would like to do, is for the City Council to set aside maybe a half hour
time slot and the use of your overhead projector and I can present you with the timeline chart and various documents
which I think would convince even the hardened skeptic that there is good reason or justification to do this, you
know, to re-issue these permits. My mother is 75 years old and in failing health and although she has possibly a
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 35
legal cause of action, she doesn't have the time. I mean, you know, there are attorneys out there who tell me we
have a legal cause of action against the City, but on the other hand, we look at the timeframe involved, she can't
be expected to live that long. In the meantime I think it's unfair and unwarranted to her that she be forced to
continue to live in that structure the way it is.
Mayor Horton: Okay. Mr. Jones, it is not our job to get into the administration of City policies; we do set
policies. I will look into this personally, but it is not in my hands. We have confidence in our staff that they do
do their job and we have Director of our Building Inspection Department here tonight if you would like to talk to
him, you may.
Fir. Jones: I have. I have spoken to your City Attorney, I have spoken to a number of people at your request and
we're at this crossroad here where we can't seem to get any further. I would like, like I said, the opportunity to
present you with, I think, very compelling evidence, circumstantial evidence, but, you know, we live in a state
where we execute people with circumstantial evidence. So I would like the opportunity to present this publicly.
Mayor Horton: Well, I hope no one is executed over this sort of deal in Chula Vista. But you have the option
to call each Council Member directly; if its their will they can sit down with you and go over the issue. I will have
my staff person look into this, but this is not the proper place to have a hearing for your specific item.
Mr. Jones: Well, me'am, with all due respect I think the City of Chula Vista, the voters of the City of Chula Vista
have a right to know what's going on inside your Building Department. Now, this is not an isolated case. If this
was an isolated case, then I would say, you know, maybe there was a misunderstanding. But this is not an isolated
case and I can't present the case to the City Council in just a few minutes that you allot me. I need the time slot
which you can set on your calendar at some future date. I would be happy to work with you on that. I would like
the opportunity to present this data to you and to the public as well as bring other victims in to the Council so they
too can present their story.
Mayor Herton: Okay, Mr. Jones, you time is almost up. Do you want to wrap up your comments please.
Mr. Jones: Once again, I would like to make the request that the City Council instruct the Building Permit
Department to re-issue her Building Permits at no charge to her.
Mayor Horton: Okay. Again. Mr. Padilia.
Member Padilia: I'm sorry. Thank you. I haven't seen written material, maybe Mr. Jones you could submit
something in writing to the Council that we could review.
Mr. Jones: What would you like submitted?
Member Padilia: You can, instead of maybe having to come in and do a half-hour which is difficult under this
situation, you can forward something in writing that would summarize your eoncerus that you have expressed here
orally in more detail than you can here in the Council Chamber.
Mr. Jones: I have already met with the City Attorney on several occasions and [inaudible] with anecdotal evidence
as well as hard copy evidence.
Member Padilia: Well you could probably submit something in writing to the Council. Just address it to the
Council Office and ask that it be distributed to the Mayor and the Members of the Council.
Mayor Horton: And, again, if you would like to have a heating before the Council Members, you can contact
them individually and it's up to them whether or not they want to schedule an appointment with you.
Mr. Jones: What you are telling me then is you don't wish this dirty linen to be aired publicly.
Minutes
April 30, 1996
Page 36
Mayor Horton: No, I think what Mr. Padilia is saying that it would be beneficial if you just forwarded a written
summary to us and we will take the time to read it, because this is not the right platform to air out your concerns.
Mr. Jones: Ma'am, I disagree with you. I think you--the problem is not isolated to one person, it is isolated to
a particular department in City government and I think that makes it everybodys concern.
Mayor Horton: We are concerned.
Melnber Moot: We don't know what you are talking about. If you will put it in writing to us, then all of us would
know exactly what you are talking about and we could take care of it.
Mr. Jones: I'll be happy to do that.
Mayor Horton: Thank you very much. At this time we will adjourn this meeting to the regular City Council
meeting schedule for May 7, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Have a good evening and good
night.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:39 p.p. to the regular City Coune'd meeting on May 7, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, CITY CLERK
Berlin D. Bosworth
Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency