Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/07/30 MINUTES OF A JOINT CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING Thursday, July 30, 1992 Board Chambers 3:00 p.m. County Administration Center CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Horton, Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader 2. PUBLIC COMMFANT - None 3. PRE-PLANNING - BALDVVIN VISTA Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, stated the purpose of the workshop was the first of a series to inform both bodies of the history of the planning of the project to date and any issues the Council/Board felt needed to be addressed through the planning process. The focus of the workshop was orientation on the planning by Baldwin before they submitted the project in 1989. The structure of the planning process would also be discussed with a final update of where the project currently was. The issue of the EIR process would be discussed under Item S. Greg Smith, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing Baldwin Company, gave a brief history of the Otay Ranch Project. Jim Baldwin, representing the Baldwin Company, thanked the public and staff for countless hours in participating in the process for Otay Ranch. 4. STRUCTURE H/STORY; MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING; ROLE OF INTERJUPdSDICYIONAL TASK FORCE; ROLE OF EXECUTIVE STAFF COMMrI-t'I~E; AND ROLE OF PROJECT TEAM; AND COUNTY AND CITY STAFF Lari Sheehan, Deputy CAO, County of San Diego, reviewed the history of the project with the County. The Memorandum of Understanding was adopted by both agencies in August 1989. The purpose of the MOU was to encourage the City and County to jointly plan the Otay Ranch through the use of joint staffing, joint use of consultants, joint use of a single FAR, and a joint use of a number of technical studies. She then reviewed the structure and actions of the Interjurisdictional Task Force. John Goss, City Manager, City of Chula Vista, reviewed the roll of the Executive Staff Committee and the Project Team. S. PLANNING PROCESS PLANNING WORK PROGRAM/METHODOLOGY; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS; AND DISCUSSION OF FAR PROCESS Mr. Lettieri stated the major elements of the project included a General Plan Amendment - consideration for both jurisdictions and a program Environmental Impact Report for both jurisdictions. City staff would be processing a General Development Plan and a Subregional Plan for the County. One document would be for both. A major component of the project was the Resource Management Plan which would provide a resource protection program for those resources identified as significant and identify a preserve boundary. The Kesource Management plan for the County would replace the Resource Protection Ordinance if a finding was made that it was equal to or better than the County P, PO. The Service Revenue Plan was a fiscal impact analysis. The last two aspects of the program were the Sphere of Influence Study that would identify potential areas of annexation and a State Propert~ Tax Agreement program to look at the City/County Minutes July 30, 1992 Page 2 revenues. The DEIR was complete and ready for public review, the Resource Management Plan was complete and would be included as part of the DEIR as an appendices. The General Plan Amendment and the General Development Plan were being prepared. The Serv/ce Revenue Plan, State Property Tax Agreement program, and Sphere of Influence Study would be complete prior to the item coming before the Council/Board. A citizens committee had been formed which included approximately one hundred twenty- five citizens from the entire county. Staff had also met with all of the County community planning groups. He referred to the staff report, and the thirty-three letters attached, which dealt with the public review process. Staff felt they needed direction from both agencies on how to proceed. The DEIR included an executive summary, analyzed all nine alternatives, identified potential impacts of the alternatives, as well as mitigation. It would be ready for public review 7/31/92. The decision for the public review process for local residents was an issue staff needed direction on. Bill Taylor, County Counsel, County of San Diego, stated their office had provided advice to the County staff working with the Otay Ranch project. In their opinion the environmental process would be more defensible if the EIR public review period were extended to ninety days. He then reviewed the basis for that opinion. Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney, City of Chula Vista, felt the law would tolerate a shorter review period than the full ninety days. He did agree the risk would be less with the full ninety days. The guidelines recognized that the applicant was entitled to an expeditious review of the project which was to be balanced against the need of the public to review it. He was concerned that if the agencies started a hearing process and then lost members that had heard evidence at the beginning of the process due to an election at the end of the year, that the applicants and possibly the public could be deprived of certain due process rights, i.e. the right to a fair arbitrator who had heard all of the evidence presented. He was not suggesting the City would ever attempt to preempt the decision, but he did want to recognize that the MOU did designate the City Council as the lead agency and the CEQA law and guidelines recognized the lead agency as the authority for setting the public review period. Supervisor BiIbray stated the period for review of the document could not be seen in isolation from the rest of the process. He questioned when the Task Force started meeting on the project. It was not a normal project and community involvement had been the basis for the project. The issue of the public's ability to know or be informed was not like a traditional project. Ms. Sheehan responded the first Task Force started meeting in August 1987, the current Task Force had been meeting since January 1989. Mayor Nader stated the function of the advisory groups and public participation had been a different function than that of public review of the EIR. If the type of information that should be included in the EIR had been part of the process up to now, then there must be quite a few documents and reports he had not seen. The meetings were being recorded and, therefore, a newly elected official would be expected to review the tapes of the earlier hearings. Mr. Boogaard stated it was his understanding that the meetings were being recorded and it would lessen the concern. It would take a substantial number of viewing hours to bring the new arbiters up to date and delay the applicants fight to a speedy processing of the development project. An additional concern would be that the applicant and the public would not have the benefit of the pre-election deliberations that the new office holder could provide. That interdeliberational ability would have been lost. Councilmember Malcolm questioned if the public review period could be extended after the process began if the agencies felt it necessary. Supervisor Williams questioned the County Couns el's opinion of shortening the review process versus having newly elected officials. Minutes July 30, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Taylor responded the risk was much greater by shortening the public review period to an unreasonable length. The County Board of Supervisors would be subject to the ordinance that required that if they missed any portion of the hearing to listen to the tapes and review all documentary evidence. He felt that ordinance satisfied all due process concerns. Supervisor MacDonald stated that after reviewing the letters, the greatest number of requests were for a ninety day period of review. Quite a number wanted 120 days or 180 days. Mr. Taylor stated he disagreed with the opinion that the liability would be on the City. He felt if a lawsuit was filed, the County would be named and the County would be put to a defense. The MOU did not include an indemnification for the City. · Michael Beck, P. O. Box 841, Julian, CA, Board Member, Endangered Habitats League, requested a 120 day, minimum, extension of the public review period. He felt it was an extraordinary project with extenuating circumstances. · Clark Waite, 10172 Boulder Creek Road, Descanso, CA, member of Descanso Planning Group and East County Sierra Club, stated it was his understanding that no public hearings were to be held until the public review period was closed. He felt the only way to have continuity was to not have hearings until the new board was seated. He requested that the review period be extended to at least 120 days and considering the transition of the Council/Board perhaps, 180 days. · Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, El Cajon, CA, representing Valle de Oro Community Planning Group, cited CEQA guidelines and requested the review period be extended to 180 days. The Valle de Oro Planning Group formally requested a minimum 90 day review period. · Fay McQueen, Box 663, Julian, CA, requested a minimum of 90 days for the review period. · Mark Gillian, 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, CA, Counsel for Baldwin Company, addressed the legal risk and defensibility of the EIR. The one applicable legal parameter under CEQA guidelines was that the EIR review period should be between 30 and 90 days. The proposed time frame of 45 days was the guideline State agencies used on State projects. He agreed with City Attorney Boogaard and did not feel it would present a legal risk issue or a defensibility of the EIR issue. · Greg Smith, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing Baldwin Company, stated if there was a risk it would be Baldwin that would have to defend the review period. They felt 45 days provided time for a meaningful review. Supervisor Golding did not feel a decision could be based on who the elected officials would be. Newly elected officials would be required to listen to the tapes and review exhibits. It had been her experience that whatever date was set, it was usually extended. She would not support a 120 day review period. COUNCIL MOTION: (Moore/Malcolm) the EIR public review period would be a maximum of 60 days and that all reviewing entities assist the Council/Board in a good faith attempt to respond and return sooner than the approved allocated period thus enabling staff to commence and research the reviewing comments. Mr. Boogaard stated the MOU required the Council to solicit the input of the County on such matters. Even though the agencies were meeting jointly they would have to vote separately as individual bodies. Supervisor MacDonald stated that based on the advice of their Counsel, he felt compelled to support the 90 day review period. Supervisor Bailey stated the period could always be extended but could not be pulled back. Minutes July 30, 1992 Page 4 .. Supervisor Williams stated there was also a matter of public perception. He also expressed concern regarding legal liability. Mr. Taylor stated the MOU did designate the City of Chula Vista as the lead agency for environmental review purposes and required the City to obtain input from the County. In the event there was a dispute it provided that the arrangement could be undone. He expected that if a law suit was brought forward the County would be a party to that action and would be involved in defending it. Councilmember Malcolm stated the residents of the City had been involved in the process from the beginning and not one Chula Vista resident had been before the Council/Board regarding the project. The City was the lead agency because every quality of life within the City would be impacted by the project. He felt the Council/Board should proceed with the process, review it at that time, then make a determination. He felt it was premature to make the determination now. Mayor Nader stated there were natural resources involved, a vast tract of land, and impacts on the entire county. He had concerns with the legal analysis that stated Council could do anything they wanted with the review period. The law stated they were to decide within a range of 30 to 90 days, or more in an unusual project. The guidance given by the law explicitly stated a 350 page document constituted justification for a 90 day period. Due to the time consn'aints of the Council/Board members he agreed with the 90 day review period. He fun:her agreed with the County Counsel's opinion regarding the legal liabiiities. SUBSTITUTE COUNCIL MOTION: (Nader) to extend the public review period to 90 days. Motion died for lack of second. AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL MOTION: (Nader) the 60 day period be conditioned on Baldwin's agreement to indemnify both the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego for any litigation costs or awards that might be taken as a result any legal determination that sixp] days was too short as a matter of law. Mr. Boogaard stated the City already stood in an indemnified position with regard to the EIR. Mayor Nader questioned if Baldwin had indemnified the City and if the City had zero risk because any damages or litigation costs would be paid by Baldwin. Mr. Boogaard responded that was correct, Baldwin had not indemnified the County. The only condition in the indemnity was that Baldwin could approve counsel, which approvaI should not be unreasonably withheld, which was a condition he felt was acceptable. AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER OF MOTION. Councilmember Horton felt 90 days would be reasonable if in fact a~ter 60 days, the Council/Board found there was a need to extend the period they would have the ability to do so. Councilmember Rindone questioned if there was to be a subsequent motion by the Board and what would occur if the Board did not agree with the action taken by Council. Supervisor MacDonald stated he would vote for the 60 days with the understanding that the Board of Supervisors was also included in the decision of whether or not to extend the public review period. Councilmember Moore stated he would renaove the word *ma~trnum* from the motion. Supervisor Willjams questioned how it would be decided to extend the public review period. Minutes July 30, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Taylor informed the Council/Board that it was really the City's decision, as the lead agency, to ultimately set the public review period. Under the MOU, the City was required to take input from the County before making that decision. Therefore, it could be in order for the Board to vote on what the Count3is request would be and then the City to consider that input. Supervisor Bilbray stated there were concerns about the motion, not major opposition to the motion, which was a clear message to the City that 60 days was an honorable goal. Ms. Sheehan requested that the Board take formal action and include that the indemnification include the County. Supervisor Bilbray stated the consensus of the Board was that they would support the 60 day public review period as long as the City recognized that it was possible that the County may have to ask them to extend the period. BOARD MOTION: (Golding/l~/illiams) to set the public review period for 60 days and request indemnification for the County based on the 60 days (the same indemnification offered to the City of Chula Vista). AMENDMENT: (Bilbray) to include the possibility of a 30 day extension being requested by the County. Amendment agreed to by the Maker of the Motion. Ms. Sheehan recommended that the indemnification deal with all actions related to the EIR, not just the time period for review. Mr. Boogaard stated the City was indemnified for attorney's fees which might result as an award of a court for a lawsuit challenging the Otay Ranch EIR. It was more general than the time period issued. Supervisor Golding stated the request for indemnification would be equal to the indemnification provided to the City of Chula Vista. Mr, Smith stated he had a problem with a blanket indemnification on the EIR for both public agencies. He had no problem with the indemnification on the decision on the length of public review. He would meet with County Counsel and City Attorney to discuss a broader indemnification which could be brought back to the Council/Board. VOTE ON BOARD MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. VOTE ON COUNCIL MOTION: approved '1-1 with Nader opposed. 6. INTRODUCTION TO THE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Mr. Lettieri recommended that the Village Development Concept be continued until the next joint meeting due to time constraints. 7. SCOPE OF FUTURE WORKSHOPS Mr. Lettieri stated the item would be before the Council/Board at the meeting of 9/24/92. Staff would also discuss the Village Concept as well as Issue Papers and Plan Alternatives that were considered by the Task Force. On 10/22/92 staff would be discussing all the public facility work that had been completed. Minutes July 30, 1992 Page 6 8. NEXT WORKSHOP Thursday, September 24, 1992, 3:00 - 5:00 p.m., County Administration Center Board Chambers 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no furLher comments from the Council or Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint hearing to the next joint hearing scheduled on Thursday, September 24, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. in the County Board Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, Depu~Clerk