Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/09/24 MINUTES OF A JOINT CHUIA VISTA CITY COUNCIL SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING Tuesday, September 24, 1992 Council Chambers 3:00 p.m. Public Services Bu~ding CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CAIL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilmember Malcolm 2. PUBLIC COMMENT - None 3. ACTION M CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION OR PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, informed the Council/County that the County Board of Supervisors had recommended a sixty day public review with the understanding that it may be necessary to extend the period. The Chula Vista Gity Gouncil, as the lead agency, took action to set the public review for sixty days subject to future extension on the County request with final decision resting with Chula Vista. Staff started public review on July 31st. A joint workshop was held by the Planning Commissions and both bodies unanimously recommended the public review period be extended at least sixty days from the October 7th date. Thirty-one letters had been received, thirteen of those requested an extension without a time period, one each requested thirty, forty-five, one hundred-twenty, and one hundred-eighty days. Seven each requested sixty and ninety days. The Otay Ranch Governing Committee recommended that public review not be extended. Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney, informed the agencies that Baldwin had agreed to indemnify both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego for a period not to exceed eighty days, or through October 19, 1992. He then reviewed the CEQA guidelines setting the public review period. The issue before the Council/Board was whether or not it was an unusual circumstance sufficient to require a greater than ninety day period of time. The current power to close the public review period rested with the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista; and that authority could be rescinded by a resolution proposing changes to the CEQA guidelines. Bill Taylor, County Counsel, stated they basically concurred with Mr. Boogaard except for the school fee legislation which they had not analyzed. Supervisor MacDonald questioned whether the EIR and Technical Report went go out for public review at the same time. Mr. Lettieri responded that both reports were available to the public at the same time. Supervisor Bilbray stated letters had been received alleging that the document was incomplete and that additional staff recommendations and supplements to the original document would have to be made. He questioned whether that would affect the ability of the legislative body to take action on the item or ff it would trigger another time delay. Mr. Lettieri responded that through the course of any project staff would have to come up with recommendations. Depending upon the action by the Council/Board a supplemental EIR could be required. Mr. Taylor responded that if the changes were such that they required a supplemental EIR, then it would have to go back out for additional public review. The minimum review period would be forty-five days. Minutes September 24, 1992 Page 2 Mr. hertieri stated the purpose of the public hearing was to take testimony on the EIR, The public review period was to obtain input on the adequacy of the EIR. The consultant would then go back and respond to the comments. If there was a need to update or amend the EIR it would be done within that process. If it was significant it would have to go out to public review and staff would coordinate with the County Counsel and City Attorney before that decision was made. The project would then become a final EIR that would go to the City Planning Commission for review. Supervisor Bailey stated if the Board of Supervisors, after their hearings, were to make a recommendation for a change to the City of Chula Vista as the lead agency if it would then be up to the City of Chula Vista as to whether there would be a further extension of time. Mr. Taylor stated that would involve an interpretation of the Memorandum of Understanding the Board entered into and would be a decision for the City Council to make. If the Board was ultimately unhappy with that decision other courses of action could be considered. It was assumed the Board would have input and the Council would make the decisions. Supervisor MacDonald questioned if both the County and City would have to amend their General Plans. He questioned the consequences if the Board did not vote to change their General Plan. Mr. Lettieri responded that was correct both agencies would have to amend their General Plan. Mr. Boogaard stated that, theoretically, the City could plan for territory outside of the City and it would be a valid plan. The County could plan for the area which would also be a valid plan. Lari Sheehan, Deputy CAO, County of San Diego, stated the property was currently unincorporated and in a special study area by LAFCO and not in the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista. In order to annex, and for the General Plan amendment to have any impact, there would have to be a sphere of influence decision made by LAFCO. The planning decision still rested with the County of San Diego. City Manager Goss responded that only a portion was in a special study area, a lot of the property was outside of the special study area. As far as the sphere of influence was concerned, that had already been planned in the City's General Plan. Supervisor Golding questioned the time needed to turn the project around to meet deadlines if the time period for public comment was extended. Ms. Sheehan stated the schedule provided two weeks for responses to comments after the closing date for public comments. The quality of response to comments was very important in terms of the Councirs/Board's ability to defend the EIR once it had been certified. To extend the review period would compact the turn around time and make it difficult for staff to do a quality job on the responses to the EIR. Those speaking in support of extending the public review period for the EIK were: · Mark Montijo, 1875 Honey Springs Road, Jamul, CA, Chair of the Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Group · Daniel Tart, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, E1 Cajon, representing the Valle de Oro Community Planning Group · Michael Beck, P. O. Box 841, Julian, CA, representing South County Environmental Working Group · Marti Goethe, 1474A Seacoast Drive, Imperial Beach, CA, Mayor Pro Tem · Inez Yoder, 7738 Madrilena, Cadsbad, CA, Shoreline Study Center · Norma Sullivan, 5858 Scripps Street, San Diego, CA, Conservation Chair, San Diego Audubon Society · Carolyn Avalos, 605 Hygeia Avenue, Leucadia, CA, Board of Directors - San Diego County Endangered Habitats League Minutes September 24, 1992 Page 3 · Susan Wolfe-Fleming, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, E1 Cajon, CA, representing Chaparral Greens · Carolyn O'Patry, 13880 Sage Mountain Lane, Jamul, CA · Terri Stewart, 7821 Orien Avenue, La Mesa, CA, Associate Wildlife Biologist, California Fish and Game Department · Pat Parris, 3154 Juniper Street, San Diego, CA, Member of South County Environmental Working Group · Nancy Gilbert, 2730 Laker Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service · Tricia Gerrodette, 11142 Caminito Vista Paci~ca, San Diego, CA, representing Sierra Club Land Use Committee Mayor Nader questioned whether the comments being presented at the meeting would be addressed as comments on the Draft EIR to the extent they could raise specific issues, and therefore, be responded to like any other comments. Mr. Boogaard stated it would be his advice to treat them as comments to the EIR and respond to them. Mr. Lertieri stated all of the comments at the Planning Commission hearing would also be addressed. Mayor Nader stated that in any project there could potentially be a new event which would alter the analysis of the project and questioned whether, at a later stage of the project, the new event would have to be taken into consideration and analyzed prior to a decision by a public agency to proceed. Mr. Lettieri responded that the Draft Resource Management Plan stated just that. · Michael Green, 43 Palomar Drive, Chula Vista, CA, President, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, stated they supported the project and recommended that it be moved forward. · Susan Herney, 1103 Red Maple Drive, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Otay Ranch Governing Committee of the Citizens Advisory Committee, stated they had voted to request the review period not be extended. · Greg Smith, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, President, Baldwin Company, stated from their perspective, enough was enough. It had been a long time and it was an expensive and difficult process. The EIR process was open until the very last day a legislative body made a decision. There would be several layers of EIR's and the October 8th deadline was sufficient for a meaningful review. Mr. Boogaard stated it was his recommendation that Council get a consensus, since they had the power to create the proper mechanism to take back the power to set the public review period, as to what public review period was desired. If it was out of line with what was recommended by the Planning Commission of the City, he had a proposed course of action for Council to take. Mayor Nader stated that at the last meeting Council set a review period and now the City Attorney was stating they did not have the authority to do so. He requested clarification of the actions taken by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lettieri responded that the Planning Commission had indicated an intent on October 7th to extend the public review for an additional sixty days from that date. Mr. Boogaard stated CEQA gave the authority to the lead agency and Council had given that authority to the Planning Commission. Council could take that authority back from the Planning Commission if desired. Minutes September 24, 1992 Page 4 "~ Councilmember Malcolm stated it was his desire that the authority be taken back. He noted there were no Chula Vista residents speaking that were opposed to the project. He referred to the Letter to the Editor written by Ms. Herney and requested that it be made part of the record. Ms. Herney read the following letter to the Editor of the Chula Vista Star News published Wednesday, September 23, 1992 into the record: The Otay Ranch project has been the subject of intensive citizen input, participation, and review for nearly four years. Adrianne Myers letter of 9/19/92 must not have been paying attention. Since 1989 I have been just one of hundreds of local residents participating in the continuing Otay Ranch process. We have availed ourselves of the many opportunities to educate ourselves and to stay informed regarding this important project. We receive official notice of all public meetings on a regular basis. The project Draft Environmental Impact review has been made available to the public since July 31 st at seven locations. Section 1, Summary and Introduction, is just twenty- two pages long and includes Table 1 .l d, a Summary of Impacts and Mitigation. That section includes a clear and concise four page project chart. Section 4.1, ffie Environmental Comparison of On-Site Alternatives, is only thirteen pages and provides a thorough analysis in efficient chart form. Anyone should be able to read and digest those thirty-five pages in a brief sitting. The established DEIR review period has been set at fowy-five days, already exceeding requirements by more than two weeks. To extend the DEIR period any further would be both ill advised and counterproductive. Why keep expensive consultant bureaucrats on the payroll any longer than necessary. Otay Ranch build out is projected for a fifty year period. A lot of us have already spent four years planning and reviewing. Everyone will have had an opportunity to be heard. There is yet another public comment hearing scheduled, residents may also submit written comments. Certainly it is time to fish or cut bait, lees get on with it. Councilmember Moore felt there should be more flexibility between those with a fight to review and the project movement. There had been four years of project planning and now people were asking in excess of six more months of review. He had mixed concerns as to what was right and what was logical. · Daniel Tarr, Valle de Oro Community Planning Group, stated he would supply for the record correspondence between Chairman Bailey's office, the CAO, and others that responded to their written comments on the Central Proctor Valley issue paper in which they had been assured: 1) their comments would be incorporated into the final draft; 2) they would have adequate opportunity to review the draft environmental impact report; and 3) there would be an alternative based on the existing General Plan. People who were suggesting they had been lax were creating a false impression. They had participated fully and wanted to participate properly. Councilmember Hotton questioned if Mr. Tart had approached her at the last meeting and was glad that she would consider an extension after the sixty day period. One of his comments was concern that he did not have enough time, because his schedule was so busy, that it would take him two to three weeks to even pick up the document. Mr. Tan' responded that it was not him. He received the document the first day it was made available. Councilmember Rindone stated it was his understanding that prior to the Council making a recommendation, it was their legal responsibility to consider input on the impact of the Council's decision and recommendation from the Board. Mr. Boogaard stated it was his recommendation that Council get the consensus of the County as to the proper public review period. Councilmember Rindone stated he was interested in the impact upon the schools. He felt that under current laws it was important that there was full mitigable rights to ensure full quality at all levels of public education in the project build out area. 77 Minutes September 24, 1992 Page 5 Mayor Nader stated some of the comments made during the hearing should be taken as comments on the draft EIR and should be fully responded to before a final EIR was brought to the agencies for final certification. He would not hesitate to vote no on the FEIR if the responses were not adequate. Supervisor Bailey stated there would be hearings on the general plan and various phases in the future. He felt it gave a good parameter to work with in suggesting the agencies work within the eighty days parmeter of the indemnification they had received from the developer. Supervisor Gelding stated there had been citizens working for years on the project and there had been a tremendous opportunity for public input up to this time. But, the EIR was relatively recent and it was a major document. She did not have any objection to some increased public review within reason. There was a legitimate concern when there were volunteers who did not have a substantial amount of time to devote and if the appendices were not immediately available. She agreed there would be additional time for input so it wasn't as if there was going to be a decision made immediately after the EIR was reviewed. Supervisor MacDonald suggested they extend the deadline for sixty days rather than go into a law suit that would extend the time sixty or ninety days. He supported an extension past the October 27th date proposed by the developer. Supervisor Bilbray stated the process went beyond four years, it was a five year program of trying to do everything possible to include everyone and anyone who wanted to be involved in the process. He was concerned about the process because the next time they had a major land use decision in the region he questioned whether the policy makers would want to include the public at the front end if they saw that all they would run into was the same problem with the same perception. Four years of intensive study, meetings, discussion, etc. was sufficient. The Board had taken a position that the City had decided on a certain line and that line was their prerogative under the agreement. The Board had been more than open in saying the City was the lead agency, but he felt it was clear to everyone that the line was drawn with the condition that the City be aware that it was possible, if not probable, that the City would move that line farther back. He asked that Council consider the fact that the discussion had not even begun on the substance of the project and he wanted to get into the planning of the project. BOARD MOTION: (Bilbray/Golding) the Board accept the deadline and ask Counc~ to consider an extension at the level they fdt appropriate. Approved 3-1-1 with MacDonald opposed and Wffiiams absent. Supervisor MacDonald stated he opposed the motion because the issue was not whether there was adequate public input. The issue was that there was a document and people had not had a chance to really tear it apart. If there was not sufficient time for public input he felt it would come back and haunt the project. He would reconsider his vote if there was a time certain. Supervisor Gelding stated it was her understanding that the motion was to ask the Council to extend the public review period. Councilmember Herton requested that Council make the decision to take over the power the Planning Commission would normally have. Councilmember Rindone stated he wanted to enter the following documents into the record: 1) Senate Bill 1287; and 2) letter from the Sacramento Bee regarding the possible impacts of Senate Bill 1287. He requested a response from staff regarding the potential impacts. City Attorney Boogaard requested direction to staff to prepare changes to the Environmental Review Guidelines allowing Council the fight to set the public review period in a resolution approving those changes on the October 4th agenda. Minutes September 24, 1992 Page 6 COUNCIL MOTION: (Horton/Malcolm) to direct staff to prepare changes to the Environmental Review Guidelines allowing the Council the right to set the public review period in a resolution approving those changes on the October 6th agenda. Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding Council would only be setting the period for public review, not taking over the public review from the Planning Commission. City Attorney Boogaard responded the guidelines for the City would have to empower the Council, if they chose to exercise it, on a case by case basis, to take over the public review, and thereby setting the public review period. Mayor Nader questioned whether Council would be taking over the function the Planning Commission was currently exercising of not only setting the period but also taking all the public comments and holding all hearings. City Attorney Boogaard responded that was what CEQA envisioned and that was what he would envision in preparing the guidelines. Council could take the authority to set the period and leave it with the Planning Commission to continue to hold the public hearings. He recommended that when the lead agency and the body making the major discretionary action was Council, Council should have the authority to hold the public hearings. Mayor Nader stated he did not have a problem in having the authority but it sounded like the work being proposed required the Council to take over the entire hearing process. City Attorney Boogaard responded it was on a project by project basis. Counc~member Malcolm stated the intent of the motion would not be taking anything away from the Planning Commission unless the Planning Commission refused to follow whatever date the Council decided to set as the end of the public review period. It was his intent that the Planning Commission would have their hearings and go through the normal process. He did not know the date it would be extended to, but if the Planning Commission did not want to live with it, Council could then take that authority. Councilmember Hotton stated if Council let it go to the Planning Commission, there would be another noticing period. City Attorney Boogaard responded that was correct. That was why Council needed to direct staff to notice a heating, at which time the Council could hold a hearing on the EIR. Mr. Lettieri recommended October 13th which would allow time to notify 3,500 people. Councilmember Hotton questioned whether Council could hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, listen to the Planning Commission concerns, and then have Council make the decision. ~IVIENT TO COUNCIL MOTION: (Horton/Moore) direct staff to schedule a Joint Council/Planning Commlgsion meeting on October 6th for a public hearing on the EIR, with Council making the final decision. Supervisor Bflbray stated the Board motion was to request that Council extend the public comment period. How Council wanted to address their internal process was City business and did not involve the County. Councilmember Malcolm stated his intent was to live within the eighty day indemnification agreement. He did not want to set a date for the EIR hearing when it was his intent to have a lengthened review period. City Attorney Boogaard stated he understood the motion was to change the guidelines and change the authority to set the public review period. Minutes September 24, 1992 Page 7 Councilmember Hotton stated her first concern was whether Council could set the time flame now. City Attorney Boogaard stated that could not be done Council needed to change the guidelines and take back the authority delegated to the Planning Commission in the Guidelines. The Council could advise the County what their concept was for a proper public review period. Mr. Lettieri stated there was no notice requirement with the resolution to change the CEQA guidelines. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed. Mayor Nader stated he was for some extension of the EIR review process and would support that if it came before Council. He was concerned they were switching what the process was at the last minute in order to accommodate the concerns regarding the length of the review period. The Planning Commission was in the midst of that process and was hearing testimony. It would be starting all over and create confusion as to whom the public would be responding to. Councilmember Horton stated the Planning Commission would not be left out in the process. Council was bringing them into the meeting. City Attorney Boogaard stated staff would have on October 6th a resolution and proposed changes to the Environmental Review Guidelines. Those Guideline changes would give Council the authority to set the public review period by conducting a hearing on the EIR. Notice would be published for a joint Council/Planning Commission hearing on October 13th. He recommended that Council advise the County of the public review period they were considering, i.e. October 13th. Mayor Nader stated Council had set a public hearing that required before they made a decision, the public testimony. He questioned whether they were prejudicing the outcome of that hearing if a motion was made advising the County of what Council would be deciding after that hearing. City Attorney Boogaard stated it would be an expression of intent. Ms. Sheehan stated it would be beneficial to the County if Council would give some indication of what the extension would be. The County would be under a tight time line to get the General Plan and General Development Plan hearings before the Commission and Council/Board during the months of November and December. Supervisor Bailey felt the Council/Board should continue to work under what they currently had until there was a decision made, Council could not precommit a hearing. Councilmember Horton felt it would be more fair to the public if some type of time frame was established. In light of the information given in testimony, considering the four year period, and the openness the project had, she felt it had been a fair and open process. COUNCIL MOTION: (Hotton) to extend the public review period to October 19, 1992. Died for lack of second. Mayor Nader stated Council could not set a date without approval of the resolution changing the Guidelines. City Attorney Boogaard stated it was his request that Council give an intent and solicit from the County that it was an affordable time for public review. Mayor Nader felt there was a consensus expressed that if the Council had to make a decision, without the benefit of public testimony, that decision might be to extend the period to around the end of the Minutes September 24, 1992 Page 8 indemnification period provided by the applicant. He suggested that the Council/Board continue with the agenda. Councilmember Rindone requested that the public hearing on October 13th be scheduled at 4:00 p.m. as he had a conflict. COUNCIL MOTION: 0ljndone,,ltloore) to schedule the hearing for October 13th at 4:00 p.m. BOARD MOTION: 0tflbray/MacDonald) to adjourn the County Board of Supervisors meeting. Approved 4-0- 1 with Willjam~ abserlt. Mayor Nader questioned whether the university would still be discussed on the 30th. Mr. Lettier/responded that if the Council/Board wanted the university moved to the number one item, staff could do that under the Issue Paper discussion. SUBSTITUTE COUNCIL MOTION: (Rindone/Malcolm) to schedule the hearing for October 12, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. on the EIR, approved unanimously. 4. INFORMATION ITEMS INTRODUCTION OF THE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN AL'ERNATIVES 5. SCHEDULE AND SCOPE OF FUTURE WORKSHOPS 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the Council or Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint hearing to the next joint hearing scheduled on Wednesday, September 30, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. in the Chula Vista Counc~ Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Soder~uist, Depu~%lerk