Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/09/30 MINUTES OF A JOINT CHUIA VISTA CITY COUNCIL SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING Wednesday, September 30, 1992 Council Chambers 9:13 a.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CAIL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilmember Malcolm 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None 3. CONTINUATION OF INFORMATION ITEMS FROM SEPTEMBER 24, 1992 WORKSHOP Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, stated it was the first time the agencies had been able to get into the substance of the project. The Village Development Concept was based on trying to develop a plan that used transit, pedesu'ian access, and multi-use development as a way to lessen the reliance on the automobile. Fred Arbuclde, representing the Baldwin Company, described the Village Concept. Their goal had been to define a new building block for planning. The plan would place entertainment and commercial activity in village cores, bringing people together. The right-of-way, either in the streets or adjacent to the streets, would be reserved in order to expedite rail in the future. A full range of housing would be offered in each of the villages, each village would also have a different theme. Trees would help to reinforce the identity of each of the villages, Pedestrian access would be designed in all cul-de-sacs. Councilmember Rindone questioned if there would be a congested nucleus because all the roads led to the center. Mr. Arbuckle responded there would be a number of ways to get into and out of the village and not force every car to go through the village core. There would be some congestion within each of the villages. They wanted the streets as narrow as possible to help the pedestrian scale and slow vehicle traffic. He felt it would work commercially and be a positive environment which would encourage people to get out of their cars. Supervisor Bilbray stated the dependency upon the automobile would be a major social change. He questioned the size of the radius of the village centers and how long of a walk it would be from the outer perimeter. Mr. Arbuckle responded that the villages varied in size. Some of the larger villages were about one m~e square. It was expected that everyone would be within one-half mile of the core. He explained that the narrowing of streets only applied to the streets within the village. The arterial highways were not being reduced in their standards or levels of service. They were also working with the transit districts to provide bus service as quickly as possible after the villages were being built. Councilmember Rindone questioned whether even the smallest villages could support an elementary school. Mr. Arbuckle responded there was one very small village which would have approximately seven hundred people that he did not feel would support an elementary school. Minutes September 30, 1992 Page 2 -\ .d Mayor Nader commended Baldwin and Mr. Arbuckle for making a presentation that had a concern for the human approach. He questioned how the information could be made available to the public and suggested that when notices were mailed they include that the presentation was made and how it could be viewed, Mr. Arbuclde responded the tape of the meeting would be available and he would also make another presentation at some future date if requested. 4. PRESENTATION ON ISSUE PAPERS ACCEPTED BY THE INTEIUURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE Mr. Lettieri stated the issue papers were used to identify and resolve conflicts on the project. The issues were identified by the Interjurisdictional Task Force and were reviewed by technical committees. An executive staff committee then decided what would go into the paper and then it went to the Task Force for acceptance. He discussed the land use plan alternatives in the context of the issue papers. Councilmember Holton referred to the university site which did have industrial zoning in close proximity to the site. City Manager Goss stated that was a good point and one of the deficiencies in the City's General Plan. George KrempI, Deputy City Manager, stated the university was sited across from proposed SR 125 from the eastern urban center in order to create some synergy in relationship between the town center and the university. There was some land intended as an employment area along SR 125 which could be a light manufacturing component. The Chula Vista General Plan did include some land, but not to the extent one might expect, for a full scale four year university. Mr. Arbuckle stated it took a year of existing studies that were done by the previous land owner and preparing a lot of studies of their own for a new plan for Otay Ranch. The New Town Plan was submitted in October 1989 and contained many good ideas. Many of those ideas were retained in the subsequent alternatives prepared by the project team and the Baldwin Company. It was a thirty year project. He then reviewed the elements of the New Town Plan. Mr. Lettieri stated the New Town Plan was submitted without the benefit of input from the Interjurisdictional Task Force. After its submittal, the Task Force adopted several goals, objectives, and policies which guided the other alternatives. The issue of the university located near or within the Salt Creek area became a focus of concern. He then reviewed the university planning process at the Interjurisdictional Task Force and the eight recommendations from the Task Force. The major issue for the Interjurisdicfinal Task Force was the location of a university. Supervisor MacDonald questioned whether there was a problem in holding the property. Mr. Lettieri responded that it was not a problem because the phasing plan that would be presented showed the university in the third phase in the western parcel. Mayor Nader stated the resolutions adopted by the two policy making bodies referred to a university site that would include the Wueste Road site and in fact, the Council was not talking about the four hundred acre site offered by Baldwin being the entire site but being part of a total university site. He was concerned that the EIR appeared to look at three university sites. One alternative was the one shown in the General Plan of the City which he felt was very unlikely to attract a university. Another alternative was no university which the City found unacceptable. The third alternative was only the four hundred acres which the EIR determined there were significant and unmitigable environmental impacts. The point made when the resolutions were being heard was that the entire university could not be crammed on the four hundred acres. ~ It was expected to occupy approximately one thousand and the majority of the four hundred acres could not ,., be built on and would remain open space for the campus. He questioned what needed to be done to direct Minutes September 30, 1992 Page 3 that a comprehensive university site be set aside and analyzed and that the project be planned in a way that would not preclude that. Mr. Lettieri stated that when staff went through the analysis of the appropriate size for the university, and talking to the university planners, they had stated they could not give an acreage figure for a university campus for an urban area. When the resolution was passed by the City and the County he did not remember seeing an acreage size. Staff went through an analysis to try to decide on what the City/County had decided by the resolutions. Staff then determined, not being university planners and not knowing the design of the facility, that they needed to protect the design of the resources of Salt Creek and provide an appropriate size for the university. The alternative suggested to the Task Force was an overlay. Then if the university wanted one thousand acres, the area would have to be replanned. Mayor Nader stated the EIR appeared to analyze the site as if the entire university would go on the four hundred acres and everyone knew that could not happen. Mr. Lettieri stated the Task Force had adopted the paper with those conditions, that Salt Creek would be protected and that four hundred usable acres be defined for the university. Without a design for the university he did not know what else to do. · Susan Herney, representing the University of California Chula Vista Task Force, recommended that the recommendation of the UCCV Task Force, in written form, be accepted as official comment. They specifically requested that the EIR provide a General Plan description of the university that considered one thousand acres including the four hundred acre site already approved by resolution by both the City/County. Supervisor Bilbray stated the meeting was a workshop and felt it inappropriate to make motions until after the public hearing process. He felt the issue was well taken and there needed to be a degree of flexibility. One of the most critical parts of the project would be the phasing. Mayor Nader stated he expected the comment submitted by the UCCV Task Force to be adequately responded to. He would not vote to certify the EIR if it wasn't. Council had stated that a university site would be planned for that "included" the four hundred acres. He wanted to see a project description and analysis that was realistic of what the university site would consist of so there would not be an unrealistically pessimistic view of the environmental concerns of the site. Then the university could come in with a minimal amount of additional processing to accommodate it. Mayor Nader stated he expected it to be taken seriously from here on. He was not talking about the strategy for the total number of acres or setting aside a site with specified boundaries. He was talking about defining the project and the site for review purposes at the current stage of project review that did not produce the conclusion that the site was virtually illegal because the site had been misdefined. Supervisor Bailey stated he felt for staff when they stated they did not know how to accomplish it other than an overlay. He did not see why an overlay could not accomplish what Mayor Nader requested. Mayor Nader stated an overlay could accomplish what he was talking about. The problem he was addressing was that the EIR did not analyze the university siting in terms of the overlay but three alternatives. The alternative that dealt with the proposed site concluded in the draft that there were significant and unmitigable environmental impacts. That conclusion raised certain consequences and was based on the assumption that the entire university would be built within that four hundred acres. That difference in analysis would make a tremendous difference in the environmental and legal conclusions about the feasibility of siting a university. Supervisor Bailey stated that what Mayor Nader was suggesting was that the section in the EIR be rewrirten. Mayor Nader stated that was correct. Minutes September 30, 1992 Page 4 -\ Councilmember Rindone stated he supported the direction expressed by the Mayor and felt it was in the best interest of the project, the community, and the long term educational needs of the entire region. The Mayor was not speaking alone, but had the support of his colleagues. Councilmember Moore stated there was no policy to demand one thousand acres. He questioned what could legally be pursued to ensure there was a site sufficient for a university. That had not been put in print or voted on. Mayor Nader responded that a resolution had been adopted by both bodies that did not specify a number of acres but did specify a site and acreage that would be included in that site. Greg Smith, President, Baldwin Company, stated he did not believe the intent was to cause the necessity of redrafting the EIR nor recirculating the EIR. He felt the intent was being misexpressed. The data regarding the biological, cultural resource, paleontoIogical, geological, etc. effects were all addressed and studied in the EIR. The way the EIR was presently worded on the four hundred acre site was what he called the nuclear disaster approach to EIR's which was to assume that everything was decimated, therefore, there was a worst case analysis. Anything that actually happened when a university came with a plan, would probably be less than the approach taken in the EIR. The problem with what was suggested was that there was no university site plan so an EIR could not be done for a university. It could be noted in the EIR. that the impacts may be less with actual design. If that was the UCCV Task Force comment, he felt that was appropriate. Supervisor Bilbray stated the concern was that the deck was not stacked against a reasonable environmental review which he felt was a reasonable concern. The documents could be used to argue against the facility based on scenarios that were far beyond what was reasonable to consider. Mr. Smith stated all the data was in the environmental documents. Mayor Nader stated that Mr. Smith was probably correct but the problem was with the way the data had been analyzed in relation to the university site. Again, it came back to the issue of someone taking a politically motivated opponents version of what was being done, as opposed to what was really being done, and analyzed that option in the EIR, i.e. putting the entire university on the four hundred acres. No one suggested that the four hundred acres would be the entire site of the university. He wanted the report to take the data it already had, look at a larger overlay to protect potential university uses surrounding the area, and do an analysis that would more accurately reflect the reality of how university siting might be done. Mr. Smith stated the conclusion would still be that there would be a significant affect. Until there was a site plan they would have to reach that conclusion. He had a fundamental problem with where the Mayor felt the analysis would go. Mayor Nader stated that if it stated the four hundred acres would be the whole thing, he did not see how there could be any other conclusion. If a wider overlay was done as he stated, it would depend on the site plan, building design, etc. The EIR should say that there were potential impacts depending upon those factors but, that the site did not inherently result in those impacts but would depend on further review ar the level of a site plan, etc. Those were two very different conclusions. The report, as presently written, seemed to indicate that no university plan at that site could be environmentally acceptable. Because that was based on a gross mischaracterization of the intent of the Task Force and both of the agencies, he found that conclusion untenable and in need of revision. The data necessary to reach a right conclusion was already there and he did not see it as something that would cause a redraft or resubmittal of the entire EIR. Mr. Smith stated he strongly objected to the overlay concept. Staff did it with an asterisk and felt the ~ asterisk was appropriate. Staff could rethink on how they had analyzed it but the problem was that they ,/ would have to define where the overlay was. Minutes September 30, 1992 Page 5 Supervisor Bilbray stated an overlay would have to be done because it was not just the public facility but there would also be an area that would have to be developed in a certain way if the university went in and a totally different strategy if the university did not go in. There needed to be an overlay for the two options. Mr. Smith questioned the acreage, location, and how all the n'ansitions would be dealt with. Mayor Nader stated the EIR could not make assumptions. The answer to the question was that it would be four hundred acres and that the university could not be sited there. Mr. Smith stated there could be a verbal overlay saying if the university located there all of the area would have to be looked at without really defining what the area was. He suggested that was the appropriate way to deal with the issue without trying to do a geographical overlay. All of the analysis assumed a university, so all of the roads, sewers, etc. were sized for a university under all of the alternatives. Supervisor MacDonald stated that unless something was done to assure the university that there would be more than four hundred acres available there would not be a university. They would want a specific answer regarding the size of the property being offered. Mr. Lettieri stated he wanted a dear understanding of the direction being given. Supervisor Bilbray stated that no direction was given, opinions had been expressed only. Mr. Lettieri stated the EIR presently addressed a number of alternatives and the response to comments would be for the record with the final EIR. As far as implementing the City/County goal to have a university located in the area, he felt they were talking about more than four hundred acres but the report did not state what that number was. Mayor Nader stated the intent of the resolutions adopted was clear that the exact number of acres was not specified but it was not their intent to cram the entire university on the four hundred acres. They wanted that four hundred acres set aside. They wanted a site ultimately available that would include that four hundred acres but would be large enough to accommodate the needs of the university and the environment. Mr. hettieri felt that had been done but in a worse case scenario. Mayor Nader stated the EIR should then state it was a worse case scenario and not what would really happen. Mr. hettieri stated he did not disagree with that and was not sure the conditions dealing with the university were stated in the EIR as mitigation to that. City Manager Goss stated there was, in addition to the land use issue, also a strategy issue. It was his view that comments by Mr. Lettieri would be more than satisfactory in proceeding with the EIR and coming up with mitigation language. Mayor Nader felt the City Manager was on the right track when talking about mitigation language. The EIR should reflect, after reviewing the data, that if the site was expanded for the university that the significant unmifigable impacts could turn out to be less significant and much more mitigable. Mr. Lettieri reviewed the four project team alternatives that provided different direction for the project. The primary differences between the project team alternatives and the Baldwin Vista project had to do with the amount of open space, the university location, transit, intensity of the eastern urban center, industrial locations, and total number of units. The product of the issues became the Phase I Progress Plan. The Phase I Progress Plan tried to refine the village concept on the western parcel. Minutes September 30, 1992 Page 6 Councilmember Moore stated it was his opinion that the controlling factor for traffic would not be Otay Ranch but Mexico. Mr. Lettieri responded that some of the traffic studies showed that on a regional standpoint, a lot of the traffic was through traffic, either from the north trying to get south and coming from Mexico going north. Supervisor Bilbray stated a lot of the terminus of the trips going south were going to the Otay Mesa industrial area and did not transcend the border. Mr. hettieri stated that Mexico was considered in the traffic models. They did not consider what the unknown was as far as the projections of the border crossings. He then reviewed the individual issue papers. The Task Force had asked staff to look at the potential trade-offs of coming down in a lower intensity which would be consistent with the County's General Plan and would allow development further to the south. · 3ulie Dillon, representing Helix Land Company, 416 University Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA, stated they owned the "whiter propert7 on the map which was being discussed. They were concerned about the planning around the property and wanted to make sure that when it was planned the property was not walled off. Helix Land would be coming in with a development plan of their own in the future. If the land surrounding their property was identified as open space the City/County would be performing a taking because there would be no access provided or reasonable land use for the property. Mr. Lettieri stated Ms. Dillon had stated she would be coming in to meet with staff regarding her plan and staff would address her concerns. Supervisor Bailey stated it was his understanding that there were other properties to the south with the same problems. He felt there was a possibility there would be a taking if the properties were blocked off from Mr. Lettieri stated there was possibly one other property to the south and staff would identify the property for the City/County. It was never staffs intent to block off the properties. 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 Thursday, October 22, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk