Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/10/12 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Monday, October 12, 1992 Public Services Building I. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT Mayor-pro-tern Malcolm, Councilmembers Hotton, Moore and Rindone (6:28 p.m.) ABSENT Mayor Nader COMMISSIONERS Chair Casillas, Commissioners PRESENT Carson, becket, Martin, Ray and Tuchscher ABSENT Commissioner Fuller STAFF General Manager Lettieri, ASsistant City Attorney Rudolf, Deputy City Manager Krempl, Planning Director Leiter, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant County Planning Director Jamriska and G. Smith (Baldwin) II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER. III. RESOLUTION 16836 ESTABLISHING PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR THE DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SUBREGIONAL PLAN (SCH #89010154) The Chair announced that the action on Resolution 16836 would be taken by Minute Action on the advice of the City Attorney. Tonight's discussion would not be the merits of the project but when the public review period should end. The City Council already has taken testimony on this issue at four meetings and the Planning Commission at two. Tricia Gerrodette, 11142 Caminito Vista Pacifica, San Diego, Chair of the Land Use Committee for the Sierra Club of San Diego. Ms. Gerrodette read a letter from Ray Radtkey, 4463 Maryland St., San Diego. Mr. Radtkee has a post-Doctoral Research in Biology at UC San Diego. The letter stated his qualifications for com- menting on the status of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Be discussed the possibility of non-experts finding these butter- flies particularly in drought years, the need for and the method Joint City Council/Planning Commission 2 Meeting of 10/12/92 of conducting an adequate survey to establish baseline data as well as proposed mitigation measures prior to approval of the final version of the Programmed Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). She submitted his letter for the record. In reply to Commissioner Decker she said the butterfly was a candidate species for listing. Susan Wolfe-Flaming, 11524 Fuerte Farms Rd., E1 Ca~on, represent- ing Chaparral Greens stacked the nine vol~nes of the technical appendices on the podium to emphasize the amount of material to be studied. She stated the documents were incomplete because the three main vol~nes of the DEIR are lacking and because of inade- quate research. She requested a 60-day extension of the public review period. In response to a question she indicated the information had been delivered the first part of August. E.J. Burley, 6500 San Miguel Rd., Bonita 91902. Spoke of the amount o~ reading material involved and that be had to use the Library editions. He noted that the CEQA Guidelines call for a minimum of 60 days and an additional 60 days from this date was being requested because the main EIR is deficient. Tom Pocklington, 3210 KennelwOrth Lane, Bonita, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, said a request for an additional 60-day extension was not unreasonable on a project that will take 40 to 50 years to build out. He cited the simi- larity in the Council doing their job prope;ly and the Citizen Groups doing theirs. He noted that Supervisor Bilbray had been contacted regarding this issue and that a letter from him had been transmitted endorsing the people's point of view. Develop- ment of a city with 125,000 people has an enormous impact and more time in this phase of consideration is important. He pointed out that not only the City was involved but the County and that he and the other residents of the County want sufficient time to review the DEIR. Peter Watrv, 81 Second Ave., CV 91910, representing CROSSROADS, cited conflicting statements on Air Quality between the 1991 Growth Management Oversight Commission report, dated August 1, 1992, which referenced the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adoption of a revised air quality plan setting "a goal of 3% reduction in air amissions annually to the year 2000 and a reduction annually thereafter," and .the DEIR, page 3.11-7, "The results reported in Table 3.1113 shows the proposed project would incramentally increase the pollution to the regional air shed. Any increase in particular emission or ozone precursor emissions constitutes a significant adverse impact because .an Diego County is already a non-attainment area for Ozone and particulate matter." He also pointed out that page 6-41 of the EIR says, "Destruction of vehicular and stationary source emissions from Joint City Council/Planning Commission 3 Meeting of October 12, 1992 the projects contained within the cumulative impact area of Otay Ranch would incrementally contribute to the San Diego air basin's inability to attain Federal and State air qual ity standards for its ozone..." as well as "Although the proposed project repre- sents a relatively small change in the regional air pollutant background, the cumulative effect of development projects in the region is one which contributes significantly to the degradation of the County's air quality." Mr. Watry questioned reconcili- ation of the EIR and the reductions protected by law and requested a 30-day extension of the public review period. (A copy of the letter was submitted for the record.) The Chair asked staff to note that Mr. Watry's comments are more germane to the public hearing portion on the substance of the EIR and those should become part of the record when the hearing portion comes up. Daniel Tart, 11524 Fuerte Farms Rd., E1 Cajon, representing the Valley de Oro Community Planning Group, said his group was requesting a 50-day extension of the public review period as consistent with their original request for 120 days. John Hammond, 3012 Anderson St., Bonita, 91902, Chair of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, stated that additional time is needed to study the specific impacts on the Sweewater Valley which involve the proposed enlargement of Sweetwater Road and both bridges from two lanes to six as well as severe impacts to San Miguel Road and Bonita Road. An additional 60-day extension of the public review period was requested. James Mayberry, 987 Loma View, Chula Vista. Mr. Mayberry noted that the reason for Council's intervention in the public review period process has not been stated. Unless a reason having to do with the efficiency or reliability of the planning process is given, the field is left open for speculations about the motive and calls into question the integrity of the entire process. There is no way to separate the merits of the EIR from the procedural treatment of the public review period. He requested that Council state some reason why it intervened in the process. (6:28 p.m. - Councilman Rindone arrives) Euqene J. Sprofera, 5311 Fairway Dr., La Mesa 91941, Legislative Analyst #580, San Diego County. Mr. Sprofera read an Addendum to his letter of 10/7/92 recording his intention to contact the .tare of California regarding mismanagement practices by both the City and County in accepting a lien on property belonging to the developer. He noted that although the City was the Lead Agency the land was located in the County. He spoke well of the hear- ings held by the Planning Commission and commented that they had Joint City Council/Planning Commission 4 Meeting of October 12, 1992 been "left up in the air and...greatly disturbed" by the actions at Tuesday's Council Meeting. He asked that the statement be made part of the record. Mr. Sprofera also submitted the Adden- dum for the record. Mark Montijo, 1875 Honey Sprinqs Rd., Jamul, CA 91935, Chair of the Jamul/Dulzura Community Planning Group, stated that Chula Vista was selected as Lead Agency because even though the land was in the unincorporated area of the County, the magnitude of impact of the project was on the City of Chula Vista. He asked that Council treat the members of the unincorporated areas as though they were constituents of Chula Vista. The nine volumes of technical appendices displayed to the Council are the substance on which the conclusions of the main volumes of the EIR are based. After intensive reading of the 1800 pages of the DEIR, most readers have an idea of what is intended to occur. That, however, is not adequate to determine whether or not those conclusions are based on quantitative information. A thorough review by the public of all that information is necessary. Council's procedural change to allow themselves the opportunity to take over the proceedings and determine when the actual end of the public review period will be, could be argued as a project specific change of substance yet what is occurring here is a subversion of the expressed intent of the Planning Commission to extend the public review period to what they feel is necessary for adequate public review of this project. The only way Council can make it clear that was not their intent is to reaffirm their Appointed Body's position and extend the public review for an additional 60 days. GreGory T. Smith, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, 92150, repre- senting the Baldwin Company, said he had submitted a letter stating Baldwin's position. The required public rev jew period is 45 days. Today is the 73rd day. From Baldwin's perspective, enough is enough and it's time to move on. Commissioner Casillas referenced CEQA'S provision that under extraordinary circumstances the period could be longer and that, clearly, Otay Ranch is an extraordinary project. Mr. Smith replied that while CEQA provided such discretion, he interpreted the "extraordinary circumstance" provision to indicate an emer- gency or a grievous public wel fare/safety issue. Michael A. Green, 43 Palomar Drive, CV, President of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, remarked that the Board of Directors had moved unanimously that a decision on annexation should be completed this year if possible, therefore they would be oppose~'~ to any extension of the review period. He pointed out that the Joint City Council/Planning Commission 5 Meeting of October 12, 1992 would be many opportunities for public comments before any plan is adopted. Also, there will be many other EIRs to be reviewed before any plan is adopted. He urged that the public review period be brought to a close at the end of 80 days. Ben G. Patton, 294 "F" Street, CV, cited his background on the Civil Service Commission, Montgomery Planning Committee, and as a member of the Governing Council of the Otay Ranch Development Group. Me noted that there had been public advertisements requesting comments on the project. The public had its chance to make comments, failed to show and he concurred with the decision to have the closure of the public review period at the end of 80 days. Maqqie Helton, 162 Mankato St., CV, 91910, Chair of the Governing Council o~ the Otay Ranch Development Group, said that Baldwin has worked with the Community on the planning of this development for almost four years. Three subcommittees have addressed environment, especially infrastructure and natural resources. She displayed a list of issues addressed, including some men- rioned by other speakers. She expressed her amazement that "people who could have been involved had chosen not to partici- pate, new choose to come out of the woodwork and cry, 'Wait'." Ms. Hel ton suggested that the requests were not simply for more time but to delay the project. She reminded all that the EIR would again be addressed as each village and the Eastern Urban Center is developed. She stated her preference for a well- developed plan by one developer rather than many smaller plans by many developers for the same acreage. The Governing Council, at their last meeting, voted 5-4 to no extension. She approved Council's action o~ a simple extension to October 20 and no further. The Chair commented that the length of Ms. Helton's resume for services to Chula Vista probably reads longer than the EIR. Susan Herney, 148 Mankato St., CV, 92110, spoke of the extraor- dinary eEfort expended by the Baldwin Company. Anyone who cared to participate has had an opportunity; those coming forward tonight expressing surprise by the size of this project bare not been paying attention. Ms. Herney maintained that the process had been open and honest and those who cry, "collusion" have not been paying attention. She asked where these people had been for the last four years? Ms. Herney agreed with Ms. Helton's com- ments and requested that the publ ic review period be closed. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Joint City Council/Planning Commission 6 Meeting of October 12, 1992 The Mayor-pro-tem then remarked that the issue under considera- tion was when the public review period should end. He explained that the public review period was not "public bearings" because if it were decided to close the hearing on October 19, the Commission could still have public hearings after that date i= they so desired. By law, all comments received up until the 19tb (if that were the closing date) have to be responded to in the FEIR in writing. It has been the City's policy, and he would commit, the Council would commit and the Commission would commit, that it will continue to be the policy that any comment received after that date will also be responded to in writing. They will not be made part of the EIR but they will still be before the Commission and before the Council when decisions are being made. There is no intent of stifling public comment. Council is trying to move the process along. After the 19th (if it closes) people can still comment. There will be a public hearing on the General Plan where discussions will include its relationship to the EIR. That will be within 60-90 days. At those hearings, the public will be given another opportunity to address their concerns. After the Commission's bearing it goes to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council for public hearings where, again, the public can address their concerns. He continued outlining the process through the Sphere of Influence Study for LAFCO which will require a Supplemental EIR with its attendant public hearings as well as the public hearing required when the City accepts the property and its impact. After acceptance, a SPA Plan with another Supplemental EIR and public hearings before the Commission and the Council is required. The Mayor-pro-tem emphasized that Council had not tried to make a power play. When Council and the Board voted for a 60-day public review period, there was no question of Council's authority to do so. He commended the Planning Commission for their good work and expressed hope for an agreement. In response to w~y Council took the action it did, he referenced (1) the indemnity agreement that would benefit Chula Vista if the time frame could be met, which it was his personal impression could be done; (2) the value of having this land under jurisdiction of Chula Vista; and (3) the need to protect the City from a repetition of the County's efforts to locate various undesirable projects (jails, landfills, and toxic waste disposal areas) in the Chula Vista area. He pointed out that two of the proposed landfill sites were within proximity of Chula Vista. He concluded that in weighing all these factors, it was his opinion and request that the Planning Commission continue on through the process and that it make a motion to end the formal public review comment period. Joint City Council/Planning Commission 7 Meeting Of October 12, 1992 Chairman Casillas asked the Assistant City Attorney for the status of the Planning Commission as a result of the Resolution approved by Council? He asked if it were a bearing body or what status Council proposes to give? At the Joint City/County Planning Commission Meeting of September 16, the Joint Commis- sions bad recommended an extension to 120 days. He needed to know the effect of that recommendation given the action of Council on Tuesday evening. Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm said that Council wanted no changes made in procedures. The action taken by Council was to ensure that if the Council ever deemed it necessary to take over a review process and close a hearing date, the legal authority would be in place. Prior to that action, authority rested with the Environ- mental Review Coordinator. Commissioner Casillas said he did not understand why Council was now asking the Planning Commission to establish the review period when Council' had given itself back that authority. Councilman Moore explained that the Planning Commission had not set the public review period in 20 years nor had the Council. The planning review period had been set by administrative action of the Env ironmental Review Coordinator (ERC) in the normal run of procedure and is usually set for 45 days. The Planning Commission was informed through routine scheduling of a public hearing on a particular process. In this particular project, because of the involvement of two Public Agencies and in keeping with the cooperative mode, the review period was set for 60 days. The first Planning Commission meeting after that period brought the total period to 68 days. Council was surprised when informed by staff that the authority to close the public review period had been given to the Commission. The Councilman reviewed the background document, dated November 23, 1982, which indicated the routine for setting the public review period was no longer than 45 days, set administratively, as evidence that the authority was neither taken away nor given to the Commission. That document states the public review time ceases when the Planning Commission closes the public bearing, however, that does not end the public input period because testimony is still received by Council. The public input versus public review period doesn't close until the Council closes the public hearing. Mayor-pro-tern Malcolm apologized for the bad timing and poor communication between Council and the Commission. He noted that the official closing date for the public review period needed to be settled. Joint City Council/Planning Commission 8 Meeting of October 12, 1992 Chairman Casillas repeated his question of why, if Council has the authority to close the public review period, are they asking the Commission to do so? The Mayor-pro-tem replied that Council would like to keep the same process, with the exception of that involving the ERC, as it had been in the past which is leaving the hearings and process with the Planning Commission. Chairman Casillas asked what is being given up if this process is expedited? He referenced the issue of "protecting ourselves" as worthwhile but found the "selling of wolf tickets" to be slightly offensive and expressed doubt that the Board of Supervisors would attempt to place "another two dumps in our backyard or a nuclear waste disposal." Chairman Casillas stated that from his perspec- tive, the Commission voted to extend the review period to 120 days. The County Planning Commission voted the same. From this point on, he would turn it over to his colleagues who can do and suggest whatever they want. In response to a question, Mr. Lettieri said that based on current projections, the FEIR would be completed by November 9 assuming a lot o~ other comments difficult to respond to are not received. Mr. Rudolf, in response to Commissioner Carson, explained that if the Commission set the close of the public review period by motion tonight (either closed it with tonight's public hearing or on the 19th as requested), the Commission would continue to be the hearing body and the review period would close on the date the Commission specified by motion, or by the close of the gavel at the close of the public hearing if it were determined to do it sooner. If the Commission does not choose to that, Council will need to decide which of two possible actions it might take under the new procedure; to either set the closure date itself and allow the Commission to continue holding public hearings but state the closing of the public review period, or take upon itself a hearing conducting the public hearing and closing the public review period also. The timing on the Planning Commission and Council consideration of the FEIR and, consequently, the project would be affected depending on how those things were resolved. Councilman Moore commented that three "rights" must be considered in setting a date; those who have rights to review, property owner's rights and governmental agencies' rights to see what is best overall for the City or County. All Of those bodies should come to some consensus. The property owner should not say 45 days is all he will ever give. The people who have the right t j Joint City Council/Planning Commission 9 Meeting Of October 12, 1992 review the EIR should not take unnecessary time because time is money not only to the developer, but to the City in the form of jobs and tax base. Commissioner Carson said that having considered a number of EIRs over a number of years, she feels that her original motion for 120 days was justifiable. Rowever, after reviewing the material before the Commission and hearing things that have enlightened her, she felt that the October 19 closure date would be an extension of, at least, 1/3. She advised the Council that if, in her opinion, the issues have not been addressed effectively she will vote against the EIR. MS (Carson/Tuchscher) to close the public review period on October 19, 1992. Commissioner Tuchscher complemented Maggie Relton's group and the Baldwin people on the work they had done on the Otay Ranch project. Re said he felt comfortable in closing the public review period on the 19th because of the vast amount of EIR material forthcoming. Re referenced Ms. Relton's comment that too much delay might result in no longer having only one devel- oper and losing the opportunity for such things as an ll,0O0-acre nature preserve. Commissioner Decker requested clarification on whether Council had granted the Commission the authority to be the hearing body, because his reading of the Resolution indicates the Council must establish the period of time and determine the hearing body on every EIR. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said that 6.9 of the Procedures makes the Planning Commission remain the public hearing body with regard to the accuracy of the DEIR unless the Council is the approving body for a given project and ~u~ otherwise assumed authority to hold the public hearing. It is a potential reserva- tion of the right of the Council but they must exercise it. The Mayor's comment that "nothing has changed" is correct. The basic structure of the rules is that there shall be a public hearing by the Planning Commission and the close of the public review period coincides with the gavel going down at the close of that public hearing unless something different happens. What Council is asking is if the date the Council would have in mind if they were forced to act is mutually agreeable to the Commission? If it is, then there is no need for them to act. Commissioner Decker asked what would happen if the indemnity period ran out? Row can Baldwin indemnify the City if it is having financial problems? Joint City Council/Planning Commission 10 Meeting of October 12, 1992 Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm replied that although times were difficult in the real estate market there was no indication that Baldwin lacked solvency. Mr. Rudolf said that the indemnity agreement only provided the City with legal protection if there were a challenge to the action by the City specifically addressed to the inadequacy of the public review period of the EIR. If the challenge to the project were on CEQA grounds or its environmental review or some other reason, then indemnification would not come into play. If the challenge comes on that ground, then the indemnification is to provide legal defence at the cost of the applicant rather than at the cost of the City. Commissioner Ray said he had no problem with the Resolution giving the Council the formal option of taking over the setting of a review period of an EIR. He hoped that Council would not choose to exercise that right above and beyond what is really in the best interests of the City. He echoed the previous comments regarding protecting the South Bay. He noted that it might not be popular to close the public review period at this time in the light of so many comments, but he had a firm belief that neither the City nor the developer would ignore any comments of a valid concern. He would fully support the motion. Commissioner Martin asked if we were establishing a precedent through the use of the indemnity agreement for developers to enforce their wishes? Mr. Rudolf replied that the precedent had already been set. There have been other projects with indem- nification provided by the developer regarding various aspects of the project. The procedures keep the authority over the EIR process in the hands of the Council. The exigencies must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm noted that the question was very important. He was not requesting the Planning Commission to close the review period on the 19th because of the indemnity agreement alone. If he was not of the opinion that the hearing process could be completed in that period of time, it would be wrong. However, the EIR was well prepared and there were a number of reasons for trying to move the jurisdiction to Chula Vista. Chairman Casillas said he could not .support the motion given the abundance of evidence and requests received from the public and professional organizations. It is his feel ing that it would not serve the public'e interest to cut off the review period. The idea of hurrying has some risk and governing is about taking risks. Quoting Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm's, "That's the price of democracy," he noted that democracy means that folks out there should be listened to and given the opportunity to make a full Joint City Council/Planning Commission 11 Meeting of October 12, 1992 analysis of the impact on what this one project will have on their lives and that of their heirs. He stated that the argu- ments for it were not persuasive and he would not support the motion. Mr. Rudolf said before the vote was taken, he wished to clarify the content of the motion. His understanding is that the motion is to hold a hearing and close the public review period on October 19. Re said he was not certain if the Commission inten- ded to continue tonight's public hearing, hold a public hearing tonight and continue it to the 19th, continue to take public input on the 19th and then close the public hearing at the end of that public hearing. Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm said the Planning Commission could decide whatever they wanted regarding whether they have more hearings at the end of tonight. The motion on the floor is just the public review portion. Mr. Rudolf asked if the intent of the motion was to say that the public review period shall close at 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 19927 Commissioner Carson said her intent was for the closing of the public review period on Monday, October 19. She didn't plan to come back next Monday. Commissioner Ray asked if Council, if they chose to exercise the option, was then prepared and willing to take over all reviews of the EIRs, supplementals and amendments to a specific project that they have taken that option on? Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm said he did not believe Council was able to answer that question at this time. If this motion were to fail, then there would need to be discussion. Commissioner Ray asked if the intent of the Resolution was so the Council could say, "We have reached a point where we need to close this, and we believe we should have that option." He asked, if, at that point, would it still befall the Planning Commission to continue the ongoing process? Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm answered affirmatively. He said if the motion passes, there would be a 5-minute recess, the Council would leave and everything would proceed as it has in every other project. MS (Carson/Tuchscher) to close the public review period on the Draft Program Env ironmental Impact Report on the Otay Ranch General Amendment and General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (SCH #89010154) at 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 1992. The motion failed 3-3 with Decker, Martin and Casillas opposed. MS (Martin/Casillas) that the public review period be extended an additional 60 days making for a total of 120 days. Joint City Council/Planning Commission 12 Meeting of October 12, 1992 Commissioner Martin said there was a MOU with the County. The County and Chula Vista Planning Commissions had met and had requested an additional 60 days. Then the question of authority to grant this time was raised. However, the real issue was that the Planning Commission was charged to do a job and so appointed by the Council. He as a Commissioner wanted to do the best job he could but be needed time to listen to the public, study and digest the material presented. Judging by the public comments, more time is needed. Commissioner Carson noted that originally she was 100% in favor of a longer time but she realized that like her students, the more time she has, the more time it takes. To extend the period another 60 days would not make her do a better job. Commissioner Martin asked if the public bearing closed on Novem- ber 29, could the letters be answered before the end of the year? Mr. Lettieri said it would be difficult because of the holidays. Commissioner Decker asked if Commissioner Martin would consider an amendment from 60 to 30 days. The Commissioner agreed. Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm noted that a letter had been addressed to the members of the Commission by Supervisor Bilbray recommendin~ an extension to October 29, which would be the 90th day. This would be the longest period of time allowable without a finding of "extraordinary circumstances". Commissioner Carson remarked on the long meeting held on October 7 during which this issue was discussed for over two bouts. Upon return from the break, many of the people had left and the public hearing portion took less than 1-1/2 hours. She felt this was indicative. Commissioner Ray remarked that he has already heard a lot of redundancy in the issues; there would be opportunities at each SPA level for comment. He was of the opinion that it was more practical to close the public hearing and attack the particulars at SPA level. Commissioner Martin said he would agree if he were convinced that everything within the framework would be studied at the SPA level. He asked if the Commission voted for this tonight, were any parts irreversible? Mr. Rudolf replied that if the motion were made and approved, all that would be affected was the closing of the public review period. The various levels of subsequent discretionary reviews ~ would still have to be brought before the Commission and most o~ Joint City Council/Planning Commission 13 Meeting of October 12, 1992 them, but not all, have an accompanying level of EIR. Some might require just an addendure, some a supplemental EIR and some might be a mitigating negative declaration. It depends on the particular project that would come forth implementing the large plan at the gross planning stage. Commissioner Tuchscher offered a substitute motion to close the public hearing on October 19, 1992. Commissioner Tuchscher said his reason was largely due to the indemnity agreement and to protect public interest relative to potential litigation. Commissioner Casillas asked the status of the prior motion and if it had been seconded? Mr. Rudolf replied that it was Mr. Mar- tin's motion and Mr. Casillas' second to extend the public review period for a total of 120 days. Mr. DecKer suggested an amend- ment to reduce it to 30 additional days resulting in a total of 90 from day 1. Mr. Casillas did not accept that second yet and in absence of the second, the motion to amend fails. Commissioner Casillas said he would second the amended motion. Mr. Rudolf continued that what was before the Commission was: AMENDED MOTION: MS (Martin/Casillas) to extend the public review period to a total of 90 days, October 29, 1992. A substitute motion was offered by Mr. Tuchscher rot closing the public review period on October 19. That requires approval by both the maker and second to have that be a substitute motion. Commissioner Carson said she would second the substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: MS (Tuchscher/Carson) to close the public review period on October 19, 1992. Councilman Rindone said it is critical to look at the big picture and analyze the long-term effect and impact. He remarked on an unofficial connotation that anything beyond the 80 day review period (the current substitute motion on the floor) is an attempt to stop the planning process or an attempt to digress from that. That is not the case. It is an effort to go on to the next and, perhaps, more sophisticated level of planning. The Mayor deline- ated the number of EIRs, steps and hearings that will continue. He commented that he had never seen a developer that has done more preplanning to come to this culminating eftoft. Those efforts are commendable on the part of this developer. Joint City Council/Planning Commission 14 Meeting of October 12, 1992 The Councilman emphasized that the Commission is not voting to stop the process, the planning or criticism but to go to the next level so Commission and Council can get "down and dirty" and really investigate. They are doing it within a time frame to provide the legal indemnification of this City to be able to proceed. In reply to Commissioner Carson, Mr. Rudolf said he understood the motion to be to close the public review period on the 19th without holding, necessarily, a public hearing on the night of the 19th. Commissioner Ray said he had one more comment. Closing the public review period does not mean the Commission is voting on the EIR itself. The issues can still be addressed if the Commis- sion doesn't feel the document is adequate. VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Approved 4-2 with Martin and Casillas opposed. Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm stated there would be a 5-minute recess and then the Planning Commission would have the public hearing on the EIR. The Planning Commission recessed at 7:56 p.m. The City Codicil adjourned at 7:56 p.m. to the Regular City Council Meeting on October 13, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith Secretary