Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/06/02 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE COUN'I~ OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Wednesday, June 2, 1993 County Board Chambers 3:00 p.m. County Administration Center CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CAI~: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: None 2. APPROVAL OF MINI~'F~: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-92-3), PREZONING (90-C}, AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP 90-3) - Joint public hearing with the County Board of Supervisors on the Otay Ranch Project. Opening remarks were made by Supervisor Bilbray and Mayor Nader regarding the project. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None S. STAFF PRESENTATION BACKGROUND/PLANNING PRO(ISS; 511~ ANALYSIS; AND ISSUE - AREAS BASED ON JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS - The next Otay Ranch Joint Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council public hearing is tentatively scheduled for June 16. 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista Council Chambers. · Greg Smith, Baldwin Company, stated that probably 90% of the people agreed with 90% of the Plan judging by an analysis of the votes by both Planning Cornmissions. He then reviewed the history of the planning process and the innovation of the village concept, the resource management plan, and facility plans. They would be advocating their own position, as they were not entirely in support of the staff recommendation. Tony Lettieri, Project Team Manager, presented the background report and the Joint Project Team's presentation of the site characteristics, public participation program, and the process for the Board/Council deliberations on the Otay Ranch General Plan Amendment, and an overview of the recommendations. He defined the planning process; the site features of the property; and the planning analysis involving staff, the Intel~urisdictional Task Force and Planning Commission, and their goals and objectives, with the aid of various slides. He also defined various supporting documents, i.e. resource management plan, facility implementation plan, village phasing plan, and the service revenue plan (fiscal impact analysis). He highlighted the major issues identified by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Fox questioned whether there was a list with the disagreements between the Planning Commissions and the different entities. Mr. Lettieri responded that the Major Issue Chart, contained in the binder, contained the disagreements between the various groups, commir~ees, and commissions. Councilmember Moore questioned why the proposed density in Jamul-Delzura was lower than the County General Plan proposed. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Lettieri responded that staff and the applicant concurred that if development was moved to central Proctor Valley they would get a more viable village with the exchanged area designated for estate homes, therefore, a lower density than the County General Plan permitted. Supervisor Jacob asked if the Board would meet with the Council before the land use decision-making phase. She questioned how conflicts would be addressed regarding land use. Supervisor Bilbray responded that the Board/Council would sit together as much as possible. He felt it essential that the dialogue be open when the vote was taken. It was currently an unincorporated area and conflict issues would have to be abated when they arose. Mr. Lettieri responded that the Board/Council would act as separate bodies. The County would be amending the General Plan and potentially, the City would be amending its General Plan and adopting a General Development Plan. Supervisor Bilbray stated the project must remain flexible, considering the present unstable economic climate. Mr. Lettieri responded that there were mechanisms recommended that provided for annual review and the necessary reserves. Supervisor Slater questioned whether sewer was appropriate, or not appropriate, in terms of perking, ground water considerations, and other considerations. She felt that would be the determining factor between zoning and land use considerations. In dealing with the water quality issues, those issues must be separated and go back to zoning for what it was, land use. Supervisor Jacob questioned when the fiscal model would be available for analysis. Mr. Lettied responded that he hoped it would be ready by the end of the month. The consultant had gone over budget and staff needed to review the report to make sure the work effort was consistent with the work program set forth. Councilmember Rindone questioned which Planning Commission had approved the moving of the road north of Otay Lakes. Mr. Lettieri responded that both Planning Commissions and applicant had made the recommendation. Councilmember Moore asked if the recommendation included what happened to traffic once it crossed Otay Valley. Mr. Lettieti responded the recommendation was at a policy level, the actual location of the road was deferred to the East Otay Mesa Planning process in order to coordinate with the circulation system. · Robert Kelly, 1910 Avenida de la Cruz, San Ysidro, CA, "Open Spacers", stated he owned property above Salt Creek Ranch which was tentatively designated as open space. He expressed concern regarding being land locked and requested an appointment with the Chula Vista City Attorney to voice their concerns. · Daniel Tart, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, E1 Cajon, CA, representing Valle de Oro Community Planning Group, requested a copy of the binder presented to the Board/Council. They would make their presentation at the meeting of 6/16/93. He further requested the status of negotiations with the Ogden Environmental consultant and the other deposit accounts. Mr. Lettieri responded that staff had met with Ogden on two occasions and another meeting was scheduled next week with the Baldwin Company to work that issue out. The Baldwin Company had been advised, and Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 3 understood, that final approval could not occur if the bills had not been paid. It was his understanding that the City was current. Bill Healy, Deputy Planning Director, County of San Diego, stated the County deposit was current. They were depositing with the County approximately $25,000/month. Staff was monitoring the account very closely and would advise the Board should they go into a deficit before final action on a GPA. · Patricia Gerrodette, 3820 Ray Street, San Diego, CA, Chair of the Land Use Committee, Sierra Club in San Diego, stated they would have more comprehensive comments at the meeting of 6/16/93. She felt the EIR had information missing and had been reassured in the past that the information would be made available in subsequent EIR's. She again pointed out that information was missing which made the Board's/Councfl's decision making difficult and not as fully informed as it should be. The wildlife corridor studies focused on major mammals, which was good, but should also focus on key species. By not including smaller animals, i.e. amphibians and reptiles, there would be a flaw in the Wildlife Corridor Studies. She questioned whether a list of citations of areas was available where it was felt further information was needed, where deficiencies were. Mayor Nader felt the speaker had been reflecting his comments regarding the EIR. Council had indicated last year that further information would have to be developed at the SPA level and beyond, but the EIR should be upffont as to where the gaps were and where additional information would be provided before moving on to a more specific level of planning. He assumed that it was not approval, but a decision that would be held in abeyance pending satisfactory resolution, and that it related to completed work and not to work that fell short of what they felt was within the scope of work. Councilmember Moore questioned whether the policy makers would be given a written explanation regarding the difference between a Program EIR and SPA EIR, what triggers them, and when required in the planning stage. Mr. Lettieri stated the Council/Board would receive a full presentation on 6/16/93 regarding the Program EIR. Supervisor Jacob questioned whether City/County legal counsels had reviewed the environmental documents. William Taylor, Deputy County Counsel, County of San Diego, responded they had been involved from the beg/nning of the Planning Commission meetings. He had not read all of the volumes of documents, but had attended all of the hearings and had been made aware of the issues as they arose. They had also worked with the consultant attorney and concured with the advice she had given. Supervisor Jacob stated she wanted to make sure that when a decision needed to be made as to whether the environmental document was complete and in compliance with CEQA there had been review from legal counsel and also from professional staff. There being no further comments from the Council or Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint hearing to the next joint hearing scheduled for June 16, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk