Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/06/16 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Wednesday, June 16, 1993 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROH. CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Holton, Moore, and Mayor Pro Tem Rindone ABSENT: Mayor Nader 2. APPROVAL OF MINIH'F~: None 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None 4. PUBLIC HEARING OTAY RANCH - During the public hearing, the County Board of Supervisors/City Council will deliberate on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and the Otay Ranch Project. Mayor Pro Tem Rindone stated there would be a three minute time limit per speaker except for planning groups or committees. For any individual requesting more time, the Chair would request a vote. Supervisor MacDonald stated he had been absent from the last meeting but had listened to the tapes and therefore would participate. This being the time and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened. Tony Lettieri, Joint Project Team Manager, outlined the six major issues: 1) Environmental Impact Report adequacy; 2) Otay Valley Parcel; 3) the Lakes; 4) Centtal Proctor Valley; 5) JamuI/Delzura; and, 6) other text, i.e. housing element, air quality section of the GDP. He reviewed the environmental review procedures, the City was the lead agency for the EIR and the County was the responsible agency. The County was responsible for review of the EIR, holding public hearings, receiving Planning Commission recommendations, and commenting on the EIR. If the Board felt the EIR was inadequate, a recommendation on the EIR revisions should be given to Council and if revisions were substantial, then additional circulation of the EIR could be required. If the EIR was adequate, the Board would make a recommendation to Council to certify the EIR. The Council EIR procedures were the same in the initial review process except that the County Board recommendations had been added. The City also needed to determine adequacy of the EIR. The City, unlike the County, either certified or did not certify the EIR. Although sitting jointly, all actions were separate. Four recommendations were before the Agencies, two variations of a staff recommendation and two separate recommendations from the two Planning Commissions. Staff intended to go back to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation before final action by the Council/Board on the findings. Councilmember Fox questioned whether Council had the right to certify the EIR over any objections, including the County's. Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 2 ) Richard Rudolph, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the question involved the application of the MOU and depended on how the disagreement worked out. lfthe County Board found inadequacies in the EIR and recommended those to Council and Council agreed, recirculation would not necessarily be required. If Council disagreed and was satisfied the document was adequate, then the MOU would come into play. Mr. Lettieri gave an overview of the Planning Commission actions which was included in the staff report. The areas where there was disagreement was included in the Major Issue Table. Mayor Pro Tem Rindone stated it was his understanding that the right-of-ways were provided so that when talking about the cost of the light rail it would be the actual cost of construction and the costs pertaining condemnation and right-of-way would be a moot issue. Mr. Lettieri stated that was correct. There were conditions placed on the project that required the ultimate dedication of all right-of-ways through the project for the light rail transit line including the necessary areas for transit stops. Supervisor Bilbray questioned the density to the norfit, adjacent to the Otay Ranch project. He stated that the Agencies needed to look comprehensively at the adjoining properties, both the existing zoning and property use and those undeveloped uses. Mark Montijo, Jamul/Delzura Community Planning Group, responded that it was the southern boundary of the Jamul Country Town which had one acre minimums. There were some lots adjacent to the project that were half acreS. Mr. Kreitzer, Chair, County Planning Commission, highlighted the following key issues: 1) location and expansion of the preserved boundary; 2) location of the university; and 3) ensuring that light rail transit was provided as planned. The Commission would have additional comments on specific issues as the project moved forward in the hearing process. Councilmember Fox questioned the reasoning why the County Planning Commission reached the conclusion that the biological preserve, south and east of the lake, was not sufficient. He also questioned the reasoning regarding their conclusion on not holding out for a guarantee for the funding of the light rail. Mr. Kreitzer responded that the Commission made several field trips to the area. They felt it was the core of the wildlife habitat area and to put a village there would interfere with the wildlife movements. Also, the fact that urban development affected surrounding areas, i.e. domestic animals, children, bicycles, etc. Regarding transit, they spent a lot of time on the funding question. Susan Fuller, Chair, Chula Vista Planning Commission, focused on the areas of difference between the Commissions: 1) development around the lakes and need to preserve the wildlife: 2) development in Proctor Valley; and 3) transit village, i.e. light rail system. Supervisor Bilbray questioned the density of the transit served villages. The project needed to create a market to support the infrastructure that the development was dependent on. The success of the planning was based on the operation and the ability to operate a mass transit system in the area. Density would have a very big determining factor, i.e. the maintaining of the system. He wanted to be sure that staff drew upon the expertise of MTDB. Mr. Lettieri responded that both Planning Commissions and staff recommended 16 dwelling units per acre average. MTDB recommended a range of 18 to 25 on a net basis, which meant that as a piece of property was developed it should be at least 28 dwelling units per acre. On a net basis it would be approximately Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 3 20 units which was still on the low end. The issues discussed regarding transit and development around the lakes would be presented separately to the joint body for consideration. Staff would make sure that MTDB, Endangered Habitats League, etc. would be present for those meetings. Supervisor Willjams stated the cost of installation for light raft was also an issue. It was quite possible, due to federal cutbacks that funding could become a major issue. Mr. Lettieri informed the agencies that staff had received specific requests from the Valle de Oro Planning Group and the Endangered Habitats League that they be allowed to give their presentation once. The way the program was organized it was broken down into the six major issue areas and assumed that staff, applicant, and public would speak on the specific six major issues. Valle de Oro wanted to make their entire presentation on 6/30/93 and the Endangered Habitats League wanted to give their complete presentation on 7/12/93. There may be other groups requesting the same consideration. Supervisor Jacobs felt the project was so large that it would be difficult to hear complete presentations and then not hear from them again as areas were reviewed "piece by piece". She wanted to make sure, for those making the presentations, that information would not be forgotten. Mayor Pro Tem Rindone felt the Board/Council would want to reserve opportunities for questions of groups as they related to specific issues. That way they would not be repeating entire presentations. Councilmember Moore felt staff should provide, as reviewing individual issues, a listing of key concerns of the planning groups and others. Supervisor Jacobs wanted a way to absorb and fit into the decision making process all of the other groups and did not expect staff to prepare a matrix. · Greg Smith, Baldwin Company, spoke on the depth and scope of the project analysis, the ten alternative plans, and commended the broad citizen participation. He presented the history of how the various phases were forthcoming, noting that the six substantive areas would be discussed later on a case-by- case basis. · Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company, explained what was occurring with the various implementation plans, i.e. facility implementation plan, resource management plan, Otay Ranch Service Revenue Plan, and Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan. · Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, E1 Cajon, CA, Valle de Oro Planning Group, stated they had a conflict with the meeting date and had been assured by staff they would have an opportunity to make an organized presentation before the Council/Board on June 30th. He questioned whether they would be allowed to give a twenty minute organized presentation. Supervisor Bilbray questioned whether staff had agreed upon a twenty minute presentation. Mr. Lettieri responded that no time had been discussed, but staff assumed the Planning Group would be allowed more than five minutes for their organized presentation. Supervisor Jacobs recommended they be allowed twenty minutes. Mayor Pro Tem Rindone stated they would be entitled twenty minutes to make an organized presentation in lieu of individual presentations on each of the separate issues. The Endangered Habitat League would also be given time to make a presentation on 7/12/93. Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 4 Supervisor Slater wanted to clarify that their responses were to the Program EIR. Mr. Tarr responded part of the reason they felt it necessary to make a one time response was because the focus was being lost. They felt the project being considered was a General Plan amendment. Those speaking in support of the project were: · Maggie Helton, Chair, Otay Ranch Governing Committee, stated public input had not been ignored, it had been one of the most open processes the public could have been involved in. She reviewed the process utilized by the Committee. · Mark Montijo, Jamul/Delzura Community Planning Group, stated the project presented an unusual opportunity to conserve open space in a planned manner; had the potential for more good than any other development in history or could do damage if not done properly; and, there was an opportunity to decide the community character. · Patricia Gerrodette, 3820 Ray Street, San Diego, CA, Land Use Chair, Sierra Club of San Diego, supported the statement regarding the importance of light rail to the project and the limits proposed by Crossroads. They encouraged higher density in those areas chosen for development in order to make light rail workable. · Doug Perkins, Executive Director, South County Economic Development Council, stated they were pleased with the unprecedented comprehensive planning, mitigation efforts, and the reasonableness of the developer to take input. Most important was the economic impacts upon San Diego County as a whole and the region. He requested the Council/Board look at the housing in regard to area transportation needs and attracting businesses. · Rod Davis, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, stated they were impressed with the conclusion of the Service and Revenue Plan and felt it would generate sizeable tax surpluses for the City/County throughout the buiIdout of the project. They were also impressed with the Otay Village Concept, the resort within the Proctor Valley area, a four-star resort community north of Otay Lake, and a premier estate community southeast of Otay Lakes. They supported the sensitive land planning to preserve 62% of the Otay Ranch property and urged the Council/Board to adopt the County/City plan. · Barbara Brown, President, South San Diego Bay Cities Association of Realtors, felt the Baldwin Company had done everything in their power to take into consideration the community in the South Bay. The expedition of SR125 along with mass transit, the generation of $180 million over a 30 year period, and the creation of 46,000 jobs over that period of time would be a benefit to the City/County. They endorsed the Otay Ranch project as proposed by the Baldwin Company. Supervisor Jacob asked for the estimated amount of revenue from property taxes. She stated it was an issue because the State was currently taking a sizeable amount of property tax revenue and shifting it to schools. It was significant to the development and the region, and she urged people to immediately communicate to the legislature opposition to the tax shift. · Chuck Peter, 435 Stoneridge Court, Chula Vista, CA, stated he wanted to see the project move ahead as it was good for the City and he wanted Baldwin to do it. He was concerned that little restrictions put on the project would make it financially infeasible. Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 5 Supervisor Bilbray felt it was the intent of the Board that if development in the unincorporated areas created circulation problems in any city, it would trigger a lot of the processes that currently existed within that city. Those speaking in opposition to the project were: · John Hammond, Chair, Sweetwater Community Planning Group, stated traffic impact would be significant and unmitigable. He also expressed concern regarding the loss of Otay Lake as a resource. Supervisor Slater requested clarification of his view that the lake would be less available for public use. Mr. Hammond responded the lake was curren~y accessible on all sides with recreation on the lake. It was his observation that ff the project was built it would psychology close the lake to the "normal" people that wanted to fish, etc. He also expressed concern with the phasing of the project and the balance of the community. · George Kost, 3609 Bell Bonnie Bell Road, Bonita, CA, Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, stated they were concerned regarding transportation and the affects on Bonita and Chula Vista, the widening of all roads in Bonita, and the effect of paving on the parks. Their main concern was SR125 and the funding available for mass transit. Health and welfare of the people should be the number one concern. Supervisor Slater questioned whether Mr. Kost had specific suggestions on how the plan could be made better. Mr. Kost stated SR125 should be east of the Sweetwater Reservoir and there should not be any turn in's into Bonita. There needed to be another north/south highway which was what was offered with the eastern alignment. · Dan Silver, Endangered Habitat League, submitted an article entitled, Planning Guidelines for Protecting Wildlife in Fragmenting Systems. He felt there was an opportunity to successfully integrate conservation and development. The first step should be to identify the core habitat areas and their connections. The staff recommendation was incompatible with reserve goals. Costs to the San Diego taxpayer should be kept to a minimum and features should be designed around biology and not in conflict, fragrnentation did not work. There were other areas where it would be possible to build estate homes, i.e. north of the lake which would have southern views of the lake, with no estate homes on the south or east of the lake. An independent analysis of fiscal issues should be required. Supervisor Bilbray questioned whether their group had assessed the social/economic impacts on the long term survivability of habitat and species. He also questioned whether the organization had any experience in the wildlife preservation in the extreme southem part of the County. Mr. Silver stated the article laid out the essential elements of reserve design and what was needed to gain the maximum certainty that something would work. They did not have experience with w~dlife preservation in the southem part of the County and based all their recommendations upon the opinion of experts and conversations with the wildlife agencies. · Spring Valley Community Planning Group was not present when called. · Peter Watry, Crossroads, stated they had not been made aware of the schedule and requested they be given approximately ten minutes for an organized presentation at a future meeting. Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 6 Mayor Pro Tem Rindone requested that the next meeting, June 30, be held in Chula Vista with the July 12 meeting being held at the County. He felt that would give those from the community that had not had an opportunity to speak that courtesy. The total number of meetings held at the County and at the City would remain the same. Those slips not called would be forwarded to the Chair of the next meeting to be the first called. There being no further comments from the Council or Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint heating to the next joint hearing scheduled on Wednesday, June 30, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMC, City Clerk by: ~ '~. ~ ~('~ \~) , :, - - ~ ~! Vic~ki C. Soderquist, Deput~:L"ky Clerk