Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/06/30 MINLrrES OF A SPECIAL JOINT b!F~TING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Wednesday, June 30, 1993 City Council Chambers 3:1S p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilmember Moore 2. PUBLIC COMMENT - None 3. CONTINUED PUBLICHEARING During the public hearing, the County Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council will deliberate on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and the Otay Ranch Project. It is anticipated that the public hearing will be continued to the Joint Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council hearing of July 12, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the County Administration Center Board Chambers - Room 310. Mayor Nader stated the purpose of the meeting was the continuation of a joint public hearing on Otay Ranch. He had received word late in the afternoon that the County Board of Supervisors had cancelled the meeting. The County Board of Supervisors did not have jurisdiction to cancel a meeting of the Chula Vista City Council or vice-a-versa. The meeting had been publicly advertised and he felt it should be held as there were no final decisions scheduled to be made, it was an opportunity to take public testimony, and there could be members of the public that had not received the Counry's unilateral action or who might be unable to appear at a different time to give their comments. The meeting was being taped and he had been advised that testimony taken could be incorporated into the County's hearing process by motion at a later time. The Supervisors would be provided tapes for their review. His intent in going forward with the Council's portion of the meeting was to make sure no member of the public was deprived of an opportunity to testify became of an eleventh hour decision by the Board of Supervisors. Councilmember Rindone agreed that the purpose of the meeting was to assure that the public would be allowed to testify, especially Chula Vista residents. He felt it important that members of both governing bodies be present to hear such testimony and was disappointed that the action by the Board had eliminated their participation in the meeting. It was also his understanding that when the misunderstanding occurred on the part of the County, the applicant anticipated that to be the action that would be taken and had made every effort possible to mitigate people from attending. Kim Kilkenney, representing Baldwin Vista, responded they understood the meeting was cancelled and took the liberty of advising people with an interest in the project that the next meeting would be on 7/12/93. There were many people not at the meeting that would otherwise have been because of their action. Councilmember Rindone stated the meeting had been unanimously agreed upon by the two governing bodies and that it would be held in Chula Vista. Therefore, he felt the 7/12/93 meeting should also be scheduled in Chula Vista due to the situation. He felt that would afford the citizens of the City and the thirty-five speakers remaining from the last public hearing to attend and express their comments. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 2 Mayor Nader noted that the thirty-five speaker slips from the previous meeting were not provided to the City but retained by the County and were, therefore, unavailable. · Ian Gardner-Smith, 4450 Otay Valley Road, Chula Vista, CA, representing Best Western Otay Valley Inn, spoke on behalf of the Otay Ranch project. When the property was purchased they felt they were in the path of progress but progress had been slow resulting in financial problems. He urged the Council/Board to do everything they could to expedite a final plan. · Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, representing Crossroads, stated they were interested in the impacts around the development rather than the project itself. They were disappointed on how little the Chula Vista General Plan had been utilized. Their principal area of concern was with the Otay River Parcel. (A series of transparencies was utilized during the presentation.) The staff recommendation for development was 90% greater than the target range of CV General Plan and 40% greater than the maximum. He expressed their concern with the maintaining of Level C thresholds for traffic with the proposed density. They felt the EIR contained dramatic assumptions, i.e. l-S, 1-805, SR 125 were widened to ten lanes and included several pages of streets that had to be widened. The GDP specifically stated the interior roads would be allowed to operate at Levels of Service D, E, or F. In the staff plan the trolley was an integral part of the plan but there was no single condition that required the trolley in the Otay Ranch project. If the plan was adopted, the entire Otay River Parcel could be built without a trolley. They recommended that no more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000.000 sq. ft. of commercial use within the eastern urban center shall be approved for the Otay River Parcel until such time as the funding was approved and construction assured for the light-rail transit system through Villages 1, S, 6, 9, and the Eastern Urban Center. In the absence of a light-rail system, it would keep the densities closer to the CV General Plan which did not assume a light-rail system and which tested out a Level of Service C without herculean assumptions. It would also give the developer an incentive to develop the trolley line when/if it was needed to build out the Otay River Parcel. As for the Eastern Urban Center, the General Development Plan stated it could be as high as 6,000,000 sq. ft. They recommended the Eastern Urban Center be limited to 4,000,000 sq. ft. in the absence of a trolley line. In every case of a large development in eastern Chula Vista there had been a caveat that the developer would be allowed to develop X number of units until SR125 was built. They felt there should be some limit as to how far the Otay River Parcel could be developed without SR125. He urged the two agencies to put a limit on how far the Otay River Parcel could be built out without the light rail system it was designed for. Councilmember Fox questioned how Crossroads had reached their proposed figures. He felt the argument could be made that the funding for the light-rail system was in the hands of another entity, i.e. something the developer could not control. Mr. Watry responded 1S,000 was the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the CV General Plan which tested out for the Level of Senrice C. The General Development Plan for Otay Ranch called for a maximum of 6,000,000 sq. ft. They had arbitrarily chosen one-third, 4,000,000, and then tried to put that into perspective. The 4,000,000 sq. ft. was equal to the three largest shopping centera in San Diego County which seemed a generous allowance. Councilmember Fox was correct that Baldwin could not control the funding for the trolley but they also could not control the funding for widening of the freeways or SR12S. Mayor Nader stated the transparency utilized for Levels or Service or Traffic Levels was for Phase I Progress Plan and noted the staff and Planning Commissions had recommended the Phase 2 Progress Plan. He questioned whether the same categories and conclusions applied to the plan before them. Mr. Watry responded the Phase I densities were slightly higher than Phase 2, i.e. 1,000 units difference. Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 3 Councilmember Rindone felt everyone would like to see the light-rail transit built. He questioned whether Crossroads had explored the concept of not limiting the dwelling units to 1S,O00 or the sq. ft. for commercial to 4,000,000 but to fully build-out the transit villages so they would have sufficient density to break the log jam so there would be an incentive to build the light-rail. Mr. Watry stated there could be a problem in allowing full development and then have transit not fund the light-rail. · Jim Mayberry, 987 Loma View, Chula Vista, CA, stated much of what had been said regarding the depth of the Planning Commission's review of the EIR and nature of proposal in general was vesicated by the fact that much of the proposal was altered by a substantial degree in important respects. At the second to last hearing there were many text amendments introduced which were not discussed and changed the project radically. One change was allowing the County or City to be the manager of the Wildlife Preserve, creating a situation where the ownership and trust responsibilities were separate from the responsibilities of management. He felt conflict was inevitable. Mayor Nader stated he was concerned that there were a number of text amendments at the end of the Planning Commission hearing process and questioned where the amendments were located in the documents. Tony Lettieri, General Manager for Otay Ranch, responded the text amendments were in Section G of the binder and were very specific by page in the General Development Plan. There were a number of hearings dealing with text amendments and the item was discussed at both Planning Commissions and their summary recommendations were also included for the text amendments. Mr. Watry utilized a transparency of the area around Otay Lake and stated the road hugged the lake shore which he felt was one of the most beautiful in southern California. In the Otay Ranch plan the public road was moved back with development between the road and the lake obstructing the public's view. They felt the moving of the road was appropriate due to the proposed heavy traffic but recommended that a very low speed 'gawkers" road be left along the edge of the development with turnouts which would allow public viewing. Councilmember Hotton questioned whether Crossroads would support something private, i.e. bicycle or pedestrian paths. Mr. Watry felt it would provide limited access and there should be a provision for vehicles. Councilmember Hotton felt it would allow public access and also protect the environment. There being no further testimony, the public heating was continued to the 7/12/93 meeting at 3:00 p.m. 4. COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS: · Councilmember Rindone stated that because there were over thin-y-five speaker slips from the previous heating and that Baldwin had made a concerted effort to notify interested parties that there was a meeting on 7/12/93 he would like to see the location of that meeting in Chula Vista. MSC (Rindone/Nader) since there was unanimous agreement previously by the Board/Counc~ that file meeting of 7/12/93 be at 3:00 p.m. in Chula Vista to accommodate file express need agreed upon at file previous meeting. Approved 4-0-1 with Moore absent Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 4 ) City Manager Goss stated it was his understanding that the Chair of the Board of Supervisors understood that request. · Councilmember Rindone stated when he chaired the last meeting direction had been given that the thirty-five speaker slips were to be given to Mayor Nader for the 6/30/93 meeting. He requested that the thirty-five people be sent written notification of the next meeting on 7/12/93 at 3:00 p.m. in Chula Vista and all upcoming meetings. · Councilmember Rindone questioned the tentative dates set for future joint meetings. Mr. Lettieri responded that meetings had been scheduled for 7/12/93, 7/21/93 at the County, 7/22/92 in Chula Vista, and 7/26/93 at the County. All meetings had been scheduled for 3:00 p.m. S. MAYOR'S COMMENTS: · Mayor Nader stated there had been a substantial amount of time put into the project because it was a broad and complex project which raised a number of issues. He was frustrated that the timeline seemed to be run by County staff and Board considerations. The applicant and the public had the right to a timely consideration of the item. If a meeting was called the public had a right to have that meeting and be given an opportunity to appear. He reminded staff that Council meetings were called or cancelled only by the Mayor or a majority of the Council. He referred to past comments he had made regarding the EIR and felt they had been more of a response to comments than with the main body of the EIR document. He hoped the EIR consultant would take advantage of the time that would transpire until a final vote was taken to examine all comments and make sure they used all the existing data they developed to fully address those comments. · Mayor Nader reported that the University of Califomia Chula Vista Task Force had met and adopted a position concerning the response to the UCCV Task Force's comment in the EIR. He requested that the City Attorney's secretary make copies of the UCCV statement for Council/Board members and EIR consultant prior to the next meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT AT 4:13 P.M. There being no further comments from the Council or Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint hearng to the next joint hearing scheduled on Monday, July 12, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, D~City Clerk