Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/07/12 MINIITES OF A JOINT PUBLIC FIEARING OF THE CHULA VISTA t;ITY COUNCIL/SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Monday, July 12, 1993 Council Chambers 3:20 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: None 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were none. 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HFAIRING - OTAY RANCH PROJECT - (Continued from June 16. 1993) Mayor Nader called the continued joint public hearing to order. He stated there had been one meeting since June 16 which was artended by the City Council where two or three members of the public had indicated they would be inconvenienced by waiting further to testify. They did testify and that testimony was available on tape for the benefit of the Board members. Mayor Nader stated they would be continuing public testimony for those who had requested to speak at the last joint hearing on June 16. Following that, there would be a discussion by the Council/Board on the Final EIR. On the Request to Speak Forms, there were certain individuals who checked specific topics versus those who indicated a desire to address the project generally. The Mayor stated his intention was to call on those who requested to speak on the project in general; there was an organized presentation from the Community Planning Group that was to be recognized at the end of those comments, following that he would move to the EIR item where certain individuals have requested to speak, and those who have indicated they wished to speak on specific items which will come at later hearings will have their speaker slips held for those hearings. At the conclusion of each group, he will ask if there is anyone else wishing to address the Council/Board. Mayor Nader called: Jim Cartmill, 1663 Ithica Street, Chula Vista, 91910, stated when this process started he was serving on the Chula Vista Planning Commission. He felt that the developer had gone above and beyond the call in terms of the process for what the City government had set out. As a result of the various meetings, the density had been reduced by 50 percent. He felt that growth and progress in the community was not necessarily evil if it was done by the right process, and he believed Baldwin had abided by that process. He felt the millions of dollars already spent in looking at the different issues could be mitigated as we continue to move forward. He urged approval of the project. Margaret Gilpin, 3320 Lynwood Drive, Chula Vista, 91910, was not present when called. Alfred Hilawatsch, 1239 E. 30th Street, National City, 91950, was not present when called. Melvin Roberrs, 5085 Tijelle Way, San Diego, 92105, was not present when called. Jose R. Doria, 612 Rue Bayonne, Chula Vista, 91913, was not present when called. Minutes Joint Council/Board July 12, 1993 Page 2 ) Kay Dennison, 659 Jefferson Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910, encouraged the Council/Board to approve the project. Kath Ann J. Fetters, 1183 Fleming Avenue, E1Cajon, 92921, believed the development would be a prestigious one and a boom to the South County. She was impressed with the way Baldwin was willing to work and bend with staffs and Planning Commission's recommendation. She was concerned about nitpicking the Baldwin Company too much and that we might lose this development. Dayle Michelson, 3925 Tim Street, Bonita, 91902, was not present when called. Bobbie Morris, 862 Cedar Avenue, Chula Vista, 91911, was not present when called. Douglas G. Fuller, owner of Fuller Ford/Honda, Chula Vista, 91910, was not present when called. David Ward, 4139 Country Trails, Bonita, 91902, current General Manager of Fuller Honda in Chula Vista, a registered California architect, and speaking on behalf of Fuller Honda, Fuller Ford, South Bay Chevrolet, and on his own behalf as a resident. They supported the development of the Otay Ranch in concept because: they felt that failure of the plan or single ownership of these parcels would lead to a fractured development of the South County and South Bay area that would be less desirable than what is proposed. They felt that Baldwin had built a cooperative foundation and had involved about every public agency and private citizen group that could possibly be affected by the scope of the project. Lastly, they felt development and construction of a project of this magnitude over a period of thirty years or more would have long lasting positive affects on the health of the community in terms of jobs and in the increase in the tax base. He urged support of the project. Thomas V. Davies, 4501 Otay Valley Road, Chula Vista, 91911, was not present when called. Pam Smith, 4664 Gayiota Court, Bonita, 91902, was not present when called. Tom Spindiet, 414 Camino Elevado, Bonita, 91902, Chief Executive Officer of Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, expressed that this was a very important development and would significantly shape the future of the area. This had been an open process. As a result of the open process, the plan was well balanced, well thought out, and comprehensive. It would enhance the image, value, future, and economy of the area. On behalf of the Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center management, staff, and employees, he strongly supported the Otay Ranch plan as proposed by Baldwin. Mickie Beyer, 2400 E. 4th Street, National City, 91950, was not present when called. Rod Davis, 653 Redlands Place, Bonita, 91902, was not present when called. John M. Dorso, 1383 La Moncha Place, Chula Vista, 91910, was not present when called. Nico Calavita, Associate Professor of City Planning at SDSU, 3430 Villanova Avenue, San Diego, stated the major problem with the Plan was its inability to provide housing for segments of the population, thus making it impossible for a job-housing balance to work. If a large portion of the workers cannot afford housing in the area, then the job-housing balance would not work. Many workers would not be able to live in Otay Ranch but would be forced to long commutes, defeating two important goals of the Otay Ranch Plan which were the reduction in the number and length of trips and the creation of a sense of community. He was in favor of the prestigious, high income housing which was also needed. However, he felt there was a tremendous gap between the future need for low and very low income housing and what was being / Minutes Joint Council/Board July 12, 1993 Page 3 proposed. If that need was not met in Otay Ranch, it would be met in existing communities of Chula Vista, National City, San Ysidero, and in the rest of the South County. Supervisor Bilbray asked what percentage of the low and moderate income housing was south of Route 94. He felt he was not starting with a clean slate and that his numbers were ignoring the existing situation. Mr. Calavita responded that the larger proportion of the low and moderate income housing was in the South Bay. He would like to see a better balance in the County as a whole. But, given the type of jobs which are going to be created in Otay Ranch, we will have many households which are going to be low income. He agreed that there was curren~y too much low income housing in the South Bay, but his question was that f the 46,000 jobs which were going to be created, and approximately half of them were going to be low income, where were those people going to live. Supervisor Bilbray responded that they will be the citizens who live in places like Robinhood homes, Otay Mesa, Nester, South Chula Vista, and National City. There was a high concentration of low-moderate income housing in the South Bay now that to raise that issue ignores the fact that we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper. We were uTing to balance one which already exits. Historically one of the major problems in this area was that it was a nice place for the working class to live, but there was never enough time or money to be able to attract the upper end. You cannot look at the Otay Ranch isolated, you have to look at what was around it. And what was around it, screams out for a balance and that is what we are trying to do. Mayor Nader questioned where the conclusions in the handout came from and which version of the Plan were they based on. Mr. Calavita responded that the conclusions came from a study about a job-housing balance done for the City of San Diego. They looked at the type of jobs to be created in the future and the percentage which could be expected to be low, moderate, and high income. The percentage was thirty-nine percent; the type of jobs were retail sales, retail trade, and manufacturing which were low income type of jobs. The information was based upon the distribution of existing housing. Mayor Nader stated that the study did not look specifically at the Otay Ranch proposal or any version of it, nor at any specific economic development efforts which were taking place in the South County. He felt it was incumbent upon the policy makers not to continue the past history in terms of the types of jobs that were created and/or lost in the region. He also felt the table indicating the number of jobs to be generated was going to exceed the demand for jobs as a result of this project was optimistic. He felt staff should be ready to address this issue because this might suggest a lower demand for housing than what the project was designed to meet. Councilman Fox stated he could not swallow that a proposal of this size should accept a 40% moderate income housing needs. He did not feel that the City's economic development progress and plans were considered. However, he did believe that 5% moderate was ridiculous in the City whether or not those burdens were being shared north ofi-94, they were too low in this City. He felt Chula Vista does share the burden in the South Bay, but a compromise should be realized somewhere inbetween. Mayor Nader asked staff to verify if other developments have generally dealt with more specific issues of requirements of housing mix and affordability at the tentative map stage. Was it expected that the same would be done in this situation with the understanding that our legal minimum in our inclusionary housing policy would be a starting point. Minutes Joint Council/Board July 12, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Leiter, Planning Director, responded that this had been set in the General Development Plan as a minimum requirement. As we go into the next levels of planning, the actual percentages could be set at a higher level with specifics about housing types. This reflects the current Chula Vista Housing Element which will be reviewed at least every five years. If the percentage on a regional basis needs to be revised, that automatically happens during our Housing Element Update. This will be looked at for each SPA Plan that is processed for each individual village. Supervisor Slater stated that the City of Encinitas considered adopting an inclusionery housing plan, but rejected it when it was discovered it would require an additional $4-8,000 per unit for each additional unit which would be constr~cted under that policy. Also, in considering this, the new housing was always move- up housing which leaves other housing as start-up housing. She wondered if this had been factored in. Mr. Calavito stated that the filtered down concept would not work well in San Diego because there was a great demand for housing here. Mayor Nader asked if the figures which were provided regarding demand for jobs in the Otay Ranch were accurate and if the demand was expected within the Otay Ranch or anywhere in the region. Ken Kilkinney, Baldwin Company, stated the analysis referred to examined jobs generated internal to Otay Ranch, and the demand for jobs internal to Otay Ranch. The analysis also looked at regional factors. Those figures were done for the Phase I Progress Plan, so the figures are off. It reflects fewer number of jobs generated and somewhat lesser demand for jobs. Mayor Nader stated that if this was true, is it the reason why the City Planning Commission's recommendation was to replace some residential with industrial use. This was something we may want to look at as we get further into the hearing process. Mayor Nader called: Patti Davis, 653 Redlands Place, Bonita, 91902, urged support of the project. She felt the applicant had jumped through all the hoops, spent four and one-half years, and thousands of hours with community volunteers. She urged that the Council/Board listen to what those volunteers have to say and give more credence to what they have to say than those who say we don't want change. With one owner of the vast number of acres, we have an opportunity to have more open space with more planning. Every delay costs the developer money and the consumer money when they buy the house. John Willitt, 97 Montebello Street, Chula Vista, 91910, supported the Otay Ranch project and its efficient infrastructure, its innovative Resource Management Plan, and its Parks and Recreation Facilities Plan. He encouraged adoption of the Plan. Susan Wolfe Fleming, representing Chaparral Greens, a Community Foundation, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, E1 Cajon, expressed disappointment in the Otay Ranch Project. The huge scale of the project has required many exceptions to be taken which further insult average citizens. The public process has been ongoing for over a year. From the beginning there have been repeated indications that the rules to the public process were being made up as they went along. From the lead agency MOU, to haggling during Planning Commission meetings over who had final authority, to not providing enough review time for the E[R, to both the City and County loaning the Baldwin Company money for the deposit accounts. These were privileges which she did not think the average citizen was allowed. In making comments, they were told that their comments were redundant, while the applicant was encouraged to repeat himself when describing the many benefits that San Diegians would receive from their plans. She encouraged that the project be developed under the County's General Plan. Minutes Joint Council/Board July 12, 1993 Page 5 Mayor Nader stated that was all the Speaker Slips he had but asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in general terms on the Project. Those wishing to speak were: Mantin Finch, 639 Mission Court, Chula Vista, 91910, felt all the work that had been done on this was something we should be proud about and encouraged support for the project. Vince Davies, 4501 Otay Valley road, Chula Vista, 91911, read from the Kiplinger Letter a memo to California from Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. 'Keep up the good work; we need the jobs.' That was the last line from a letter from a group working to expand employment in Coeur D'Alene. Coeur D'Alene had lured twenty companies and a thousand jobs from California. States, counties, cities were luring California companies with lots of incentives, tax breaks, housing costs, easier commuting, and less government red tape. He felt four and half years was long enough on a project. He urged coming to a conclusion and support the Baldwin Company. Mark Machant, Executive Vice President of the South San Diego Bay Cities Association of Realtors, representing about 800 members, 5650 Lopping Lane, Bonita, 91902, was very much in favor of the project as well as the Association of Realtors. They felt the benefits far out weighed any negatives of the project. He encouraged that this project be expedited and implemented. Eugene J. Sprofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, 91941, felt the people were not being heard regarding this project. He stated the project was unacceptable since many subjects have been vague in scope and overlooked. He felt there was no transportation for the area, and he opposed taking the light rail from other areas to serve this project. Susan Hearney, 1103 Red Maple Drive, Chula Vista, 91019. She was one of the volunteers who had participated in the planning process. She supported the project and encouraged its approval. There being no further general public comments, the Mayor called for the presentation from the Valle de Oro Planning Group. Jack Phillips, Chairman of the Valle de Oro Planning Group, 4351 Crestview Drive, La Mesa, 91941. He stated their group got involved because of its connection with the Millar Ranch Road. Upon close examination, they discovered that the entire County General Plan was being discarded resulting in some major issues. He addressed Issue 1: An increase of 300 to 500 percent in intensity. Daniel F. Tarr, of the Valle de Oro Planning Group, presented Issues 2 through 6 as follows: Issue 2: The plan did not meet its own Goals and Objectives. Issue 3: Loss of wildlife habitat and movement corridors. Issue 4: Resource management plan was not equivalent to RPO. Issue 5: Loss of agricultural resources. Issue 6: Inappropriate jurisdictional control. Jack Phillips addressed the following issues: Issue 7: Fragmentation of Sweetwater River/San Miguel/Jamul wildlife area. Issue 8: EIR was inadequate as a basis for decision on a GPA since important analyses was delayed and fractionalized, traffic data and analyses was invalid and incomplete, County General Plan alternative was not presented, and false assumptions regarding the village concept. Councilman Fox stated that although he recognized their protest, he felt this was an example of the cooperative efforts of different entities. He felt that we would be at the County protesting if we had not been included in this project. We should be involved in every step of this process since Chula Vista was as much affected, if not more, than any other community in the South Bay. He asked if staff had had an opportunity to review the handwritten comments which had been submitted. Minutes Joint Council/Board July 12, 1993 Page 6 Mr. Phillips responded that this data was run with the Phase 2, City County Project Plan for Otay Ranch as the basis. The onIy difference between it and the South Bay Model is that it emphasized Valle de Oro and Spring Valley communities. They were given the data by Caltrans which came from a Route 54 Alternative Study. Mr. Letteri, Otay Project Project General Manager, responded that staff had not seen the information. He pointed out that all the model runs which staff used came from SANDAG. Mayor Nader asked if there was a conflict between Caltrans and SANDAG information. Mr. Letteri stated that they will look at that. Supervisor Jacob stated she would like to have a complete response from staff to the Valle de Oro presentation and the points that were made at the next meeting. Mayor Nader stated that references were made in the written materials and in oral comments to a General Plan alternative to cluster units. Was there a specific alternative? Mr. Phillips responded there was not and that was the problem. Mayor Nader asked staff if the final EIR stated that future SPA levels of the EIRs would not be required to analyze cumulative impacts. Mr. Letteri responded that you have to analyze cumulative impacts. Mr. Phillips stated that you would not start seeing the big cumulative impacts until you get to SPA number 15 or so. The change in regional traffic would be so small that it would not be considered of significant impact. You have to look at them cumulatively right now when you change the General Plan. He further stated that the densities and land uses were being proposed which generate the traffic and we know what the projections are coming from Otay Mesa, we know what our local projections are, we know what the current General Plan accommodates, if we don't start with that basis and say what is the total project going to do; then it will just happen to us in ten or fifteen years. Mayor Nader stated that one of maps on the overhead seemed to indicate that proposed Village 14 would break in two in what appears to be an undivided eco system. Mr. Phillips stated that Village 14 and the connection of Millar Ranch Road and Proctor Valley Road with the 36,000 ADTs is what will completely sever that large eco system. Mayor Nader stated that at some time he would like staff or the consultant to respond to that. Mr. Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company, 11975 E1 Camino Real, Suite 200, San Diego, 92130, stated that he had prepared a letter dated July 12, 1993 in response to the Valle de Oro Planning Group's correspondence of June 7 to the Board of Supervisors in which they addressed many of the same issues. They will supplement this with new issues raised tonight prior to the next meeting. Supervisor Jacob stated she would appreciate at the next meeting when staff responds point by point to the Valle de Oro issues which were raised that we also have an opportunity for Mr. Kilkenny to do that also. She had a lot of questions, and she felt this was the appropriate time to address those issues. There was a consensus by the Council/Board, and staff was so directed. Minutes Joint Council/Board July 12, 1993 Page 7 Mayor Nader called the following to address the Environmental Impact Report adequacy: Pattitin Gerrodette, Chair of Land Use Committee for Sierra Club, 3829 Ray Street, San Diego, 92131, urged the Council/Board to hear the staff report. It was the second trip for Tina Thomas, and they should hear her presentation regarding programmatic versus project EIRs. While we have a program EIR that is adequate for the project as proposed, we have a program EIR that is attempting to cover a General Plan amendment to the County's General Plan. She did not feel it was adequate for that. Eugene J. Sprofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, 91941, stated the EIR was inadequate for this project. He said that the record had been established by the meetings of the past and the State laws governing California's environmental quality act had been breached by manipulations and wrongdoings. James Mayberry, 987 Loma View, Chula Vista, 91910, stated there were two points he wanted to address: (2) The trolley was essentially surrendered by the Planning Commission on the premise that since there would be no control by anyone over where the builders of the trolley decide to build it, it was pointless to include that in this plan. Most of the EIR projections were based on the premise that the trolley was going to be built. The fault with the EIR was that there was no discussion of what the Planning Commission ultimately decided which was that the trolley may not be built. He felt this was a serious flaw in the EIIL (2) In regard to the Preserve, it was severely cornpromised by taking the management away from an independent third party and potentially vesting the supervision in either the County or the City. If the idea was to gain legitimacy by taking the management of the Preserve away from Baldwin, you would not gain anything by putting it in the City or the County. He felt another department would have to be added to County and/or City government or contract it out. He felt the proposal should be changed to require a third party manager as a condition of this amendment. Supervisor Bilbray stated that the County was already managing massive amounts of land and continuing to expand its wildlife open space preserves throughout the region. That is part of what the County's park system does. They would not have to create a new department. Mayor Nader asked staff to incorporate in the staffs presentation the issue that the EIR did not take account the possibility that the trolley might not be built. Mr. Letreri responded that the EIR did a worst case analysis and gave no credit on the traffic mode for the trolley at all. In fact, the traffic of the existing EIR has a no trolley impact. In the existing Chula Vista General Plan, it did not give any special traffic credit to the trolley. Joseph Gareia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910, stated there were two small spots of land within this development which concerned him. They were the Sweetwater Reservoir and Otay Lakes. He wanted to be sure the purity of the water supply was preserved. He felt we should utfiize reclaimed water for landscaping. Mark Montljo, 1875 Honey Springs Road, Jamul, 92935, representing the Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Group, asked to what extent the EIR was adequate and how that would depend on which Plan was finally adopted? There were a number of cumulative impacts to this project which needed to be addressed now; in particular, traffic concerns and specifically with Millar Ranch Road. This was a road which the Board of Supervisors required to be left as an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication with the thought they might need this road in the future. They did not want to create a cul-de-sac which would prohibit them from developing this as a public right-of-way if necessary. The road was currently mandated as a private road. The assumption was if the need was shown, this could be developed as part of the next community plan update or major genera/plan amendment to change the plan designation to allow this to be a public road. The documentation for Otay Ranch does not address the impacts of making this a through-public road. It Minutes Joint Council/Board July 12, 1993 Page 8 ) is assumed that the Board of Supervisors showed their intent previously for it becoming a public road and so only the traffic impacts, which may be flawed, are shown on the documentation. If the Planning Commission recommendation goes through, the need for this public road will be lessened or eliminated. If that is true, then the SPA level review and potential change of the community plan at that time to make this a public road, might be appropriate. Currently, however, there was a potential development in central Proctor Valley that would depend upon Millar Ranch Road for circulation without the adequate public review. George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Road, Bonita, 91902, representing the Bonita Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, stated that the community groups have done a wonderful job for Baldwin. They addressed all twelve thresholds that the City of Chula Vista espouses. The problem he had was that the surrounding communities that will be impacted by this project. He wanted to make certain that cities who have these thresholds will apply the same threshold to all places affected by this project equally. Mayor Nader called for the staff presentation. Anthony Letteri, Otay Ranch General Manager, stated this item had two parts: The first part was distributed to the Council/Board, a one page summary of the Final Program EIR. It is a one page support document to what is contained in the binder under Section A which is a detailed letter by Remy and Thomas of the difference between a Program EIR and a Project EIR. Valarie Randall, FPEIR Project Manager, Ogden, summarized the CEQA process and went over the scope of the Otay Ranch EIR. Dan Manam, of JHK & Associates, presented an overview of the transportation analysis that was conducted for the Otay Rancho. Mayor Nader stated that staffs recommendation was not an approval or certification of the EIR but provided a starting point for discussion for the next few meetings. He stated that at the June 28, 1993 meeting of the UCCV Task Force, they unanimously made a motion, "To request the Chula Vista City Council direct the environmental consultant to provide a more complete and comprehensive response to the UCCV letter in light of the Planning Commission's recommendation and compile at a programmatic level existing relevant data and analysis, including the identification of any additional issues that need further study at a later planning stage, should a university locate within Otay Ranch." Because it was after 6:00 p.m., the Council/Board concurred in continuing the discussion at the next meeting. Identification of Issues to come back at the next meeting: Supervisor Jacob stated that there were some environmental issues addressed by Valle de Oro, and she had asked staff to come back with at the next meeting. Councilman Fox stated that the Caltrans data which had not been included and he had previously requested for the next meeting. Mayor Nader identified three items: 1. Response to the UCCV motion and comment in the earlier EIR. Minutes Joint Council/Board July 12, 1993 Page 9 2. Response to staffs recommendation that fewer units covering more land than several of the other alternatives including Baldwin's original proposal. More land suggested the footprint was being spread out which would have a greater impact on the open space, wild life habitat, and agricultural lands. 3. Response to the report of the Ecological Life Systems which the City had paid for which identified issues in terms of energy, agricultural, and water conservation that needed to be addressed. In particular, he wanted to know how that analysis fits into the EIR. Supervisor Jacob spelled out the following for consideration at the next meeting: 1. Response to the RMP versus the RPO. 2. Some discussion on Chula Vista as the lead agency on the EIR and the MOU. She was not sure it was as clear as it had been presented. 3. Response to the traffic analysis. In particular, in regards to Millar Ranch Road. Specifically, has the EIR adequately addressed Millar Ranch Road as a public road. 4. Discussion on the cumulative impacts of traffic. 5. The MSC program and what we know about the gnatcatcher listing and how that ties in with the plans in the environmental documents. Supervisor Bilbray expressed that the assumptions based on the slope and density with the topography having major determining factor on density. He was not comfortable with that assumption on the western parcel. Supervisor Slater stated there should be a response to the trolley issue. There being no further comments from the Council/Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint heating to the next joint hearing scheduled on Wednesday, July 21, from 3-6 p.m. at the County Board Chambers. The meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Auth/elet, CMC City Clerk