Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/07/21 MINtrITeS OF JOINT CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING ~/ednesday, July ;11, 1993 County .~dmiBj.slra~on Center 3:30 p.m. Board Chamber, Room 310 CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Fox, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilmember: Hotton ALSO PRESENT: Staff: John D. Goss, City Manager; D. Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINIlITerS: The June 30, 1993 minutes were not approved. 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were none. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - OTAY RANCH - JOINT STAFF RESPONSES TO COUNCII/BOARD ~ REPORT Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, summarized the issues dealing with the Environmental Impact Report in the "Joint Staff Responses to Council/Board Referrals Report" as follows: · Issue No. 4: "Is there a legal concern re. The Memorandum of Understandin~ and Chula Vista as the Lead A~encv." The MOU and Chula Vista as a lead agency was dealt with under Attachment 3 of the Report. Ms. Tina Thomas of Remy and Thomas has commented in Attachment 4 of the Report that the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego were co-equals since the City of Chula Vista process was being utilized. As the lead agency, the City of Chula Vista was contracting with Ogden Environmental for environmental review purposes to complete the Environmental Impact Report. The opinion by Ms. Thomas, as well as County Counsel and the City Attorney, was that there has not been an improper delegation of authority by the County. The MOU states that the City will fully consult with the County as a responsible agency in the preparation of all environmental documents. Prior to certification by the City, the County shall be afforded an opportunity to review, comment, and hold public hearings on the EIR. Furthermore, the MOU stated that any resulting EIR revisions, mitigation measures, and overriding findings by the Board shall be incorporated into the final EIR by the City of Chula Vista. · Issue No. 5: "How has staff addressed cumulative and reJ~ional traffic imI~acts." Mr. Lettieri stated that the EIR transportation analysis was based on a buildout of traffic impacts and development within a defined study area using SR-S4 to the north, SR-94 to the east, the border to the south, and the Bay to the west. All land use assumptions were based on the SANDAG Series VII Growth Projections for Year 2010. In the study area, buildout was used; outside of the study area, the Series VII projections were used. In the planning of the project, a Transportation Technical Committee was set up. At every step in the process, the methodologies and assumptions were reviewed by SANDAG, Calttans, the City, the County, the City of San Diego, and MTDB. MINUTES July 21, 1993 Page 2 · Issue No. 6: 'How has Millar Ranch Road been analyzed in the EIR." Mr. Lettieri stated that Millar Ranch Road was analyzed both as a private and public road and as a no connection at all. Under County road standards, a maximum of 250 dwelling units (2500 trips) could be served by a private road. Even without Otay Ranch, projected traffic flow on Millar Ranch Road would exceed County standards for a private road. Councilman Fox questioned the logic in coming to this conclusion since there seemed to be a contradiction when language was deleted mandating private use, but not calling it a public road. He felt it sounded like it would be used as a public road. Bill Healy, Deputy Planning Director, responded that the Millar Ranch Road was currently a private road and will remain a private road until, and if, the County accepts an irrevocable offer of dedication which was required as part of the Hidden Meadows project. Once the irrevocable offer was accepted, it becomes a public road. We were preempted from accepting the irrevocable offer unless language to the contrary were to be removed from the Jamul-Delzura Community Plan which was part of this project. Mr. Letrieri stated that as staff went through the process, most of the alternatives considered Millar Ranch Road as a public road since that decision was made early in the Otay Ranch process. Based upon utilizing the transportation demand management techniques, there was no need at this time to change Millar Ranch Road. However, there appeared to be an inconsistency between a past direction from the Board and the text of the Jamul community plan. Supervisor Jacob stated her question last time was, 'Has the Environmental Impact Report addressed the Mfllar Ranch Road as a public road because we have received testimony to the contrary.' She asked again if it was addressed as a public road in the EIR. Mr. Lettieri responded that it was addressed as a public road in all cases except in the 'no project" alternative and the composite general plan where it has been addressed both ways. · Issue No. 8: "How has the trolley been addressed in the Traffic Analyses?" Mr. Lettieri stated that for EIR purposes, the Otay Ranch traffic analysis used a worst case analysis that the trolley would not be a part of the project and no credit was given. It was determined by the Transportation Technical Committee that would be the most prudent way to proceed. · Issue No. 11: ~Whv do Valle de Oro traffic source numbers differ from traffic data base used in Ranch analysis?" Mr. Letrieri stated that the Valle de Oro cited a portion of the Caltrans SR-54 Corridor Study which indicated a traffic volume of 36,000 ADTs on Millar Ranch Road. The Otay Ranch EIR assumed buildout for the area south of SR-54 and used the SANDAG Series VII Population Forecast for the area north of SR-54. Upon selection of the final facility for SR-54, all subsequent modelling for this project will be based on whatever was selected. Thus, at each phase of the Otay Ranch project, the most recent network configuration will be used and mitigation will be developed for each phase. · Issue No. 14-I: "Is the ElK inadequate as a basis for decision on a General Plan amendment since imnortant analyses has been delayed and ffactionalized?' Mr. Letrieri stated that the program EIR thoroughly analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposed Amendments to the County and City General Plans which were more generalized than the General Development Plan details. The EIR analyzed the impacts of the Otay Ranch GPAs as well as the cumulative impacts of the development of the Otay Ranch together with other potential development in the area. This level of analysis was appropriate for the level of policy decisions associated with the GPAs, such as the nature and density of development, mitigation policies, and performance standards. MINUTES July 21, 1993 Page 3 · Last issue dealing with the ERI: "The County General Plan alternative was not presented." Mr. Lettieri stated that the baseline condition for the environmental impact assessment in the EIR assumed no development for Otay Ranch. There were a whole variety of alternatives which were considered. The "no project" alternative assumption was legally required and enabled a more conservative assessment of the impacts than would result from an assumption of the existing general plans as a baseline condition. Also, a plan-to-plan analysis was conducted for appropriate resources. Mr. Lettieri stated that Valle de Oro remarked the EIR was inadequate because the County General Plan alternative was not presented. Staff was stating that legally that was not a requ/rement. The requirement was that a "no project' alternative be considered and that a wide range of alternatives looking at a number of different issues be considered as part of this project. There were nine different alternatives that were considered in the EIR. Councilman Fox asked why the County General Plan was not considered when that was the existing one? Mr. Lettied responded that at the time the Interjurisdictional Task Force felt that because the City of Chula Vista's general plan went to west of the lakes and showed more detail than the County's but did not go further than that, it was felt that a combination of both documents would be used. Therefore, you could get a cumulative impact of combining the County and City general plans together. It was further felt that with the environmental alternative, the low density alternative, and the "no project" alternative you would get the unit totals that would be necessary for ttaffic generation which would be similar to the County General Plan. Supervisor Jacob stated she had concerns regarding taking tentative action on the environmental document now. On the Board's agenda for the next meeting was a workshop for regional multiple habitat conservation planning. The Supervisors will be taking action and giving some policy direction as to the overall conservation planning effort which this project ties into. Since they interrelate, she wanted to be sure that when tentative action was taken on the environmental documents that we have the benefit of all information. Mr. Lettieri stated that the staff recommendation was to take tentative action now simply to indicate to staff and the public that you do not see a fatal flaw based on your review of the EIR so we can move on. Supervisor Slater felt that the Supervisors have scheduled the Habitat Conservation Plan presentation in the morning. The next joint meeting would be in the afternoon. She did not feel that twenty-four hours would make that much of a difference. Supervisor Bilbray stated that what was coming before the Supervisors was something that was a creation of the City of San Diego Sewer District called the Clean Water Act. He did believe that the decisions being made for the next sixty years on Otay Ranch were dependent on what the City of San Diego and its Sewer Disttict was going to do to try to mitigate the environmental impacts that they were proposing with their projects. He was raising this because this was mitigation for a whole project that most people in the region do not support. Supervisor MacDonald stated that we should wait before doing any kind of a tentative vote until after tomorrow. Primarily because having the information that we were going to collect on the regional habitat conservation planning workshop would assist the Supervisors in making a better decision. Mayor Nader agreed. He felt the Otay Ranch planning efforts should not be driven by mitigation plan for projects built at the cost of billions of dollars in a pseudo effort to clean the water when environmental scientists and the Sierra Club agree that it was not necessary. He asked staff why the responses to comments, especially those relating to the EIR, were not incorporated into the final EIR. MINUTES July 21, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Lettieri responded that the staff responses to the EIR comments were repeat comments taken either from the EIR itself or responses to comments that were previously given after the public review period. In reviewing with the City Attorney, County Counsel, and Special Counsel; staff wanted to make it clear that we did not see a deficiency in the legal response to those comments. Mayor Nader stated that he took exception to the statement that this material had been included in previous responses. Some of it, in his opinion, had not; at least he did not see it. For example, taking the response to the UCCV Task Force letter; it was a more complete, coherent, and respectful response than the one which was initially provided. Why wouldn't it strengthen the EIR to incorporate it. Mr. Lettieri responded that he was not specifically referring to that response which was a more complete response. Previously they did not see it as an EIR deficient situation. If the Council/Board wanted to direct staff to include that in the EIR as a response to comment or revise the response to comment, that was their prerogative. Mayor Nader stated he had the same question regarding the Ecological Life Systems Institute (ELSI) report (also known as the Bell report) which he didn't see in the response. Mr. Lettieri stated it was not seen as an EIR related response. However, it, too, was much more complete. Mayor Nader stated there were a number of things that were listed in the ELSI Report that he wanted to see incorporated into the General Development Plan which does lay the ground work for incorporating some of the specifics of these recommendations into later planning stages of the Ranch. MOTION: Moved by Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Slater, and carried unanimously to postpone taking tentoive action on the EIR adequacy until tomorrow and to include responses to the UCCV letter and the E. LSI Report. Mr. Lettieri stated the Endangered Habitats League will make an organized presentation. Dr. Dan Silver, Coordinator of Endangered Habitats League, and representing the Sierra Club and the local Audubon Chapter, 8424A Santa Monica Blvd #592, Los Angeles, 90069. Mr. Silver stated that the Endangered Habitats League was dedicated to solutions which balance environmental, human, and economic needs. They felt the only option for a viable south County Reserve was to have a broad sweep of contiguous habitat maintained from the Bureau of Land Management lands through Salt Creek and the San Ysidro Parcel into the large block of habitat in the Proctor Valley Parcel. From there, the reserve crescent must continue intact into the San Miguel region. Supervisor Jacob asked how many dwelling units were included in the staff plan under priority one, priority two, and priority three? Mr. Lettieri said he could get that information tomorrow. Supervisor Slater asked Mr. Silver if, under his plan, it resulted in a lower number of dwelling units than the staff recommendation and if he provided for replacement and if any of the blue areas were available for higher end housing? Mr. Silver responded that they have not gone into those details, but they were saying that any place which was a priority 3 would be, in their view, appropriate for more units. More density, as a rule, was okay with them in any place colored yellow on the map. The inverted 'L" was a possibility for higher end housing. The area north of the lake which was a combination of three priorities was a possible area for estate homes. MINUTES July 21, 1993 Page 5 The blue area should be planned in close contact with the wildlife agencies. The other place for estate homes would be around the edge of the Otay River Park. Supervisor Bflbray asked if they had considered the impacts of illegal immigration and the border activity on the impact of habitat in this area? This was something which we must talk about since 70 percent of the species have been destroyed which was directly related to the uncontrolled border situation. A major part of the gnatcatcher habitat in the border highlands was destroyed by smugglers as a way to distract immigration. Mr. Silver responded he had given it some thought after the last hearing. They did not have a detailed response because they do not know exactly what the specific threats were. He would not say that large lot development was something which protects the habitat. If there was a need to protect the area, he would recommend the issue be dealt with directly and figure out the law enforcement techniques to protect it. Larry L. Eng, 2896 Candido Drive, Sacramento, 95833, Program Manager for California Department of Fish and Game. He presented a brief overview and introduction to the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program which was a regional wide plan intended for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity while allowing for appropriate and compatible economic growth. Cynthia Barry, 2730 Loker Avenue, Cuffsbad, 92008, Acting Field Office Supervisor for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She stated that the Service felt that the Otay Ranch area was essential to the success of any subregional multi-species/Natural Community Conservation Plan effort. They strongly urged deferral of approval of projects in this critical area until the MSCP/NCCP planning process was completed, and a plan had been prepared to guide future development. Supervisor Jacob stated she wanted to be certain that once we finish with this project that it not be overridden by U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Although she respected Ms. Gilbert's request to defer approval of the project, she had no intent of doing that. The applicant had been in process for a number of years; in fairness, she felt they had a responsibility to move forward. Pete DeSimone, P. O. Box 967, Trabuco Canyon, 92678, Manager Stare Ranch Sanctuary, National Audubon Society. He stated that he wanted to shed some light on the difficulties that may be encountered should the Council/Board approve certain types of development in the vicinity of sensitive habitats of Otay Ranch. The construction of a road would open the door to numerous impacts such as trespass by foot, bicycle, horse, vehicle, or dirt bike. Fencing the reserve areas was not an option since construction and maintenance costs were prohibitive. Fencing would restrict wildlife movement. Urban runoff was another negative impact. Storm drains that empty into nature areas bring fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and trash. He felt that in order to maintain viable reserve areas, you must avoid development that was internal or adjacent to them. Norma Sullivan, 5858 Scripps Street, San Diego, 92122, representing the three San Diego County Audubon Chapters. She stated they will work with Fish and Wildlife Service so that this planning can go forward in an efficient and satisfying way in order to prevent the further listing of our creatures. The whole thing will ensure quality of life and economic stability. San Diego hasn't even begun to do anything with eco-tourism. They do not want San Diego to become tile roofs, jammed up freeways, and dirty air. They strongly supported the Endangered Habitat League's position. Patricia Gerrodette, 3820 Ray Street, San Diego, 92104, representing the Sierra Club. She hoped the Council/Board would endorse the Endangered Habitat Leagne's design. It was created with a lot of input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. She also encouraged that the number of road crossings be minimized in the Otay River Valley. MINUTES July 21, 1993 Page 6 Ray Ymzon, S732 Sweetwater Road, Bonita, 91902, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association. He had concerns regarding the impact of the Otay Ranch development upon the surrounding communities. He said the EIR failed to address the impacts by community. By piece mealing its response to streets and impacts of the widening, the EIR failed to show which community shall be so severely impacted that it would cease to exist at the buildout of the Otay Ranch project. Joe Funk, P. O. Box 68, Campo, 91906, BLM Ranger for San Diego's public lands along the border. He stated that BLM administered over 18,000 acres of public land just south of the proposed project called the Otay Mountain National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Area, a designated wilderness study area, and valued for its unique flora, diverse wildlife habitat, and wildemess qualities. North and east of the project they have three other small parcels comprising another 920 acres. Any wildlife impact from the project would affect wildlife on the adjacent BLM lands. They supported any efforts which achieves an effective wide corridor from Otay Mountain through the Jamul Mountains to San Mignel Mountain. They discouraged any development southeast of Otay Lakes, not only for preservation of wildlife, but for the wildemess values of the Otay Mountain area. Terft Stewart, 7821 Often Avenue, La Mesa, 91941, Associate Wildlife Biologist for California Fish and Game Department. She stated the development plan south and east of Lower Otay Lake was in an area called out as a critical connection in the Corridor Study Report by Ogden Environmental. This area, ff developed, would become a bottleneck and would prohibit wildlife movement from the BLM land through the City of San Diego lands around the lake and northward into planned open space. The Department urged the Council/Board to adopt this area as natural open space. Michael Horn, 2417 West Oak Avenue, Fullerton, 92633, Professor of Biology at California State University at Fullerton. He stated the weight of scientific data and opinion states that effective reserve design for multi- species planning requires large contiguous areas of varied suitable habitats. Such configuration reduces the impact of fragrnentation which results in smaller local populations of any given species. Smaller populations were at increased risk of local extinction, genie drift and inbreeding, and dysfunctional age and sex ratios. Larger connective areas minimize the amount of edge which means less disturbance from human activity and from invasion from exotic species. Corridors for linking separate areas of concern need to be composed of suitable habitat where the mix of native plant and animal species in the region can actually survive and maintain population. He favored the EDL Otay Ranch Plan because it was consistent with these concepts of effective reserve design. Jack N. Levy, Ph.D, 2014-F Los Trancos Drive, Irvine, 92715, Doctor of Genetics. He stated that genetic considerations were acknowledged to be important but they seldom were incorporated into the planning process. Genetic impovishment in a population prevents that population from adapting to changing conditions. Human activities accelerate the rate of change in the conditions to which populations must adapt. Basically a population must move to an area where conditions were suitable, adapt to the place, or perish. When you fragment a population, even though you may have the same number of individuals, you lose genetic resources. We need those genetic resources more than ever because we have confined the remaining populations and conditions were changing more rapidly than they have historically. From a genetic point of view, he felt it was important that we not fragment the habitat, that we have large core populations, and large core reserve areas which were interconnected by meaningful corridors. Andy Spurlock, 710 13th Street, No. 315, San Diego, 92115, landscape architect, representing Board of Citizen's Coordinate for Century III. They supported the County Planning Commission's position concerning land use for Village 14 and Village 15. They wanted to maintain continuity of the north-south habitat corridor in these areas by preserving open space rather than designating them for low density estate housing. He felt this would eliminate the estate housing in Village 15 and reduce the estate housing in Village 14. MINUTES July 21, 1993 Page 7 He also recommended higher densities in the village core areas, particularly those supported by light-raft transit. Joan Stewart, 4996 Mt. Almajosa Drive, San Diego, 92111, Vice-President of California Native Plant Society, representing the local Chapter. She stated that the CNPS was working throughout the State toward the idea of looking at planned communities when development was being planned within a region. State people were looking at San Diego, and she hoped San Diego would get involved in regional planning. She urged the Council/Board to do their planning in a responsible way. Dr. Ellen T. Bauder, Research Biologist, Department of Biology, SDSU, San Diego, 92182-0057. She stated that her primary focus was on endemic plants, specifically those of temporary wetlands and vernal pools. She concurred with the principals of reserve design outlined by the Endangered Habitat League with the emphasis on large core areas with functional linkages. There were problems with all the preserve designs, in that habitat linkages would be bisected by major transportation corridors. For any of the elaborate plans to work, extensive and effective animal crossings must be planned for. The Otay River Valley was the primary connector for Dennery, Canyon, Wolfe/Poggi, and O'Neal Canyons, Salt Creek, Otay Lakes, and adjacent mountains. The Otay River Valley would be compromised by the placement of the Otay Valley Road and use of large acreage for active recreation in the proposed State University. The Valley should be retained in as natural a state as possible. She strongly recommended the retention of the mesas and slopes in open space. Mr. Lettieri stated that many of the comments by the speakers had been brought up at the Planning Commission meetings. Staff and both commissions agreed with the need to be consistent and to coordinate with the MSCP and the NCCP programs. That was why in the General Development Plan, pages 353, 364, 366, there were references to those programs and the need to make sure that whatever comes forth at a future date with those programs, this project was consistent with it. We don't know the final direction those programs will take, but whatever direction they take, it was a regional direction, and this project needs to be consistent with them. Throughout the process, there has been coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game. The Planning Commissions considered the MSCP program and added a condition requiring that this project conform to the guidelines of the MSCP program. Mr. Lettieri stated that all of the EIR data was compiled by Ogden who was the same consultant working on the MSCP program. There were conditions on this project that if new information was discovered in the process, that information needed to be addressed at the SPA level at each and every step in the process. There being no further items for consideration, the meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m. to the next Otay Ranch public hearing scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 1993 at 3:OO p.m. in the Board Chamber. Respectfully submitted, ~everly A. ~uthelet, CMC City Clerk