Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/07/26 MINUTES OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING Monday, July 26, 1993 Council Chambers 3:22 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROll. CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Fox, Horton (arrived at 3:40 p.m.), Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader. Supervisors: Bilbray, ~Tacobs, MacDonald, Slater (arrived at 3:32 p.m.), and Williams (left at 5:00 p.m.). ALSO PRESENT: Staff: Deputy City Manager Krempl and Assistant City Attorney Rudolf. 2. TENTATIVE ACTIONS ON ISSUE AREA 'B': OTAY VAIJ.RY pARC:FJ._ · Issue No. B.3: Should transit village core densities be increased fi-om 14.5 du/aere? Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, stated there were four general areas for discussion: (1) the relationship with other parcels, (2) the gross versus the net densities issue, (3) communicate a prototype village example so the Council/Board could better understand the density implications of the staff recommendation versus the Baldwin request for 18 du/acre in the core, and (4) discussion of the traffic analysis. Mr. Lettied stated that after the recommendation was formulated by the Joint Planning staff, the City/County Planning Commissions considered this item. Staff went back to the Executive Committee to look at the densities in the transit villages, and staff changed its recommendation to 16 du/acre. Staff changed its recommendation because SANDAG had published its Transitory Oriented Development (TOD) Guiddines which stipulated that for the TODs, a density should range from 18 to 25 du/acre on a net basis. Sixteen dwelling units per acre at the General Plan level would be equivalent to approximately 20 du/acre on a net basis. The recommendations before the Council/Board from the City/County staff and the City/County Planning Commissions were for 16 du/acre. The applicant was recommending that this be increased for the transit-oriented development villages to 18 du/acre which would be equivalent to 22-23 du/acre net. The County Planning Commission recommended that the density be increased to 16 du/acre, but did not recommend an increase in the overall unit total for the western parcel whereas the City did. Councilman Rindone stated that last week the Council/Board indicated that their top priority was to do everything possible to enhance the opportunity of the light rail transit system. He favored this option because it reinforced the position the Council/Board took to make certain the light rail would become a reality and yet not transfer the densities from the other two parcels into the Otay Valley parcel which was already at 75 percent of the total density of the entire project. Supervisor Bilbray stated there was a consensus that we wanted to make sure the village cores were basically transit compatible at a certain density. Staff had a concern about the regional impacts of increasing the density if there wasn't a comparable reduction. He urged looking at taking density being planned for adjacent to Chula Vista and shifting it to the Villages. Councilman Fox stated that he concurred that if we want iight rail, then we have to give the plan a higher density although he could not support over 18 du/acre. Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 2 Councilman Moore asked staff that if you increase density in the cores of the transit villages and delete from the surrounding areas, how does that affect potential sales and development? Mr. Lettieri responded that if it was the pleasure of the Council/Board to direct that 18 du/acre be proposed within the village cores, the Council/Board would also direct staff to work with the Baldwin Company to come back with a recommendation. Mr. Kreitzer, County Planning Commissioner, stated that they heard a lot of testimony about density at the Planning Commission hearings. One thing that was brought out was that the villages were designed to make walking to the transit very feasible and desirable. The maximum walk would be one mile. They agreed upon the 16 du/acre on a 5-1-1 vote with the provision that the net density stay the same. They didn't want any overall change in the density because of the effects it would have on the traffic. Mr. Tuchscher, City Planning Commissioner, commented that they came to an agreement very quickly that the density in the core should be increased. The challenge arose with how do you increase that without increasing the overall density. They directed staff to look at an increase in the core density. The following week staff and the applicant came back with some information about the affects of that which were that one and two acre parcels would result on the periphery of the villages. Collectively they agreed that was not feasible in those particular locations. That is why the City Planning Commission agreed with staff to increase the density but to also increase the overall number of units for the western parcel. Mayor Nader called the following forward to speak: Patricia Gerrodette, representing the Sierra Club, 3820 Ray Street, San Diego, 92104, recommended placing a minimum of 16 du/acre gross. She pointed out that the assumptions used in the traffic modelling and the reason they were used. If those assumptions were not used, then the traffic model wouldn't work. Therefore, the Council/Board have to decide whether to accept the traffic assumptions. If you do not, then the whole point of the traffic model must be reexamined. Supervisor Williams asked her why she recommended placing a minimum of 16 du/acre. Ms. Gerrodette responded that to make sure that for whatever reason we don't decide in the future to have less. Usually, you deal with maximum per acre. But in this case, since everyone is so concerned about transit and making the transit work, she felt you had to deal with minimums. Chuck Flacks, Community Development Specialist for the MAAC Project, 140 W. 16th Street, National City, 91950. Was not present when called. Phillip A. Brown, 1760 North Euclid Avenue, San Diego, 92105. Was not present when called. William Lieberman, MTDB, 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000, San Diego, 92101. Was not present when called. Daniel Tar, representing Valle de Oro Community Planning Group, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, E1 Cajon, 92020, stated that his Speaker's Slip was only to notice the Council/Board that he was present to clarify Valle de Oro comments which had previously been made. COUNTY MOTION: MS (Slater/.~acob) to suppor~ the 18 du/acre wiuh at least a substantial part of the increase being pulled from western part of the Western Parcd. Superdsor Slater stated that at the last meeting she suggested going to 25. Everyone was basically in support because they wanted to support the transit corridor or more affordable housing. The concern was Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 3 addressed by staff that we reach some really high number because the net and gross are different. After seeing the slides today, she was willing to support 18. Fred Arbuckle, from Baldwin Company, stated that if the Council/Board were going to set this as a minimum number of units on the western parcel and have this reduced elsewhere, he would like to make some comments. He felt there were some key issues about taking units away from some of the villages as well as the issues related to ~affic. He wanted to speak to the issue of gross versus net density. Greg Smith, from Baldwin Company, stated he felt the only major problem would be the 16 minimum. He would like some time to talk with staff about this. Going from single family to 16 du/acre would mean there would be no town house product at all. Supervisor Slater asked staff to explain the difference between gross and net densities as it related to the village concept. Mr. Lettieri replied that gross included all of the territory and net did not. In this case, the streets were removed from that calculation which came to approximately 25 percent of the area. If you were dealing with a 16 du/acre designation on the General Plan, removing the streets as each developer came in to build on that specific piece of property, the average would be close to 20 du/acre. Mayor Nader asked if the developer used less land for streets, would that mean he could get more units in? Mr. Lettieri replied that he could not get in more units. The overall density would go down. So if it was 20 percent, the overall density would go down, but the total number of units would remain the same. The units would not change. AMENDMENT TO COUNTY MOTION: Supervisor Bilbray asked if the maker and seconder of the motion would accept the direction to staff that we would want some kind of vehicle to guarantee that there was a minimum density at buildout? Supervisors Slater and Jacob said that would be fine. VOTE ON COUNTY AMENDED MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. CITY MOTION: MS (FoX/Rindone) m approve the County's recommendation to support the 18 du/aere wiffl at least a substantial part of the incacease being pulled from western part of the Western Parcel and to direct staff to include some type of vehicle to guarantee that there was a minimum density at buildout. Councilman Rindone felt there was another advantage for adjusting the densities in the western parcel when we were increasing the densities for the transit core villages. It would also decrease the necessity for the non-transit villages. In addition, he supported the increased lot size because he felt this would be essential to the success of the project. Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that staff, regarding the trade off of going to larger lot sizes versus increased open space to accomplish the density transfer, would work with the applicant and the public groups and come back with a recommendation. Councilman Moore stated that if the light rail does not go through the area, it will not succeed. If it will not succeed, the people who would fund it know that and will not fund it. If we are going to make light rail transit or transit core villages and put in high density, we must keep in mind as we go through the plan that the transit line would not only go from I-5 to SR-12S, but also to the border. You must get the jobs, Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 4 the sales, the employment and employees, as well as the residential. You cannot have just high density with a rail stop at SR-125. VOTE ON CITY MOTION: City motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mr. Lettieri stated that a question had been brought up at the last meeting regarding whether the EIR adequately reviewed the wide range of alternatives for the transit village core densities. They had asked Ogden to look at this. The present program final EIR was adequate for any of the recommendations, even up to 25 du/acre simply because of the New Town Plan's 30,000 units on the Otay Valley parcel. Also, the text required minimum densities by village and a minimum within the core. It gives that flexibility to the Baldwin Company to come up with a plan at the SPA level. University Issues: Mr. Lettieri stated there were three issues dealing with the university as follows: · Issue No. B.5: What area should be designated for the potential university site? · Issue No. B.6 What should control the phasing of the university site designation? · Issue No. B.7 Should Salt Creek remain as a site for the potential university use? Mr. Lettieri stated that all the information was in the Binder under Section IV. There was not a University Issue Paper, but the information was contained in the Regional Park Issue Paper which was included as the second exhibit in Section IV-B. Supervisor Slater asked staff to explain the differences between the City/County staff recommendation and the City/County Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Lettieri responded that staffs proposal for the university designation would set forth a process. Because there wasn't a site specific university plan; and we don't know the timing of the university, staff recommends that a process be set out that would implement the City/County resolutions which state that a site west of Wueste Road be a site for the potential university. They did not feel they could go into great detail as to where it would go until the university came forth with a specific site description. The Planning Commissions considered that recommendation and felt there was a need to set a direction at this stage and that Villages 9 and 10 should be designated as the primary land use designation for a university and that the underlying land use shown would also be permitted should the university decide not to locate at that precise area or decide that a smaller location was necessary. Mayor Nader clarified that the two Planning Commissions recommended that Villages 9 and 10 be designated in addition to the area covered by the staff recommendation. County Planning Commissioner Kreitzer stated that they felt both Villages 9 and 10 were appropriate for a university. The 400 acres to the east was too sensitive, but the County Planning Commission did recommend that the land could be used for university purposes such as a teaching or research area for biological resources. City Planning Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the reason they left the Salt Creek area in was because they believed it would never be developed. However, they felt there were natural resources which would be beneficial to a potential university. Villages 9 and 10 were selected because they were late in the phasing of development, and it would be a good way to give the City and the applicant maximum time to u'y to attract a university. By designating the university as the primary land use, we would be able to put ourselves in a favorable position to do that whether it be a UC public institution or some private institution. Development on those sites would not occur for at least twenty years. Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Lettieri stated that the City Attorney and County Counsel have looked at the wording that the Planning Commissions have come up with. Both have some problems with it. They felt it was not possible to conditionally approve a General Plan amendment. Mayor Nader asked why couldn't there be a general plan designation which allows two alternative uses. County Counsel Taylor stated that in the County they do not allow conditional zoning or contract zoning which means the general plan designation is applied and the text is worded in such a way that allows the applicant to chose a different plan or zone designation to come into place in the future. The legal problem was that you cannot vest in a private authority, such as a land use applicant, to decide when the land use was going to change. The decision had to be made with the general plan amendment. The text should be clear what land use was permitted in that zone. Mayor Nader stated that the Planning Commission recommendation does not vest that in a private authority;, it would be decided by this public authority. D. Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the one aspect that they were concerned about was that in 20-30 years there would be a switch from one general plan designation to another general plan designation just by some subsequent event occurring without any benefit of a public hearing or consideration by a decision-making body for review of the environmental effects of what that decision meant. They did not have a problem in creating a new general plan designation that would encompass both potential uses. You could give it a new color and allow either of those uses during the interim. If the university came forward, you could control the phasing with the text. Supervisor Slater asked Mr. Smith to respond to the possibility of this change. Considering that UCSD does have 1200 acres and this would be a total of 1100 acres. She also asked him to comment on the discussion which had taken place regarding some method for phasing and the concept of the underlying zoning for residential. Mr. Smith stated this was the first he had heard there was a problem. He felt both attorneys could work this out. They did feel that the two villages was an overkill. When you do the two villages and the 1,000 acres to the east, you are looking at about 1700 acres. Mayor Nader called on any member of the public who wished to address the Council/Board on the university site to come forward. Those speaking were: Patricia Gerrodette, Sierra Club, hoped the Council/Board would listen to the City/County Planning Commissions' recommendation for the university site. The Salt Creek property being offered by the applicant was environmentally constrained. They hoped Villages 9 and 10 would be designated the university site. Bobble Morris, speaking for Barbara Gilman who was at another meeting, member of the Committee, requested the policy language on the GDP/SRP Plan be modified to apply to any university not just the California university system; and that the phrase, "that cannot be mitigated" be deleted from the second policy bullet. She felt the university should be required to prepare an EIR which would identify and protect any significant environmental resources that could not be mitigated. They suggested that an adult education site be reserved for a Junior College on the western parcel. They supported the concept and recommended that the streets be sized to facilitate successful pedestrian oriented villages. They also recommended that the park size not be given a maximum size in the GDP and that the building height wording be clarified to expressly state village center height should not exceed four stories. Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 6 ) Councilman Rindone stated that in the long-range master plan for educational facilities, the Baldwin Company had proposed to reserve a six acre site for adult education programs serving the western core portion of the Otay Ranch. He hoped that this would come back for a vote to be sure that this is included. Mayor Nader, as Chair of the UCGV Task Force, pointed out that the UCCV Task Force endorsed the recommendation of the City/County Planning Commission. CITY MOTION: MS CNader/Horton) to support the City/County Planning Commissions' recommendation. Councilman Moore stated he concurred with the motion as long as the recommendation for that site was for a potential university and supporting development. VOTE ON CrtY MOTION: Motion carried unanimously 5-0. CITY MOTION: MSUC (Rindone/Nader) to refer to staff the recommendation regarding the long-range master plan for educational facilities in Otay Ranch by Baldwin in reference to the proposed set aside of a six acre site for adult education and the supporting Otay Ranch Citizens' Advisory Committee to that recommendation and to come back to the Council/Board for approval of the concept once this had been reviewed. COUNTY MOTION: MSUC (Jacob/Slater) to support the Planning Commlnsions' recommendation. · Issue B.8 EastLake Landswap Mr. hettieri presented the staff report. He stated this involved 160 acres which was located north of Orange Avenue and west of Route 125. The 160 acre piece, along with a small triangular piece south of Telegraph Canyon Road and west of Route 125, was traded by the EastLake Company and the Baldwin Company for 160 acres which was located just west of Route 125. The area subject to this consideration was now owned by EastLake. Staff was recommending that the EastLake landswap portion of the Otay Ranch be postponed to a regular City Council hearing date that would follow certification of the Program EIR and that the land use discussions by the Council on land issues for the Otay Ranch be considered at that time. For the Board of Supervisors, the County staff was recommending that Board defer the 160 acre piece to the City Council since its going to be planned with the EastLake development. COUNTY MOTION: MSUC (Jacob/MacDonald) to approve the staffs recommendation. CITY MOTION: MSUC CNader/Moore) to approve the staffs recommendation. 3. DEVF, LOPMENT AROUND THE LAKES: C.1 Should the area south and east of the Lowex Otay Lake be developed (Village 15)? C.2 What should be devdoped north of Lower Otay Lake (Village 13)? Both issues were handled together: Mr. Lettieri presented the staff report and made a slide presentation showing some of the constraints and opportunities with this parcel. Supervisor Jacob stated that at the last meeting, they asked staff to coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wfidlife and with the MSE Program. She asked if there had been adequate opportunity to really know where we were in regards to those programs or did staff need more time? Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Lettieri responded that staff was ready to make a recommendation in those areas, but the specific direction was to coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Game, etc. and come back on August 25. The meetings have just been set up. The lest meeting will be on Wednesday, July 28. Supervisor Jacob stated she did not want U.S. Fish and Wildlife to override our decision, therefore, she would recommend that since we don't have that coordinated yet, that action be deferred until August 25 or whenever it could be scheduled. Councilman Fox stated that if we were going to make a determination that there ought to be development there, he would agree. But if we were going to make a determination that there should be no development there, then the issue was moot. Gounty Planning Commissioner Kreitzer stated this was at the heart of this controversial issue in this whole development. After hearing the testimonies, they came to the conclusion that Village 15 should be deleted since it was the heart of the wildlife area. Its both corridor area and wildlife habitat area. For Village 13, it was a prime view area. They also recommended that three of the "bubbles" be removed which eliminated 346 units because it would significantly interfere with the wildlife corridor. Mayor Nader stated that it appeared that the recommendation for Village 15 and the recommendation for the 'bubbles~ were intertwined. Would it make any sense to preserve one if both were not preserved? County Planning Commissioner Kreitzer stated that Village 15 was more of an environmental habitat while the three bubbles were more of a corridor. With both, it would make a very high quality, significant preserve in this project. Steve Lacey, from Ogden Environmental in charge of the EIR Biological Section, stated they did a wildlife corridor study and pointed out the various corridors on the map. The idea was to ny to identify and maintain regional corridors and as many of the local corridors as possible. Closing down a local corridor, as long as there were other local corridors in the area to move animals through, would not necessarily completely eliminate effective movement. City Planning Commissioner Tuchscher stated this was the most revisited issue which they dealt with. They had varied opinions. The reason many on the Commission wanted to see some development on the site was because of the desirability of large lots in the South County. They felt it was important to provide some Estate Housing opportunities in the South County in the future, and this was the best location for that. MSUC (Jacob/MacDonald) to continue the item to the meeting of September 13tlL MSUC (RindoneJHorton) to continue the item to the meeting of September 13th with the undenumding that we would have a full quorum from the County Board and the City Council. Mayor Nader asked if the motions included both C-1 and C-2. Consensus of both Boards that it did. Supervisor Slater stated that Supervisor MacDonald would not be present at that meeting because he would be on vacation. Supervisor MacDonald stated he did not have a problem with the meeting date; he would listen to the tapes. * * * Supervisor MacDonald left at 5:45 p.m. * * * * * * Council/Board recessed at 5:47 p.m. and reconvened at 5:55 p.m. * * * Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 8 4. BALDWIN OTAY VAI.t.I~ZY PARCEL RECOMMENDED LAND USE CHANGES · Village #2 Sunbow edge - Baldwin Company had requested that the density be retained and the development area expanded by 18.4 acres and add 92 homes to this development area. Mr. Lettieri stated that the area in question was the area recommended by staff at 5 du/ac or a total of 130 dwelling units. Staff recommended approval of the additional area in order to give the Baldwin Company additional flexibility in planning this location, but recommended disapproval of any dwelling unit increase. Mayor Nader asked for members of the public who wished to address this area to come forward. Addressing the Council/Board were: Mr. Arbuckle, from the Baldwin Company, stated that in regards to the Sunbow edge, there was no aviation connection between Wolfe and Poggi Canyons. There was a need to develop this. They had originally proposed the avian corridor be at the left hand edge of that corridor and that was why the bubble was drawn as far to the east as it was. When they were asked to add the avian corridor, they assumed they would be allowed to recapture the original avian area adjacent to the proposed industrial development. for development along with the additional units to make it consistent with the density already proposed in that zone. The next issue was Village 4: it was adjacent to an intersection of two major arterial highways and adjacent to a village core area. The core areas needed some additional density for support. That was the reason for asking for the additional two units to the acre; only twenty-six homes. The next issue was also in Village 4: they have asked to decrease the lot sizes along the area overlooking Wolfe Canyon from 1 acre to 1/2 acre lot sizes as you got closer to Wolfe Canyon. They felt it would be an advantage to have more lots overlooking this resource. As you get to the eastern edge, there was a small peninsula of coastal sage scrub which creeps back to Village 11. This was a major road and alignment. They were asking that the road remain in the eastern-most alignment. At the SPA level they will go back to look at what mitigation would be necessary and how to resolve the issues as to where that coastal sage scrub actually exists. Lastly, there was a small area in Village 11, where they were increasing the density from 4.5 du/ac to 6 du/ac. Again, to complete the surrounding area of the village core in a higher density since it will help support the core area and make it more viable. Robert Fischer, graduate student of University of California, 512 Patricia Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910. He stated he had given input during the preliminary EIR stage. He had just received his comments back a eouple of weeks ago. He did not understand why it took so long for his comments to receive a response since friends of his had received theirs about five months ago. He had suggested in the letters a lot of survey techniques and biological surveys which should have been completed to make the EIR adequate. As far as he could tell, none of the suggested surveys were done. CI'IY MOTION: MSUC (Moore/Fox) to concur with stafl's recommendation to expand the Sunbow edge development area by 18.4 acres. COUNTY MOTION: MSC (Jacob/Slater) to approve sta~s recommendation on all five ofBaldwin's req~lests. Apprnved 40-1 (MacDonald absent). rGrlT MOTION: MSUC (Nader/Fox) to approve sta~s recommendation on the balance of Baldwln's requests. Mayor Nader adjourned the meeting to the next scheduled meeting of August 25 from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m, to be hald at the County. The meeting adjourned at 6:14 p.m, City Clerk