Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/10/28 MINUTES OF A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING Thursday, October 28, 1993 Chula Vista Council Chambers 3:15 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Fox, Hotton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader Supervisors: Jacob, MacDonald (arrived at 4:00 p.m.), 51ater (arrived at 3:35 p.m.), Williams (arrived at 3:30 p.m.), and Chair Bilbray. ALSO PRESENT: Staff: John Goss, City Manager; D. Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney; Anthony Lettied, Project Manager, and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk. 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There was none. 3. AREAS OF DI/~'ERENCE BETWEEN CITY/COUNTY TENTATIVE ACTIONS. I-A. VILLAGE 3 (CITY REVISED TEXT LANGUAGEL Mr. Lettied stated this picks up the Council's action of September 27, 1993 which was to add the term item b which is the last five lines. The GDP is amended to increase the industrial acreage elsewhere on the Otay Valley Parcel which means the primary land use designations is industrial. There is a secondary land use designation for residential only if the Otay Mesa acreage is potentially annexed or there is another GDP on the Otay Valley Parcel to increase the acreage. We had left out (b) from your actions, and you clearly included (b) as an option. This is one of the disagreement items between the City and County, but there was a question as to the language which was presented to Council which was wrong in the first place. CITY MOTION: MS (Nader/Fox) to adopt the clarified language as presented by staff as follows: "To modify the GDP/SRP, Page 68: Village 3 -- Primary Land Use Designation: The area indicated on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as Village 3 has a primary land use designation as Industrial. Secondary Land Use Desistnations: Village 3 also has secondary land use designations for village purposes as described in Part It, Chapter 1, Section F3. This area may be developed for said secondary land uses only if: (a) Planning Area 18a, designated on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map, is de-annexed from the City of San Diego and annexed to the City of Chnla Vista, or Co) the GDP/SRP is amended to increase the industrial-designated acreage elsewhere on the Otay Valley Parcel by an amount equal to that in Village 3. Chair Bilbray stated that one of the disagreements which needs to be worked out. It is tied into a couple of other disagreements where he felt the City's position was much stronger than the County's position. We can agree that there is not a deficiency of industrial in the South Bay. One of the issues is the adjoining use and how compatible they are. The real issue to consider is that the landfill location and how long the landfill will be active and the impacts on the estate housing that we are hoping to see on the other side of Wolfe Canyon. We have down zoned the area around Wolfe Canyon in order to get estate housing as a way to make the property that is adjacent to the existing community of Chula Vista as upscale as possible with the least amount of impact. Councilman Fox responded that he felt that it is an appropriate use as industrial given its location next to a landfill. He would like to see us come to a consensus on this issue. Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 2 Councilman Rindone expressed concurrence with Mr. Bilbray's philosophical statement. Although he felt that was how the City Council felt on this issue, he was willing to rethink or se~ how it matches with other items. However, on this particular issue because of what is adjacent, he agre~ with Mr. Fox. He suggested that this be set aside for now and put on a "wish list" to discuss at the end. Supervisor Jacob stated she would be willing to revisit the Central Psoctor Valley Area, and have the Council take a relook at their position. It did not make ~nsa to have the density in that area over 1700 units; it should be mor~ in the 400 range. As one member of the Board of Supervisors, she might be willing to support the Council in their efforts in this area which is more directly in the City's interest if there would be some interest on behalf of the Council to support the interest where she s~rves near the Jamul area. Project Manager Lettieri clarified the difference between the County and City in the Proctor Valley Parcel which was area I-C. The only difference was the ridge line of ten lots on the twenty acres. VOTE ON CITY MOTION: Carried unanimously 5.0. I-E. VILLAGE 15 (DEVELOPMENT AREA - CITY CLARIFICATION). Project Manager Lettied stated that the clarification which staff needs to have deals with the number of units that the City Council wanted to propose within this area. What was unclear is the total number of units. The Planning Commission had recommended 516 dwelling units to be developed as estate homes. The Planning Commission also included a Village Core, but their total number of units included 516 units. The question is was it the Council's proposal to include a 516 unit total or a total unit of 761 which is 516 estate units and 245 units in the Village Core. CITY MOTION: MS (Fox/Nader) to limit this to 516 units. * * * (Supervisor Williams arrived at 3:30 p.m.) * * * Councilman Moore asked if the motion on the floor would delete the Village Core? Project Manager Lettieri responded that it would simply say that the 245 units would be developed in the Village Core and the remainder of the units would be estate. Chair Bilbray stated that what the City has done was to lower the overall density by spreading out the footprint. Therefore, the average unit will be larger with the City's proposal over the County's proposal. He expressed he felt the City did a better job than the County. Project Manager Lettieri stated that the County permitted a total of 433 lots over a smaller area. The County density was an average of one dwelling unit per acre where the City density was about 2/3 of a unit per acre. VOTE ON CITY MOTION: Carried unanimously 5-0. * * * (Supervisor Slater arrived at 3:35 p.m.) * * * Since a quorum of the Board was now present, Chair Bilbray called the Board of Supervisors to order at 3:35 p.m. Mayor Nader stated this was a continued public hearing. He called the following forward who had submitted requests to speak: Minutes October 28, 1993 Pag~ 3 Richard D. Wright, 13844 Avertida de la Luna, Jamul, 91935. He felt Village 14 should not be added to the project and that Proctor Valley Road should be cul-de-saced. The proposed 1700 units are proposed for a hieation where the County General Plan provides for about 400 units. By not adding Village 14, it would reduce 20,000 trips on Proctor Valley Road. Joe Ellis, Solidos Property Systems, 2775 Congress Street,/F2L, San Diego, 92110. He felt the reality was that Alia Road was needed in order to support the development and to meet the needs of the adjacent communities and to minimize impacts. He felt that to maintain the economic viability of this area, Alia Road should be built. Kath Ann Fetters, 1183 Flamingo Avenue, El Cajon, 92021. She stated she, along with her brothers and sisters, owned 160 acres in this area. In order to get access to that 160 acres, they needed the nine dwelling units developed to get access to her property. She felt that not only would this be good for her, but also South San Diego County. Robyn Higginson, 3858 Alia Loma Drive, Jamul, 91935. She expressed that she moved away from the city, and she did not want the city coming into the Country. She felt that when you start building up the community, you take down the areas for the wildlife; it is detrimental to the area. Lynn Schmidt, 2893 Echo Valley Road, Jamul, 91935. She urged the Council/Board to vote against Policy 14, urban development, and approve the 2, 4, and 8 acre parcels. Julie Hanks, 2862 Echo Valley Road, Jamul, 91935. She addressed her remarks to Supervisors Bilbray, Willjams, and Slater. She felt the project should be looked at again. Village 14 is not appropriate for the area. Their district supervisor, their Jamul-Delzum Planning Board, the Valle de Ore Planning Group, the County Planning Commission, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife are all opposed to this. She felt this should be reconsidered since the project was totally inappropriate for the area. The following submitted "Speaker Slips" noting they were against the project, but they did not wish to address the Council/Board: Steve Schmidt, 2893 Echo Valley Road, Jamnl, 91932 Wells Peterson, P. O. Box 237, Dulzara, 91917 Bill Grame, 2868 Echo Valley Road, Jarant, 91935 Jack L. Phillips and Daniel Tart, 4351 Crestview Drive, La Mesa, 91941. Mr. Phillips made a ten minute presentation. He stated that they realized that the Council/Board has taken tentative action on many aspects of the project and general plan amendment. They believed that many of the actions have been based on incomplete, purposefully confusing, and fulse information provided in the EIR and associated program documents. Documents recen~y distributed including the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are no better. They were present to show the Council/Board what they found in the documents and their relationship to other program documents. Mr. Phillips addressed the following Traffic Issues: · No valid General Plan alternative has been presented. The Final EIR Traffic Analysis was inadequate. · Off-site impacts/mitigation review, now deferred, was invalid. · Technical addendum was invalid Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 4 · False Statement regarding validity of South Bay model. · False Characterization of trip distribution. · False Statement regarding Millar Rancho Road · Cumulative traffic impacts not addressed * * * (Supervisor MacDonald arrived at 4:00 p.m.) * * * MSUC (Jacobs/Slater) to allow the group another five minutes. Mr. Tart addressed some of the tinresolved issues as follows: · Issues under CEQA Section 15162 clearly require a subsequent EIR to include changes in species slams that have not been properly addressed, traffic issues, sewer issues now under public review by the City of Chnla Vista, evidence cited as evidence in the record supporting the Statement of Overriding Considerations cited by the applicant which has not been available, and the maps have changed. · Project objectives adopted by the hate~urisdictional Task Force were selectively employed or ignored to advantage of the applicant. · Statement of Overriding Considerations fails to conform with CEQA. Oveffiding benefits being cited to override all the environmental and other impacts associated with this project. Mark Montijo, 1875 Honey Springs Road, Jamnl, 91935. He stated that some of the concerns he had regarding Central Proctor Valley had to do with the adequacy of the EIR regarding Millar Ranch Road. The specific concerns had to do whether or not the City of Chula Vista could act as a lead agency for a plan text change regarding Millar Ranch Road outside of Chula Vista's sphere of influence, outside LAFCO's special study area, outside the advertised project physical boundaries affecting only citizens of the unincorporated County. Brace Porteous, 14275 Hillside Drive, Jamul, 91935. He did not wish to speak orally but wished to express his opposition to the project. Jay Hatton, 2885 Echo Valley Road, Jamul, 91935. Mr. Harron lef~ early but did want the record reflect his opposition to the project. George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Road, Bonita 91902. He expressed that the Statement of Overriding Considerations was a 'cop out." No one has addressed the air quality and noise affects on Bonita. Sarah Clarke, 2885 Echo Valley Road, Jamul, 91935. She believed that the project was inconsistent with the rural character of Jamul, particularly Village 14 which she felt should be eliminated entirely. With Chula Vista being the lead agency, she felt her concerns are being ignored. She felt the recommendations of the Jamnl Planning Group should be taken more seriously. She also had a concern about Millar Ranch Road connecting to Proctor Valley Road. She did not believe that it should connect to Proctor Valley Road. Carolyn Z. O'Patry, Box 1009, Jamul, 91935. She stated that this plan was not what they wanted for Jamnl. She asked what possible economic oventiding consideration could justify the loss of the agricultural land and the siting of houses in wildlife areas. Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 5 Eugene J. Sprofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, 91941. He expressed that the City and County have not lived by the intent of CEQA Section 21000 and that the program EIR was not adequate. Pat Parris, 3154 Juniper Street, San Diego, 92104. She expressed concern regarding the viability of diminishing species in San Diego County such as the San Diego button celery, the California orcutt grass, and Riverside fairy shrimp, and the Otay Mesa mint have been listed as endangered as of August 1993 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Otay Mesa has been designated as one of the few places that all four species have survived in the Federal Register. In the review of the direct significant eftacts and mitigation measures in the EIR, there was no evidence as to the preservation of endangered California orcutt grass or the Otay Mesa mint. She requested that a supplement to the EIR be prepared per CEQA Section 15162 (3). Patricia Gerrodette, Sierra Club, Ray Street, San Diego. She stated that the Sierra Club supports the Endangered Habitat Leagne's letter of October 18 regarding the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. She~ emphasized that substantial evidence did not exist in the record to support those Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Emerald Randolph, 2856 Echo Valley Road, Jamul, 91935. Was not present when called but had indicat~:l on her "Request to Speak Form" that she opposed the urban development in Central Proctor Valley, Village 14. She requested that the Jamul Delzura Planning Group and County Planning Commission meet to discuss this area. Dorothy MeKenney, 1227 Community Building Road, Delzura, 91917. She stated she did not wish to speak, but she did strongly oppose Village 14. She felt the Board should follow the present General Plan. Catherine Roth Dibelka, 2835 Echo Valley Road, Jamul, 91935. She had left but left a note indicating her opposition to the urban development in the Central Proctor Valley Village 14. Susan Wolfe-Fleming, 11524 Fuerto Farms Road, El Cajon, 92020. She represented Chaparell Greens, a community non-profit foundation. She addressed the EIR and the process in which she had been involved. She stated because of the enormity of the project, the confusion of the process along with discrepancies and recommendations, she felt that the opportunity to do trnly resource based planning, along with preservation of the San Diego County's natural heritage would be lost. She stated there was no assurance of water supply, sewering in the back country is not desirable, we are not meeting the County's air and water quality mandates, we cannot keep creating new landfills, people cannot afford high housing costs including the energy to maintain them. We have too much sprawl and too much traffic. We have too many criminals and too many homeless. These problems will only escalate with the approval of this project. She encouraged that the project not be approved but direct the project team to prepare a subsequent EIR to explore alternatives with fewer environmental impacts and coordinate with other regional habitat planning efforts. Mark Girard, 2872 Echo Valley Road, Jamul, 91935. He did not wish to speak but to go on record opposing th~ development on Proctor Valley. He felt that in the Central area only 2, 4, and 8 acre parcels should be approved. Gretchen Burkey, P. O. Box 321, Bonita, 91908. She did not wish to speak but to go on record opposing the project. David W. Hunt, 2891 Echo Valley Road, Jamul, 91935. He did not wish to speak but to go on record opposing urban development. He felt that in the Proctor Valley Village 14 there should only be 2, 4, and 8 acre parcels. Constance Spenger, 1318 E. Glenwood Avenue, Fullerton, 92631, President of Friends of the Teeate cypress. She presented information by Dr. Paul Zedler regarding the Teeate cypress. She stated that the possibility of losing Teeate cypress habitat or even individual trees cannot be equated to the loss of venerable street trees. The reason is that each living Teeate cypress in its natural habitat is not only visually interesting and practically useful as Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 6 protective cover and wildlife habitat, it is also a repository of information about the history of California vegetation. She encouraged the Council/Board to consider this as they make their decision. Michael Back, P. O. Box 841, Julian, 92036. He felt that in order to get Village 14 to work as proposed, the community plan of Jamul would have to be changed. The densities that will be r~clnired to fulfill the desires of the Council and Board would disregard the concerns of those communities. He felt that there was no reason to do that. A village in Central Proctor Valley is the definition of urban sprawl: it disregards urban limit lines, and it disregards the sewefing that protacts the rural definition of that area. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Nades closed the public hearing. CITY MOTION: MS (Foxalorton) that the City adopt the County's position as it relates to item I-B, which was the A!ta Road crossing, provided that the County agreed to adopt the City's position as it relates to Village 3, Item I-A, and that the County also adopt the position the City has taken on Item I-E, which was Village 15 where the number of units would be capped at 516 but spread out the development as the City had proposed. Supervisor Jacob stated that at some point she might be willing to go along with Councilman Fox if he would add to the motion the County Planning Commlssion's recommendation on Village 14 in the Central Proctor Valley area. Chair Bilbray stated that there was consensus on Village 14 except the County would prefer to add ten homes on twenty acres that basically overlooked the dam on the upper Otay Lake. The issue was, should that include those homes. The County's position was yes, and that the issue of mitigating the impact of a small access road that would cormact that position. The issue that Supervisor Jacob wants to do is to revisit the density and the development pettens on the entire Proctor Valley issue. The disagreement between the City and County is basically the ten homes on the ridge line. Supervisor Jacob responded that Mr. Bilbray was correct. One of the problems may have been when the discussion on Central Proctor Valley came up, we did not meet as a joint body as we had been. She was not certain when the Council discussed this if they had the benefit of some of the testimony from the people who would be directly affactad by the dacision in this area. Basically the County Planning Commission racommendation for Village 14 area would be consistent with the Planning Group and U.S. Fish and Wildlifehas racommended. Itwould eliminate the southern part of Village 14 and the two bubbles below Village 14. The corridor would be approximately two miles wide and would extend from the resort area to the southern edge of Village 14. The development densities would allow 326 units on 652 acres within that village. This would be a two acre lot average. Clustering should be pel'mitted with a minimum of .5 acre lots (half acre lot mininmm) and also a golf course development could be allowed. The difference would be that there would be no village core. It would retain the area as rural as relatively close proximity to the other commercial and residential areas of Jamul being a logical extension of development in that area. It would not create a leap-frog development situation; the nearest sewer extension area is over a mile away. Councilman Fox stated he felt it would be proper to maintain that area as rural, and he would be willing to incorporate it in his motion if the second was also. Councilwoman Horton was not willing to accept this. Chair Bilbray felt if we look at this comprehensively, it pretty well balances out. He wanted to see where we may find a consensus. Item I-F: Planning Area 17. The County basically had one position with no sewer allowed, the City added nine dwelling units by allowing development on the southwest comer. He suggested to his colleagues that Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 7 we agree to switch, though he felt very strongly about not tying sewer to land use development. He felt that in all practicality that this was an issue that he was willing to say that we agree with the City, but ask the City to go with the County on not allowing sewer in that area. Item I-E: Village 15. He suggested to his colleagues that the City's proposal is one that should be their OVal. Item I-D: Village 13. The only issue was the set back. He felt this was a toss up that he would like to discuss, because he thought the 500 foot minimum was a legitimate minimum for a buffer around the lake. Item I-C: Village 14. The County recommended the inclusion of ten homes on the twenty acres. He felt this was one of the choice locations that allowed people to live in the area who will have the clout to defend the area from adverse environmental impact that the area has had in the past. The County strongly feels that the right-of-way should be preserved for Alta Road, but that it should be not improved and that it be reserved if needed. We are not going to build a road that isn't desperately needed; it is good to have that kind of infrastrocture backup. Item I-A: Village 3. He strongly urged to his colleagues from the City that if then is one thing which they needed to do for the South Bay, it is to have as much high quality estate housing, high quality residential to help balance out this subregion. Currently, if you look at the entire subregion, we have a huge over-planning of industrial development. In lieu of that, the County has moved toward the position of lowering the entire density in the Wolfe Canyon area and moving that density into the Village nodes. With that, it will create an atmosphere when development patterns start out that one of the tirst projects to be built in the Otay Ranch will be basically estate housing close to Chuls Vista. As you coma into the development, you will know right away that you have entered a new area with a whole set of diffennt nlles and a different environment. This will help to balance the entire South Bay. He asked Council to consider that on the County's position on industrial was balanced with a downzoning of the residential in that area. He proposed that the Council and Board consider these modifications. Mayor Nader stated he disagreed with almost every issue, except with Planning Area 17. There was a motion on the floor. CITY MOTION CLARIFIED: Motion was daftfled by Councilman Fox that the City would he willing to adopt the County's position on I-B us it relates to AIta Road provided that the County adopt the City's position on I-A which is Village 3 and on I-E which was Village 15. Mayor Nader felt that the City made the right decision on Alta Road which was in agreement with the Citizea's Group. To go with a different recommendation would implicate some of the habitat conearns that we have heard so much discussion on. If we don't develop alternatives to reduce the dependence on the automobile over the fifty year period of this project, we are doing a very serious disservice. Additionally, as to Village 15, he felt the County had a better idea and would rather adopt their position. Councilman Fox felt we could reach some agreement. He was not suggesting that Alta Road be built, but to preserve the right of way. He felt it was important to the City that Village 3 remaIn as the City has suggested. He felt this was a good compromise. Councilman Moore stated that just because he seconded the motion, it does not mean he will vote for it. He felt the discussion was healthy and needed. The intent of his motion that the City voted on was: "be designated as industrial as a primary use with secondary use as residential contingent upon alternate industrial acreage. ' To fail to reserve a right-of-way on a 50 year project for Alta Road was a major injustice. Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 8 Councilman Rindone stated he could support the motion as proposed because, even though he would like it to receive the appropriate estate housing, he could not see placing estate housing next to a land fill. He obviously understands the merits regarding Village 15 and encourages support of that. He understood the feelings regarding Alta Road, but we are not saying that it will be done; only preserving the right-of-way. Therefore, he could support the motion. Chair Bilbray asked if the concern was that there would be residential next to a landfill or was it a concern that the revenue is needed for the City. From the revenue point of view, he reminded that the County fought strongly that the City of San Diego did not annex any more area in the South Bay. If the revenue is not the issue but just basically good planning, in seven years, there is not going to be any landfill in this area. The effect he was concerned about was the view shot of the entire Wolfe Canyon area because there is a domino effect. If we put industrial in the view shed of the Wolfe Canyon, we are then impacting how far we can push the market. By giving up the industrial, we gain in the long run for the quality of life in the South Bay. VOTE ON CITY MOTION: Approved 4-1 (Nader voting no). COUNTY MOTION: M (Bilbray) that the County: (1) support the City's proposal on Village 15 which inereuses the lot sizes; (2) restate their position on Alta Road to retain the fight-of-way; (3) retain the ten homes on the 20 acres over Upper Otay on Village 14; (4) accept the City's proposal for Planning Area 17 excluding their position on allowing sewers in that area but retain the exclusion of sewers, (5) restate their position on Village 3 to retain estate housing, not industrial; and (6) restate the County's position on Village 13 regarding the 500 foot minimum. Supervisor Slater asked what was the purpose of taking the City's recommendation on Village 147 Chair Bilbray responded that the City did not increase the dwelling units, but they increased the footprint so that the avenge lot size (density) on developable lots would be increased. Supervisor Slater stated that the County designates overall density of .5 dwelling unit per acre and a minimum lot size of two acres outside the mixed use area. The clustering would occur in the mixed use area. In the City action, they do not designate any specifics. When it comes to that density layout, they simply say that the total is 516 units. Chair Bilbray stated that if we took our proposal and had a minimum lot size with the mixed use in the village eose, but then had the rest of it at a minimum lot size to encourage larger lots. He stated he would include in his motion that we keep the minimum lot size. Supervisor Sfater stated that you would expand the area to 800 acres, the total units would remain 516 maximum, but would include language to have a minimum lot size of two acres outside the mixed use area and have the clustering within the mixed use area. Supervisor Jacob stated that if Chair Bilbray would remove items I-C (Village 14) and I-F (Planning Area 17) from the motion, she could support it. Supervisor MacDonald stated he missed a portion of the testimony. He came in when Mr. Phillips was at the podium. He had read all of his material and the letters which have come in. He asked if he was eligible to vote since he was late. County Counsel stated that as soon as there was a quorum of the Board present, that was the beginning of the Board's hearing for the day. Any information transmitted to the Board, each member of the Board needs to know that. Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 9 Supervisor Slater asked him if he had received the Valle de Ore packet? It contained the substance of the comments made by the two speakers from her perspective since she followed along. Supervisor MacDonald felt satisfied that he had all the information with which to make a vote. VOTE ON COUNTY MOTION: (Includes Village 15, Village 13, Alia Road, and Village 3). Motion carried 5-0. COUNTY MOTION: M (Bilbray) to retain the ton homes on the twenty acres on the ridge south Village 14. Supervisor Slater asked how the 10 homes were laid out on the 20 acres? Is them a minimum lot size or clustering? Chair Bilbray responded that the twenty acres was to be subdivided into ten home sites. There was no minimum. The intent was that there was an identified area that did not have critical habitat where ten estate homes could fit into. He clarified his motion that there be a minimum acre to avoid clustering on the ridge. COUNTY MOTION: M (Jacob) that 326 units be allowed on the 652 acres within Village 14; a two acre lot average, clustering to be permitted with a minimum of one half acre lots. This would also allow a golf courae development but would eliminate the village core. Supervisor Slater stated that in Rancho Sante Fe there is a village with very low intensity but does provide soma minimum service to the area as well as providing an attractive range of restaurants, etc. Her concern was why would we want to eliminate that kind of thing from this village and force people to drive when those people could go into the village for milk and bread, pest office, etc. Supervisor Jacob stated her major concern was density of over 1700 units versus the estate type of density in this area. This is within a short distance from Jamul where there is a village core with shopping. If there was soma way to allow a small village in this area, she would not object. She would be eliminating the condomlnlum developments that would be in close to the village. It would amount to a reduction in the densities to an estate density, allow clustering with a half acre lot size, allow the golf course, and consider some type of a village that would be consistent with that kind of density and that half acre minimum lot size. Supervisor Slater asked what was the difference in density with the Board of Supervisor's action and Supervisor Jacob's recommendation. Project Manager Lettieri stated that the Board appreved 1723 units as opposed to the City which approved 1712 units while Supervisor Jacob proposed the 326 units. Chair Bilbray stated that Supervisor Jacob's motion pertained to Village 14 while his motion pertained to the ridge which is south of there to the east of the lake. Chair Bilbsay expressed that the environmental impact of a small two lane road going to ten homes would be minimal. Dr. Patrick Mock from Ogden Environmental stated that this whole area is covered pretty much with Diegan coastal sage scrub, and by that fact there is concentrations of gnatcatchers, especially on that pertion of the mountain range. Therefore, it was considered part of a core population area for gnatcatchers, and it was put into a high value category for the MSCP maps. ADDITION TO COUNTY MOTION: Chair Bilbray slated that Supervisor Slater asked him to add into the motion a one acre minimum which he agreed with. Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 10 COUNTY MOTION: MS (Jacob/Slater) to approve the City's recommendation of 1712 units in Village 14 Item I-C and include it with her previous motion. Questions were raised as to what the full motion was. CLARIFIED COUNTY MOTION: MS (Biibray/Slater) to approve the City's recommendation on the entire Village 14 which drops the ten homes on the ridge. Supervisor Jacob stated her reason for her recommendation had nothing to do with the habitat. It has to do with a good planning issue. Thiswas classic ofleap-frog development within the development plan. To go toover 1700 units in a very rural area next to a rural area is very poor planning. VOTE ON COUNTY MOTION: Approved 3-2 (Jacob and MacDonald voting no). ITEM I-F: PLANNING AREA 17 (DEVELOPMENT AREA -- 9 LOTS ON 68 ACRES CITY MOTION: MSUC (Fox/Nader) to allow the nine homes on the 68 acres but also take the County's position to prohibit sewers in the area. COUNTY MOTION: MSUC (Bilbray/Slater) to allow the nine homes on the 68 acres but also prohibit sewers in the area. ITEM I-D: VILLAGE 13 CITY MOTION: MSUC CNader/Fox) to accept County's position to approve the 500 foot buffer. ITEM I-B: ROADS CROSSING OTAY RIVER VALLEY (ALTA ROAD) CITY MOTION: MS (Moore/Rindone) to retain the right-of-way for Alta Road, with a review within "X" number of years to see if it can be released. Supervisor Jacob stated she was willing to go along with the City on both A and B, but only if the Council would be willing to go with her motion and position on Village 14, Central Proctor Valley. CITY SUBSTITUTE MOTION: MS (Fox/Nader) to support Supervisor Jacob's position. Chair Bilbray stated that the motion would shift density from Proctor Valley and put it up against the exiting community of Chula Vista. One of the strategies was to lower the density along the existing community and try to minir~ize the impact. Previously, the reduced density in the Wolfe Canyon was shifted over and was based on a premise that the industrial would not be placed there and that is why we were able to take up a downzoning along the existing community. There ends up being a domino effect. We need to look at what is going to be the effect of just this on the rest of Wolfe Canyon. City Manager Goss stated the City's position on I-B (Alta Road) has been that the right-of-way be retained for a future decision. The road may not be constructed there, but it be retained and possibly moved to avoid sensitive are. as. On Village 3 (I-A), our position has been to have some buffer between the dump and the residential along Wolfe Canyon. Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 11 Planning Director Leiter stated that our position on I-C is that a village concept, as tentatively acted on by both by Board and Council, is appropriate and that the plan opportunities for buffering and dealing with the various issues have been brought up at the SPA level, Supervisor MacDonald expressed that the reservation of the right-of-way was such an important basic planning issue. In the North County it is one of the major issues because nobody looked ahead and reserved the right-of- ways. Councilman Fox stated it was not his intent. In order to reach a conclusion, we ought to adopt the City's position on Village 3 and to adopt the County's position on the Alta Road crossing which is to reserve the right of way and then adopt Supervisor Jacob's position on Village 14. Mayor Nader stated he would withdraw his second on the previous motion. CITY MOTION: M (Fox) to adopt the City's position on Village 3 and to adopt the County's position on the Alia Road crossing which is to reserve the right.of-way and then adopt Supervisor Jacob's position on Village 14. Motion died for lack of a second. The following motions were bifurcated per the request of Mayor Nades. CITY MOTION: MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to adopt the City's position on I-A. CITY MOTION: MSC (Rindone/Horton) to adopt the County's position on I-B. Motion carried 3-2 (Fox and Nader voting no). Chair Bilbray stated we don't ne~ to have a perfect consensus, but one of the major issues that we will get into is trying to preserve the land use integrity of this plan, and the other is the phasing. H. TEXT/MAP REVISIONS Staff report presented by General Manager Lettieri. MS (Slater/Jacob) to approve H-A (Willow Street) and H-B (Mitigation Banking). Councilwoman Hotton asked what would happen if this was left as a four lane collector street. Project Manager Lettieri responded that the projected traffic would exceed the capacity of that road. The project traffic was approximately 27,000 trips. A collector cannot accommodate that at Level of Service C. There would be a potential down the road of not meeting the City's threshold standards. Councilwoman Hotton expressed that she preferred that this be left as a collector. The valley area was a special area; its surrounded on both sides with a lot of hills and susceptible to air pollution. She felt we should take this into consideration; besides she felt we would be destroying the ambiance of what Bonita is. Supervisor Slater asked what was the difference in the buildout between a four-lane collector and a four-lane major. Dan Manira from JHK responded that it was a four-lane collector. The capacity of a four-lane collector according to the Chula Vista standards is about 22,000 at Level of Service C. The projected volume under the standard model is about 30,000. With the adjustment for TDM in the village design goes down to about 27,000. The major Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 12 difference between the design of a collector facility and a major facility is the median element. A major facility typically has a raised landscaped median. The current bridge that is there today is a two-lane 30 foot bridge. At some point in time, there needs to be a doubling of the capacity of that bridge t~ link up with the County's classification of Sweetwater to the north as it goes through the rest of Bonita. The existing pavement width between the bridge and Bonita Road is about 80 feet. In terms of designing the intersection to handle the amount of turn movement activity during the peak hour that is projected, the current pavement that is there today is adequate. Chnla Viste's General Plan of a four-lane collector, in his opinion, would be adequate to handle the peak hour turn movements and provide acceptable levels of service. The issue of four-lane major to four-lane collector is not as critical as it would be on a roadway that needed extra width to get the lanes at the intersection to handle the peak hour turn moves. Chair Bilhray stated that there would be four lanes regardless. It is debatable if a landscape median detract from the ambiance of a rural atmosphere or does it add to it. Councilwoman Horton stated that the four-lane collector fits in with the community. She did understand the points being made. Therefore, she would support the four-lane major. VOTE ON COUNTY MOTION: Approved 5-0. CITY MOTION: MSUC (Fox/Moore) to approve the County's position to approve I1-A (Willow Street) and H-B (Mitigation Banking). H-C: CITY/COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS (NOT OTHERWISE ADDRESSED IN AGENDA): CITY MOTION: MSUC (NaderfHorton) to approve the City Planning Commission's recommendation under No. 1 (University Maps) and on the existing City position on No. 2 (Transit Funding). COUNTY MOTION: MSUC (Bilbray/S!ater) to approve the City's position on No. 1 (University Maps) and No. 2 (Transit Funding). COUNTY MOTION: MSUC (Jacob/MacDonald) to approve the County Planning Commission's position on No. 1 (added text re: revegatation on slopes) and No. 2 (Resource conservation areas). CITY MOTION: MSUC (Nader/Fox) to approve the Coanty's position on No. 1 (added text re revegatation on slopes) and No. 2 (resource conservation areas). County Deputy Director stated that you are now putting back in the RCA lines which the Board had previously voted not to put back in. Project Manager Lettied stated that the only area where the County Planning Commission and County Board disagreed was on the Resource Conservation areas. Supervisor Jacob stated it was her motion which was to approve the County Planning Commission recommendation. The staff had recommended this language on the RCAs. COUNTY MOTION: MSC (Bilbray/Slater) to remove the reference to the RCAs. Motion approved 3-2 (Jacob and MacDonald voting no). Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 13 CITY MOTION: MSC (Fox/Horton) to eliminate the RCA reference. Motion carried 4-1 (Nader voting no). IH. COUNTY FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY ON: Project Manager Lettieri stat~ that the MOU provides that the County Board has the opportunity to provid~ comments to the City of Chula Vista as lead agency concerning the adequacy of the EIR, the CEQA Findings, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring program. Staff has provided these to the Board and Council and is recommending that the Board: (1) certify that the Board has reviewed and considered the Otay Ranch Program EIR and the technical addendures dated December 1992 and October 8, 1993; (2) recommend that the City Council certify the Program EIR is complete in compliance with the provisions of CEQA; (3) adopt and make the findings concerning mitigation of significant environmental effects pursuant to 15901 of said guidelines; (4) adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to section 15903 of the guidelines; and (5) adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this project. County Planning Comnussinner Chair Kreitzer stated that the Commission ended up with a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors not adopt the proposed findings because they are not supported by fact. The Planning Commission's alternative was feasible, meets the project objectives, meets environmental goals, and is environmentally superior. They felt that the overriding considerations would have been appropriate for the Otay parcel where you are getting significant overriding considerations with the trolley system; but in the Proctor Valley area, they felt very strongly that the overriding considerations were simply not there. They felt that the plaanlng Commission's proposal which came to about 24,000 units versus the 27,000 units were just as economically feasible and environmentally much more attractive. Their concerns about Proctor Valley and Village 15 would like to havo them considered. COUNTY MOTION: M (Bilbray) to recommend to the City Council approval of the County staff recommendations. Supervisor Jacob stated that since the action before the Board is quite different from what the staff had originally recommended, and certainly what the Planning Commission had recommended, and it does not represent information which they had received from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, our own SCP Maps, Fish and Game, Planning Commission, and even staff; she was not certain how the environmental document could be determined to be certified and that adequate mitigation measures, just on the biology issue, could be approved at this point in time. Tina Thomas, attorney with Remy and Thomas, stated that in arriving at a decision based on this EIR, they looked at a broad range of alternatives. The Plan we are looking at tonight, is picking and choosing from a variety of those plans. There is nothing in this Plan that has not been analyzed in the EIR or the technical addendum. The alternative before the Council/Board has been looked at in the context of the EIR. Once the EIR identifies significant impacts, you are required to adopt feasible mitigation measures. The word feasible is giving everyone a lot of trouble. Feasible is not just economic feasibility, its a variety of different issues including economic, social, need for housing, the need to achieve what you believe to be a good plan given the economic and population realities in the region. You are looking at a Program EIR not a Project Specific EIR. SECOND TO COUNTY MOTION: SC (/Slater) to Chair Bilbray's motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the County staff recommendations (Itelns IH-A through HI-D). Motion carried 3-2 (Jacob and MacDonald voting no). CITY MOTION: MS (Fox/Moore) to accept the County's recommendations. Mayor Nader asked if III-C (Statement of Overriding Considerations) could be bitorcatad. Both agreed. Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 14 Councilman Rindone asked for a legal opinion. He felt that unless the entire package was certified, would we be able to respond at this point; or would it be more appropriate to wait. Attorney Tina Thomas responded that it would be appropriate for the City to respond by accepting those recommendations. VOTE ON CITY MOTION TO ACCEPT THE COUNTY RECOMMENDATIONS Ill-A, Ill-B, AND HI-D. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated it was fine to proceed to have a City vote to accept that recommendation from the County, then go on to Item IV. It will essentially be redone because it will be part of the Council's final action under V. Council decided to wait to vote. * * * (Supervisor Williams left at 6:45 p.m.) * * * 1V. REVIEW PROGRAMS TO GOVERN PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONS. IV-A. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CONCERNING FUTURE PLANNING SERVICES County Counsel stated that the agreement covers defense and indemnity which he feels comfortable with, the limitations he did not feel were substantial-- its a good indemnity; agreement concerning mitigation measures which Baldwin will agree to perform all the mitigation measures which are in the mitigation monitoring program; payment -,. of monitoring costs for future project implementation which Baldwin will make a deposit with the County which the County can spend up to $10,000 per month and $100,000 per year in monitoring applications that might be filed with other agencies. Supervisor MacDonald asked if there was any statement in the document which protects the County from having Baldwin not be involved in the project, i.e. financially or otherwise, and it is picked up by some other agency. County Counsel responded that it was not the puspose or function of this document to in any way prohibit Baldwin from selling interests or portions of the property. The defense and indemnity does not transfer to anyone else. He was comfortable with that because if a lawsuit was brought, it would have to be brought within the statute of limitations which would be in a fairy short amount of time. Supervisor MacDonald asked that if Baldwin had to give up the project for some reason and it reverted to some lenders, etc. would we lose the protection in terms of a lawsuit against the County based upon some defect in the Environmental Impact Report. County Counsel responded that to some extent you are relying on the assets and good faith of Baldwin in making a representation that they will indemnify the County. He did not know of any way to make that binding on any future purchaser in regard to the defense and indemnity obligation. Councilman Rindone stated that not only if there was a question involved and they lose the project, but also the indemnification and protection of the value of the property could also be attached. Not only would there be the loss of the project, but you would also have the potential of the attachment of the property and the assets. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf responded that potentially there could be a judgemerit for cost in addition to the judgement in the action itself would be, and those would be chargeable against Baldwin as the main defendant. And that protection is provided in the indemnification plan. . Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 15 COUNTY MOTION: MSC (Biibray/Slater) to approve the agreement as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Jacob voting no; Williams absent). IV-B. ADDITIONAL "CONTROLS" ON THE PLAN COUNTY MOTION: MSC (Bilbray/Slater) to form a Subcommittee to monitor the Plan. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Williams absent). VOTE ON CITY MOTION ON THE FLOOR (Under Section ~1) to accept the County's recommendatiom A, B, and D: Motion carried 5-0. VOTE ON ITEM C (To accept the Statement of Overriding Considerations): Motion carried 3-2 (Fox and Nader voting no). Mayor Nader felt there was a lot of good in the project. The Overriding Considerations apply applicably to most of the project, but there are certain, very specific parts of it which he has some difficulty with. Basically, the development issues around the lake and the habitat issues surrounding that and the extra road crossing through a sensitive habitat area. CITY MOTION: MS (Fox/Moore) to accept the Indemnification Agreement (under Section IV-A). Mayor Nader asked if there was a lawsuit and the indemnification is not forthcoming or is questionable, he felt it would be understood that we would simply walk away, settle out quickly by conceding and saying to Baldwin that this is your problem under those circumstances not ours. In the event there is a request for attorney fees under the private attorney general theory, are we adequately covered under this agreement. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf felt we were. VOTE ON CITY MOTION: Carried 5-0. CITY MOTION: MSUC (Fox/Moore) to accept IV-B (the additional "controls" on the plan). V. CITY COUNCIL FINAL ACTIONS CITY MOTION: MS (Fox/Moore) to approve staff's recommendation for City Council final action found on page ten (Resolution No. 17298 and Ordinance 2578, first reading). Mayor Nader asked to bifurcate ld (adoption of the Statement of Ovemding Considerations). VOTE ON CITY MOTION AS BIFURCATED: Carried 5-0. VOTE ON BIFURCATED SECTION ld, Adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Motion carried 3-2 (Fox and Nader voting no). Minutes October 28, 1993 Page 16 Mayor Nader offered an additional amendment which was premised on discussions throughout the proceedings that this is a general development plan that will be succeeded by very specific planning. There are issues such as parks and libraries which have not had an indepth discussion on, but should at the specific plan level. AMENDMENT TO CITY MOTION: MSUC eqader/Moore) to have routinely further specific plan issues provided as information items for potential comment to our Youth, Parks and Recreation, Child Care, and Library Commissions, and our Police Department in addition to other staff. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: To do all the other actions listed on Page 10. Motion earfled unanimously 5-0. VI. COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINAL ACTIONS COUNTY MOTION: MSC (Bilbray/Slater) to approve staff recommendations to: 1. Adopt the Resolution for GPA 92-04 with modifications to the GDP/SRP Text and Map and the addition of an Appendix to the GDP/SRP Text. 2. Adopt the Ordinance for R92-003. 3. Repeal existing Board of Supervisors Policy 1-109 "Planning Guidelines for the Development of United Enterprises Ltd. Land Holdings," and adopt in its place "Plans to Guide Devdopment of the (}lay Ranch Project". 4. Direct staff to revise all Otay Ranch associated documents consistently with the Board's final actions. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Jacob voting no; Williams absent). Supervisor MacDonald stated he would have voted no if all five members of the Board had been present. 4. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMC City Clerk