Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/09/27 MINUTES OF A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING Monday, September 27, 1993 County Administration Center 3:15 p.m. Board Chamber, Room 310 CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone (arrived at 4:05 p.m.), and Mayor Nader Supervisors: Jacob, MacDonald, Slater, Williams, 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: Patricia Gerrodette requested an update of the status of the Baldwin fees with the City and County. Chair Bilbray stated that if Mr. Lettied and Mr. Healey would like to communicate to the spokeswoman about the status, he would appreciate it. Bill Healey, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Land Use, stated that the fees were up-to-date. They were paying approximately $20,000 per month. 3. TENTATIVE ACTION OF ISSUE AREA "E:" JAMUL PLANNING AREAS tPlannin2 Areas No 16 and 19). E.I: Should sewer be permitted in Planning Areas 16 and 197 Project Manager Lettied presented the staff report. He stated that the main issue was whether sewer should be extended into Planning Areas 16 and 19. There was no disagreement regarding the land use designation. Mayor Nader asked County Planning Commissioner Krietzer if growth induction concerns were the sole concern of the County Planning Commission? County Planning Commissioner Kreitzer responded that it was the overriding concern. The argument from the Chula Vista Planning Commission was that septic systems would be a threat to the lake water supply. The County did not feel that was valid because of the great distance between this area and the lake. The problem was that the general plan could be amended down the road. Supervisor Slater asked what was the land like in terms of perking and if anyone had done a perk test? Frank Gabdan, representative from the Department of Health Services, replied that as a result of site visits and the review of general soil geology studies in this area, the Department concluded that subsurface soil formations generally consist of metabolic volcanic rock and granite basement rock. The expected percolation rates would be in the range of 5 to 60 minutes per inch. Those were considered excellent to poor percolation rates. No percolation tests have been done on any of the planning areas. These figures were based on wide-range geological estimates Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 2 of what the soils were like. Based on what they could see by observation without any test results, there were a lot of rock outcroppings which indicated shallow bedrock. The area was not suitable for septic tanks; you have to have at least five feet of soil below the bottom of the disposal field. Supervisor Jacob expressed that we ought to determine the density for the area first and then figure out what the infrastructure should be. Chair Bilbray clarified that the recommendation was not to require sewer, but to allow sewer for ground water ijrotection. However, it should not be the overwhelming consideration. Supervisor Jacob stated she would prefer the language, "not to preclude s~wer in Planning Areas 16 and 19." Project Manager Lgttieri stated that staffs goal was not to preclude sewers. At the SPA level, more detailed tests will have to be made. COUNTY MOTION: MSUC (Jacob/Slater) to add the language, *'not to preclude sewers in Planning Areas 16 and 19." CITY MOTION: MSC (Fox/Moore) to approve the County Board of Supervisor's recommendation to not preclude sewers in Planning Areas 16 and 19. Motion carried 40-1 (Council Rindone was absent). Supervisor Jacob requested that staff be directed to come back with language that would be part of the general plan that would lock in the densities that would be determined in this area so that sewers into the area, if it ends up being sewer, was not growth inducing and was not an incentive for increased density. ACTION: Chair Bilbray asked if there was any opposition to direction to staff to come back with the vehicles that were possible at making sure the land use designations are not substantially modified in the future. In the village transit corridors, there was the same problem only in reverse where we do want building under density because it will destroy the transit potential. No opposition was expressed from either the Supervisors or the Council. 4. TENTATIVE ACTIONS ON ISSUE AREA "F:" SAN YSIDRO PLANNING AREA (Planning Area NO. 17). F. 1 What areas should be developed within Planning Area No. 177 F.2 Should sewer be extended to Planning Area No. 177 Staff report presented by Project Manager Lettied. Councilman Fox asked City Planning Commissioner Tuchscher for his input. Mr. Tuchscher responded that it was the consensus of the City Planning Commission that large estate lots would be appropriate for that area because the primary concern was the crossing of riparian habitat. The applicant had told them he would build a small two-lane bridge done in a rural character to cross the riparian habitat. They felt that at a specific plan stage, it would be appropriate to deal with those issues relative to this sixty-eight acre parcel. Project Manager Lettieri stated that staff was not objecting to the nine units; they were objecting to the sixty-eight acre extension. Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 3 ?---~, County Clerk Hultsch stated them were requests to speak from the public on the issue. They were: KathAtm J. Fetters, 1183 Flamingo, El Cajon, 92021, requested that the me dwelling units be re. turned. In village 17, there were large estate sized lots. She felt that South County needed large, estate sized lots. She has no access to her property and was hoping that the development would allow her access to her property. Patricia Gerrodette, 3820 Ray Street, San Diego, 92104, representing Sierra Club Land Us~ Committe~. She was disturbed about the sewer issue. She did not feel that the County had the need for either sewer to be permitted or for it to be not precluded. The County always had the power to require sewer if there was a health issue so there was no need to take either of the steps. A decision about the density needed to be made and then whether this 'should be septic or sewer. Eugene J. Sprofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, 91941, was opposed to the project. The project was more significant than any other project in San Diego COunty. This project was completely in the County. If the City wanted it, then they should ask for an annexation and let the County do its proper job with the land use on the land that they own. The issue of sewer over septic has no rationale. We do not nell a sewer in the back country. Also, there was no water in the area, and urban runoff has not been addressed. Mayor Nader asked staff to address the urban runoff issue. Project Manager Lettieri stated that the project has dealt with the issue of urban runoff. In fact, conditions have been included from the City of San Diego into the project to require this plan to be the first plan to do a water shed protection plan for the Otay Ranch prior to any development that drains into the Otay Lakes. There was an urban runoff plan in the facilities plan. Fred Arbuckle, from the Baldwin Company, presented some key points about the property. Topography: was real important. Access: this was the only access to Ms. Fetter's property. Sewer: if there were problems with the groundwater that they find at the SPA level, they wanted to be able to solve those by using sewer as a last resort. That was why they were asking that it not be precluded at this time. Another issue was the lot sizes. Although there was no controversy regarding the minimum lot sizes of one and two acres with a portion being a two acre average in Jamul, and in Area F, the lot sizes were four, six, and eight acres. County Planning Commissioner Kreitzer stated that in dealing with the question of the extra nine lots and the sixty- eight acres, the Commission felt that the land was too sensitive. The question of land locking Ms. Fetters 160 acres was not the problem of the Commission. They felt that when she purchased the land, she should have had an easement at that time. Even if the nine lots were not developed, the Commission felt she could still get an ea~ment through the property to get in through the Baldwin property by negotiating with Baldwin. They felt strongly that the staff recommendation was a good one. * * * (Councilman Rindone arrived at 4:05 p.m.) * * * COUNTY MOTION: MSC (Jacob/MacDonald) to adopt the County Planning Commission recommendation on F. 1 and F.2 to allow development areas according to the General Development Plan and the Subregional Plan and to preclude sewers in this area. Motion carried 3-2 (Bilbray and Slater voting no). Supervisor Jacob stated that to even think of putting sewer in this area was clearly a classic example of leap-frog development in the extreme. To put sewers in this area would be an exorbitant cost to the consumer. Councilman Fox requested that the issues be bifurcated. Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 4 CITY MOTIONS: MSF (Fox/Nader) to concur with the County Planning Commission recommendation in F. 1 that the nine dwelling units on the 68 acres would not be built. Motion failed 2-3 (Horton, Moore, and Rindone voting no. MSC (Moore/Horton) to approve the City Planning Commission recommendation on item F. 1. Motion passed 3-2 (Fox and Nader voting no). M (Fox) to approve the County Planning Commission recommendation on item F'2 to prohibit sewers. Motion died for lack of a second. MSC (Nader/Horton) to approve staff recommendation to extend sew .ers to Planning Area 17 but determine the need at the SPA level. Motion carried 4-1 (Fox voting no). 5. TENTATIVE ACTION ON ISSUE AREA "C:" DEVELOPMENT AROUND OTAY LAKES. C.1 Should the area south and east of the lower Otay Lake be developed (Village No. 15)? General Manager Lettied presented the staff report. County Planning Commissioner Krietzer stated that the County Planning Commission proposed eliminating Village 15 entirely. They also recommended allowing a wider wildlife corridor. They felt that this was a vital part of the Preserve for the wildlife to move north and south. City Planning Commissioner Tuchscher stated the City Planning Commission struggled with this. The fmal motion passed 5-2. One of those opposing wanted no development in that area, the other wanted to expand development in that area. They struggled to come to a consensus, and they felt they had come to a good solution. Fred Arbuckle, from the Baldwin Company, presented slides depicting what they proposed to do in this area. Mayor Nader stated that the Citizens' Committee recommended a half mile buffer on the northern portion of the resort development and the Community Planning Group for the County recommended a quarter of a mile buffer. He asked Mr. Arbuckle if those buffers would be something that he could work with in providing the type of resort environment that he needed. Mr. Arbuckle responded that the half mile set back basically wiped out everything from the realigned road to the lake. There would not be sufficient room, nor would it be an appropriate place for a use like a resort above the road. They do have over 500 feet of setbacks surrounding the lake and a lot of guidelines to help soften the resort. A quarter of a mile setback would wipe out half of the resort. County Clerk Hultsch called the following to speak: Nancy Gilbert, 2730 Laker Avenue West, Carlsbad, 92008, representing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She stated the essence of her previous presentations have centered on the basic principal of planning for the preservation of biological resources now rather than waiting or causing the need for future listings of species as endangered or threatened. They recommend that the development south and east of Otay Lakes be deleted. To place development in that area would violate basic preserve design principals of not interjecting human disturbances into a preserve. William Tippets, 8885 San Diego Drive, No 270, San Diego, 92108, representing California Department of Fish and Game. They recommend that there be no development south and east of the lakes. The development north of Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 5 the lakes, there could be some combination of development on the western portion where the resort was planned, but the eastern portion of those parcels should not be developed because of very sensitive resource issues there. They also concurred with County staff to eliminate development on the western portion. Patricia Gerrodette, 3820 Ray Street, San Diego, 92104, representing Sierra Club, stated that according to Dr. Dennis Murphy, Chairman of the Scientific Review Panel, the biggest cause of species extinction in Southern California was fragmentation of habitat. This was what the Council/Board was looking at. She urged that the Council/Board do the right thing. Julie Dillon, representing the Helix Land Company that owned 480 acres which had been owned by the Helix Land Company over thirty-five years. The land was not pristine land. It had been farmed and homesteaded. They felt the Baldwin Plan was a very sensible and a reasonable ~/pproach for development in this area. Chair Bilbray asked if they accepted the County's position, and not the City's position, would we be assuming that we were not going to allow it to develop? Project Manager Lettieri responded that staff did not make the assumption that development would be precluded on the Helix property. Staff specifically asked that question at the planning commission level, and County Counsel 's reply was that the issue of access was a separate issue between two parties and when that property owner came in for a subdivision, they would have to show that they did have access. Chair Bilbray stated he was talking about all the testimony of why we should not allow any development south and east of the lake. It was a fragmentation issue and that if we allow any development there, it would impact the adjoining habitat. If we were going to use that on the Baldwin property, then we were setting the position that fragmentation was the major issue. If we determine that fragmentation issue was legitimate, then we were saying no development southeast of the lake. We cannot say it to Baldwin without saying it to Helix. Project Manager Lettieri stated that the issue was the same. The Helix property would be subject to the same kind of review at the County level when that came in. COUNTY MOTION: MSUC (Bilbray/Jacob) to approve the City Planning Commission's recommendation for this area with a modification to change the one acre density limitation to two acres of estate housing; and to a lower density in certain areas adjacent to the corridors (0.5 dwelling units per acre). Pat Mock, from Ogden Environmental, Senior Wildlife Biologist, stated that the Vegetative Communities Multi Habitat Alternative Map of the Otay region was currently out for public comment and review and was undergoing intensive economic analysis. The map was a draft. It was not a Preserve design, but a Preserve planning of the boundaries. It was essentially what the subarea planning areas would be using to focus their efforts in terms of deciding where the actual Preserve boundaries would be. CITY MOTIONS: M (Fox) to adopt City Planning Commission recommendation except to limit density to 0.5 dwelling units per acre and allow the dwelling units recommended by Baldwin in the areas noted as N and Q which was 0.5 dwelling units per acre and L,M,O,P which allowed one dwelling unit per acre. Councilman Fox asked staff how many dwelling units would we end up with. Project Manager Lettied responded that if you went to 0.5 in those development areas which Baldwin had recommended, the approximate total would be 180 to 200 additional units. He would need to go back and double check the figures. After some discussion, Councilman Fox withdrew his motion. Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 6 M (Fox) to adopt the Board of Supervisor's motion. Motion died for lack of second. M (Rindone) to approve the City staff's recommendation to construct on the 436 acres and put a cap at 2 acres per dwdling unit. Motion died for lack of second. MS (Nader/Fox) to approve the County staff's recommendation. Mayor Nader asked if he would change his vote, if he offered to amend the motion to provide the same zoning as in the Board of Supervisors motion, but the acreage that was in the County staff recommendation? The zoning would be what the County Board of Supervisors just approved which was one unit for every two acres, but on the acreage recommended by the County staff. In other words, 213 acres with 106 dwelling units. His concern was that we have some serious habitat issues here. Councilman Fox felt this was one of the toughest issues in the Plan thus far. He felt we needed to find a compromise; although he was not convinced this was it. He was going along the lines of the City Planning Commission and would stand firm in voting against this motion. CITY SUBSTITUTE MOTION: MS (Moore/Rindone) to take the City Planning Commission recommendation of maximum dwelling units of 516 on 783 acres. - Mayor Nader stated he would vote against the motion because of the acreage more than the number of units. He felt the Board of Supervisor's action was more palatable and would be as far as he would be willing to go. Mr. Tuchscher stated that the Planning Commission did look at the total acreage and on the meeting of April 14, did approve a motion to define all the development area as described in the applicant's proposal. At that time, they did not come to terms with the densities. At a subsequent meeting, they reduced the developable area and made a recommendation as to the densities. CITY VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Approved 4-1 (Nader voting no). Supervisor Slater stated that the intent of the County's motion was to have a two acre minimum lot size. The Chairman wished to have a Rancho Sante Fe style development and not have a clustering PUD type of development. COUNTY MOTION: MSUC (S!ater/MacD onald) that at the SPA level, a two acre minimum lot size be placed in the language, not 0.5 per acre, for all development bubbles except for the commercial area. C.2 What should be developed north of Lower Otay Lake (Village No. 13)? COUNTY MOTION: MSUC (Bilbray/Jacob) to approve the City and County staff's recommendation in the areas above the lake. CITY MOTIONS: MS (Nader/Fox) to approve the County Planning Commission recommendation and also direct staff to work with the developer to incorporate some buffer, not to be spedfled at this levd, into the SPA Plan. Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that the terrain was a different kind of habitat adjacent to the wildlife corridor and that was behind the County Planning Commission's recommendation which was substantiated by some of the biological testimony. Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 7 County Planning Commissioner Kreitzer stated that the County Planning Commission's concern was that development was too close to the corridor and would have fringe affects. It was a steep canyon, but the fringe affect would be significant. Councilman Moore stated he could not see building to the east would adversely affect the wildlife corridor. Because of the slope, you would build either on top of it or behind it which would put it some distance from the wildlife that would go through that particular narrow corridor. Therefore, he could not support the present motion. Motion failed 2-3 (Horton, Moore, Rindone voting no). MS (Moore/Horton) to support the City Planning Commission and the City/County staff recommendation which was 2,438 homes on 783 acres and an 800-room hotd. Mayor Nader asked Councilman Moore if he would accept a friendly amendment to add: the width of the buffer to be determined at SPA level. Councilman Moore stated he had no objection in adding that if the seconder agreed. Councilwoman Horton stated she would not accept it as a friendly amendment. AMENDMENT: MSC (Nader/Fox) to amend the motion to add that there will be a buffer between the lake, the width to be determined at SPA level. Amendment carried 3-2 (Horton and Moore voting no). MOTION AS AMENDED: Approved 5-0. * * * Supervisors MacDonald and Williams left at 5:30 p.m. * * * Gregory Smith, Baldwin Company, asked if there was a possibility that they could get on regular agendas. The next hearing was not until October 28, and there were only a few issues left. After some discussion, it was decided that there was only one issue left, the Central Proctor Valley. The Board stated they had time on their agenda the next day for the last issue. The City Council stated they could stay and complete the agenda. Both City Attorney and County Counsel stated this could be done, but there was a procedural problem in that the County would have to waive the policy procedure. COUNTY MOTION: MSC (S!ater/Jacob) to continue this meeting to Wednesday, September 29, at 2:00 p.m. and to waive the policy procedure pertaining to the Memorandum of Understanding which waives the County's right to input first. Motion carried 3-0-2 (MacDonald and Williams absent). The County Board of Supervisors adjourned their meeting at 5:40 p.m. * * * City Council recessed from 5:40 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. * * * 6. TENTATIVE ACTION ON ISSUE AREA "D:" CENTRAL PROCTOR VALLEY. D. 1 Should Central Proctor Valley preserve area be enlarged? ;~.-- D.2 Should Central Proctor Valley include a village and associated urban densities? D.3 Should Proctor Valley Road be classified as a four-lane major road? Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 8 D.4 Should Central Proctor Valley be sewered? D.5 Should the Jamul/Dulzura Community Plan text be amended to delete the requirement that Millar Ranch Road be a private road? D.6 Should the Urban Limit Line (ULL) be extended to include the development areas west of the wildlife corridor and in the "upside down 'L'?" Project Manager Lettieri presented staff report. Mr. Arbuclde, Baldwin, requested that Council grant the staff recommendation and add 2,000 more units in order to make that community a viable golf course community. He presented some slides to help Council understand the position of this village in the overall context. Mark Montijo, 1187 Honey Springs, Jamul, representing the Jamul/Dulzara Community Planning Group. He stated that the Daley Quarry was approved by the Supervisors with a 500 foot corridor running down the middle of it. This was through a narrow canyon. It also had a twenty-year lifetime permit. The Planning Group's opposition on this was consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. If the development to the southwest of the corridor was eliminated entirely and development with the school site was moved back to the very edge and top of the ridge line, it would make a more viable long-ten corridor. Patricia Gerrodette commented on the Daley Rock Quarry. She stated there was some political pressures that went into the decision that Fish and Wildlife Service made. The Fish and Wildlife change of mind to approve that corridor for Daley Rock Quarry came after some political maneuvering and prior to the County's decision. Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuente Farms Road, El Cajon, representing the Valle de Oro Planning Group, reiterated their position that there was no reason for the Council to be holding a meeting on this item. They did not believe the Council had the jurisdiction to plan Central Proctor Valley. Mayor Nader stated he was under the impression that the staff recommendation and the Baldwin proposal involved a wildlife corridor considerably wider than 500 feet. Project Manager Lettieri stated that through Central Proctor Valley, the wildlife corridor was considerably wider. It was between 1300 and 2100 feet and narrowed to 500 feet at the Daley Rock Quarry if the quarry indeed went through. C1TY MOTION: MS (Fox/Nader) to approve the City/County staff recommendation and the City Planning Commission recommendation on D.1 through D.6. Councilman Moore stated that on item D.4, he would have no problem if we used the same language that the County had to "not preclude sewer facilities" instead of saying being permitted. Mayor Nader stated that the mover and the seconder would accept that as a friendly amendment. Councilman Moore stated that on item D.5, Millar Ranch Road, he would like to leave the final decision up to the Board of Supervisors, and he recommended an amendment to the City/County staffs recommendation to "not preclude Millar Ranch Road as a public road.' Mayor Nader stated that this was acceptable to both the mover and seconder of the motion. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: To approve the City/County staff recommendation and the City Planning Commission's recommendation and add: "not to preclude sewer facilities" and to leave the final decision on Millar Ranch Road to the County, but add: "not to preclude Mi!lar Ranch Road as a public road." Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 9 6. TENTATIVE ACTIONS ON ISSUE AREA "G:" CDP AND RMP RELATED TEXT AMENDMENTS. G. 1 Should the errata sheet containing GDP/SP text and RMP text amendments be accepted? Project Manager Lettieri summarized the text amendments as Errata Sheet amendments. There were also three other problems: the university, the adult education facility text addition, and Village 3 text amendment. Mayor Nader Eked if the recommended changes had been nan by the City and County Planning Commissions, the Resource Conservation Commission, the applicant, and the citizens groups? Project Manager Lettieri stated that they had not been nm by those commissions. Gregory Smith, Baldwin Co., stated that since the Commission voted on these, he felt they were argued at the commission level. These were their language changes. Staff was recommending revisions to what the planning commissions adopted. The applicant had no questions on these, and they felt it was very reasonable to not give land use jurisdiction to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. They also believe it was not appropriate to give land use jurisdiction to the City of San Diego through specific reference to the MSCP. Project Manager Lettieri stated that the Planning Commission had not seen the language that was now being presented to the Council. City Planning Commissioner Tuchscher stated that in reference to the changes that staff was recommending, he felt that they did not have a chance to review these as a commission. However, he felt they would be acceptable to the commission because they did have reservations on a number occasions about making good local land use decisions and not relegating themselves to decision makers of the higher authority of federal government. Therefore, in his opinion, the language, "input solicited from U.S. Fish and Wildlife" would be acceptable to the commission. CITY MOTIONS: MS (Horton/Fox) to approve staff recommendation on item G.I, the errata sheet, the university text revision, the adult education facility, and Village 3. Mayor Nader requested that the Park and Open Space Policy be bifurcated. He wanted to record a no vote because he did not feel there was anyone on staff with the same expertise as the Fish and Wildlife Service. BIFURCATED MOTION: MSC (Horton/Fox) to approve staff recommendation on the errata sheet regarding the Park and Open Space Policies. Motion carried 4-1 (Nader no) BALANCE OF THE MOTION: MSUC (Horton/Fox) to approve staff recommendation on the balance of G.I, the university site, the adult education facility, and Village 3. Project Manager Lettieri stated that the public had asked that both the Housing and the Capital Facilities be placed on the agenda. The City Clerk called the following people forward who had indicated they wished to speak on Item 5. Gregory Smith, Baldwin Co., stated he had different text issues to address. They had five language areas that they have been unable to come to an agreement on with staff. They were: September 27, 1993 Page 10 Cultural Resources Studies: Both the RMP and the EIR require them to do a cultural resource survey for the entire 23,000 acres. Because of the expense in surveying, testing, and mitigating for 23,000 acres - in order for them to do their very first specific plan - he proposed language that stated that each time they did a SPA within one of the thre~ parcels of property, they mitigate for the entire parcel. Planning Director Leiter stated that they had not reviewed this proposed change recently. At the time they did, there was a rationale, presented primarily by County Planning, for looking at the whole 23,000 acres based on their own policies in this matter. It would be reasonabl~ to'deal with each of the three areas separately. He would have to look to see if there were any EIR issues which this related to. In terms of city policy, this approach would be consistent. CITY MOTION: MSUC (Moore/Horton) that the Cultural Resource ~tudy be given a conceptual, tentative approval and be restricted to each of the mKjor primary ureas as presented by the applicant as each begins to develop, and staff to come back if there were any environmental issues. Wetland Mitigation Revenues: Staff had language in the RMP stating that all revenue generated by wetland mitigation would be given to the Preserve Owner/Manager to fund the preserve activities. He questioned the legality of this. He felt it was unfair to negotiate with a Preserve Manager when they know we have to give them this money for any wetland mitigation banking. He does not even know what wetlands mitigation banking was yet since the whole field was just starting. He suggested dropping the language and have it be part of the Phase 2 RMP approval when they would have the owner/manager selected. They would have the financing plan at that point and everything could be worked out at that point in time. Mayor Nader suggested the language, 'the revenue generated by wetland mitigation banks shall fund the preserve activities, ~ without specifying that it was going to some unidentified owner/manager which could be worked out at ~ :~'~ a later stage. Mr. Smith stated he had concerns because he did not know how the mitigation banking was going to work. He was bothered with language this detailed at a General Plan level over the use of funds. He preferred striking the entire last sentence. Mr. Leiter stated that staff had recommended supporting the language as proposed because they thought it should be this specific. The focus was on putting the funds into the preserve system itself rather than the focus on it given to a manager, per se. The notion was that those funds ought to be part of developing the system. Taking the terms 'Owner/manager' out and just saying 'shall be given to fund preserve activities' would be consistent with what the Executive Committee had discussed. CITY MOTION: MSUC (Nader/Fox) to conceptually approve language that would say, "Revenue generated by wetlands mitigation banks shall fund preserve activities." Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Setback. Mr. Smith stated that the present language stated that setbacks from the preserve shall be 200 feet, except they may reduce that to I00 feet on a case-by-case basis. Since with each SPA they will have to do an additional bird studies, habitat studies, and subsequent EIRs; at that point they would be arguing foot-by-foot as to where the bushes were and the lines should be. He had trouble taking lots of acres and saying it shall be 200 feet, but not less than 100 feet. They were suggesting striking that language with the understanding that at the SPA level it may be more than 200 feet where appropriate. Mr. Leiter stated that both City and County staff were supporting the more specific language. It was based upon some of the environmental work and environmental documentation that they were reviewing. At this point, they would not support the proposed change. They would be willing to go back and re-evaluate it if Council so directed. ~---,;'~ The request was to eliminate all reference to the numbers. He felt that was where they get into a concern. ;: Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 11 CITY MOTION: MS (Nader/Fox) that Cotmall conceptually accept language that would say, "Setback of no less than 100 feet being allowed in consideration of topography or either factors on a case-by-case basis through additional study at the SPA level. Mayor Nader stated that, as Mr. Smith pointed out, it could be 300400 feet in a given situation depending on environmental considerations. Setting a standard of 200 feet appeared from this stand point to be arbitrary. Setting a minimum of 100 feet which was what the language really seemed intended to do was clarified by the motion. If there were environmental problems with this, then staff was to come back. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 4. Resource Conservation Errors: Mr. Smith stated this was a County issue only. 5. Village Libraries: Mr. Smith stated that the GDP stated that there will be one centralized library in the eastern urban center. They have argued that the library should be a village function and dispersed amongst the villages. The previous Library Director was against this and only wanted one large library. He posed language which delayed the decision until the SPA level as opposed to the present language which forces the decision at the General Development Plan level. CITY MOTION: MS (lionon/Moore) to approve the recommended change. Councilman Moore stated he saw it that if you have one library, you will have a lot of travel. If it was a good library, it will be highly utilized not only the city but by agencies. If you have satellite libraries with the Serra System, you can get any book you want at any library. You can save a lot of travel. Councilwoman Herton felt that the convenience would make more people utilize the services, then if it was in one centralized library. Mayor Nader was inclined to agree, but offered a friendly amendment that this would be referred to the Library Board and their recommendation put in front of Council before final approval. Both the mover and seconder of the motion agreed to the amendment. Councilman Rindone stated that what was being proposed was to allow the flexibility for that to be determined at the SPA level. All the rational reasons for this have been shared; there were some very different points. As Councilman Moore indicated, the Serra System allowed that, and if we truly support the village concept, then this was in concert with that. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION to approve the recommended change and to refer this to the Library Board. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The hour being 7:00 p.m., the hour set for adjournment, the Council concurred to complete the agenda. Neighborhood Parks: Mr. Smith stated that the Parks and Recreation Director has a policy that no park could be smaller than seven acres. They do this for maintenance purposes; larger parks were easier and cheaper to maintain. Mr. Smith believed in the ability to do smaller parks and do it at the SPA level. He strongly disagreed with the position that we could only have large parks. He has seen smaller one and two acre tot-lot type park.s interspersed throughout a project. Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 12 CITY MOTION: MS CNader/) that this issue of the size of the parks be deferred to the SPA levd, with the understanding that the total amount of parks would not be reduced from what was in the current GDP, and that staff be directed to come back with language to implement that. Councilman Moore stated this was an item which was more controversial. He had been led to believe that tot-loB were not winners. Maybe we could add language so we could get at least conceptual approval and refer it to staff and the applicant to get better data. Mr. Leiter responded stated that this was from the city Parks and Recreation Department and also from the Executive staff committee which included the city manager and other executive staff. These were conscientiously recommended by the staff. He recommended that this be referred to staff with some conceptual direction, to hear the reasons for those specific recommendations. Councilman Rindone stated he would support the referral but not the removal of the minimum of seven acres. Mr. Smith stated that the language doesn't remove it; it merely postpones the decision until the SPA level. Councilman Rindone stated he did not have a problem with that, but the copy in front of him stated that it had a minimum of seven acres with an average size of ten removed. He was opposed to that and wanted to see it left in. Mr. Smith stated then he could only do seven acre parks. If you leave that language in, the smallest park that he 'could get park credit for would be seven acres. Mayor Nader asked if there had been a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission? Mr. Leiter responded that he did not believe there had been. Mayor Nader felt that if we were going to have staff comment, then the commission should look at this in the interim. VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried 3-2 (with Moore and Rindone opposed). Darnel Tarr stated he would like an idea of what the schedule was going to be from here on. Project Manager Lettieri stated that the next hearing which had been noticed was scheduled for October 28 at 3 p.m. in the Chula Vista Council Chambers. The Planning Commission have both requested that the findings be brought back to them for report and recommendation prior to the final consideration by the City Council/Board of Supervisors. We have tentatively scheduled October 13 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Planning Commission and October 15 at 8:30 a.m. for the County Planning Commission in the County Department of Planning and Land Use Chambers. Each planning commission will separately consider the County EIR findings, statement of overriding considerations, and the City EIR findings and statement of overriding considerations. The findings would be based on the actions taken by the Council/Board. Based on the tentative actions, that gives the direction on the findings, and staff will prepare the findings, and when you take final action, you will have everything in front of you. Councilman Rindone asked if there would be a method or resolution on how to resolve the different recommendations between the two elected boards. Project Manager Lettieri stated they would summarize that and discuss it with the Executive Committee. Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 13 VI. VILLAGE DENSITY REDUCTION IN NON-TRANSIT VILLAGES (Villages 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10). Project Manager Lettied stated that on July 26, the Council/Board both increased the density in three of the transit village cores (village 1, 5, and 6) to 18 du/ac from 16/du ac. The net increase on the Otay Valley parcel by that decision was to increase the number of units by 491 residential units. To avoid any increase in density, the Council/Board directed staff to return with recommendations for reduction of that 491 dwelling units from the general area west of SR-125 to offset the increase. There were two options being submitted, the staff recommendation and the Baldwin recommendation. Fred Arbuckle, Baldwin, stated the key difference was that they have tried to maintain a total ADT reduction equal to or greater than the amount which had been increased in the transit villages. They used some commercial in an effort to preserve as many single family detached homes as they could. The reduction in detached homes did not match staffs. Deputy Manager Krempl stated that when this item was discussed, it was really in consideration of increasing the density in the transit villages. From city staff's perspective, the issue was a density issue west of 125 and not an issue of traffic. CITY MOTION: MS (Nader/Fox) to approve staff's recommendation to achieve the density reductiort~ in residential dwelling units to offset the density increases in the transit villages. Councilman Rindone asked staff what problems they saw with the proposal by the developer? Deputy Manager Krempl responded that in staff's opinion the commercial was not a fair exchange for the residential. In the commercial case, you were going to have passerby trips, it doesn't have the same input to staff as a reduction as residential does. Councilman Moore stated this was still conceptual, and staff should come back with some pros and cons. VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. Project Manager Lettieri stated that the last item which the Board waived their recommendation on was the adequacies of the EIR which has been deferred from the beginning of the hearings. It was a major issue: does the EIR adequately address the impacts of the proposed project under CEQA. Did Council have a recommendation on this? Councilman Fox asked if we could put this item on a regular agenda? Mayor Nader stated we did not come prepared to do that, and he was not hearing any compelling reason to do it, therefore, he adjourned the meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nader adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. to the next scheduled joint meeting on Thursday, October 28, 1993, at 3:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMC City Clerk