HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/10/12 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Monday, October 12, 1992 __P_u_b_l ic _Ser__~v_i. ces__Building
I. ROLL CALL
COUNCIL PRESENT Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm, Councilmembers
Horton, Moore and Rindone (6:28 p.m.)
AB SENT Mayor Nader
COMMISSIONERS Chair Casillas, Commissioners
PRESENT Carson, Decker, Martin, Ray and
Tuchscher
ABSENT Commissioner Fuller
STAFF General Manager Lettieri, Assistant City
Attorney Rudolf, Deputy City Manager
Krempl, Planning Director Leiter,
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid,
Assistant County Planning Director
Jamriska and G. Smith (Baldwin)
II. PLEDGE OF~.ALL~!;_iANCE TO THE FL__~_ SILENT _PRAYE__R.
III. RESOLUT. ION______1683____6 EST I B~L__I_C REV__I__~__PERIOD~_F_Q~
THE DRAFT PROGRAM E~NVIRONME_NT__~___I_MPACT
REPORT ON THE OTAY RANCH GENERA~__.PLA_N~A~_END~_ENTS AN_D GENERAL
DEV EL OPM E N T PL AN/SUB a ~G IO~AL _PL__A_N_ ( SC_~_~ 9~0_10154_1 --
The Chair announced that the action on Resolution 16836 would be
taken Dy Minute Action on the advice of the City Attorney.
Tonight's discussion would not be the merits of the project but
when the public review period should end. The City Council
already has taken testimony on this issue at four meetings and
the Planning Commission at two.
...Tricia Gerrodette, 11142 _Caminito Vist_a__Pac_ifi_c._ax _S. an _Die~,
Chair of the Land Us~' ~ommittee for the si~ra ~l~-~-san Diego.
Ms. Gerrodette read a letter from .Ray Radt_ke_~fx_4463 Mar_Lyland _$t.a
San Diego. Mr. Radtkee has a post-Doctoral Research in Biology
at UC San Diego. The letter stated his qualifications for com-
menting on the status of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. He
discussed the possibility of non-experts finding these butter-
flies particularly in drought years, the need for and the method
Joint City Council/Planning Commission 2
Meeting of 10/12/92
of conducting an adequate survey to establish baseline data as
well as proposed mitigation measures prior to approval of the
final version of the Programmed Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR). She submitted his letter ~or the record. In reply to
Commissioner Decker she said the butterfly was a candidate
species for listing.
Susan Wolfe-Fleminq, ~1524 Fuerte Farms Rd.~ E1 Caj~D, represent-
ing Chaparral Greens stacked the nine volumes of the technical
appendices on the podium to emphasize the amount of material to
be studied. She stated the documents were incomplete because the
three main volumes of the DEIR are lacking and because of inade-
quate research. She requested a 60-day extension of the public
review period. In response to a question she indicated the
information had been delivered the first part of August.
E.J. Burley, 6500 San Miquel Rd., Bonita 91902. Spoke of the
amount o~ reading material involved and that he had to use the
Library editions. He noted that the CEQA Guidelines call for a
minimum of 60 days and an additional 60 days from this date was
being requested because the main EIR is deficient.
Tom Pocklinqtonx_3~10 Kennelworth Lanex_Bon_i~, representing the
Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, said a request for an
additional 60-day extension was not unreasonable on a project
that will take 40 to 50 years to build out. He cited the simi-
larity in the Council doing their job properly and the Citizen
Groups doing theirs. He noted that Supervisor Bilbray had been
contacted regarding this issue and that a letter from him had
been transmitted endorsing the people's point of view. Develop-
ment of a city with 125,000 people has an enormous impact and
more time in this phase of consideration is important. He
pointed out that not only the City was involved but the County
and that he and the other residents of the County want sufficient
time to review the DEIR.
Peter Watr~3__~l Second Ave., CV ~1910, representing CROSSROADS,
cited conflicting statements on Air Quality between the 1991
Growth Management Oversight Commission report, dated August 1,
1992, which referenced the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
adoption of a revised air quality plan setting "a goal of 3%
reduction in air emissions annually to the year 2000 and a 1%
reduction annually thereafter," and the DEIR, page 3.11-7, "The
results reported in Table 3.1113 shows the proposed project would
incrementally increase the pollution to the regional air shed.
Any increase in particular emission or ozone precursor emissions
constitutes a significant adverse impact because ~an Diego County
is already a non-attainment area for ozone and particulate
matter." He also pointed out that page 6-41 of the EIR says,
"Destruction of vehicular and stationary source emissions from
Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Meeting of October 12, 1992 3
the projects contained within the cumulative impact area of Otay
Ranch would incrementally contribute to the San Diego air basin's
inability to attain Federal and State air quality standards for
its ozone...', as well as "Although the proposed project repre-
sents a relatively small change in the regional air pollutant
background, the cumulative effect of development projects in the
region is one which contributes significantly to the degradation
of the County's air quality." Mr. Watry questioned reconcili-
ation of the EIR and the reductions protected by law and
requested a 30-day extension of the public review period. (A
copy of the letter was submitted for the record.)
The Chair asked staff to note that Mr. Watry's comments are more
germane to the public hearing portion on the substance of the EIR
and those should become part of the record when the hearing
portion comes up.
Daniel Tar__~r.%1524 Fuerte F~rms Rd. E1 CajoB, representing the
Valley de Oro Community Planning Group, said his group was
requesting a 50-day extension of the public review period as
consistent with their original request for 120 days.
John Hammond_x_3012 Anderson St., Bonitax_91902, Chair of the
Sweetwater Community Planning Group, stated that additional time
is needed to study the specific impacts on the Sweewater Valley
which involve the proposed enlargement of Sweetwater Road and
both bridges from two lanes to six as well as severe impacts to
San Miguel Road and Bonita Road. An additional 60-day extension
of the public review period was requested.
~ames Maybe_~r~v, 987_L__om__a_View, Ch~a V~st~. Mr. Mayberry noted
that the reason for Council's intervention in the public review
period process has not been stated. Unless a reason having to do
with the efficiency or reliability of the planning process is
given, the field is left open for speculations about the motive
and calls into question the integrity of the entire process.
There is no way to separate the merits of the EIR from the
procedural treatment of the public review period. He requested
that Council state Some reason why it intervened in the process.
(6:28 p.m. - Councilman Rindone arrives)
Euqene J. Sprofera, 531]_~airwa_~y_ Dr., LaMesa 9~134~1, Legislative
Analyst #580, San Diego County. Mr. Sprofera read an Addendum to
his letter of 10/7/92 recording his intention to contact the
~tate of California regarding mismanagement practices by both the
City and County in accepting a lien on property belonging to the
developer. He noted that although the City was the Lead Agency
the land was located in the County. He spoke well of the bear-
ings held by the Planning Commission and commented that they had
Joint City Council/Planning Commission 4
Meeting of October 12, 1992
been "left up in the air and...greatly disturbed" by the actions
at Tuesday's Council Meeting. He asked that the statement be
made part o~ the record. Mr. Sprofera also submitted the Adden-
dum for the record.
Mark Montijo, 1875 Hon~e~Sprinqs Rd., Jamul,_CA 9193~, Chair of
the Jamul/Dulzura Community Planning Group, stated that Chula
Vista was selected as Lead Agency because even though the land
was in the unincorporated area of the County, the magnitude of
impact of the project was on the City of Chula Vista. He asked
that Council treat the members of the unincorporated areas as
though they were constituents of Chula Vista.
The nine volumes of technical appendices displayed to the Council
are the substance on which the conclusions of the main volumes of
the EIR are based. After intensive reading of the 1800 pages of
the DEIR, most readers have an idea of what is intended to occur.
That, however, is not adequate to determine whether or not those
conclusions are based on quantitative in£ormation. A thorough
review by the public of all that information is necessary.
Council's procedural change to allow themselves the opportunity
to take over the proceedings and determine when the actual end of
the public review period will be, could be argued as a project
specific change o~ substance yet what is occurring here is a
subversion o~ the expressed intent of the Planning Commission to
extend the public review period to what they feel is necessary
for adequate public review of this project. The only way Council
can make it clear that was not their intent is to reaffirm their
Appointed Body's position and extend the public review for an
additional 60 days.
Gregory T. Smith, 11975 E1 Camino Real~__San Dle~gx_92~, repre-
senting the Baldwin Company, said he had submitted a letter
stating Baldwin's position. The required public review period is
45 days. Today is the 73rd day. From Baldwin's perspective,
enough is enough and it's time to move on.
Commissioner Casillas referenced CEQA's provision that under
extraordinary circumstances the period could be longer and that,
clearly, Otay Ranch is an extraordinary project. Mr. Smith
replied that while CEQA provided such discretion, he interpreted
the "extraordinary circumstance" provision to indicate an emer-
gency or a grievous public welfare/safety issue.
Michael A. Green, 43 Palomar Dr~ve, C~_, President of the Chula
Vista Chamber of Commerce, remarked that the Board of Directors
had moved unanimously that a decision on annexation should be
completed this year if possible, therefore they would be opposed
to any extension of the review period. He pointed out that there
Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Meeting of October 12, 1992 5
would be many opportunities for public comments before any plan
is adopted. Also, there will be many other EIRs to be reviewed
before any plan is adopted. He urged that the public review
period be brought to a close at the end of 80 days.
Ben G. Patton, 294 "F" Street, CV, cited his background on the
Civil Service Commission, Montgomery Planning Committee, and as a
member of the Governing Council of the Otay Ranch Development
Group. He noted that there had been public advertisements
requesting comments on the project. The public had its chance to
make comments, failed to shew and he concurred with the decision
to have the closure of the public review period at the end of 80
days.
~ 162 Mankato St..~ CVj 91910, Chair of the Governing
Council ot the Otay Ranch Development Group, said that Baldwin
has worked with the Community on the planning of this development
for almost four years. Three subcommittees have addressed
environment, especially infrastructure and natural resources.
She displayed a list of issues addressed, including some men-
tioned by other speakers. She expressed her amazement that
"people who could have been involved had chosen not to partici-
pate, new choose to come out of the woodwork and cry, 'Wait'."
Ms. He±ton suggested that the requests were not simply for more
time but to delay the project. She reminded all that the EIR
would again be addressed as each village and the Eastern Urban
Center is developed. She stated her preference for a well-
developed plan by one developer rather than many smaller plans by
many developers for the same acreage. The Governing Council, at
their last meeting, voted 5-4 to no extension. She approved
Council's action of a simple extension to October 20 and no
further.
The Chair commented that the length of Ms. Helton's resume for
services to Chula Vista probably reads longer than the EIR.
~usan Herney, 14~ Mankato St., C~_x_92110, spoke of the extraor-
dinary effort expended by the Ba~dw~-~mpany' Anyone who cared
to participate has had an opportunity; those coming forward
tonight expressing surprise by the size of this project have not
been paying attention. Ms. Herney maintained that the process
had been open and honest and those who cry, "collusion" have not
been paying attention. She asked Where these people had been for
the last four years? Ms. Herney agreed with Ms. Helton's com-
ments and requested that the public review period be closed.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission 6
Meeting of October 12, 1992
The Mayor-pro-tem then remarked that the issue under considera-
tion was when the public review period should end. He explained
that the public review period was not "public hearings" because
if it were decided to close the hearing on October 19, the
Commission could still have public hearings after that date it
they so desired. By law, all comments received up until the 19th
(if that were the closing date) have to be responded to in the
FEIR in writing. It has been the City's policy, and he would
commit, the Council would commit and the Commission would commit,
that it will continue to be the policy that any comment received
after that date will also be responded to in writing. They will
not be made part o~ the EIR but they will still be before the
Commission and before the Council when decisions are being made.
There is no intent of stifling public comment. Council is trying
to move the process along.
After the 19th (if it closes) people can still comment. There
will be a public hearing on the General Plan where discussions
will include its relationship to the EIR. That will be within
60-90 days. At those hearings, the public will be given another
opportunity to address their concerns. After the Commission's
hearing it goes to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council
for public bearings where, again, the public can address their
concerns. He continued outlining the process through the Sphere
of Influence study for LAFCO which will require a Supplemental
EIR with its attendant public bearings as well as the public
hearing required when the City accepts the property and its
impact. After acceptance, a &PA Plan with another Supplemental
EIR and public hearings before the Commission and the Council is
required.
The Mayor-pro-tem emphasized that Council had not tried to make a
power play. When Council and the Board voted for a 60-day public
review period, there was no question of Council's authority to do
so. He commended the Planning Commission for their good work and
expressed hope for an agreement. In response to why Council took
the action it did, he referenced (1) the indemnity agreement that
would benefit Chula Vista if the time frame could be met, which
it was his personal impression could be done; (2) the value of
having this land under jurisdiction of Chula Vista; and (3) the
need to protect the City from a repetition of the County's
e~forts to locate various undesirable projects (jails, landfills,
and toxic waste disposal areas) in the Chula Vista area. He
pointed out that two of the proposed landfill sites were within
proximity of Chula Vista.
He concluded that in weighing all these factors, it was his
opinion and request that the Planning Commission continue on
through the process and that it make a motion to end the formal
public review comment period.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Meeting of October 12, 1992 7
Chairman Casillas asked the Assistant City Attorney for the
status o~ the Planning Commission as a result of the Resolution
approved by Council? He asked if it were a hearing body or what
status Council proposes to give? At the Joint City/County
Planning Commission Meeting of September 16, the Joint Commis-
sions had recommended an extension to 120 days. He needed to
know the effect o~ that recommendation given the action of
Council on Tuesday evening.
Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm said that Council wanted no changes made in
procedures. The action taken by Council was to ensure that if
the Council ever deemed it necessary to take Over a review
process and close a hearing date, the legal authority would be in
place. Prior to that action, authority rested with the Environ-
mental Review Coordinator.
Commissioner Casillas said he did not understand why Council was
now asking the Planning Commission to establish the review period
When Council bad given itself back that authority.
Councilman Moore explained that the Planning Commission had not
set the public review period in 20 years nor had the Council.
The planning review period had been set by administrative action
of the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) in the normal run
of procedure and is usually set for 45 days. The Planning
Commission was informed through routine Scheduling of a public
hearing on a particular process. In this particular project,
because o~ the involvement of two Public Agencies and in keeping
with the cooperative mode, the review period was set for 60 days.
The first Planning Commission meeting after that period brought
the total period to 68 days. Council was surprised when informed
by staff that the authority to close the public review period
had been given to the Commission.
The Councilman reviewed the background document, dated November
23, 1982, which indicated the routine for setting the public
review period was no longer than 45 days, set administratively,
as evidence that the authority was neither taken away nor given
to the Commission. That document states the public review time
ceases when the Planning Commission closes the public hearing,
hOWever, that does not end the public input period because
testimony is still received by Council. The public input versus
public review period doesn't close until the Council closes the
public hearing.
Mayor-pro-tern Malcolm apologized for the bad timing and poor
communication between Council and the Commission. He noted that
the official closing date for the public review period needed to
be settled.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission 8
Meeting of October 12, 1992
Chairman Casillas repeated his question of why, if Council has
the authority to close the public review period, are they asking
the Commission to do so?
The Mayor-pro-tem replied that Council would like to keep the
same process, with the exception of that involving the ERC, as it
had been in the past which is leaving the hearings and process
with the Planning Commission.
Chairman Casillas asked what is being given up if this process is
expedited? He referenced the issue of "protecting ourselves" as
worthwhile but found the "selling of wolf tickets" to be slightly
offensive and expressed doubt that the Board of Supervisors would
attempt to place "another two dumps in our backyard or a nuclear
waste disposal." Chairman Casillas stated that from his perspec-
tive, the Commission voted to extend the review period to 120
days. The County Planning Commission voted the same. From this
point on, he would turn it over to his colleagues who can do and
suggest whatever they want.
In response to a question, Mr. Lettieri said that based on
current projections, the FEIR would be completed by November 9
assuming a lot o~ other comments difficult to respond to are not
received.
Mr. Rudolf, in response to Commissioner Carson, explained that if
the Commission set the close of the public review period by
motion tonight (either closed it with tonight's public hearing or
on the 19th as requested), the Commission would continue to be
the hearing body and the review period would close on the date
the Commission specified by motion, or by the close of the gavel
at the close of the public hearing if it were determined to do it
sooner. If the Commission does not choose to that, Council will
need to decide which of two possible actions it might take under
the new procedure; to either set the closure date itself and
allow the Commission to continue holding public hearings but
state the closing of the public review period, or take upon
itself a hearing conducting the public hearing and closing the
public review period also. The timing on the Planning Commission
and Council consideration of the FEIR and, consequently, the
project would be affected depending on how those things were
resolved.
Councilman Moore commented that three "rights" must be considered
in setting a date; those who have rights to review, property
owner's rights and governmental agencies' rights to see what is
best overall for the City or County. All of those bodies should
come to some consensus. The property owner should not say 45
days is all he will ever give. The people who have the right to
Joint City Council/Planning Commission 9
Meeting of October 12, 1992
review the EIR should not take unnecessary time because time is
money not only to the developer, but to the City in the form of
jobs and tax base.
Commissioner Carson said that having considered a number of EIRs
over a number of years, she feels that her original motion for
120 days was justifiable. However, after reviewing the material
before the Commission and hearing things that have enlightened
her, she felt that the October 19 closure date would be an
extension of, at least, 1/3. She advised the Council that if, in
her opinion, the issues have not been addressed effectively she
will vote against the EIR.
MS (Carson/Tuchscher) to close the public review period on
October 19, 1992.
Commissioner Tuchscher complemented Maggie Helton's group and the
Baldwin people on the work they had done on the Otay Ranch
project. He said he felt comfortable in closing the public
review period on the 19th because of the vast amount of EIR
material forthcoming. He referenced Ms. Helton's comment that
too much delay might result in no longer having only one devel-
oper and losing the opportunity for such things as an ll,000-acre
nature preserve.
Commissioner Decker requested clarification on whether Council
had granted the Commission the authority to be the hearing body,
because his reading of the Resolution indicates the Council must
establish the period of time and determine the hearing body on
every EIR.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said that 6.9 of the Procedures
makes the Planning Commission remain the public hearing body with
regard to the accuracy of the DEIR unless the Council is the
approving body for a given project and has otherwise assumed
authority to hold the public hearing. It is a potential reserva-
tion of the right of the Council but they must exercise it. The
Mayor's comment that "nothing has changed" is correct. The basic
structure of the rules is that there shall be a public hearing by
the Planning Commission and the close of the public review period
coincides with the gavel going down at the close of that public
hearing unless something different happens. What Council is
asking is if the date the Council would have in mind if they were
forced to act is mutually agreeable to the Commission? If it is,
then there is no need for them to act.
Commissioner Decker asked what would happen if the indemnity
period ran out? How can Baldwin indemnify the City if it is
having financial problems?
Joint City Council/Planning Commission 10
Meeting o~ October 12, 1992
Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm replied that although times were difficult
in the real estate market there was no indication that Baldwin
lacked solvency.
Mr. Rudolf said that the indemnity agreement only provided the
City with legal protection if there were a challenge to the
action by the City specifically addressed to the inadequacy of
the public review period of the EIR. If the challenge to the
project were on CEQA grounds or its environmental review or some
other reason, then indemnification would not come into play. If
the challenge comes on that ground, then the indemnification is
to provide legal defence at the cost of the applicant rather than
at the cost of the City.
Commissioner Ray said he had no problem with the Resolution
giving the Council the formal option of taking over the setting
of a review period of an EIR. He hoped that Council would not
choose to exercise that right above and beyond what is really in
the best interests of the City. He echoed the previous comments
regarding protecting the South Bay. He noted that it might not
be popular to close the public review period at this time in the
light of so many comments, but he had a firm belief that neither
the City nor the developer would ignore any comments of a valid
concern. He would fully support the motion.
Commissioner Martin asked if we were establishing a precedent
through the use of the indemnity agreement for developers to
enforce their wishes? Mr. Rudolf replied that the precedent had
already been set. There have been other projects with indem-
nification provided by the developer regarding various aspects of
the project. The procedures keep the authority over the EIR
process in the hands of the Council. The exigencies must be
dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm noted that the question was very important.
He was not requesting the Planning Commission to close the review
period on the 19th because of the indemnity agreement alone. If
he was not of the opinion that the hearing process could be
completed in that period of time, it would be wrong. However,
the EIR was well prepared and there were a number of reasons for
trying to move the jurisdiction to Chula Vista.
Chairman Casillas said he could not support the motion given the
abundance of evidence and requests received from the public and
pro~essional organizations. It is his feeling that it would not
serve the public's interest to cut of~ the review period. The
idea of hurrying has some risk and governing is about taking
risks. Quoting Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm's, "That's the price of
democracy," he noted that democracy means that folks out there
should be listened to and given the opportunity to make a full
Joint City Council/Planning Commission 11
Meeting of October 12, 1992
analysis of the impact on what this one project will have on
their lives and that of their heirs. He stated that the argu-
ments for it were not persuasive and he would not support the
motion.
Mr. Rudolf said before the vote was taken, he wished to clarify
the content o~ the motion. His understanding is that the motion
is to hold a hearing and close the public review period on
October 19. He said he was not certain if the Commission inten-
ded to continue tonight's public hearing, hold a public hearing
tonight and continue it to the 19th, continue to take public
input on the 19th and then close the public hearing at the end of
that public bearing.
Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm said the Planning Commission could decide
whatever they wanted regarding whether they have more hearings at
the end o~ tonight. The motion on the floor is just the public
review portion.
Mr. Rudolf asked if the intent of the motion was to say that the
public review period shall close at 5:00 p.m. on October 19,
19927 Commissioner Carson said her intent was for the closing
o~ the public review period on Monday, October 19. She didn't
plan to come back next Monday.
Commissioner Ray asked if Council, if they chose to exercise the
option, was then prepared and willing to take over all reviews of
the EIRs, supplementals and amendments to a specific project that
they have taken that option on? Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm said he
did not believe Council was able to answer that question at this
time. If this motion were to fail, then there would need to be
discussion.
Commissioner Ray asked if the intent of the Resolution was so the
Council could say, 'We have reached a point where we need to
close this, and we believe we should have that option." He
asked, if, at that point, would it still befall the Planning
Commission to continue the ongoing process? Mayor-pro-tem
Malcolm answered affirmatively. He said if the motion passes,
there would be a 5-minute recess, the Council would leave and
everything would proceed as it has in every other project.
MS (Carson/Tuchscher) to close the public review period on the
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on the Otay Ranch
General Amendment and General Development Plan/Subregional Plan
(SCH #89010154) at 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 1992. The motion
failed 3-3 with Decker, Martin and Casillas opposed.
MS (Martin/Casillas) that the public review period be extended an
additional 60 days making for a total of 120 days.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission 12
Meeting Of October 12, 1992
Commissioner Martin said there was a MOU with the County. The
County and Chula Vista Planning Commissions had met and had
requested an additional 60 days. Then the question of authority
to grant this time was raised. However, the real issue was that
the Planning Commission was charged to do a job and so appointed
by the Council. He as a Commissioner wanted to do the best job
he could but he needed time to listen to the public, study and
digest the material presented. Judging by the public comments,
more time is needed.
Commissioner Carson noted that originally she was 100% in favor
of a longer time but she realized that like her students, the
more time she has, the more time it takes. To extend the period
another 60 days would not make her do a better job.
Commissioner Martin asked if the public hearing closed on Novem-
ber 29, could the letters be answered before the end of the year?
Mr. Lettieri said it would be difficult because of the holidays.
Commissioner Decker asked if Commissioner Martin would consider
an amendment from 60 to 30 days. The Commissioner agreed.
Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm noted that a letter had been addressed to
the members of the Commission by Supervisor Bilbray recommending
an extension to October 29, which would be the 90th day. This
would be the longest period of time allowable without a finding
of "extraordinary circumstances".
Commissioner Carson remarked on the long meeting held on October
7 during which this issue was discussed for over two hours. Upon
return from the break, many of the people had left and the public
hearing portion took less than 1-1/2 hours. She felt this was
indicative.
Commissioner Ray remarked that he has already heard a lot of
redundancy in the issues; there would be opportunities at each
SPA level for comment. He was of the opinion that it was more
practical to close the public hearing and attack the particulars
at SPA level.
Commissioner Martin said he would agree if he were convinced that
everything within the framework would be studied at the SPA
level. He asked if the Commission voted for this tonight, were
any parts irreversible?
Mr. Rudolf replied that if the motion were made and approved, all
that would be affected was the closing of the public review
period. The various levels of subsequent discretionary reviews
would still have to be brought before the Commission and most of
Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Meeting of October 12, 1992 13
them, but not all, have an accompanying level of EIR. Some might
require just an addendum, some a supplemental EIR and Some might
be a mitigating negative declaration. It depends on the
particular project that would come forth implementing the large
plan at the gross planning Stage.
Commissioner Tuchscher offered a substitute motion to close the
public hearing on October 19, 1992.
Commissioner Tuchscher said bis reason was largely due to the
indemnity agreement and to protect public interest relative to
potential litigation.
Commissioner Casillas asked the status of the prior motion and if
it had been seconded? Mr. Rudolf replied that it was Mr. Mar-
tin's motion and Mr. Casillas. second to extend the public review
period for a total o~ 120 days. Mr. Decker Suggested an amend-
ment to reduce it to 30 additional days resulting in a total of
90 from day 1. Mr. Casillas did not accept that second yet and
in absence of the second, the motion to amend fails.
Commissioner Casillas said he would second the amended motion.
Mr. Rudolf continued that what was before the Commission was:
AMENDED MOTION: MS (Martin/Casillas) to extend the public review
period to a total of 90 days, October 29, 1992.
A substitute motion was offered by Mr. Tuchscher for closing the
public review period on October 19. That requires approval by
both the maker and second to have that be a substitute motion.
Commissioner Carson said she would second the substitute motion.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: MS (Tuchscber/Carson) to close the public
review period on October 19, 1992.
Councilman Rindone said it is critical to look at the big picture
and analyze the long-term effect and impact. He remarked on an
unofficial connotation that anything beyond the 80 day review
period (the current substitute motion on the floor) is an attempt
to stop the planning process or an attempt to digress from that.
That is not the case. It is an effort to go on to the next and,
perhaps, more sophisticated level of planning. The Mayor deline-
ated the number of EIRs, steps and hearings that will continue.
He commented that he had never seen a developer that has done
more preplanning to come to this culminating ef£ort. Those
efforts are commendable on the part of this developer.
14
Joint City Council/Planning Commissi°n
Meeting of October 12, 1992
The Councilman emphasized that the Commission is not voting to
· or criticism but to go to the next
stop the process~ the ~l~nnln~ ...... t" wn and dirty" and
level so Commission and ~ounc~ ~ 9=_ do
really investigate. They are doing it within a time frame to
provide the legal indemnification of this City to be able to
proceed.
In reply to Commissioner Carson, Mr. Rudolf said he understood
the motion to be to close the public review period on the 19th
without holding, necessarily, a public hearing on the night of
the 19th.
Commissioner Ray said he had one more comment. Closing the
public review period doeS not mean the Commission is voting on
the EIR itself. The issues can still be addressed if the Commis-
sion doesn't feel the document is adequate.
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Approved 4-2 with Martin and Casillas
opposed.
Mayor-pro-tem Malcolm stated there would be a 5-minute recess and
then the Planning Commission would have the public hearing on the
EIR.
The Planning Commission recessed at 7:56 p.m.
The City Council adjourned at 7:56 p.m. to the Regular City
Council Meeting on October 13, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
Ruth M. Smith
Secretary