Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/03/27 MINUTES Chula Vista Planning Commission Hearing Chula Vista, California 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, March 27, 1996 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER / ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Chair Tuchscher. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Tarantino, Salas, Thomas, Davis, Ray and Willett STAFF PRESENT: Special planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska, Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid, Assistant City Attomey Ann Moore, Senior Planner Rick Rosaler, Senior Civil Engineer Bill Ullrich, Civil Engineer Lombardo DeTrinidad, Planners Beverly Luttrell and Julia Matthews OTHERS PRESENT: Klm Kilkenny, Kent Aden and Rame Hunter of The Baldwin Company, John Bridges of Cotton/Beland/Associates, Dan Marum of BRW, Larry Sword of Sweetwater Environmental Biologist, June Collins of Dudek & Associates, Tom Bandy of Willdan Associates and John Mattox of Remy, Thomas & Moose APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of February 21, 1996 MSUC (Willett/Ray) to approve the minutes of Febrnary 21, 1996 as submitted. Approved 7-0. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. 1. SCHEDULE: Mr. Jamriska pointed out future meeting dates of the Planning Commission as follows: March 28 for continuation of receiving public input and testimony on the Environmental Impact Report, and April 10 to begin the certification of the Environmental Impact Report process as well as consideration for the adoption of the SPA One Plan. The City Council Subcommittee meeting on April 11 has been canceled and another date is in the process of being established to review the progress on the Otay Ranch SPA One Environmental Impact Report and related documents as well as several other issues. The City Council is planning a morning workshop on Saturday, April 20, between 9:00 and 12:00 p.m. On April 30, City Council will hear the SPA and Environmental Impact Report. On May 7, City Council will have the second reading on several of the ordinance amendments staff is proposing. On May 14, Council will hear the Tentative Map issue. Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 2 of 16 The purpose of today's hearing is to receive public input as it relates to the draft Environmental Impact Report. Staff will also be presenting an Addendum that has been prepared. Staff will be asking the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing to tomorrow night for consideration of additional testimony, and, at that time, asking you to close the public heating and direct staff to prepare responses to comments that we have received. Those responses will be prepared for your consideration at the April 10 meeting. The Board of Supervisors approved the Preserve Owner/Manager, the Conveyance Plan and the Financing Plan on February 21. The Board recommended one conditional feature be added to the Conveyance Plan. That is to set up a procedure to permit in-lieu fees to be established to have the property owner pay to the Preserve Owner/Manager to acquire land if they are not able to, or willing to, dedicate land to the Preserve system. City staffis supporting that position. On February 5, LAFCO approved an amendment to our sphere of influence. The sphere of influence is a pre-cursor to any annexation application. City and County staff are in the process of negotiating a property tax agreement, which is also a pre-cursor to any annexation effort. Last night, City Council directed staff to submit three alternatives for consideration to LAFCO for annexation: 1) the entire Western Parcel, the Ranch House and the Inverted "L" excluding the Otay Landfill extension; 2) the current sphere; 3) omit the Otay River Valley, the rock quarry and the Southwest Corner. Council also directed staff to begin the process of detaching the existing Otay Landfill from City limits and having it revert back to County ownership and control. That is the primary purpose of having an addendum prepared as part of the Environmental Impact Report. Because City Council directed staff to not request annexation of the Landfill extension in the County, we are recommending that Item 6, PCZ 96-A1; application of the Public/ Quasi-Public Zone by prezoning the San Diego County Landfill extension in Planning Area One of the Sphere of Influence Update Study be pulled from the agenda. Ms. Moore indicated that a portion of SPA One is owned by Tiger Two. On February 8, creditors of Tiger Two filed a Chapter 11 involuntary bankruptcy petition against Tiger. As a result of filing this petition, an automatic stay is currently in effect which prohibits doing any act that may impact the assets of Tiger. An issue has been raised whether the City can take action on this project in light of the automatic stay. This issue will be resolved prior to the City Council meeting on this project. However, the automatic stay should not prevent the Planning Commission from making recommendations on this project. Commissioner Ray asked, if the property were to change ownership, would the new ownership be bound by our decisions tonight? Ms. Moore indicated that, if the SPA Plan was approved by the City, it would apply to subsequent property owners. However, they have the ability to come in and ask for an amendment to that SPA Plan. Planning Commission Healing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 3 of 16 Commissioner Ray asked if Baldwin can continue to move forward in light of this pending litigation? Ms. Moore indicated that she could not speak for Baldwin. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-95-01; consideration of comments on the recirculated portions of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Draft Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mr. John Mattox (Remy, Thomas & Moose), legal consultant for the project, stated that having people comment on the EIR is critical to CEQAs fundamental goal of giving the public, the Commission and others the opportunity to discuss in a public forum the impacts related with the proposed project. The primary purpose this evening is to make sure that the adequacy of the document and the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are adequately aired, discussed and considered. The Planning Commission is not being asked to make a decision about the adequacy of the EIR tonight. We would ask that the Planning Commission close the public comment period on the EIR tomorrow night, and at that time, you would direct staff' to begin preparing responses to those comments. Mr. John Bridges (Cotton/Beland/Associates), EIR consultant for the project, stated that the draft EIR evaluates environmental impacts of the Otay Ranch SPA One development, the amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) that are associated with SPA One and annexation of two major planning areas within Chula Vista's sphere of influence as well as the Mary Patrick Estate Ranch House. The original draft EIR was circulated for public review in September of 1995, but new information relating to the EIR became available after the circulation date. A recirculated draft was prepared and became available for public review on February 9, 1996. This recirculated draft contains only the revised sections of the ELR: Introduction/Executive Summary; Project Description; Landform Alteration/Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Agricultural Resources; Transportation, Circulation and Access and Public Services and Utilities. It also includes the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Biological Resources Analysis, Transportation Analysis and Phase 2 Resource Management Plan. The primary revision deals with the performance standards for noise impacts on the California Gnatcatcher. There is anecdotal evidence and evidence taken from field studies that indicate that the noise level could be elevated to 65 decibels and still provide for the sustenance of the California Gnatcatcher. Changing of that standard from 60 to 65 decibels is the suggestion that has been included as an amendment to the performance standard for noise relating to the California Gnatcatcher. The second area of revision is related to performance standards for four grassland bird species which include the Northern Harrier, Horned Lark, Loggerhead Shrike and the Burrowing Owl. The performance standard in the plan presently calls for preservation of 80% of that habitat. Based upon the performance standards that are associated with MSCP, a more realistic standard has been suggested as an amendment to the General Development Plan for these birds. That standard would include, within the Open Space Preserve areas, occupied breeding and foraging habitat to llb:\SPASpc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 4 of 16 maintain and enhance a viable population. The third area that required a major revision related to the traffic modeling effort. BRW identified a modeling problem at the 1-805 and 'H' Street off-ramp that necessitated a review of a turning movement associated with that interchange to ensure that the turning movement was correctly identified, and that the impacts associated with that were taken into account and did not change the conclusions of the Traffic Study and the EIR. The conclusion was that no additional mitigation was required. The last area of change relates to landform alteration for steep slopes. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan has a performance standard that calls for maintenance of 83% of steep slopes Ranch-wide. To ensure that 83% of steep slopes is maintained as each SPA is developed, additional information was included in the EIR (Recirculated Table 4.2-2, pg. 4.2-18). We look at each of the impact areas that have been assessed in this EIR and categorize them in one of three ways: 1) significant and unmitigable project- level impacts, 2) significant and mitigable project-level impacts, and 3) less than significant project-level impacts. The most important area is significant and unmitigable project-level impacts. These are impacts that are significant and cannot be fully mitigated. When that kind of circumstance arises with a project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be developed and approved in order to approve the project itself. If the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the project be approved, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must accompany that recommendation. Mr. Reid directed the Planning Commission's attention to an addendum to the EIR that addresses the issue of the de-annexation from the City of Chula Vista of the existing Otay Landfill operation. This is viewed as a change in jurisdictional boundary. This action will not have any direct or indirect impact on the environment. Staff feels that the addendum is an appropriate way to address this issue. The Resource Conservation Commission recommends conditional certification of the EIR and adoption of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in their memo dated March 27, 1996. They did not make any recommendations on the project itsel£ Chair Tuchscher opened the public hearing. Mr. Kim Kilkenny (The Baldwin Company, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130) wanted to clarify that the newspaper article last weekend created the mistaken impression that the Otay Ranch is up for sale. Of Otay Ranch ownership, around 1,500 acres are owned by Baldwin Builders, which is subject to the Chapter 11 action. All of SPA One is owned by Otay Ranch, L.P. or Village Development or Tiger Two, all of which are controlled by Jim and Al Baldwin. None of which are owned by Baldwin Builders. None of which are subject to the Baldwin Builders Chapter 11 voluntary reorganization action Ms. June Collins (Dudek & Associates, 605 Third Street, Encinitas, CA 92024) indicated that changes for the performance standard for the four grassland species is new information that has become available since the GDP EIR was certified, and that this new information is the standards that were established for these four species by the Draft MSCP that was circulated in January 1995. Two of these species were previously listed as Category 2 by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Since the GDP EIR was certified, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has llb:\SPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 5 of 16 abandoned the Category 2 species designation. The second change in the performance standards relates to noise levels that can be emitted in areas occupied by California Gnatcatchers. The standard that came out with the GDP EIR was 60 decibels. We are proposing to change that standard to 65 decibels which will not have any effect on the percent preservation standard for California Gnatcatchers. New information has become available since the GDP EIR was certified that demonstrates the Gnatcatchers can vocalize, successfully nest and successfully breed in higher noise environments. Dr. Anita Hayworth, a Cmatcatcher expert, has concluded that it will not adversely affect the ability for Otay Ranch to meet the standards that were established by the GDP for preservation of the Gnatcatcher. Mr. Michael Coleman (Ota¥ Water District Environmental Specialist, 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard, Spring Valley, CA 91977) referenced a letter sent to the Otay Ranch Project office dated March 14 to make sum that special attention is paid to Section 4.13, Public Services and Utilities. This section might reference the most recent agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Otay Water District, recognizing Otay Water District as the purveyor of both potable and reclaimed water services in the area. Mr. Michael Woodward (Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker representing West Coast Land Fund, 555 South Flower Street, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371) indicated that the phasing plan contained in the EIR differs fi.om the phasing plan contained in the Public Facilities Financing Plan. We outlined the differences and concerns in Attachment 3 of the letter dated February 6, 1996. Mr. Rosaler indicated that the phasing plan in the Public Facilities Financing Plan reflects the recommended plan for approval. The phasing plan contained in the Environmental Impact Report reflects the original plan submitted to the City back in July of 1994. Mr. Greg Smith, P.O. Box 2786, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 stated that he did not know about the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) hearings on either the EIR or the Resource Management Plan (RMP). Somehow, he was not included in the dialog. If the RMP is on the agenda, he would like to speak at that point. Chair Tuchscher asked staff to comment on the RCC and their action relative to the RMP. He also asked that Mr. Smith be notified relative to RCC comments on the project. Mr. Reid indicated that the RCC continued the RMP until this past Monday, at which time they approved the Phase 1 RMP subject to three conditions. Commissioner Ray asked who made the conclusion that the impact at the 1-805 and 'H' Street off-ramp was relatively minor and the changes can be accommodated within the proposed mitigation? Mr. Bridges indicated that the conclusion was reached by BRW, the traffic and transportation planners. llbSSPASpc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 6 of 16 Commissioner Ray asked what is the definition of a minor impact? Dan Marum (BRW, Incorporated), traffic consultant on the project, indicated that the increase in volumes were not considered significant in terms of levels of service, and the threshold criteria used were for dally segment volume and peak hour intersection movements. Commissioner Ray asked if BRW had done modeling beyond this SPA Plan to the subsequent SPA Plans and the impacts between 'H' Street and 805 to the east, and when do we reach that threshold? Mr. Marum indicated that the EIR contains an evaluation of build-out under the new Series 8 Modeling environment by SANDAG (Transportation Study Report, Section 5.0). The phasing work analyzed a growth increment called year 2000, year 2005 and year 2010. BRW found that after the year 2000, you will need to provide relief to 'H' Street and Telegraph Canyon Road in the form of another parallel arterial. Both Orange Avenue and Palomar Street were tested as potential relief valves. Commissioner Ray inquired about the impact with and without SR-1257 Mr. Marum indicated that a common theme throughout the development of the Otay Ranch SPA One project was to do a worst-case analysis by not counting SR-125 Commissioner Ray asked about threshold standards and infi'astructure being in place prior to future Otay Ranch SPAs. Mr. Ullrich indicated there is a matrix in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) which identifies when those improvements have to go in (pFFP, Tables 11 through 16, pg. 3.2-28 and 3.2-29). Commissioner Ray inquired about the review and update of the Development Impact Fee program. Mr. Jarrdska indicated this has been a serous topic with the City Manager and Administrative staff in that we have been addressing this issue on a City-wide basis, especially as it relates to the proposed annexation. Staff has been in communication with, and the City Manager is encouraging, the other property owners on the Westem Parcel to join into the application process for annexation so they can be considered as part of the phasing program and the Trans DIF program that is going to be updated shortly. But the City Manager wants to know what area is going to be in the City or not in the City. Commissioner Salas asked about a $27 million shortfall in the Trans DIF fees. One altemative to fund the shortfall is "financing through assessment districts over an area larger than SPA One" (PFFP, pg. xiv). Would existing residents be in that assessment district? Mr. Ullrich replied in the negative. llbSSPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Heanng March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 7 of 16 Mr. Bridges submitted the resume of Mr. Barry Jones for the record (resume attached). Mr. Jones is a Principal with Sweetwater Environmental Biologists who reviewed the amendments to the performance standards and feels they are appropriate. Chair Tuchscher stated that he would not close the public hearing. He entertained a motion to continue the public hearing until March 28, 1996. MSUC (Thomas/Davis) to continue the public hearing, take additional written commnnications and oral comments on the Second-tier Draft EIR for Otay Ranch SPA One Annexation and the Addendum on the landf'fll detachment to Thursday, March 28, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Approved 7-0. 3. PUBLIC ItEARING: PCM 95-09; consideration of six General Development Plan Amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan Mr. Rosaler indicated that in the review of the General Development Plan, six areas of the plan needed to be adjusted for the implementation of SPA One. 1) Master Planned Villages -- The General Development Plan (GDP) requires that "each of the villages in the Otay Ranch be master-planned as a unit". The Baldwin Company applied for a General Development Plan Amendment to eliminate that requirement because there are areas that are physically separated. Staff is recommending that each of these areas have their own SPA Plan prepared, or they could be done in conjunction with the village in which they are planned. This condition occurs in the area west of Pasco Ranchero, the Mary Patrick Estate, the Inverted "L" and part of the Resort Site. County staff has agreed with this amendment. 2) Agricultural Irrigation -- The GDP prohibits any additional irrigation of farm land. The Applicant has proposed this requirement be modified. Staff recommends that the Preserve Owner/Manager should decide what additional land ought to be irrigated. 3) Practical Use of Solar Energy -- The Findings of Fact clearly identified and anticipated its removal. The amendment will correct the error and solar energy will be used as 'practical'. 4) Transit Polices -- The GDP requires that dedication of right-of-way be done on the Tentative Map. Planning of right-of-way should be done at the SPA level on the Tentative Map and dedication on the Final Map. In addition, staff is proposing that the relocation of the village core inside of each village be moved to the SPA level of planning for the transit alignment (GDP/SRP, Exhibit 39, pg 125). In Village One, we are proposing that the alignment of the trolley come up through the area west of Pasco Ranchero. Due to the spacing requirements of the transit centers, staff has found that the village core needed to be moved further to the west to provide that spacing. 5) Noise Amendments -- Staff is proposing that the 65 CNEL level be changed for residential noise standards. Staff is recommending to achieve a level of 60 decibels for habitat noise mitigation. 6) Grassland Species Performance Standard -- The biologists explained this amendment earlier. Staff would recommend that the Commission continue the public hearing to April 10, 1996. llb:\SPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 8 of 16 Commissioner Davis had concerns about significant difference in wording from shall be reserved at the SPA level and irrevocably offered for dedication at the Tentative Map level regarding the transit line. Mr. Rosaler indicated that staff is still planning at the Tentative Map level. Commissioner Thomas asked, what is the time frame on the transit? Mr. Rosaler indicated that the transit line would be built 10 to 15 years from now. He displayed an exhibit of the proposed transit line (Draft E1R, Exhibit 5-3, pg. 5-19). Commissioner Salas had concerns about "each village much be master-planned as a unit". She asked if an amendment could be put in to guarantee that there has to be a diligent effort to buildout a village before they go on to another one. Mr. Rosaler indicated that type of amendment could be proposed, but the language is strong in the GDP that requires each village to be master-planned as a unit and not to divide each village up. Chair Tuchscher indicated that there are numerous ways to implement that type of condition if the Commission chose to move in that direction. Commissioner Ray indicated that the GDP had stop-gaps put in place. Relative to the Inverted "L", area west ofPaseo Ranchero and the Ranch House to be removed from the requirement for the planned community, why were the concerns not raised before the GDP was adopted? Mr. Jamriska indicated that, when City and County staff were trying to allocate these areas to a particular village, they felt that geographic relationship was a primary consideration and not topographic or existing infrastructure. Conunissioner Ray asked about light rail and transit route dedications and funding. Mr. Rosaler indicated that the GDP talks about light rail transit and trolley lines running through the trolley villages. The villages that are not going to be served by trolleys will have transit stops for buses. Transit stops and the trolley fight-of-way are to be reserved. The PFFP recommends that the fair-share contribution of the Otay Ranch will be the dedication of the fight-of-way. Funding is still an issue. MTDB tells us that 80% of the transit line funding comes from the State and Federal Government; 20% comes locally. The transit line right-of-way makes up about 26%. Commissioner Ray asked if that is going to fly with MTDB? Mr. Jamriska indicated that MTDB would like the City to participate in not only the capitol costs, the fight-of-way costs, but also the operational costs. The City rejected that. llb:\SPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 9 of 16 MTDB came back asking the City to participate on the right-of-way and use our Trans D1F Program to contribute portions for the operational. The City has taken the position that the Trans DIF Program is not applicable and possible. There is nothing in the State law that says the City must participate in the operational needs. MTDB has indicated that the Federal sharing portion of light rail construction may not be available in the future. So, if the City wants the line, we have to explore other ways of funding. If a region-wide assessment district is offered, the City would participate. Chair Tuchscher recalled language in the GDP that said there had to be a funding mechanism for light rail. He asked staffto find that language. Mr. Jamriska quoted from page 218 and 219 of the GDP -- "Goal: Achieve a balanced transportation system which emphasizes alternative to automobile use and is responsive to the needs of residents. Implementation Measure: No more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial use within the EUC shall be approved for the Otay Valley Parcel until such time as the funding is approved and construction assured for the light rail transit system." Chair Tuchscher declared the public hearing open. Mr. Kilkenny addressed the one area where Baldwin disagrees with staffs' recommendation.....master planning the villages in one entity. Baldwin is recommending that Planning Area 12, the Eastern Urban Center, be listed as one of those areas which may be developed as part of the SPA but not entirely planned as a unit. Planning Area 12 is not a village; it is the urban hub of Otay Ranch. It has become apparent to Baldwin that it would be reasonable in the future for the freeway commercial portion of the EUC to be planned and developed separately from the remaining portion of the EUC Freeway commercial could be processed concurrent with Village 11. Concerning the issue that Commissioner Salas raised relative to allowing villages to proceed while other villages are only half builtout or quarter builtout .... The GDP (page 353) requires that, on all subsequent SPA applications, a village viability analysis be performed and have some specific criteria that ensures that when subsequent villages are processed they have to look back at the villages that have already been approved and a determination has to be made of whether or not the already approved villages have been sufficiently builtout to be viable to achieve the goals of the Plan so that you do not have a series of villages approved and none of them builtout. Chair Tuchscher asked for a motion to continue the public hearing on the GDP Amendments to April. MSUC (Ray/Davis) to continue the public hearing on the six GDP Amendments to Wednesday, April 10, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Approved 7-0. ~*~'~' BREAK 9:15 TO 9:35 P.M. **** llbSSPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 10 of 16 4. ACTION ITEM: Gated Communities Policy Paper for the City of Chula Vista Chair Tuchscher stated that this item had been pulled from the agenda to the April I0 hearing. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 94-01; consideration of approving the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan including the Planned Community District Regulations; Overall Design Plan; Village Design Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; Regional Facilities Report; Phase 2 Resource Management Plan; Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan; Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan; and Geotechnical Report Mr. Rosaler indicated that the plan staff is recommending meets the policies of the GDP. SPA One covers over 1,000 acres of Villages One and Five. Both villages are designed around commercial cores. Relocation of Park P-2 to Neighborhood R-9 is the only change that staff is going to recommend to the Planning Commission. There are three issues that are still outstanding, and staff will ask for Planning Commission direction on those. Regarding the Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) and public facilities Development Impact Fee (DIF).... The Otay Ranch is not within the area covered by the public facilities DIF. Staff is requiring in the Conditions of Approval that the Otay Ranch be included in that DIF, and that the Applicant be given 100% credit for funding that study. It was discovered early on in the PFFP that the high school and community park sites were going to be needed sooner than previously anticipated. Another issue identified early on was the phasing of the village development, and how does the City ensure that a village is completed before moving on? The Conditions of Approval require a project review report be prepared at the end of the first phase. That review report will be initiated at the 1,150th permit and be completed by the 1,400th permit. The report will identify which arterial street will be extended to 1-805. It will identify where the high school site and community park are going to be located. In addition, an analysis will be done to identify which village should be encouraged complete before additional developmeni is allowed in the other village, how can the village core development be accelerated and how the affordable housing requirement will be met within the phases. What staff anticipates is that Phase 1A (less than 300 units) will be allowed to develop. An unresolved issue is additional access into the north side of Village One. Staff is recommending additional intersections at Palomar Street between Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9 and Neighborhoods R-2 and R-20. The last issue is park credit for the pedestrian parks, which are less than 5 acres. The Parks & Recreation Department was not excited about those parks receiving park credit. City staff is recommending to the Planning Commission that all parks of less than 5 acres be eligible to receive park credit. The credit would range between 25% to 50% based on small park criteria such as size, location and facilities. Everyone agreed that these parks should not be maintained by the General Fund, but funded either through an HOA or a maintenance district. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to April 10 at which time, after public testimony, you adopt the Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of the SPA One Plan to the City Council. llb:\SPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 11 of 16 Commissioner Willett was under the impression that all new high school sites and community parks would be next to one another to utilize ball fields, parking, etc. Mr. Rosaler indicated that the community park and high school locations may change, so he could not say exactly. But that philosophy has been used on the elementary schools and neighborhood parks. Commissioner Ray asked about the City-wide Parks Master Plan, which is going to be strongly recommended to the City Council that it be developed and completed and funded within the next year because of the ongoing development in eastern Chula Vista. There is an element within that Parks Master Plan that is suppose to include discussion relative to joint use. Does staffhave any idea what the Park & Recreation Department's leanings are about joint use facilities? Mr. Jamriska indicated that Parks & Recreation's position is, they would like to be in close proximity but realize the security problems and adults using an elementary school playground. They are looking at potential joint use but separate them topographically or by a street. Chair Tuchscher asked that the Parks & Recreation Department prepare a memo regarding that specific issue £or the April 10 meeting. He also asked if anyone knew the menu of criteria that are going to be laid out, and will the Planning Commission be able to see that? Mr. Rosaler indicated it depends on the standards that are in the GDP. Small park criteria and conditions of approval have to be approved by the City Council. Prior to park credit being assigned, that criteria will be developed and brought back through the process for your review and for City Councils' adoption. Chair Tuchscher asked, since the park credit issue is not reconciled at the SPA level, is it reconciled before the Tentative Map level? Mr. Rosaler responded in the negative. Chair Tuchscher asked, how do you adjust size and criteria of parks without knowing and having that agreed to in advance of having maps completed? Mr. Rosaler indicated that it is the credit amount from 25% to 50% of the fee credit that will be adjusted as opposed to the park size. Chair Tuchscher stated that staff is not actually adjusting acreages of parks, staff is adjusting amenities in the parks. Mr. Rosaler responded in the affirmative. IIb:\SPA:\Fc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 12 of 16 Mr. Jamriska stated that the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) is a tool to implement the directions of the Phase 1 RMP. The Board of Supervisors and the City must agree to adopt four items: 1) the Joint Powers Agreement for the Preserve Owner/ Manager (POM), 2) a Conveyance Plan, 3) a Financing Plan for the POM and, 4) an Overall Design Plan. The County is not required to adopt the RMP prior to our first SPA, but the City is required to adopt the RMP prior to the first SPA. The most controversial element of the RMP is the establishment of a POM. The City and County have agreed to name themselves as the POM to be reviewed every five years to see if they still desire to continue operating it. The County has approved a Joint Powers Agreement which will be presented to the City Council for their consideration at the same time they are considering the SPA Plan. The second item of controversy dealt with the Conveyance Plan. The land that must be conveyed to the POM for development of the Otay Ranch project is 11,375 acres. The RMP states that for every 1 acre of development potential you have on your property, you must convey 1.188 acres of land to the Preserve. That was staffs' recommendation. When the County Board of Supervisors took testimony, they heard several individuals saying that should not be the only method of conveying land to the Preserve. What about conveying fees in-lieu of dedication of land? Staff felt that the most equitable solution to the entire conveyance issue was to look at those properties that had developable acreages and devise a formula. County and City staff agreed that it appeared to be more fair and equable to provide multiple avenues to convey land or dollars to the Preserve as entitlements are received. The Board of Supervisors adopted an alternative to conveyance of land to reflect in-lieu fees. Staff is recommending the same alternative to be applied to the Conveyance Plan, mainly an in-lieu fee process in addition to conveyance of land. The third item of controversy is related to the financing plan. The Board of Supervisors and the City and County staff all recommend that the Habitat Maintenance District form be utilized to fund and operate the operational responsibilities of the Preserve. Commissioner Salas asked if the charging of $25 per year per parcel, which is restricted by State law, depended on the value of the land? Mr. Jamriska indicated that the State law in terms of the Habitat Maintenance District relates to parcel not to the value of the land. Chair Tuchscher asked if there is enough money to maintain the habitat and open space in SPA One? Mr. Jamriska stated that the County Parks & Recreation Department looked at that because they are going to be the agency responsible for implementing the maintenance and research and protection elements of the Preserve, and they felt that it was adequate. Funds will not be adequate to fund the other elements of the Preserve, which are research and monitoring, recreational programs or any educational aspect. Additional funding sources will have to be found to fund those operations. llb:\SPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 13 of 16 Ms. Luttrell presented the Conditions of Approval and the process of how they were developed. They were developed from input by the various City departments and the Baldwin Company. It was done in the format of a Technical Committee. Guidance was sought from time to time from the Policy Committee when we had unresolved issues or conflicting positions between departments which the Technical Committee could not reach agreement on. Staff anticipates there will be additional conditions for the Planning Commission to review at the April 10 hearing such as: timing of assignment of park credit; additional Tentative Tracked Map conditions; some of the items about the Conveyance Plan and the in-lieu fee for conveyance of land and also the method of conveyance; gated communities will be modified to require consistency with the City policy; written material that comments on the EIR might be added as potential Conditions of Approval; and any other conditions or concerns that the Planning Commission might have could be added as well. Staff has based a lot of the improvement-types of conditions on issuance of building permits. Parks, schools, traffic related improvements, sewer improvements and drainage improvements are all tied to dwelling units and the number of building permits that are issues. Chair Tuchscher opened the public hearing. Mr. Kent Aden (The Baldwin Company, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130) thanked the Commissioners for the many hours they have put into the workshops. In 1993, the Planning Commission adopted the General Development Plan. One of the key requirements of that General Development Plan is the Overall Design Plan. It sets the stage for development of the entire 23,000-acre property. It provides the glue for the overall project that as individual villages develop out, there are certain elements which maintain that consistency and help the project retain some type of conformity throughout the 40 to 50-year buildout. He reviewed previous presentations given by staff regarding the SPA One Plan and pointed out the first phase of Village One (lB) and the first phase of Village Five (IA). Baldwin has four issues at this point: 1) eliminate the access road in Village Five which will provide vehicular access into the EastLake project and high school, 2) opposed to access from the 22-acre triangular parcel, 3) opposed to the condition that would add another roadway to Palomar Street between Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9 and Neighborhoods R-2 and R-20, and 4) Baldwin would like 100% park credit for the pedestrian parks and that the credit for local parks would occur upon completion of the park. Chair Tuchscher asked staff to explain the rationale of why the change in the additional access points to Palomar Street in their recommendation? Mr. Rosaler explained that, given the number of single-family units north of Palomar, three access points are not enough. From a traffic standpoint: speed and distance between intersections on Palomar. Mr. Lee added that, when staff shifted the park to the north side, one of the concerns of staffwas, while we want to focus the traffic into the village core, we have all of the traffic llb:\SPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Heanng March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 14 of 16 going around one of the major park features. By having these other access routes added, it could relieve traffic and not have so much congestion right at the major park area. Commissioner Ray asked what the phasing plan is for punching through the accesses to Telegraph Canyon Road? Mr. Rosaler indicated that the initial phase is proposed to be lA, which will have access across from the access into St. Claire. A temporary access for lB is proposed between Apache Drive and Buena Vista Way until Palomar Street gets pushed through from La Media to Paseo Ranchero. Michael Woodward indicated that West Coast Land Fund is the lender on a loan of approximately $22 million for 1,061 acres of property, which is in the Otay Ranch. Two hundred and eighty-eight (288) acres of that collateral property are located in the middle of SPA One. That loan went into default in September 1995. We had commenced receivership action. West Coast foreclosure, which was scheduled for February 8, 1996, was delayed at the eleventh hour by the filing of a bankruptcy by three of the creditors. They are claiming $387,000 has not been paid by Tiger Two, the owner of that land, and they filed an involuntary bankruptcy action. The court has now turned that from a view voluntary into a "voluntary" one, so it will proceed. That bankruptcy had the affect of stopping the foreclosure of West Coast Land, the automatic stay, which stops all actions that would affect the collateral of the property. We met with City staffin early January and were preparing budgets to participate in the cost sharing of these proceedings. He noted that the foreclosure involves 26% of the land in SPA One. And, yet, they are getting 50% of the schools, 51% of the affordable housing obligation and 34% parks, etc. The single- family phasing comes much later, if at all. We are concerned about these issues and think they affect the value of the land. We would like to participate as an owner, but we are not quite there because we are not yet the owner. We urge you, for good zoning and planning purposes, to wait and see how this foreclosure resolves itself because it is right in the middle of the SPA One Plan. Our phasing concerns are outlined on Attachment 3 (memo dated February 6, 1996). We have argued that Tiger Two does not own any of the sensitive habitat that is proposed to be conveyed as part of the SPA One obligation, and we do not know where that 1.888 acres is going to come from for the 288 acres, or how that is going to be allocated. An in-lieu fee, for property owners that find themselves in a situation we are going to be in, is probably a good idea. Chair Tuchscher stated that the Planning Commission does want, need and have to plan for contingencies that involve all the issues Mr. Woodward brought up which mean the strong potential that there will be multiple owners on the Ranch. This Commission has the capability and the creativity to move something forward that will provide you with some assurance that the issues you have raised will be addressed and, hopefully, we can implement procedures to make sure that your rights and your economic fiscal feasibility of your holdings are also protected. llb:\SPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 15 of 16 Commissioner Thomas asked who are the general limited partners in this West Coast Land Fund? Mr. Ed Dailey (Colony Advisors representing West Coast Land Fund, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90067) indicated that the make up of the partnership is the FDIC, Tobar Industries as well as several individuals, which he could not name at this point. Chair Tuchscher felt the Commission had rushed through some of the issues to try and accomplish a rigorous agenda rather than get in depth on specific issues as necessary. He would rather have things broken up. Staff should be realistic about how much time each issue is going to take and get each issue done and check it off and move on as we get through the decision making process rather than try and cover everything on a cursory basis and have to rehash it all later. The Commission does not want to delay things; we want to make sure that we do everything right. Commissioner Ray, Tarantino and Thomas concurred. Chair Tuchscher indicated that pulling issues like gates, which are just going to be hanging out there, somebody is going to move to a Specific Plan and Tentative Map. Let's get gates out of the way. He thinks gates are a big issue. He is still not convinced about the new access points away from the village. Park criteria....he needs confirmation from staff that the SPA One area has too many parks and meets and exceeds the City standard. In- lieu of fees for the RMP....he thinks that will work if those fees can guarantee mitigation land is going to be bought. The Planning Commission will defer, and we need a formal motion to continue Items 5 and 6. MSUC (Davis/Willett) to continue the public hearing on approving the Otny Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan including the Planned Community District Regulations; Overall Design Plan; Village Design Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; Regional Facilities Report; Phase 2 Resource Management Plan; Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan; Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan; and Geotechnical Report. Also, to continue the public hearing on an amendment to the Planned Community Zone; an amendment to the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code to create the Public/Quasi-Public Zone; application of said modified Planned Community Zone by prezoning certain parcels of land within Planning Area One and Three of the Chula Vista 1995 Sphere of lnfluence Update, prezoning the Otay Water District parcel to Public/Quasi-Public and prezoning the Nelson/Sloan rock quarry property to Agriculture; application of the Public/Quasi-Public Zone by prezoning the San Diego County Landfill extension in Planning Area One of the Sphere of Influence Update Study to Wednesday, April 10, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Approved 7-0. llb:\SPA:\pc32796M.doc Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Minutes Page 16 of 16 Commissioner Ray asked if the Commission was to see this entire package again on April 107 Mr. Jamriska answered in the affirmative. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Lee stated that a tentative date of April 25 at 6:00 p.m. has been scheduled for a joint GMOC, City Council and Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: The hearing adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to a special Otay Ranch Planning Commission hearing on Thursday, March 28, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Prepared by: ,~ ~/,~ ~ ,~ Lind'a Bond, Secretary Otay Ranch Project Attachment: Barry Jones Resume BARRY L. JONES EDUCATION M.S., Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, M.S. Candidate Fall 1996. B.A., Biology, Point Loma College, San Diego, California, 1982. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Society for Conservation Biology American Ornithologists Union Ducks Unlimited Nature Conservancy Cooper Ornithological Society Least Bell's Vireo Working Group (charter member) California Gnatcatcher Working Group (charter member) The Wildlife Society PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc. - President As the President of Swectwatcr Environmental Biologists, Inc., Mr. Jones brings to the company over 14 years of consulting experience in southern Califomia. He is considered one of the foremost experts on the coastal California gnatcatcher and the least Bell's vireo. He has participated in the Comprehensive Species Management Plan and the Habitat Conservation Plan for the least Bell's vireo, and has managed several large-scale regional planning efforts including the Technical Appendix for the coastal California gnatcatcher for the Swcctwater River Habitat Conservation Plan, the Swcetwater/Lovcland Open Space and Habitat Management Plan, thc Pilgrim Creek Watershed Management Plan, and the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Carlsbad Habitat Conservation Plan for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Mr. Jones has extensive experience in management and preparation of project based environmental documents subject to CEQA and NEPA guidelines. These projects have ranged from small lot splits to master plans in excess of 2,500 acres, and have included his participation in the planning phase to assist in minimizing biological impacts. His work has involved close interaction with local, state, and federal officials at-all aspects of the permitting process under Section 4(d), Section 7 and Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act, Section 404 permitting requirements for the Clean Water Act, Section 2081 and Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and others. Mr. Jones was the Task Manager for the biology section for the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan. His combination of extensive field experience and large-scale resource planning experience uniquely qualifies him to provide strategy and design recommendations to reduce biology impacts. ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company - Senior Project Manager Mr. Jones was responsible for conducting and managing biological studies and all wildlife- related studies in the Biological Sciences group. Mr. Jones' area of expertise involved rare and endangered birds, especially small passerines. Specific duties at ERCE include plant and animal inventories, identification of sensitive resources and rare and endangered species, habitat delineation, report preparation, permitting, client and agency interactions, and contract management. Mr. Jones has managed projects ranging from 250 acres to over 25,000 acres, as well as large scale planning effort involving numerous landowners and jurisdictions. PERTINENT EXPERIENCE March 1990 to January_ 1993. Project manager for the Pilgrim Creek Watershed Management Plan. Project involved the development of a watershed management plan for the Pilgrim Creek area of Oceanside. The purpose of the plan was to provide for the long-term management of the least BelPs vireo and other riparian dependent species within an area currently proposed for development of five residential communities. Mr. Jones was responsible for development of the plan and for coordination between city, state, and federal officials. January 1990 to 1993. Project manager for the 2,590 acre Rancho Miguel site. Project involved the review and analysis of on-site sensitive biological resources, the impacts of the project's general plan and its alternatives on the biological resources of the site, the relationship of the project to surrounding open space, and the regional consequences of the project. In addition, mitigation measures were proposed and Mr. Jones worked in coordination with the resource agencies and the client in the evaluation of these measures. A biological technical report was prepared and it was utilized as the biology section of the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista. December 1989 to 1993. Project manager for the Sweetwater River Valley Open Space and Habitat Management Plan. Project included an area in excess of 10,000 acres and incorporated several large master-planned communities in the Rancho San Diego/Jumul area. Species of special concern included the least Bell's vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher. The purpose of the plan was to provide for the long-term management of both riparian and upland habitats, and included fuel management, passive recreation, and several revegetation/enhancement components. September 1988 to 1990. Principal investigator for the Amber Ridge coastal California gnatcatcher habitat utilization study. This five-year study included a detailed study of 8 to 10 pairs of gnatcatchers to determine habitat use and territory size and the potential effects of project impacts on a long-term basis. December 1988 to 1990. Principal investigator for Home Capital Development's coastal California gnatcatcher study. This study included habitat utilization, territory size, and potential effects of project impacts on approximately 30 pairs of gnatcatchers. This study used color-marked individuals. April 1985 to February_ 1989. Project manager for the implementation of the least Bell's vireo management effort on Camp Pendleton. The project included vireo census and breeding biology data collection, colormarking of individuals, vegetation analysis, and cowbird removal. As many as 190 pairs were followed. This population represents 40 percent of the state's population. Included vireo management recommendations. August 1987 to April 1989. Principal biologist for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluation of Bolsa Chica using Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). Work included the modification or development of seven Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) and collection and analysis of the data used in the models. February 1987 to June 1988. Field investigator for sensitive avian species on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The entire corridor was surveyed for sensitive resources, and sensitive habitats were mapped. The primary focus of the surveys was on the least Bell's vireo, coastal Caiifomia gnatcatcher, and cactus wren. J0nuary. 1989 to April 1989. Field investigator for sensitive avian species on the Foothills Transportation Corridor. The focus of the surveys was on the coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, although other sensitive species and habitats in the project area were also included. OTHER EXPERIENCE January_ 1981 to February 1985 Graduate Student Assistant - Biologist, California Department of Transportation. The primary job responsibility was to prepare biology reports for environmental documents, determine the significance of the impacts of the project, and obtain approval of projects from state and federal agencies. This involved working closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Commission, and local government agencies: iaal~. Graduate work at the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge in Imperial County - Research and management of waterfowl. Research has focused on natural food availability on seasonally flooded ponds, and the feeding habitats of waterfowl on these ponds. RESOURCE PLANNING Project: Preliminary Assessment of Gnatcatcher Habitat Suitability in the County of Orange Parks System Client: County of Orange Compliance: Not Applicable Lead Agency: County of Orange SEB was retained to provide the County of Orange with a preliminary assessment of potential Califumia gnatcatcher habitat within the County of Orange parks system. This assessment was undertaken to enhance understanding of the extent and quality of gnatcatcher habitat within county-held lands. A two-phase process is being used. Phase 1 conducted assessments of the gnatcatcher habitat within the parks system. Phase 2, which will be completed between December 1991 and March 1992, will focus on precise census counts of gnatcatchers within these study sites. During Phase I SEB surveyed approximately 7,000 acres. Coastal sage scrub was mapped and the presence and location of California gnatcatchers were also recorded and mapped. SEB then classified each area into categories of low, medium, or high to reflect the habitat's potential to serve as gnatcatchar habitat. SEB will continue to work with the County of Orange through Phase 2 of the project to conduct precise gnatcatcher census information. The results of this study will assist the County of Orange in developing and implementing long-term management strategies for the gnatcatcher. The data will help determine the most significant open space areas for the gnatcatcher, and will allow the county to prioritize future acquisition parcels for both county project mitigation needs and mitigation requirements for private development projects. RESEARCH Project: Gnatcatcher Technical Panel Client: San Diego County Water Authority Compliance: Not Applicable Lead Agency: San Diego County Water Authority SEB biologists Barry Jones and Larry Sward were invited to participate in a panel to determine the impact of constructing and maintaining aqueducts in coastal California gnatcatcher habitat, and appropriate mitigation measures. In addition to the panel discussions, lVh'. Jones and Sward also reviewed and edited a paper which presented the results of the panel.