Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/01/21 (2) AGENDA JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY / CITY OF CHULA VISTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 2:00 P.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 21,1993 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER BOARD CHAMBERS 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 I. ROLL CALL . Tim Nader, Mayor City of Chula Vista . Brian Bilbray, 1st District County Board of Supervisors II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 30, NOVEMBER 4 and 24, 1992 MEETINGS III. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may address the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council on any subject matter under the jurisdiction of the Joint Board of Supervisors/ City Council. However, pursuant to the Brown Act, no action can be taken by the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council unless listed on the agenda. IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - OTAY RANCH Staff Presentation on Water Availability - Otay Ranch . Metropolitan Water District . San Diego County Water Authority . Otay Water District V. STATUS REPORT ON JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOPS VI. ADJOURNMENT . Chula Vista City Council to its next meeting on January 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. . County Board of Supervisors to its next meeting on February 2, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. in the County Administration Center. tables:\bofsagnd.ajl /i ~. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1992 MINUTE ORDER NO. 1 SUBJECT: Joint Workshop with city of Chula vista concerning otay Ranch project, Including Consideration of Length of Public Review Period for Otay Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report PRESENT: County of San Diego: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams and MacDonald. city of Chula vista: Tim Nader, Mayor; and councilmembers Malcolm, Rindone, Moore and Horton DOCUMENTS: Memorandum, Board of Supervisors Document No. 752047, from Anthony J. Lettieri, General Manager, Joint project Planning Team, regarding 1992 Work Program Report. Copies of Viewgraphs, Board of Supervisors Document No. 752048, diagraming the Joint City/County Planning Approach for the Otay Ranch Project. Memorandum, Board of Supervisors Document No. 751661, from Anthony J. Lettieri, General Manager, Joint Project Planning Team, regarding otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report Public Review Period SPEAKERS: Calling this an extraordinary project with regional ramifications, the following persons encouraged a 120-day period for public review of the draft Environmental Impact Report: Michael Beck, of Endangered Habitats League Clark Waite, individually. Also recognizing this as an exceptional project, the following persons advocated a minimum 90-day review period: Daniel Tarr, individually, and representing the Valle de Oro Planning Group Fay McQueen, individually. Greg Smith, of the Baldwin Company, expressed his belief, as did his attorney, that 45 days is within legal parameters, and would provide for meaningful review. No. 1 7/30/92 mdb Page 1 of 4 pages DISCUSSION SUMMARY: A brief history of the otay Ranch project and its structure was given by Greg Smith, of the Baldwin Company, and Lari Sheehan, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, with the role of the Executive Staff Committee and the Project Team defined by John Goss, Chula vista City Manager. Tony Lettieri, General Manager, Joint Planning Project Team, discussed components of the project, as set forth in Document No. 752047, referenced above; and stated that the Resource Management Plan, intended to be the equivalent of the County's Resource Protection Ordinance for the Otay Ranch, is complete and will be included as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. He stated that the county's General Plan Amendment and the city of Chula vista's General Development Plan are being prepared at this time; and the Service Revenue Plan and Sphere of Influence Study will be complete before they come before the Board of Supervisors and the Chula vista City Council, as will the State Property Tax Agreement. He reported that the Draft Environmental Impact Report will be ready for public review tomorrow, July 31, 1992; and solicited direction from the joint bodies on the review process. The impact of the upcoming November election on continuity of the process was discussed. Various timetables for completion of public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report were considered. Counsel for the City of Chula vista opined that the law would tolerate a 60-day review period; and clarified that Chula vista is the lead agency in setting the review period. Counsel for the County contended that a 90-day review period would be more defensible, pointing out that this Draft Environmental Impact Report consists of almost 4,000 pages, and normally should not exceed 300 pages, which could classify it as an unusual situation under section l5087(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Counsel for the County also stated that, although Chula vista is the lead agency for environmental purposes, the County would be fully involved should litigation ensue. Counsel for Chula vista explained that the Baldwin company has the right to approve counsel in the defense of any lawsuit, and would bear the expense of counsel and any judgment. The issues of public review period extension and County indemnification were examined. It was agreed that setting a goal of 60 days for public review, with the County reserving the right to request extension, should be adequate. Greg Smith indicated that the Baldwin Company would not be opposed to indemnification of the County during the public review period. No. 1 7/30/92 mdb Page 2 of 4 pages It was reported that at the next workshop, on September 24, 1992, this item will again be considered, along with the Village Development Concept and Plan Alternatives. At the following workshop, on October 22, 1992, issues related to public facilities will be discussed. ACTION: ON MOTION of supervisor Golding, seconded by Supervisor Williams, the Board of Supervisors set a public review period of 60 days for the Draft Environmental Impact Report, with the understanding it may be necessary to extend this period; and directed County Counsel to meet with representatives of the Baldwin Company to discuss indemnification of the County of San Diego equivalent to indemnification granted the City of Chula Vista. AYES: Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams, MacDonald - - - Subsequently, the Chula vista City Council took action to set an Environmental Impact Report public review period of 60 days, subject to future extension on County request, with the final decision resting with the City of Chula Vista; and with early submission and review of public comment encouraged. - - - No. 1 7/30/92 mdb Page 3 of 4 pages STATE OF CALIFORNIA) County of San Diego) ss I, ARLINE HULTSCH, Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order adopted by said Board at a regular meeting thereof held July 30, 1992, by the vote herein stated, which original order is now on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. witness my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, this 30th day of July, 1992. ARLINE HULTSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Mary D ~4~ Ballard, Deputy By cc: CAO (A6) County Counsel (A12) Mailed: 9-8-92 ecr No. 1 7/30/92 mdb Page 4 of 4 pages COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1992 MINUTE ORDER NO. 1 SUBJECT: Joint workshop with city of Chula vista concerning Otay Ranch project PRESENT: county of San Diego: supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, williams and MacDonald; Supervisor Golding being absent. city of Chula vista: Tim Nader, Mayor; and Councilmembers Malcolm, Moore and Horton; Councilmember Rindone being absent. DOCUMENTS: Revised Board of supervisors/City of Chula vista Workshop Meeting Schedule, Board of supervisors Document No. 753172. Otay Ranch Fire Protection and Emergency Services Implementation Plan, Board of Supervisors Document No. 753181. SPEAKERS: None. DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, called attention to the revised Workshop Schedule, and stated that the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report will be delivered to the county and city Planning commissions by December 18, which is their last scheduled hearing date. Supervisor Bailey expressed the desire of the Board of Supervisors that otay Ranch Project staff meet with the newly elected members of the Board of Supervisors prior to the January, 1993, meetings in order to bring them up to date. Anthony Lettieri stated that today's presentation on facility implementation plans will be summaries which address only the facility requirement thresholds; and that such considerations as costs, phasing, and actual location of the facilities within the Project boundaries will be considered in separate studies and discussed with the Board of Supervisors and Chula vista City council at a future date. No. 1 11/4/92 mdb Page 1 of 3 pages Kim Kilkenny, of the Baldwin Company, reviewed the community facilities and social facilities implementation plans and explained how they impact the otay Ranch Plan. He reported that a key component of the facility implementation plan is the concept of the threshold, which ensures that facilities will be provided, in a timely manner, and that new development will pay its own way. He stated that, to ensure sufficient land, and to make the village core work, there is an obligation to zone land for both community purpose facilities and regional purpose facilities. He used the Implementation Plan for Fire Services as an example of how all of the facilities were organized. He stated that this is the most extensive analysis of facilities ever done for a land use project; and reported that otay Ranch is the only major Master Plan Community ever to comply with a volume of open space of 30 acres per thousand population. Steve Doyle, engineer and attorney with Baldwin, reviewed the public facilities -- drainage, sewerage and water reclamation, and integrated solid waste management -- and explained what the otay Ranch Project is going to do with each of these facilities. He reported that all current uses of reclaimed water are programmed into the system, and new uses are being explored. He noted that transportation facilities and the water system will be discussed at the November 18 Joint Workshop. Mayor Nader requested that reports on public facilities issues from public task forces working with Project staff be made available to the Council and the Board. Mayor Nader suggested that more specific language would clarify the policy regarding the transfer of land from one village to another, and the policy regarding the location of facilities in traditional commercial and retail facilities. He also suggested that school policies specifically assure input at the ground level by school districts. Additionally, he requested that development of policies and specifics relative to child care and cultural arts be presented to the Chula Vista Child Care Commission and Cultural Arts Commission for input. councilmember Malcolm requested that the Environmental Impact Report specify where sanitary landfill sites will be located, and state clearly that only wastes generated from the area will be taken. Supervisor Bilbray suggested that the indirect source issue should be addressed. It was reported that there are two sites under consideration on otay Ranch which are presently going through the environmental impact process. No. 1 11/4/92 mdb Page 2 of 3 pages A concern of the Chula vista Growth Management Commission that emphasis on law enforcement response time thresholds might compromise other needed police services was discussed. Mr. Lettieri stated that Project staff would meet with both city police and the Sheriff on this issue, and report. It was announced that the next meeting of the County of San Diego/City of Chula vista joint workshop will take place on Wednesday, November 18, 1992, 9:00 a.m., at the County Administration Center. - - - STATE OF CALIFORNIA) County of San Diego) 55 I, ARLINE rtuLTSCH, Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order adopted by said Board at a regular meeting thereof held Wednesday, November 4, 1992, by the vote herein stated, which original order is now on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. witness my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, this 4th day of November, 1992. ARLINE HULTSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of supervisors By No. 1 11/4/92 mdb Page 3 of 3 pages COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1992 MINUTE ORDER NO. 1 SUBJECT: Joint workshop with City of Chu1a Vista concerning otay Ranch Project PRESENT : County of San Diego: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Williams, and MacDonald; Supervisor Golding being absent. city of Chula vista: Tim Nader, Mayor; and Councilmembers Rindone, Moore and Horton; Councilmember Malcolm being absent. DOCUMENTS: Letter, Board of Supervisors Document No. 753507, from carolyn Z. O'Patry, regarding annexation of otay Ranch parcels to an existing water system. DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Dan Marum, transportation planner for otay Ranch, presented an overview of the transportation planning done on the Project. He stated that three primary parcels were used in modeling -- the otay River parcel, the Proctor Valley parcel, and the San Ysidro parcel. He explained that the Otay River parcel is the most intense pocket of development, and that State Route 125 will provide critical linkage to the Project. He made the following points: Ten-lane freeway capacity on 1-5 and Highway 805 is fundamental to the forecasts which are included in the Environmental Impact Report. The two primary roads impacted by the inclusion or deletion of Alta and La Media Roads are Highway 805 and State Route 125. The need for construction of State Route 125 is critical, and is in advance of the need to expand 1-5 and Highway 805. There is a mechanism in place for each level of development on the Otay Ranch, requiring identification of impacts and Project mitigation to roadways. No. 1 11/24/92 mdb Page 1 of 3 pages . Land designated for the university was coded as a university site, and the impacts were included in the analyses of the regional and local impacts. The Congestion Management Plan will require an intensive look at impacts irrespective of this review of the otay Ranch. Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance, City of Chula Vista, discussed the history of the Service/Revenue macro analysis. He stated that the fiscal impact is measured by compar~ng an estimate of the costs of providing local government services to the area with the operating revenues that would be generated. Key assumptions of the Macro Analysis include: Costs and revenues are based on current dollars, with no inflation factors, and projections cover a 30-year planning period. Chula vista would provide services to the urban area; and the County would provide services to the rural areas and regional services to the entire Project area. The property tax split would be subject to negotiations between the County and the city. Joan Vokac, Chief of Facilities Planning for the County, discussed the Service/Revenue micro analysis, which looks more closely at the Project's costs and revenues. She stated that it is a cooperative effort by the County, the City, and the developer. She reported that the micro analysis addresses the regional as well as the local implications of the Project; and is fully computerized, allowing for growth and change as the Project changes or as the County or city budgets change. She stated that the county and the City intend to mutually agree on equitable distribution of costs and revenues. She noted the policy whereby special funds set up by Baldwin would handle any shortfalls in the Project's revenue generation, and would fund a fiscal update based on changes to the budget and to the otay Ranch plan. Questions were raised by County Board members and Chula Vista Councilmembers relative to: 1) the cost of widening highways versus installation of public transit, and ramifications therefrom; and 2) the effect of timely construction of State Route 125 on the need for expansion of Highway 805. No. 1 11/24/92 mdb Page 2 of 3 pages Concern was expressed that the public will judge the otay Ranch Project mainly by traffic impacts, and it was suggested that a high level of sensitivity toward minimizing those impacts be applied. It was announced that the next meeting of the County of San Diego/City of Chula Vista joint workshop will take place on Thursday, December 17, 1992, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the city of Chula vista council Chamber. - - - STATE OF CALIFORNIA) County of San Diego) 55 I, ARLINE HULTSCH, Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order adopted by said Board at a regular meeting thereof held Tuesday, November 24, 1992, by the vote herein stated, which original order is now on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. witness my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, this 24th day of November, 1992. ARLINE HULTSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of supervisors By ~ /J;r5~ Mary D Ballard, Deputy No. 1 11/24/92 mdb Page 3 of 3 pages WATER SUPPLY PRESENT A TION 1. Introductions a. George Buchanan, Area Superintendent, Metropolitan Water District b. Keith Lewinger, General Manager, Otay Water District c. Lester Snow, General Manager, San Diego County Water Authority 2. Comparative Water Use (see attached chart) 3. Metropolitan Water District - George Buchanan, Area Superintendent (30 minutes) a. Purpose, goals and responsibilities of MET b. Service area for Metropolitan 1. Projected demand 2. Projected supply c. Supply facilities and history 1. Colorado River Aqueduct 2. State Water Project 3. Los Angeles Aqueduct 4. Local supply d. Supply augmentation 1. Colorado River Aqueduct 2. State Water Project 3. Water Conservation 4. Storage 5. Water Reclamation 6. Desalinization 4. San Diego County Water Authority - Lester Snow, General Manager a. Purpose, goals, and responsibilities of Authority b. 2010 Capital Improvements Program c. Allocation of water from Metropolitan d. Local supply development 1. Reclamation 2. Desalinization 5. Otay Water District - Keith Lewinger, General Manager a. Boundaries of District as it relates to Otay Ranch b. Master Plan of Water for District c. Water conservation and reclamation programs WATER USE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY ii~~i;~ i~~I~~' ....................... .......................... iiI'; Jsii; Del Mar, City of 1,449.9 De Luz Heights MWD 3,454.0 Yuima MWD 4,256.4 National City, City of 7,027.4 Otay Ranch (Environmental Alternative) 7,471.9 San Dieguito WD 8,559.2 Rincon Del Diablo MWD 8,740.6 Santa Fe ID 12,451.7 Ramona MWD 12,915.9 Vallecitos WD 13,436.3 Olivenhain MWD 13,480.8 Poway, City of 13,610.4 Fallbrook PUD 13,767.0 Otay Ranch (Composite General Plan) 16,579.3 Carlsbad MWD 17,844.2 Otay Ranch (Phase II Progress Plan) 18,371.6 South Bay ID 18,844.3 Padre Dam MWD 21,068.2 Bueno Colorado MWD 22,419.8 Otay WD 22,809.5 Oceanside, City of 28,763.1 Escondido, City of 29,194.1 Otay Ranch (New Town Plan) 31,030.1 Rainbow MWD 33,629.4 Helix WD 43,616.5 Valley Center MWD 52,628.6 San Diego, City of 242,521.1 SELECTED STATE WIDE WATER USE DATA San Diego County Water Authority4 Metropolitan Water Districtl Metropolitan Service Areal Imperial Irrigation Districtl Total Municipal and Industrial Use in State2 Central Valley Project2 Total Agricultural Water in State2 Total Water Use in State2.3 626,394 2,108,890 3,795,338 2,750,000 6,590,000 7,000,000 32,910,000 40,460,000 I Regional Urban Management Plan for Ihe Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 1988-89 AFY use. 2 California Water: Looking to the Future, 1990, Department of Water Resources, 1987. 1985 use. 3 1980 - 42,840,000 acre-feet; 1985 - 40,460,000 acre-feet; 2101 - 43,220,000 acre-feet. 4 1988-89 AFY use from Water Authority. THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE OPINION TUe8day, J'liovemoel" 10. 1992 Central Valley's water fantasy dries up The tide has turned in California's water war. With President Bush signing an omnibus water bill in the last days belare the election, Cali. fornia's cities and the environment have finally won a victory over Central Valley agribusiness. Soon; water locked up by th~ hug~ federal Central Valley Project for 60 years will begin flowing to cities and water-starved rivers and wildlife rei. uges. The result could be that cities such as San Diego will never agam face a destructive water shortage. But the battle for Central Valley wa. ter was a strange one. While Southern Caliiornia cities were perhaps the big- gest beneficiaries of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. which was incorporated into a larger water bill. those same cities hardly lifted a finger in the fight. The battle was fought for them by environmentalists. The silence on the part of the San Diego and Los Angeles city councils was shameful. They should have loudly . supported federaJ legislation that could secure their cities' future water suppJy. Whatever urban support there was for federal water reform came from business groups such as the California Busmess Roundtable and the Bay Mea EconomIc Forum in San Francisco. and (rom Northern California cities. The gi- ant Metroooiitan Water District of Southern CaluorT11a ran hot and cold. That was bad enough. but the San Dieg-o Countv Water Authoritv's lack of support was mexcusable. especlalJy since authority officials acknowledged that water transfers proVIded by the bill could prevent water shortages in the county. Their near-silence no doubt owed to the influence of Gov. Pete Wil- son. who has relied heavilv on agribusi- ness dollars during hIS campaigns. If it hadn't been for the prolonged drought. the decades-Qld political alli- ance between Central Valley agribusi- ness and Southern California cities might nev~r have cracked. And envi- GOGEK is an editorial writer for The 5t211 DIego Unloll-Tn-bulle. Jim Gogek TIlt 5.Ut gJE8~ UH~""TO>I""'! ronmentalists might never have gotten involved. Poor water management by the federal Bureau of Reclamation. which operates the huge Central Valley Project. during the drought created an environmental disaster 1n California's rivers. Environmentalists watched in horror as fish populations plummeted and the San Francisco Bay grew more and more saline. And parched urban dwellers grew increasingly hostile to- ward Central Valley farmers flooding fields to grow subsidized crops. But the recent water reform victory would never have occurred if not for a senator who represents a state nearly 3.000 miles away - Bill Bradley of New Jersev. As chainnan of the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power. he saw that taxpayers were subsicfu:ing both water and crops for Central VaUey farmers. many of whom pay $17 per acre-foot of water while San Diego pays $316 per acre-foot. Unhindered by any political need to court Centrai Valley farmers. BradJev wrote a reform bill. which included environmental safe- guards and the first plans to allow cities to buy water from iarmers. As Bradley's bill gained st!'"en~.h in the Senate last year. Rep. George Mill- er. D-Maninez. chainnan oi the House SubcomfTUttee on Water and Power. began mOV1ng a nearly identical bill in the House. Enter Sen. John Seymour. who. like Wilson. was beholden to Central Valley interests. Seymour raised more than a half-million dollars from agribuslIless for his failed Senate campaign. Mere opposition to Bradley's bill wasn't enough for Central Valley agri- business. A Central Valley agribusiness attorney wrote legislation designed to "conflict with the Bradley bill. and Sey- mour sponsored it. At one point. Seymour's bill appeared to ovenake the Bradley bill. but reason prevailed. With some compromises to agribusiness. a version of the Bradle\" and Miller biJJs passed both houses a~ pan d an omnibus till that induced 53 other water projects in Western states. Seymour didn't take part in the com- promise process. and he weakly at. tempted a filibuster to block the bill. But he had no aHies on Capitol HilL His opposition ran aioul of powerful West- ern Republicans. including Sens. Jake Garn. R-Utah. and Malcolm Wallop. R. Wyo.. who had projects in the omnibus water bill. Wilson also actively campaigned against the Bradley measure. and be- gan pushing his own initiative for the state to take over the CVp, warning that Bradley's biJl wouJd somehow quash that move. Once the bill was sent to the president's desk. Wilson urged Bush not to sign it. The governor even flew to Tennessee where the president was campaigning to plead for a veto. President Bush's decision to sign the bill came down to politics: He knew that California was lost to him in the elec- tion but that other Western states were not. With little fanfare. he signed the bill davs beiore the ejection. For"Wilson. it was the first of man\' deieats he would suffer during the first week of November. But the ~overnor should not abandon his initiative ror the state to take over the CVP. Contrary to his protestations. the reform bill will make that easier. not harder. Centra! ValJey agriculture has ex- isted in a water fantasy Jand for years. It makes no sense that agriculture pro- duces Jess than 10 percent ot the state's weaJth but receives 85 percent of the state's water. It makes no sense that one crop in California - alfalfa - uses iour times as much water as Los Angeles. San Francisco and San Diego combined. Now at last. after 60 vears of paying penrues for water. Cen"tral Valley agribusiness is being brought back to reality.