Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/12/17 < , AGENDA JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY / CITY OF CHULA VISTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 4:00 P.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1992 CITY OF CHULA VISTA PUBUC SERVICES BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 I. ROLL CALL . Tim Nader, Mayor City of Chula Vista . George Bailey, 2nd District County Board of Supervisors II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 30 AND NOVEMBER 4, 1992 MEETINGS III. PUBUC 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 PUBUC HEARING - OTAY RANCH Staff Presentation on Water Availability - Otay Ranch . Metropolitan Water District . San Diego County Water Authority . Otay Water District It is anticipated that this public hearing will be continued to the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council meeting of January 21, 1993 at the County Administration Center. V. STATUS REPORT ON JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOPS VI. ADJOURNMENT . Chula Vista City Council to its next meeting on January 5, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. . County Board of Supervisors to its next meeting on January 5, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. in the County Administration Center. tables:\bofsagnd,ajl I ...r.1.. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THURSDAY, JULY 30, ~992 MINUTE ORDER NO. ~ 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 :z- 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 corne 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 15087(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) 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 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 By ~r4~ Mary D Ballard, Deputy cc: CAO. (A6) County Counsel (AI2) Mailed: 9-8-92 ecr No. 1 7/30/92 mdb Page 4 of 4 pages s- . - 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 Chu1a 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 ~istricts. 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 tluLTSCH, 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 Mary D. No. 1 11/4/92 mdb Page 3 of 3 pages q- WATER SUPPLY PRESENTATION 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 Otay WD Oceanside, City of Escondido, City of Otay Ranch (New Town Plan) Rainbow MWD Helix WD Valley Center MWD San Diego, City of 1,449.9 3,454.0 4,256.4 7,027.4 7,471.9 8,559.2 8,740.6 12,451. 7 12,915.9 13,436.3 13,480.8 13,610.4 13,767.0 16,579.3 17,844.2 18,371.6 18,844.3 21,068.2 22,419.8 22,809.5 28,763.1 29,194.1 31,030.1 33,629.4 43,616.5 52,628.6 242,521.1 Del Mar, City of De Luz Heights MWD Yuima MWD National City, City of Otay Ranch (Environmental Alternative) San Dieguito WD Rincon Del Diablo MWD Santa Fe ID Ramona MWD Vallecitos WD Olivenhain MWD Poway, City of Fallbrook PUD Otay Ranch (Composite General Plan) Carlsbad MWD Otay Ranch (Phase II Progress Plan) South Bay 10 Padre Dam MWD Bueno Colorado MWD SELECTED STATE WIDE WATER USE DATA San Diego County Water Authority4 Metropolitan Water District' Metropolitan Service Area' Imperial Irrigation District' 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 , Regional Urban Management Plan for the 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 Tuuday, November 10. 1992 Central Valley's water fantasy dries up The tide has turned in California's water war. With President Bush signmg an omnibus water bill in the last days beiore the election. Cali- fornia's cities and the environment have finally won a v1CCOry over Central Valley agribusiness. Soon. water locked up by the hug~ federal Central VaDey Project {or 60 years will begin nowiog to cities and water-starved rivers and wildlife rei- uges. The result could be that cities such as San Diego will never again face a destructive water shortage. But the battle {or Central Valley wa- ter was a strange one. While Southern California 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 federal legislation that could secure their cities' future water supply, Whatever urban support there was for federal water reform came from business groups such as the California Business Roundtable and the Bay Area Economic Forum in San Francisco. and from Northern California cities. The gi. ant Metropolitan Water District of Southern CaJifonua ran hot and cold. That was bad enough. but the San Die~o County Water Authoritv's lack of support was Inexcusable. especially 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 iruluence of Gov. Pete WiI. son, who has relied heavily on a~busi. fiess dotlars dunng his campaigns. If it hadn't been for the prolonged drought. the decades-old political alli. ance between Central Valley agribusi. ness and Southern California cities might nev~r have cracked. And en"'" GOGEK is an eOllorlal wrner lor Thl Son Uitgo U,u'oJl-Trioltllt. Jim Gogek 'OIt ioUI Oil" Ulu,,..m'l&"U: ronmentaiists might never have i/:otten involved. Poor water management by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the huge Cenual Valley Project. during the drought created an environmental disaster in California's rivers. Environmentalists watched in horror as fish populations plwmneted 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 Jersey, As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power. he saw that taxpayers were subsictizing both water and crops for Centra! Valley farmers. many of whom pay $17 per acre-foot of water while San Diego pays $316 per acre-foot, Unhindered by any politicaJ need to court Central Valley farmers. Bradley wrote a reiorm bill, which included envi.ronmenta.l safe. guards and the first plans to allow Cltl~S to buy water from tarmers. As BradleY'!!1 bill gained strength in the Senate last year. Rep. George Mill. er, D-Martinez. chairman of the House Subcommittee on Water and Power, began moving 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 irom agnbusiness for his failed Senate campaign. Mere opposition to Bradley's bill wasn't enough for CenUa! VaUey 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 overtake the Bradley bill. but reason prevailed, With some compromises to agribusiness. a version of the Bradler and Miller bills passed both houses as part of an omnibus bill that included 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 allies on Capitol Hill. Hi;:. opposition ran afoul of poweriul West. ern Republicans. including Sens, Jake Garn. R-Utah. and Malcolm Wallop. R- Wyo.. who had projects in the ommbus waterbiJl. 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 bill would 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 before the ejection. For"Wilson. It was the flr'st of man\' defeats he would suffer during the first week of November, But the ~overnor shoulo. not abandon his initiative tor the state to take over the CVP. Contrary to his protestations. the reiorm bill will make that easier. not harder. Central Valley agriculture has ex- isted in a water fantasy land for years. It makes no sense that agriculture pro- duces less than 10 percent of the state's wealth but receives 85 percent of the state's water. It makes no sense that one crop in California - alfalfa - uses Iour tunes as much water as Los Angeles. San Francisco and San Diego combined. Now at last. after 60 years of paying pennies for water, Central Valley agribusiness is being brought back to reality. ~ ~.......~ aiA..... RAnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT COUNTI' OF SAN DIEGO . CITY OF CHULA VISTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CIlY COUNCIL WORKSHOP / HEARING DATES Day Date Meeting Time Location Purpose Wednesday 11/4/92 Workshop 10-1 CAC Public Facilities Wednesday 11/18/92 Workshop 9-1 CAC TransportationfWater Tuesday 11/24/92 Workshop 1-4 Chula Vista Service Revenue Thursday . 12/17/92 Workshop 4-8 Chula Vista Plan Alternatives, City/Cnty Recornm., Baldwin Recornm. Thursday 1/21/931 Workshop 2-5 County CAC 1: Reserved, subject to City Council and Board of Supervisor approval Revised November 2, 1992 21S\dates.bc 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157' FAX: (619) 422-7690