Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/11/04 MINUTES OF A JOINT CHIJLA VISTA CITY COUNCIL SAN DIEGO COUIVIY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING Wednesday, November 4, 1992 Board Chambers 10:00 a.m. County Administration Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Hotton, Malcolm, Moore, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilmember Rindone 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - None 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Eugene Sprofero, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, CA, Legislative Analyst #580, challenged the County to remove the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Chula Vista. The City did not concern itself with the realization of the responsibility that was given to them ro act on behalf of the public, i.e. the citizens of the County of San Diego, and therefore broke the good faith effort. He requested a response from the Board in writing. 4. INFORMATION ITEM: PRSSFA'qTATION OF DRAFT IMPLEMFANTATION PLANS Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, stated the purpose of the workshop was to discuss implementation/public facility plans. Twenty-two public facilities were analyzed and broken into three areas: 1) more commonly known public facilities considered in most projects; 2) social facilities not considered in most projects bur because of the site of the project were being considered; and 3) regional facilities provided by the County. Many of the facility implementation plans represented only summaries. The plans being presented at the meeting were just the public facility component dealing with facility requirement thresholds and definitions of the facilities. They did not address costs, phasing, and location. Those would be considered under separate studies in the future. Mayor Nader questioned if there were any reports from the public task forces addressing some of the public facilities issues. Mr. Lertieri responded there were reports and staff would make them available. Kim Kilkenny, representing the Baldwin Company, reviewed the community facilities and social facilities implementation plans and explained how they impacted the Otay Ranch Plan. The facility implementation plan was one of five title plans relating to the land use plan, phasing plan, service revenue plan, and government structure plan. One of the key components of the facilities plan was the concept of the threshold. The City of Chula Vista was very familiar with it because their Growth Management Plan was based upon a series of eleven thresholds. The threshold concept was somewhat variable, in some instances the performance of the threshold would be consideration of the issue, i.e. cemeteries. IN other areas it was an obligation to work with other agencies, i.e. social services. In other instances it was the payment of an existing, fee, i.e. civic facilities, or the payment of a contemplated fee, regional facilities. In others the threshold was the provision ofland through zoning, i.e. community/regional purpose facilities. There were also typical thresholds - dedicating land, reserving land, or actually providing facilities. A new concept included in Otay Ranch was a regional purpose facility - the obligation to zone land for regional purpose facilities defined as: County social service facilities, County public health facilities, County administrative facilities, County justice facilities, and alike. He reviewed the Fire Service Implementation Plan as an example of how all of the facility plans were organized. As a general rule the highest standard in either of Minutes November 4, 1992 Page 2 the jurisdictions was applied to Otay Ranch. It was the most extensive and broad analysis ever done for a land use project and he felt it would be used as a model by other jurisdictions for land and facility planning. He then reviewed the proposed community and social facilities. Mayor Nader questioned if it would be a fair assumption that impact fees would be used where impacts on correctional facility needs were identified to provide off-site facilities. Mr. Kilkenny responded that correctional facilities were more than jails. It also included district attorney, probation, etc. Mayor Nader questioned the policy of transferring community purpose facility land from one village to another and was concerned that some of the policies seemed to be in conflict with each other. He did not want to encourage a situation where a community purpose facility might not be readily accessible to everyone. Mr. Lettieri stated the intent was that as each SPA came in there could be a need to locate facilities within the core of the village. If the core was saturated with that facility need, rather than lose that requirement for the other villages coming in that would be connected with main roads, the facility requirement would then go over to the next village. Mayor Nader suggested more explicit language be included to clarify that understanding. He questioned if it was the intent that facilities only be allowed to locate in commercial and retail facilities. Mr. Lettieri responded that it was inclusionary and not exclusive. Mayor Nader did not feel the policies addressed ongoing school operations. He questioned if it should not be made a policy to bring the planning staff of the school districts into the planning process at the ground level to insure that their input was included. Mr. Lettieri responded the schools had been an active pan of the process. Mayor Nader felt more substantial language should be included stating the school districts input would be included in the consideration of the adequacy of meeting the school threshold for each stage of the plan. He requested that the Child Care and Cultural Arts criteria be presented to the Chula Vista Child Care Commission and Cultural Arts Commission for input. Councilmember Malcolm felt there should be a better definition of correctional facilities. The SouthBay currently had more than their fair share of such facilities. It was his understanding the County was looking at the Ranch for a sanitary landfill. Lari Sheehan, Deputy CAO, County of San Diego, responded that was correct. Two sites had been identified on the ranch and one site on Otay Mesa in the unincorporated area were currently undergoing environmental analysis. Councilmember Malcolm felt there needed to be clear definition of what was happening with the landfills, sites, and where the trash would come from. Supervisor Bilbray stated where the trash would come from was addressed in the Solid Waste Plan which stated that all waste in the County should be disposed of at the closest facility to the site of generation. Steve Doyle, Engineer and Attorney with Baldwin, reviewed the hard public facilities, i.e. drainage, sewage and water reclamation, and integrated solid waste management. He explained what the Otay Ranch Project was going to do with each of the facilities. He reported that all current uses of reclaimed water were programmed into the system, and new uses were being explored. He noted that transportation facilities and Minutes November 4, 1992 Page 3 the water system would be discussed at the November 18th meeting. The Transportation Phasing Plan would have to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it was providing the adequate level of service that the threshold required. The Implementation Plan proposed that with each SPA plan a new Transportation Phasing Plan and Financing Plan for those facilities would be adopted. Annual review was also required to assure adequate levels of service for transportation facilities. He then reviewed the water distribution system. Mr. Lettieti stated the City of San Diego had written several letters regarding the protection of the reservoir. Staff was trying to deal with that on a policy level. The water districts had expressed concern as to where the water would be coming from. The school district was concerned about when a commitment would be made regarding siting and funding of schools. Mayor Nader questioned whether response time thresholds for public safety could be addressed by stating that they were not intended to be met at the expense of law enforcements ability to provide preventative, educational, and other community oriented policing services. Supervisor Bailey stated they were discussing facilities rather than manpower. Mayor Nader stated the threshold was referenced in the policy and dealt with staffs ability to provide a certain response time. Supervisor Bilbray stated the City was trying to address the manning and operational issue in their development strategies. His concern was there was a possibility of creating a new urban environment and the statistical approach may not apply or be appropriate. He hoped the City recognized that the standards needed to reflect the reality of the community. Mayor Nader stated he understood Supervisor Bilbray's comments but HE wanted to adopt the policy addING "while leaving law enforcement agencies with the ability to provide preventative, educational, and other community policing services". Supervisor Bailey stated they did not have a problem with the change recommended. Mr. Lettieri stated staff would take that direction and meet with law enforcement representatives from both agencies. 5. .~j)JOURNMENT There being no further comments from the Council or Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint heating to the next joint hearing scheduled on Wednesday, November 18, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vicki C. hoderquist] Deputy~,~lerk