Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/12/08 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, December 8, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Moot, Salas, and Tarantino COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Martin, Commissioner Ray STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee MSC (Fuller/Salas) 5-0 (Commissioner Ray absent) to excuse Chair Martin because of illness and Commissioner Ray who was out of town on business. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance and silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Vice Chair Tuchscher dispensed with introductory remarks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Fuller/Moot) 5-0 (Commissioners Martin and Ray excused) to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of November 17, 1993. (Commissioner Tarantino stated for the record that he had read the material and minutes and believed them to be correct.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PRESENTATION BY JOHN AMODIO, EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR PUBLIC OUTREACH BAY DELTA OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Mr. Amodio gave an overview as to how the Committee came into being, its charge, and what had been done to date. He provided some materials showing the current membership of the Council and walked through the process as it was designed and is now underway. He noted, PC Minutes -2- December 8, 1993 however, that their efforts could be for nothing unless the Federal entities got involved, since they ultimately would have to help implement any solution and give certain legal permits for any solution. Mr. Amodio said they were trying to do two things--comparative evaluation of the alternative solutions through an environmental impact study/environmental impact report, to do both a State and Federal environmental documentation simultaneously; and develop the information that would be needed for the permitting agencies to then give them the needed permits to move ahead and implement the best set of actions. He noted that the State was promoting an ecosystem approach rather than a species-by-species approach, similar to what is being developed in Southern California on the Gnatcatcher. Mr. Amodio stated that on the following Wednesday, an announcement would be made as to whether two additional species were to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Committee's program was to get offthe "slippery slope of endangered species," and move to a more cohesive approach. Mr. Amodio said they were finding some allies among the Federal players and still some resistance from some of the others. Commissioner Salas asked if, without Federal intervention, what Mr. Amodio believed the future of the Bay Delta Oversight Council would be? Mr. Amodio felt the announcement on Wednesday would give some very important signals, and by the middle of February when the Federal Fish & Wildlife entities have to finalize their endangered species requirements, the State and Federal governments would either be on a path of cooperating, or would clash. If they were on a path of cooperation, the Committee's process would become prominent and fairly center stage. They would then have the Federal participation that was needed for it to ultimately succeed. If they sought to impose requirements that the State thought either exceeded their legal authority or would be damaging, on balance, to the State of California, the State would need to oppose those and the Committee would not find much cooperation from them. Commissioner Salas, referring to Mr. Amodio's statement earlier about needing the support of the critical mass to support their programs, said it seemed if they were dealing with a Federal entity that really didn't have much connection with the State, it would be a lot harder to get that support of the critical mass than if dealing on a State level. Mr. Amodio concurred; however, it exists, and the prospect of those laws changing were not very great. Commissioner Fuller asked who was being served by the water from the Delta at this point. She understood that they were trying to maintain the health and environment of the Delta area and come up with a plan so that ultimately agriculture and urban needs could share or work out an arrangement to use water from the Delta, but at the same time, protecting the environment. Have we ever gotten water down this far from the Delta area? PC Minutes -3- December 8, 1993 Ms. Paula Phillips, representing Sweetwater Authority, stated that the Sweetwater water was about 80% Colorado River, and 20% from the State. Mr. Amodio said that 20% of Chula Vista's water supply would be Delta water. Commissioner Fuller asked if there had been a hold put on that? Mr. Amodio answered negatively. To meet increasing demand, an increased supply was needed. The environmental constraints, particularly under the Endangered Species Act, were not just freezing the amount currently made available south of the border, but reducing it. Comanissioner Fuller commented that it would hold true of the 80%, then, that is going elsewhere in the State; those demands were the same there. Mr. Amodio concurred. Commissioner Fuller said that there were obviously increased needs, both urban and agriculture, on that other 80%. Mr. Amodio replied that it was pa~'~cularly urban. In the future, agriculture would reduce its use by about 2 million acre feet because of lands being taken out of production due to either changing economics or drainage problems and those lands could not be sustained in production. Urban areas throughout the State, including the Bay Area, are finding their current supply squeezed, and their ability to meet future demands put in jeopardy. Commissioner Fuller commented that planners in San Diego County should be aware that there may not be additional sources of water imported into this area. Mr. Amodio agreed that it was a great dilemma for water agencies; that legislation had been introduced that would either compel water agencies to meet the demand or to tell the counties not to approve new developments until there was a firm, reliable source of that water. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned what percentage of our total water usage is imported if, of the imported water, 20% comes from the State project, 80% from the Colorado River. Ms. Phillips, of Sweetwater Authority, stated it is about 85% over a 10-year average. Otay imports 100%. Over all, Countywide, 90% to 95% is imported. Answering Commissioner Moot, Ms. Phillips said that 80% was from Colorado and 20% from the State water project. They do a blend to improve the quality. Commissioner Tarantino asked when Arizona planned to keep all the water that had been granted to them. PC Minutes -4- December 8, 1993 Ms. Phillips answered that they were actually supposed to start taking their full allotment last year, but they were having major plumbing problems; it could happen any year. Commissioner Tarantino asked if Chula Vista would get advanced notice. Ms. Phillips replied that there would be a year or two advanced notice, but if in five years from now there is another major drought, Arizona will be pulling their full allotment. Mr. Amodio noted that one element of the Governor's water policy was to pursue development of a water bank on the Colorado, so certain states, including Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah that have entitlements to more water than they are using now or that is projected to be used could be compensated for greater water rights from the Colorado to California. Commissioner Moot asked if the technical solutions Mr. Amodio mentioned earlier were to deliver more water or to resolve some particular problems. Mr. Amodio said there were two particular areas in which more water could be made available. One was that it was to devise a more effective way to move water from north of the Delta to south of the Delta so that it did not have the environmental impacts on the Delta, a way in which to transfer water from the Delta in a manner that starts to restore its biology, and store more water. The environmentalists would not support that until they have iron-clad assurances that the health of the estuary would be restored and protected and would not be the victim of additional water development. Commissioner Fuller asked who seemed to be the lead agency at the Federal level? Mr. Amodio said there were four Federal agencies involved. The Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act, who would be proposing Federal water quality standards. The Act gives them no authority to implement those standards and they are dependent upon the State to implement them. Other agencies involved are the Fish & Wildlife Service, which has authority under the Endangered Species Act, and the National Marines Fishery Service which has other authority under the Endangered Species Act. Commissioner Fuller stated, then that the primary concern was protecting the environment, and if people did not want to cut back and conserve water, they could go thirsty. Mr. Amodio believed part of the problem was that the laws under which they operate do not give them either the responsibility and the flexibility to balance their decisions. They have to take whatever actions are needed to meet the needs of a particular species, or to achieve a certain environmental goal, regardless of what the impact on other water dependent users are. The State Board has that responsibility to balance between the different legally recognized beneficial uses of water. Commissioner Moot questioned Mr. Amodio about farmers in California in a virtual desert growing rice, which required flooding the area, and then people in Southern California in other PC Minutes -5- December 8, 1993 places who could use the water for other purposes. To what extent is that a reality? Was there that type of extreme situation that could be adjusted, as well? Mr. Amodio replied that they were using land that could not be used for other crops, because it was a very hard, clay soil, and they were doing it in a way that it not only grew rice but was one of the most important kind of replacements for the lost wetlands. When the rice breaks down, it is a very rich broth for the migrating water fowl. Mark Reisener, working with the Conservancy and the rice industry, had come up with innovative ways to use water to flood the fields after it is harvested. Instead of burning, which creates air pollution, the fields are flooded, giving immense wildlife benefits, then the water is released back to the system to be used again. With a more open minded approach, there are ways to reconcile that type of water usage. Commissioner Fuller asked if they were restoring an area that had been wetlands, or if they were creating new wetlands? Mr. Amodio replied that it was more creating seasonal wetlands. There were some of each. On balance it was more creating seasonal wetlands. Commissioner Fuller commented that creating wetlands had its pluses and its minuses. Wetlands could be created inadvertently, and then nothing could be done about them. The rice fields had inadvertently created a wetland. Mr. Amodio said it was an incidental benefit of growing rice there, but now they are ref'ming that and trying to figure out how to provide greater environmental benefits and stay in production. Commissioner Tuchscher said that one of the dilemmas was that of, on a continuing basis, juggling all of the information relative to the problems associated with supply of water, while at the same time, agencies tell us we're mandated to serve. Mr. Amodio stated that Chula Vista was at the end of the pipe in terms of water supply, and at the point of not being able to control and adequately influence those who are making the decisions for Chula Vista's future water supply. He assured the Commissioners that through the auspices of Mike Madigan, Chairman of the Public Outreach Bay Delta Oversight Committee, who was very knowledgeable and aware about issues in the South Bay and represented them, through San Diego Water Authority, the realities and needs of this part of California were being factored in in their process and, to the degree they were able to go forward, were going to craft solutions that address those. Commissioner Moot noted that the problem was more basic than that. Citizens are legitimately concerned about planning a project the size of Otay Ranch when the water availability is not known. Clearly, the Planning Commission should be able to tell them. PC Minutes -6- December 8, 1993 Commissioner Fuller explained that this was a project planned in conjunction with the County of San Diego Planning Commission. They heard from all the water agencies and they never told the Commissions that they have a serious concern about being able to provide water to this project. Mr. Amodio said that he knew they were engaged with trying to achieve greater reliability and security for the future, regardless of what the balance of supply and demand are. Commissioner Fuller replied that, hopefully, the Oversight Committee would be able to show that there can be a meeting of divergent groups and work out something. Commissioner Moot stated that the Planning Commissions need to get answers to these problems or need to be able to develop a reasonable way to predict. Some device had to be created where these different agencies could give Commissioners some consistent information on which they could make decision planning. The Delta Oversight Commission gets different responses from different Federal agencies; the Planning Commissions get different responses from different water agencies. Mr. Amodio concurred, and stated that the uncertainty that exists now seems to be increasingly a motive for urban and agricultural interests to seek solutions and that the environmental community's motivation had to be that they could not achieve their desired restorations unless there were changes made to the system, as well. For the State, they were emphasizing actions that were taken in the near term had to, to the maximum degree possible, provide some certainty or reliability and that they needed to get on with trusting the underlying causes of the problems so that people could be given an even greater certainty about what their supply would be, and they could then go on making the choices consistent with that supply. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-94-20; CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE CITY LANDSCAPE MANUAL - City Initiated Assistant Planning Director Lee requested that this item be continued until January 12, 1994. The Attorney's office requested that further work be done on the manual. MSUC (Fuller/Moot) 5-0 (Commissioners Martin and Ray excused) to continue PCM-94-20 to the Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 1994, and that the Planning Commission Workshop scheduled for December 15, 1993, be canceled. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the December 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting had been canceled at the November 17, 1993, meeting. PC Minutes -7- December 8, 1993 COMMISSION COMMENTS Vice-Chair Tuchscher requested a Planning Commission workshop for an update on what actually happened on the Otay Ranch project. Mr. Lee thought it could be done at the workshop in January. Commissioner Tarantino suggested a flow chart indicating Planning Commission actions versus final action by the City Council/Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Moot asked for an update on Bayfront. Mr. Lee stated that weekly meetings were being held; they were in the negotiation process on the development agreement with Mr. Barkett. ADJOURNMENT at 7:05 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of January 12, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ripl~y, Secre~ry Planning Commission