HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2002/02/08
fIIPIPER Ft/i
lJ
.v¡,'\RBUR'¡ ?
I' RUDNICK " 0.1)"
&WOLIE
203 NORTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1800
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601-1293 WRITER'S INFORMATION
WWWPIPERRUDNICK.COM thomas. geselbracht@piperrudnick.com
PHONE, (312) 368-4000 DIRECT PHONE, (312) 368-4094
FAX. (312) 236-7516 DIRECT FAX, 13121630-7348
Febmary 8, 2002
Ann Y. Moore, Esq,
Assistant City Attom~y
City ofChula Vista
276 - 41h Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Otay Ranch
Pending application of Otay Project L.P. to amend the Phase 2 RMP to add
990 acres to the areas eligible for initial conveyance to the preserve
Dear Ann:
This finn represents Otay Land Company, LLC ("OLC"). Following our meeting with you
at the end of September 2001, we have reviewed the Phase I Re30urce Management Plan for Otay
Ranch, approved by the CityofChula Vista and the Cou;¡tyofSan Diego in 1993 ("Phase I RMP"),
the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan, approved by the City ofChula Vista and the County of San
Diego in 1996 ("Phase 2 RMP"), and the application filed by Otay Project LP. in March 2001 to
amend the Phase 2 RMP to add 990 acres of land to the areas eligible for initial conveyance to the
Otay Ranch Preserve. Ourreview has been assisted by the City's response to OLC's Public Records
Act request, which produced additional helpful documentation and clarified our understanding of
the background and context for the conveyance of preserve lands as the development of Otay Ranch
proceeds,
On behalf of OLC, we want to express its opposition and objection to the amendment to the
Phase 2 RMP proposed by Otay Project LP, The difficulties which the Baldwin development
entities may experience because of multiple ownership of the Otay Ranch property is nothing new
and provides no basis for changing the mles governing the development ofOtay Ranch, In addition,
granting the proposal would further delay the conveyance to the preserve of lands identified from
the very beginning of the Otay Ranch planning process as "keystone" parcels - leaving them
vulnerable to continued degradation,
C! ¡GO 1:>()0872~6_J
_ Ii I(AGO ¡ W~)HI."JGTON I BALTIMORE I NEW YORK PHIIAD!LrHIA I r.oI.,M PA ¡ D/I.LL!\S I R£ 5TO N LOS A~GElh
Ilr}t,~,~
I' RUDNICK Ann y, Moore, Esq,
&\VULFE February 8, 2002
Page 2 .
Furthennore, the City's failure to enforce the tenns of the Phase 2 RMP has already damaged
OLC, and OLC will suffer additional serious harm if the proposed amendment were approved. OLC
requests that the City enforce the conveyance plan of the Phase 2 RMP as approved, and not approve
the proposed amendment.
Phase 1 Resource Manaf!ement Plan
As you know, in 1993, both the City ofChula Vista and the County of San Diego adopted the
Phase I Resource Management Plan for Otay Ranch. The primary purpose of the Phase 1 RMP is
to serve as the functional equivalent of a resource protection ordinance for Otay Ranch. "Phases I
and 2 of the RMP are planning documents subject to discretionary review and approvaL" Several
important policies, standards and guidelines of the Phase I RMP bear on the order of conveyance
of preserve lands in connection with the development ofOtay Ranch. It should be noted that these
policies are identified in the Phase 1 RMP as "specific statement[ s] that guide decision-making," and
as "clear commitments." We believe that OLC was and is entitled to rely on these ground rules, and
that the City and County should continue to enforce them,
First, the conveyance plan for Otay Ranch was to be adopted in Phase 2 of the Resource
Management Plan, but was to be guided by the policies, guidelines and standards of Phase I,
Second, Policy 5,7 requires that any change in the order of conveyance is subject to joint approval
by both the City and County, if the land under consideration for conveyance is in a different
jurisdiction than the SPA under consideration. Standard (2) under Policy 9,8 provides that all RMP
amendments:
, . , that would in any way delay the conveyance of all or portions of the Preserve to the
Owner/Manager shall require written approval by both the City ofChula Vista and the
County of San Diego,
Third, Policy 5.8 provides, "Changes in land ownership resulting from the sale or transfer of
ownership of any SPA shall not affèct the conveyance ofland to the Preserve." The Standard under
Policy 5,8 provides, "The development of any village or SP A, even if conveyed to a third party, shall
be accompanied by the conveyance of the appropriate parcel (0 the Preserve," Finally, the Phase I
RMP was clear on the timing of conveyance, The standard under Policy 5,8 stated, 'To the extent
that conveyance of a specific parcel ofland is required, it shall be a condition of approval for the first
Tentative Map of that SPA"
CHGO\;:;00872~ö 3
CHIC:\GO Wi\SH INGTON I BALTIMORE ! N[WYORKI r H \ LA DEL PHI ,\ r /\.'1,-\ PA ¡ DAl LAS RtSTO~ L 0 <; J\ "" (~ E l ( :;
I!I.~.~ /e!;'~
i' RUDNICK Ann y, Moore, Esq.
&WULFF February 8. 2002
Page 3
Phase 2 Resource Mana!!ement Plan
On January 24, 1996, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors was presented with a series
of action items regarding the Otay Ranch open space preserve, Among these was selection of a
Preserve Owner/Manager, approval of a preserve financing plan and approval of a plan for the
conveyance ofJand to the preserve. Staff of the City ofChula Vista and the County recommended
a Conveyance Plan which would tie conveyance of a parcel to the preserve to development of
specific acreage in a Village. This Conveyance Plan was prepared by a project team comprised of
representatives of the City, County staff, and the federal and state wildlife agencies, and with input
from the Baldwin Company and other ownership interests. The Conveyance Plan was intended to
be a framework "guiding the dedication of open space as the project is built out over a long period
of time." It would need to be reviewed and updated as necessary after approval of each Village
development. As the staff reported to the County Board, "This flexibility is especially necessary due
to the changes of ownership of the parcels within the Ranch due to the financial difìiculties of the
Baldwin Company, as well as other factors including the possible fonnation of a Federal Wildlife
Refuge, "
The Conveyance Plan as proposed to the County Board identified specific areas to be
conveyed on a Village-by- Village basis as development proceeded. The elements of the Conveyance
Plan were:
Exhibit 9 to the Phase 2 RMP A schedule of "Preserve Land Conveyed-Forecasted by
Village. "
Exhibit I I to the Phase 2 RMP A schedule of "Preserve Land Conveyed-Forecasted by
Year."
Exhibit 12 to the Phase 2 RMP A schedule of "Contrast - Conveyance with Sensitive
Resources Impact."
The capstone of the Conveyance Plan as proposed by staff in I 996 was to have been a series of
exhibits in the Phase 2 RMP indicating the areas to be conveyed to the preserve with the
development of each Village or planning area. These were designated Exhibits 14A through 14U,
Adoption of the recommended Conveyance Plan by the County Board was stalled from
January 24, 1996 to February 21, 1996. On February 21, 1996, the County Board ordered the County
Counsel to review the issues associated with the Baldwin bankruptcy, filed in July 1995, and directed
the County Chief Administrative Ofìicer "to meet with all interested parties and property owners (in
the same room, at the same time) to find an acceptable conveyance plan that works," On
ClICÁ'L3lJ0872463
CIiICACO I WAStllNCTON ß ,.... L 1 I VI () R [ NEW YORK I r ¡I] L:\D E l r HI.'" , TAM PA I [JAllAS ! R E ') fUr---; L l' " A N (~[ L E S
RI·~: ,~"~,~
I' RUDNICK Ann Y. Moore, Esq,
&I\'OlFE February 8,2002
Page 4
F,~ ,r:.ary 29, 1996, the City and County staff met with Otay Ranch property owners. County
Planning Commissioner James Edwards acted as mediatoL ML Edwards submitted his report to the
County Board on March 5, 1996, recommending that (1) an in-lieu fee program be established to
address the inequity of some owners having insufficient preserve land to dedicate; and (2) actual
conveyance of mitigation land be required with each final map, According to ML Edwards, "I
specifically did not get involved with the ramifications of the Baldwin bankruptcy,"
On March 6, 1996, the County Board again considered the Conveyance Plan recommcnded
by staff The statT report for that meeting indicated:
The Conveyance Plan establishes protection of a major portion of the Salt Creek area,
one of the most sensitive åreas on the Otay Ranch, as a very significant portion of the
Otay River Valley, which could be a foundation parccl of the Otay River Regional
Park, . , . The areas in Salt Creek and Otay River Valley are considered "most
vulnerable" because they are located in the more urban portions of the Otay Ranch
where development is anticipated to first OCCUL
However, the County Board approved only the first portion of the Conveyance Plan -- the
conveyance of the 1,248 acres ofland depicted on Exhibits 141\ and 148 as "keystone" parcels in
conjunction with the processing of SPA One, The County Board directed County staff to work with
the City of Chula Vista and affected property owners to refine the Conveyance Plan and to return
with Conveyance Plan amendments addressing the issues raised by the Board.
On June 4, 1996, the City ofChula Vista adopted the Phase 2 RMP, including the Conveyance
Plan, thus establishing the areas depicted on Exhibits 14A and 14B as the area for initial conveyance
to the preserve. The Phase 2 RMP as adopted by the City and the County calls for conveyance "upon
the recordation of each final map for an amount ofland equal to the final map's obligation to convey
land to the Resource Preserve,"
The Issue ofMu/tiv/e Ownershiv
Later in 1996, a member of the City Council asked the Otay Ranch project team about the
impact of multiple ownerships on, among other things, the Conveyance Plan. Jerry Jamriska, Special
Planning Project Manager for Otay Ranch, responded in a staff memo which stated:
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) is part of the City ofChula Vista's
General Plan. As such, the GDP is a legal and binding guide to the future development
of the City and environs, The GDP, while prepared and paid for under one company.
always contemplated multiple ownerships and multiple developers,
CI1Cì-OI/30087246.3
CHICAGO W,A,SH1NC!TON I B A l T I ,\-\0 R E NEW YORK [' H I L ,iI. D [I. r I{ 1.0., r,A,.>.,1P,". I D A II A S I Rl'dON , LOS ,-\.'-1(; E L E S
III ~! ,P,,; R ~
Ii' RU DNICK Ann Y. Moore, Esq.
&\VOLrE February 8, 2002
Page 5
. . , th(; ;;'MP was prepared specifically recognizing existing and potential multiple
ownerships of land, . . [T]he RMP had a series of maps (15 +/-) delineating
conveyance of resource land, over time, to the Preserve OwnerlManager (POM). These
maps recognized multiple ownerships and was designed to prove that the Conveyance
Plan could work with different property owners, . , , However, the City Council and the
Board of Supervisors deleted reference to those maps at the time of adoption.
. , . [T]he Otay Ranch GDP and all its supporting documentation, reports and
environmental findings would not hinder the successful implementation of the Otay
Ranch GDP with a multiplicity of property owners, , , .
The Baldwin Company has always planned on selling portions of the Ranch prior to
development, so multiple ownerships were always anticipated in the future
development of the Otay Ranch, ' , .
While a formal paper on "The Global Analysis of the impact of multiple property
owners on the Otay Ranch Project" has not been prepared, it has always been evident
that multiple ownership of land is and was a possibility, This potential is and has been
ref1ected in the GDP, Annexation Application, SPA One documents, Tentative Map
and its conditions, and the Development Agreement There is no need for a "Global
Analysis" and no amendments are necessary to any of the adopted documents of the
City.
The 1998 Attemot to Chanf!e the Convevance Plan
Notwithstanding this clear explanation, in 1997, The Otay Ranch Company applied to amend
the Phase 2 RMP conveyance plan. At the time, portions of the "keystone" parcels identified as
Exhibits l4A and l4B to the Phase 2 RMP -- Salt Creek and the Otay River Valley -- had not yet
been conveyed to the preserve despite the development of SP A One. ML Kilkenny eXplained the
rationale for the proposed amendment:
At the time this conveyance plan was adopted, entities oWl1ed by Jim and Al Baldwin
(Otay Ranch, LP" Baldwin Builders, Tiger Development II, and Village Properties)
owned all of the land within SPA One and most of the land proposed for SPA One
conveyance.
Since that time, the Baldwin brothers have lost ownership oflands within the proposed
SPA One conveyance areas, SPA One is now owned by Otay Project, LLC and the
West Coast Land Fund, It is now exceedingly diffìcult for SPA One development to
CHGO 1/300872463
C Ii 1(",-\(;0 \VASH INGTON I ß A I T I .'vIO II. E ! Nrw YORK ! r H I L /" DEL r!ll..... ! T.A,M!',A, , D."LlAS RES 1 ON : ! os ,A·~(; l L E"
III~} /"~,~
I' RUDNICK Ann y, Moore, Esq,
& W 0 L f E February 8, 2002
Page 6
convey open space :'; the Preserve Owner/Manager concurrent with the development
of SPA One. Strict adherence to the Phase 2 Ri\1P SPA One Conveyance schedule
forces SPA One property owners to acquire land from a small number of entities who
own the open space within the conveyance area. This creates a tremendously unfair
burden. The alternative to actual conveyance is for Otay Project, LLC to pay a fee in
lieu, This alternative imposes an unnecessary financial expense since Otay Project,
LLC has ample open space properties elsewhere within Otay Ranch that could be
conveyed instead of paying a fee.
Onc February 9, 1998, The Otay Ranch Company fonnally applied to the City of Chula Vista to
amend the Phase 2 RMP to add certain land in Proctor Valley as "preserve land which may be
conveyed as part of the initial conveyance area," A staff memo for the Planning Commission
meeting on the proposal adopted a rationale similar to that advanced by ML Kilkenny:
At the time the conveyance plan was adopted, the various Baldwin entities (Otay Ranch
LP" Baldwin Builders, Tiger Development II and Village Properties) owned all of the
land within SP A One and most ofthe land proposed for SPA One conveyance detailed
in Exhibits 14A and 148 of the RMP 2. The lirst conveyance parcels are currently
owned by the Estate of Patrick and New Millennium Homes. Strict adherence to the
Conveyance Schedule, as approved in the RMP 2, would require the current owners of
SPA One (Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies) to acquire land from the
two entities (the Estate and New Millennium), The McMillin Companies do not own
any preserve land within Otay Ranch, therefore, their alternative to land conveyance
is to pay the in-lieu fee which is currently being developed. While this option is
available to the Otay Ranch Company, they believe it to be an unfair financial burden,
particularly since they currently own Preserve land elsewhere on Otay Ranch.
The staff went on to explain that SPA One required the conveyance of 1,243 acres of land to the
preserve, and Exhibits 14A and 14B to the Phase 2 RMP comprised 1,248 acres:
There are currently 1,248 acres in the first conveyance parcels, These areas were
selected to meet the guidelines of the Otay Ranch GDP and the Phase 1 RMP since
they are "keystone" parcels and were considered vulnerable and a high quality resource
immediately adjacent to developing areas,
CHGOI:]OO8ì246.3
elf ICAGO WASHINGTON I BA L T I MORE I NEW YORK I r H I L,'\ 0 F l PH 1/1. i rAM r A ¡ D,>l..LLAS I RESTON , l 0" 0\ Net L t~,
RI~' } /, ,~ ,~
I' RUDN ICK Ann Y. Moore, Esq,
&\VOLfE February 8, 2002
Page 7
On June 9,1998, the City ofChula Vis!,- approved an amendment to the Phase 2 RMP which would
substitute a new revised Exhibit 14 for Exhibits 14A and 148.' The revision expanded the area for
initial conveyance from the 1,248 acres identified in Exhibits 14A and 14B to include over 3,400
acres - much of it owned by Baldwin entities,
As a result of the City's recognition of its 1998 unilateral amendment to the Phase 2 RMP,
much of the area depicted on Exhibits 14A and 14B has not been conveyed to the preserve, despite
its acknowledged importance, Even though the 1998 amendment thus had the effect of delaying
conveyance of land to the preserve, and even though the land under consideration for conveyance
in 1998 was in a separate jurisdiction than the SPA to be developed, it does not appear that the
County of San Diego ever approved the City's 1998 revision. You were not able to provide us a
copy of any document showing such a County approval; indeed, your response to OLe's Public
Records Act request suggested that we look for such a document from the County, OLC did, and
the County in response to a similar Public Records Act request likewise produced no document
showing such a County approvaL
It therefore appears that the 1998 proposed revision to the Phase 2 RMP has never become
effective. In spite of that, the City appears to have recognized the proposed revision, and allowed
development to proceed beyond SPA One without the conveyance of the land originally depicted in
Exhibits 14A and 14B - which mostly still remain in private hands,
In addition, it appears that the City in implementing the requirements of the Phase 2 RMP has
not required that developers convey parcels of preserve land until the recording of the final "B"
maps, This contrasts both with the clear directive of the Phase 1 RIvIP that conveyance should occur
prior to approval of the Tentative Map, and the compromise reached in the Phase 2 RIvIP that
conveyance should occur before the recording of any final map,
In October 1998, OLC purchased 4,793 acres in Otay Ranch owned by the Estate of Mary
Patrick, including portions of the land depicted on Exhibits 14A and 14B. In doing so, it relied on
the approved provisions of the Phase I RMP and the Phase 2 RMP,
1 The City's response to OLe's Public Record Act Request included what purported
to be a copy of the Phase 1 RMP adopted in 1996, but which did not contain Exhibits
14A or 14B. Instead, this copy included a revised Exhibit 14, with the exhibit
bearing a date of"8/26/98," This exhibit was obviously inserted into the document
after the fact
CHCìOI,'30087246.J
CHI C AC;O WASHINGTON I BALTIMORE I NEwYüRK r HILA D r L r H I A I T,"M PA [) A I LAS R [STO N IOS ,ð...Nl-, [I E'
1lI~! /,'~,~
I' RUDNICK Ann y, Moore, Esq.
&WOIFE February 8, 2002
Page 8
The 2001 Proposal to Cha¡;<. - :he Convevance Plan
Since] 998, Otay Project has continued to develop the lands it owns in Otay Ranch. It is now
running out of preserve land which it OVvTIS, and faces a similar circumstance as it did in 1997-98,
For whatever reason, it apparently does not choose to acquire and transfer to the preserve those lands
which were originally slated for initial conveyance to the preserve, Instead, it is attempting to
change the conveyance plan to further delay conveyance of Salt Creek and the Otay River Valley,
On March 21,200], Otay Project L.P, applied to the City ofChula Vista "to add approximately 990
acres of land within Otay Ranch designated as open space to the areas eligible for initial
conveyance." These 990 acres are, again, within the County, in the western San Ysidro mountains.
and are controlled by Otay Project.
]t is our understanding that the City has not scheduled a hearing on the pending Otay Project
application, but OLC believes it important to go on record with its opposition to the proposaL The
expansion of the initial conveyance area is an unwarranted fundamental change in the very premise
of the Conveyance Plan, which should not be made after owners, developers and the public have
relied on the existing structure of the Conveyance Plan, There is no scientific rationale to put the
additional 990 acres controlled by Otay Project ahead of the Salt Creek or Otay River Valley parcels,
And departures from strict adherence to the Conveyance Plan have damaged and will continue to
damage OLC
No Basis for Changing the Conveyance Plan
The real reason for the proposal from Otay Project to add 990 acres to the initial conveyance
area is starkly apparent. This developer does not have land available in the initial conveyance area,
and so must acquire it from its current owners in order to continue development in Otay Ranch, Otay
Project seeks to put off the day when it must purchase the land in Salt Creek and the Otay River
Valley (if that day ever comes), by changing the rules of development for Otay Ranch when they do
not suit Otay Project L.P,
The City should not stand for this. The costs and consequences of multiple ownership in Otay
Ranch were well known from the beginning, The canard that the financial difficulties of the Baldwin
Company must somehow mean that the ground rules for Otay Ranch should be changed was best
dismissed by ML ]amriska's memo to the City in 1996, lIis words then clearly address the merits
of the pending proposal:
, , , it has always been evident that multiple ownership ofland is and was a possibility,
This potential is and has been reflected in the GDP, Annexation Application, SPA One
documents, Tentative Map and its conditions, and the Development i\greement. There
C!!(iO\,:;UOR7:?463
CHll.'\GO \V"'SHINl~T()N B.-I" l T I ,~i 0 R E ! NEVV YORK I PHI LA 0 E l r H i:\ I fAMr,,,", , l),'\LL:\S R [S TO N Lu' .'\ ".;(; I [\
ill ~ } /, ,~ ,~
I' RUDNICK Ann y, Moore, Esq,
&\VOIIE February 8, 2002
Page 9
is no need for a "Global Analysis," and no amendment!' e necessary to any of tire
adopted documents of tire City.
(Emphasis added.) In resolving their financial difficulties, the Baldwins made conscious choices as
to which properties they would keep and which they would let go, The consequences of that
decision - that they must now acquire the necessary conveyance land in order to proceed with
development - should not be altered by the City.
The proposed 1998 expansion of the initial conveyance area is no precedent for the pending
application. The proposed 1998 expansion never became effective, because it was never approved
by the County, Therefore, this current proposal must be judged on its merits, and it cannot pass
musteL
Like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, the current proposal tries to make words - in this
case, "keystone" parcel - mean exactly what the applicant decides they should mean, The RMP
referred to Salt Creek and the Otay River Valley as "keystone" parcels because they were the most
valuable and the most vulnerable to degradation from development of all the properties to eventually
become part of the Otay Ranch preserve, The 1998 proposal tried to cheapen the meaning of
"keystone" by tripling the area defined, and the current proposal takes this effort to the next order
of magnitude,
The Conveyance Plan required those who sought to develop in Otay Ranch to first convey the
most sensitive and most important parcels to the preserve - the "keystone " parcels, identi fied as
including Salt Creek and the Otay River Valley, There is simply no basis to expand the initial
conveyance area beyond that
The Scientific Rationale for Changing the Convevance Plan
Ignoring the established ground rules for amending the conveyance plan, and seeking to
redefine the policies which resulted in the original designation of an "initial conveyance area," the
pending application tries to justify expanding the initial conveyance area on a scientific basis,
However, the stated rationale for the proposal cannot withstand rigorous analysis. The original
prioritization for conveyance was due to the unique and irreplaceable biological value of Salt Creek
and other portions of Otay Ranch that could be lost or degraded over time without being actively
managed and protected as dedicated open space, For example, Salt Creek supports some of the
highest densities of California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren -- both NCCP focal species, It
also supports extensive acreage of maritime succulent scrub, one of the rarest scrub habitats in San
Dicgo County, The San Ysidro parcel of 990 acres proposed to be added to the area of initiol
conveyance lacks this rare habitat
CII(iOliJOOS7:!,H"3
CHI C,A,CO \y',o"SHINGfON ! BALTIMORE N [W Yo RK I r H It:\ 0 E I r H I A rAM PA : [) A l L,,,"S IZ tS r 0 N l n\ .'\>J,... E L r i
IIIP'PER
\\ A R 1\ U R Y
I' RUDNICK Ann y, Moore, Esq,
'" \V U l r r February 8, 2002
Page 10
Because the San Y sidro parcel does not show these densities of rare re30urces, it was not
included as a first priority area tòr conveyance. The two parcels are not comparable in overall
regional value/habitat quality, or in terms of threats of development and long-tenn habitat
degradation without near-tenn active habitat management and protection. The Salt Creek area was
conserved because its development would have incurred a significant unmitigable impact This can
not be said for the San Y sidro parcel. Potential impacts to the San Y sidro parcel would be mitigable.
In tenns oflandscape habitat connectivity, both parcels function as wildlife movement areas,
but the Salt Creek parcel is more constrained and thus more critical in tenns of long-tenn function
than the San Y sidro parcel. Due to differences in parcel size and landscape context, there are many
more alternative wildlife movement routes associated with the San Ysidro parcel compared to Salt
Creek,
In tenns of habitat quality for the coastal California gnat catcher, Salt Creek is the superior site
with many documented gnatcatcher territories, The San Y sidro parcel has only two documented
gnatcatcher point locations in the database. This is not surprising since gnat catcher concentrations
are skewed toward more coastal areas below 1000 feet elevation in sage scrub on shallow slopes,
Steep slope areas supporting sage scrub tend to lack gnatcatchers, There are more gnatcatcher point
locations (20+ locations) documented west of the San Ysidro parcel, near Lower Otay Lake, than the
hmds located east of the San Y sidro parcel. This is consistent with the trend that gnatcatchers
become rare as you move toward the more inland portions of their potential range, The database
suggests that any gnatcatchers in the vicinity of the San Ysidro parcel would be less productive than
the Salt Creek site due to differences in weather conditions (mild coastal site vs, more variable inland
site) and habitat quality that greatly influences gnatcatcher survival and reproduction. The
gnatcatcher population in the vicinity of the San Ysidro parcel would be expected to fluctuate in size
between years much more than the Salt Creek site, Year to year population stability is an important
consideration for the long tenn conservation of the gnatcatcher.
Salt Creek is far more threatened by development now than the San Ysidro parcel. The City
of San Diego just installed a water line through Salt Creek. The City of Chula Vista is about to
install a sewer line through it OLC is powerless to stop this continued degradation, In addition, Salt
Creek is in close proximity to the development already completed in SPA One and other
development likely to be completed in the next few years, Areas around the San Ysidro parcel may
never get developed,
The fractionalization of O\vnership of Otay Ranch is no basis tòr changing the Conveyance
Plan, Even if it was, there is no scientific basis for putting the 990 acres in San Ysidro ahead oflhe
Salt Creek and Otay River Valley parcels,
CHGOI'}üüS7246.J
CHICAGü i WASHINGTON , B A L T 11....0 R E , N E\V YORK I PHILADELPHIA r¡\MPA I DA l LAS , RESTU N l û') .\ ~ ,; ¡ L [)
ill ~}/",E R~
~, RUDN ICK Ann y, Moore, Esq,
&\XüIFE February 8, 2002
Page 11
Damage to OLC
The publicly crafted rules for development of Otay Ranch have been the basis for action by
various entities, including the public, Otay Ranch developers and Otay Ranch landowners. They
were relied upon by OLC in determining to acquire the Otay Ranch properties of the Estate of Mary
Patrick. The City's failure to enforce the Conveyance Plan has damaged OLC, and the proposed
change to the Conveyance Plan would cause further damage to OLC
The crux of the matter, of course, is that the Salt Creek and Otay River Valley parcels havc
not been conveyed to the preserve, OLC has been forced to maintain its properties in these areas,
at an annual cost of at least $20,000, While it may have been reasonable to expect the property
owner to bear this cost until the pace of development called for the lands designated for the preserve
to be conveyed to the preserve, that time has long since passed, Allowing other properties to be
conveyed first frees those other property owners of the costs of maintenance, while improperly
further burdening OLC
In the same vein, continued ownership of these lands, when they should have been conveyed
to the preserve, submits the owner to financial risks. These risks have, in the case ofOLC, come to
fruition. In the case of Salt Creek, OLC was held liable for a City entry and biological assessment
of the property on account of a City sewer project This $50,000 cost would not have been incurred
by OLC had the property been timely conveyed to the preserve, OLC expects that the biological
assessment will be repeated annually, and that OLC will again be forced to bear the expense thereof
in the coming years,
Finally, and most importantly, delay in requiring conveyance of the properties in the initial
conveyance area means that they are not being acquired for that purpose, OLC compensated the
Estate of Mary Patrick for these lands, but is not being compensated by the ultimate end user - the
Otay Ranch developer which must, according to the existing Conveyance Plan, acquire them from
OLC and convey them to the preserve, Thus, the City's unwillingness to enforce the Conveyance
Plan as originally approved, and any City effort to further change the Conveyance Plan, requires
OLC to be the developer's banker - holding the conveyance land at its own expense until the
developer (with the backing of the City) decides that the time is ripe to finally acquire and convey
the "keystone" parcels,
Conclusion
The originally-recommended Conveyance Plan to the Phase 2 RMP (consisting of Exhibit 9
plus Exhibits 14A through 14U) is acceptable to OLC as the full embodiment of the Conveyance
l"I-!GOli300S7246J
CHICAGO WAS~tINGrON BALTIMORE NEW YORK i r H I L,-\ D [L r H 11\, ! r."MP.-\ I DALLAS , R t S TON LOS t\ '" G tL l ')
III·~} ,P, ,;,,~
I' RUDNICK Ann Y Moore, Esq,
&WOLFE February 8, 2002
Page 12
Plan. In order to limit and mitigate the damages which OLC is suffering as a result of the City's
failure to enforce the Conveyance Plan, OLC urges the City to:
· complete the 1996 recommendations and to adopt, approve and enforce the
entire Conveyance Plan,
· refuse to accept conveyances of any preserve lands outside the area of initial
conveyance until all the lands in the initial conveyance area have been
conveyed to the preserve.
· require conveyance of the appropriate preserve lands within the initial
conveyance area prior to the recording of any final map of a development area.
In the meantime, OLC objects to and opposes the currently pending application to enlarge the initial
conveyance area to include the 990-acre San Y sidro parceL
Very truly yours,
PIPER MARBURY RUDN
~~I
homas F. Geselbrac t
TFG:fw
cc: ML Kim Kilkenny
ML Paul Borden
Mr. R Randy Goodson
ML Simon Malk
CIIGO¡ijOOBn.t63
CH!C'\GO I WASHINCTON I BALTIMORE NEW YORK , PlillADElPHIA i T,'\MP.'\ I D A 1 LAS I R E:::'I () N [()S ¡\,'JC [L E 5
ftJ(7lJ v
PiDer Rudnick MAY 0 6 zoo; WRITER'S INFORMATION
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1800 THOMAS F, GESELBRACHT
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1293 thomas. gese!bracht(0'p iperrud nick. com
main 312-368.4000 fax 312-236,7516 direct 312,368.4094- fàx 312,630.73-1-8
May I, 2002
Ann Moore, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Ms. Moore:
It was a pleasure to meet with you on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 to discuss the current
status of the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve Conveyance Plan.
We understand that the City has confirmed that the County of San Diego did not approve
the City's 1998 amendment of the Conveyance Plan. Therefore, it appears that the current status
is that the Conveyance Plan approved in 1996 by both the County and the City remains in effect
In light of this conclusion, we understand that the City is further analyzing its position on
this issue and has not approved any more final "B" maps which fail to comply with the 1996
Conveyance Plan, We understand that the City anticipates that it may be in a position to
approach resolution of this issue in the next month.
In the meantime, the City has also referred the question of whether there is a current
deficit in the preserve conveyances. even under the 1998 expansion, on the part of the Baldwin-
related development entities of Otay Ranch. We await confirmation of the analysis which Otay
Land Company provided to the City from the City's engineering staff
Finally, Otay Land Company also understands that the City's resolution of the issue
related to a current deficit in conveyance lands, if any, as well as the status of the City 1998
amendment must be resolved before the City can turn its attention to the March 2001 application
of Otay Project to further expand the area for initial conveyance, As we indicated, Otay Land
Company has gone on record with its opposition to the application, but looks forward to further
discussion of this issue if and when that becomes ripe.
CHGOI :JOI40217_vl
Baltimore Chicago Dallas Edison Los Angeles New Yark Philadelphia Reston Tampa Washington wwwplpermdmckcom
Plp<:r R~dnlck (~U' and related emllle.\ ¡nc!udInK an !!lmms (;enaal Partnership
Piper Rudnick Ann y, Moore
May I. 2002
Page 2
We have scheduled another meeting to discuss these issues for May 30, 2002 at 2:00 p.m,
In the meantime, if you have any questions or would further like to discuss these issues in greater
detail, please do not hesitate to call me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
PIPER RUD? ) tI
. ~(/W¿~·· 4Ll!'yJ-.v
d"m~ f. 0,,,, ,,",
TFG/jm
cc: Paul Borden
Randy Goodson
Simon Malk
CHGOIJOI40217v
WRITER'S INFORMATION
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1800 THOMAS F, GESELBRACHT
Chicago, Illinois 60601·1293 Thomas.geselbracht@piperrudnick.com
mam3123684000 fax 312236.7516 Direct 3123684094 fax 312,630,7348
June 20, 2002
VIA TELECOPIER AND U.S. MAIL (619) 409-5823
Ann V, Moore, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Otay Ranch
Enforcemcnt ofOtay Ranch MMP, Conditions of SPA One Approval and Phase 2
RMP
Dear Ms. Moore:
As you know, this finn represents Otay Land Company, LLC. ("OLC"), one of the
owners of land in the Otay Ranch development. Over the last several months, we have met
repeatedly with representatives of the City of Chula Vista to discuss the current status of the
conveyance plan of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan ("Phase 2 RMP"), the City's
enforcement of the conveyance plan and developers' compliance with the conveyance plan.
OLC has shared with the City the fruits of its research, and the City has concurred on several
basic points:
. On October 28, 1993, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego
County Board of Supervisors jointly adopted the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan/Subregional Plan. This plan designated areas of development and areas to be
left as open space in Otay Ranch,
Baltimore Chicago Dallas Edison Los Angeles New York Philadelphia Reslon Tampa Washington \\1Vw,pipcrrudnickcom
Piper Rudnid LIP ilnd related ('II lilies including (/11 flfinois General Partnership
Ann Y. Moore
June 20,2002
Page 2
. In connection with the adoption of the Otay Ranch GDP, the County and the City also
adopted the Otay Ranch Phase I Resource Management Plan ("Phase I RMP'} The
primary purpose of the Phase I RMP is to serve as the functional equivalent of a
resource protection ordinance for Otay Ranch, Among the policies established in the
Phase 1 RMP are:
5,6 Develop and obtain City and County approval (in
coordination with the Owner/Manager) of a plan for the orderly
conveyance of dedicated parcels of land within the preserve,
5.7 Any change in the order of conveyance shall be considered
only during the review and approval process for a SPA, and shall not
require a General Plan Amendment. The jurisdiction processing the SPA
shall advise and consult with the other agency before approval of a change
in order of conveyance. However, any change in the order of conveyance
is subject to joint approval by the City of Chula Vista and County of San
Diego, if the land under consideration for conveyance is in a different
jurisdiction than the SPA under consideration,
5,8: Changes in land ownership resulting from the sale or
transfer of ownership of any SPA shall not affect the conveyance of land
to the Preserve.
· The Phase 1 RMP identified key biological resources in Otay Ranch, established
policies, standards and guidelines for the further analysis and management of the
natural resources in Otay Ranch, and required that the Phase 2 RMP establish a plan
and schedule for the conveyance of the lands designated for the Otay Ranch open
space preserve in connection with the development of specific planning areas
("SP As") of Otay Ranch,
· On March 6, 1996, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the Phase 2
RMP, including a conveyance plan which required the conveyance of 1,248 acres
(designated as Exhibits 14A and 14B to the Phase 2 RMP) in connection with the
development of SPA One.
· On June 4,1996, the City ofChula Vista approved the Phase 2 RMP that had been
approved by the County, including a conveyance plan which required the conveyance
of the land designated as Exhibits 14A and 14B to the Phase 2 RMP in connection
with the development of SPA One.
· At the same time that the City of Chula Vista approved the Phase 2 RMP and the
conveyance plan therein, the City approved the plan for development of SPA One,
30]60044
Ann Y. Moore
June 20, 2002
Page 3
The City's approval of the development plan for SPA One was expressly conditioned
on the developers' compliance with all requirements of the Phase 2 RMP, In
addition, the City approval of the Phase 2 RMP applied to the "processing and
conveyance of preserve lands associated only with SPA One; no other village or SPA
shall be approved until the Phase Two Resource Management Plan is reevaluated and
amended, . , "
· On June 9, 1998, the Chula Vista City Council approved an amendment of the Phase
2 RMP which would replace Exhibits 14A and 14B as the areas designated for initial
conveyance in conncction with the development of SPA One with a new Exhibit 14
of over 3,400 acres, However, the County of San Diego did not concur in or
otherwise approve the proposed amendment to the Phase 2 RMP, which was therefore
never effective,
· The area designated for initial conveyance in connection with the development of
SPA One to this day remains the lands designated on Exhibits 14A and 14B to the
Phase 2 RMP as approved in 1996.
· Since June 1998, the City has approved numerous tentative maps and final maps for
development in SPA One, and development therein has proceeded. Specifically, the
City has approved final "Boo maps with a development area of at least 771.945 acres.
Pursuant to the Phase 2 RMP, the City was therefore obligated to require the
developers to convey at least 917,071 acres of mitigation land in Otay Ranch from the
area for initial conveyance to the preserve.
· Although the City has approved said final maps, the developers thereof in SPA One
have conveyed no land from within the area designated in the Phase 2 RMP for initial
conveyance in connection with the development of SPA One. Instead, the developers
of SPA One have provided the City and the County with Irrevocable Offers of
Dedication of land outside the area designated for initial conveyance, but within the
area by which the City purported to expand the area designated for initial conveyance
in 1998, Neither the City nor the County have yet accepted the Irrevocable Offers of
Dedication for preserve land filed in connection with the development of SPA One,
In addition to requiring compliance with the conveyance plan of the Phase 2 RMP as a
condition of approval of SP A One, the City of Chula Vista committed to enforcing the Resource
Management Plan in the Otay Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan (the "MMP"). The City
contractually obligated the developers of SPA One to convey preserve land in compliance with
the conveyance plan of the Phase 2 RMP in various agreements, including the Agreement for
Implementation of Otay Ranch Phase 2 RMP with Village Development and The Otay Ranch,
LP,; the Restated and Amended Pre-Annexation Development Agreement with The Otay Ranch,
LP,; the Otay Ranch Project Staffing and Processing Agreement between McMillin-DA
30160044
Ann Y. Moore
June 20, 2002
Page 4
America, Otay Ranch, LLC, and the City of Chula Vista; and numerous Supplemental
Subdivision hnprovement Agreements with both the Baldwin and McMillin development
entities. These latter agreements affinnatively require the developers of SPA One to convey
additional preserve land, if necessary, to comply with the conveyance obligations of the Phase 2
RMP, and allow the City to withhold building pennits "for the entire SPA One project area" if
the developers are in breach,
On February 8, 2002, OLC requested that the City refuse to accept conveyances of
preserve land outside the area for initial conveyance until all lands on Exhibit 14A and 14B to
the Phase 2 RMP have been conveyed to the preserve, and to rcquire conveyance of the
appropriate preserve land within the area for initial conveyance prior to the recording of any
more final maps. We understand that the City investigated the foregoing facts and con finned for
itself that the developers of SPA One had not complied with the currently effective conveyance
plan, The current City position is to condition the approval of any more final maps on
compliance with the currently effective conveyance plan of the Phase 2 RMP,
However, we have also learned that, rather than enforce the existing obligations of the
developcrs of SPA One to convey preserve land from the area for initial conveyance in
connection with the development of SPA One, the City has actively sponsored a proposal for the
County to retroactively amend the conveyance plan of the Phase 2 RMP, Thus, instead of
enforcing the Phase 2 RMP and requiring the SPA One developers to live up to their obligations,
the City is trying to change those requirements many years after the fact The City's departure
from its role as neutral regulator has forced OLC to re-examine its focus in this regard.
On April 30, 2002, OLC asked the City to enforce the currently effective conveyance
plan of the Phase 2 RMP, The City indicated that it would complete its analysis and respond in
about a month, On May 30, 2002, OLC reiterated its request The City noted that a proposed
amendment to the conveyance plan was pending before the County Board, and was scheduled for
a County Board vote on June 19,2002, The City told OLC to ask the City on June 20, 2002
whether the City would enforce the then-effective conveyance plan of the Phase 2 RMP,
It is now June 20, 2002, Nearly a year has passed since OLC first raised enforcement of
the conveyance plan with the City. Despite the clear existing obligation of the developers of
SPA One to convey at least 917,071 acres of mitigation land in Otay Ranch from the area
depicted on Exhibits 14A and 14B of the Phase 2 RMP to the preserve, these developers have not
done so. Because the City has not accepted the preserve land erroneously offered for dedication
by these developers, all the City must do to enforce the developer obligations is to require that
the correct preserve lands be conveyed, The provisions of the Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreements and the developers' other contractual commitments can be easily
invoked. There is no justification for further delay in doing so.
30J60044
Ann Y. Moore
June 20, 2002
Page 5
OLC therefóre respectfully demands that the City immediately comply with the MMP
and enforce the SPA One conditions for approval by requiring immediate compliance with the
conveyance plan of the Phase 2 RMP. Continued willful refusal of the City to comply with the
MMP and enforce the SPA One conditions for approval will leave OLC with no choice but to
seek all available forms of relief
We would appreciate a formal response from the City, indicating that the City will
comply with the MMP and enforce the SPA One conditions for approval, or that the City will
continue to refuse to do so, within 10 days after receiving this request. If you have any questions
regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call me at your convenience,
Very truly yours,
PIPER RUDNICK
Thomas F, Geselbracht
TFG/jm
cc: George Krempl
Paul Borden
Randy Goodson
30] 60044
County of San Diego
Planning Commission Hearing
September 17, 1999
Otay Ranch Presentation
by
Ci ty of Chula Vista Staff
1 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: The Planning Commission
2 hearing is now reopened. We're going to item No. 6
3 now, the staff presentation.
4 MR, KINGERY: Mr- Chairman, members of the
5 commission: My name is Ralph Kingery with the
6 Department of Planning and Land Use, And I'd like to
7 present you with an overview of Gtay Ranch. You
8 probably haven't seen too much of it in the last few
9 years, but it's starting to bubble and certainly a lot
10 is happening in the City of Chula Vista.
11 Rick Rosaler is here at my right from the city,
12 and he' 11 present a portion about the details and some
13 of the things that are happening in the city, and I'll
14 talk about some of the county projects that are coming
15 up in the very near future,
16 As most of you probably know, Otay Ranch is in
17 the southwestern part of -- Whoops. Sorry about that.
18 Otay Ranch is in the southwestern part of the county,
19 and the western part is annexed to the City of Chula
20 Vista, and the eastern part is in the county
21 jurisdiction,
22 This is a copy of the General Development Plan,
23 subregional plan that was adopted by both the city and
24 county in late 1993.
25 This particular slide shows the breakdown, the
2
1 distinction between developed areas in yellow and the
2 green areas, which are designated as open space
3 preserve, The villages have been given numbers, and
4 those are shown on the slide.
5 This slide indicates one of the factors that is
6 complicating development and planning for the Ranch at
7 this time, Originally in 1993 there were two owners
8 of the Ranch, United Enterprises and Baldwin Vista
9 Company. Now, because of the bankruptcy proceedings
10 with Baldwin Vista, the land has been distributed to a
11 number of different land owners and developers, There
12 are a total of ten all together, and this jigsaw
13 puzzle shows the way in which those lands are held.
14 The implication of this for planning is that no
15 one developer has control of -- I believe of anyone
16 village, Everybody has to cooperate with other
17 developers. So there may be two or three owners for a
18 particular area that is going to develop under the
19 plan.
20 I'd like to turn the presentation over to Rick
21 now to talk about the Chula Vista part.
22 MR, ROSALER; ML Chairman, commissioners, I'm
23 Rick Rosaler with the department of n division of --
24 Planning Division of the Planning and Building
25 Department in the city of Chula Vista. We're going to
3
1 run through just a few slides to tell you about what's
2 been going on in Chula Vista as far as the ütay Ranch
3 is concerned,
4 Our first SPA was approved back in ' 96, as you
5 see on the slide. It covered Villages 1 and S, and
6 we're going to show you what that SPA plan and the
7 subsequent tentative maps, We recorded the firs t
8 final map in October of '98, and that's significant
9 because there are a bunch of reporting and
10 requirements that are supposed to occur one year after
11 development occurs, and that's going to happen this
12 year, We had folks move into the village earlier this
13 spring. Currently we have issued about 1278 building
14 permits for Villages 1 and 5, The project is under
15 construction, both the Gtay Ranch Company and the
16 McMillin Companies.
17 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: That's one of the 12
18 ownerships that you mentioned?
19 MR, ROSALER: Yes.
20 Yes, ma' am,
21 COMMISSIONER FRITZ, May I see the previous
22 slide just for a very quick question?
23 You're saying that your final map was approved
24 in October of '98 but you had -- the construction was
25 so fast that you actually had people living in place
4
1 with their refrigerators and stoves and everything
2 else by March of '99?
3 MR, ROSALER: Yes,
4 COMMISSIONER FRITZ; In the winter months?
5 MR, ROSALER: Yes, In the City of Chula Vista
6 we will issue a grading permit on the approval of a
7 tentative map, so grading started shortly after the
8 tentative maps were approved in '98 -- or in '97. I'm
9 sorry, As soon as the property was annexed, we issued
10 grading permits. And so the mass grading and then the
11 rough grading for the individual pads and then review
12 of the merchant builders plans and construction in
13 about six months.
14 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: Do we have that same
15 approach in the County of San Diego as far as being
16 able to move ù-head at that point?
17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER, No,
]8 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: Thank you,
19 MR, ROSALER: This is an aerial view showing you
20 where villages -- Village 1 is here in the ütay Ranch,
21 and here's Village 5, To orient you, this 15
22 Telegraph Canyon Road, ütay Lakes Road, Here's the
23 extension which we now call La Media, and then Olympic
24 Parkway, that runs all the way out to the Olympic
25 Training Center and the lower Gtay reservoir.
5
1 Our city boundary runs along the eastern -- I'm
2 sorry -- the western edge of the reservoir, and then
3 on up pretty much on the San Bernardino base meridian
4 right now.
5 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: As we speak.
6 MR, ROSALER: Today,
7 This is the SPA plan for Village L There are a
8 lot of pedestrian-oriented features that were included
9 in the project. This is the core. The trolley line
10 will run in the median of Palomar, Our first trolley
11 station will be here. This is the town square area
12 for Village L This is commercial frontage here with
13 multifamily units on the second and third floor, our
14 II-acre town square park, the school site, and then
15 multifamily sites around that, And then the secondary
16 areas with single-family densities, we have promenade
17 streets that have the wide sidewalk and the double row
18 of trees and then paseos that bring everybody down to
19 the vi llage core,
20 In addition, we have pedestrian parks located
21 out in the neighborhoods for the residents of those
22 single-family areas.
23 This is a SPA plan that shows Village " Village
24 5, and then the area that we refer to as Village 1
25 West, This was an area where we had three ten-acre
6
1 parcels that were owned by other property owners, and
2 so we had a challenge to deal with this. The SPA plan
3 and tentative map for this area were just approved at
4 the beginning of this year.
5 If you look here, you see this property line and
6 this property line. with that property owner breakup
7 tha t we were just talking about, this 280 acres in
8 this area is owned by the McMillin Companies, and so
9 we had two -- we have two master developers working on
10 SPA 1 at the present time.
11 In Village 5 we have the trolley station located
12 here. And we have a town square park, This is a
13 multifamily site with ground floor commercial on two
14 sides of the park, Across the st reet is the CPF, or a
15 church site. The school is_ located above that, And
16 then we have a six-acre park and a five-acre park in
17 the se locations, We have a paseo system that runs
18 down to the park and connects all these parks with the
19 regional trail that runs along Telegraph and Olympic
20 Parkway.
21 This is the tentative map that shows ho'.-J the
22 Village 1 was subdivided, Interesting features here
23 in this neighborhood, R-14 and R-16. We actually got
24 the Otay Ranch Company to do alley products, So
2S these n the homes in these two areas will be served
7
1 off of alleys.
2 This is a grading plan that shows the mass and
3 rough grading of Village L Here is telegraph. We're
4 looking to the east. This is Paseo Ranchero, This is
5 Palomar. This is where the trolley alignment will
6 cross over Paseo Ranchero, daylighting somewhere in
7 this area, and then pulling into the town square or
8 to the village center here.
9 This is our II-acre park, the IO-acre school
10 site, and you can see the single-family homes under
11 construction. We have just last week approved a
12 multifamily project on this portion.
13 Off here in the background you can see the
14 McMillin Companies grading that was init i a t ed for
15 their portion of Village 5 and 1. This isn't a very
16 good shot of that entry into Paseo Ranchero going up.
17 We have this monument that you see here, is the
18 design that we have selected to identify the corners
19 and the entry into the Gtay Ranch, Even though we
20 have a multitude of ownership, there is an overall
21 design plan that has seven key features that are
22 supposed to tie the Ranch together, You should be
23 able to identify that you're in the Gtay Ranch whether
24 you're in the city or in the county, and this obelisk
25 and this stone that we have selected here is the first
8
1 one of those,
2 Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER FRITZ; What's the acreage in
4 Village I?
5 MR, ROSALER: I knew you were going to ask that.
6 The acreage is, I believe, somewhere around 500 acres,
7 I believe,
8 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: That includes the west?
9 MR, ROSALER: I think that was a couple hundred
10 acres more, Village 1 actually is 620 acres, and then
11 there are an additional 200 acres, I believe, in
12 Village 1 West.
13 This is a shot looking up Palomar street.
14 Again, the trolley is going to run in the median over
15 here, The reason I picked this slide is this extra
16 wide sidewalk here, this lO-foot sidewalk, is the
17 village pathway. One of those things that ties the
18 Ranch together is the village pathway, and this
19 pathway will run between all the urban villages in the
20 Ranch connected, when it comes to major streets, by
21 pedestrian bridges, and we have a pedestrian DIF,
22 pedestrian bridge DIF. Each home in the Ranch will
23 pay about 5- to 600 dollars for the construct ion of
24 the pedestrian bridges to go over Palomar, Olympic
25 Parkway, and La Media,
9
1 This is in the village -- core of Village L
2 This is our pedestrian crossing_ Across -- This is
3 where the trolley station will be, and we have come up
4 with an innovative design to put bus stops in that
5 median so that the people in Village 1 get the idea
6 that this is where the transit stop will be, Our
7 engineering department was concerned about mid-block
8 crossing, so we have a pedestrian-activated stoplight
9 in the center.
10 Our Heritage Park across the street will have
11 pedestrian walkways that go off to the single-family
12 neighborhoods. You see that we have approved
13 pedestrian~oriented lighting along that, and the Gtay
14 Ranch Company has done, we think, a pretty good job
15 with their landscaping features with all of these palm
16 trees that they have installed in the proj ect,
17 This shot shows the end of one of the
18 cul-de-sacs and the open-ended cul-de-sac that
19 provides the pedestrian access out to the promenade
20 street that surrounds the park,
21 And then here again is one of the promenade
22 streets, This is a six-foot sidewalk with a
23 eight-foot parkway and a double row of trees on either
24 side, when these trees get larger, we envision this
25 will be a covered, shaded walkway for folks to walk
10
1 from the neighborhoods down to the village core. And
2 again, pedestrian lighting,
3 This is further down, This is Orchard park, the
4 first pedestrian park in the one of the neighborhoods.
5 It's a little over an acre, Major controversy in the
6 city of doing small pedestrian parks, but we feel that
7 with the size of the single-family lots that are being
8 approved in the ci ty of Chula Vista, that these small
9 parks in the neighborhoods are necessary, Again, our
10 six- foot walkways, eight-foot parkway and the double
11 row of trees.
12 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: Excuse me. How big are
13 those parks, these small parks?
14 MR, ROSALER: The parks range from an acre to
15 two and a half acres.
16 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: What was the controversy?
17 MR, ROSAIÆR : Maintenance.
18 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: Thank you,
19 MR, ROSALER: Of small parks.
20 In the single- family neighborhoods, one -- it
21 was -- one of the design struggles that we have had is
22 the pedestrian-oriented features of the single-family
23 homes. We have tried to downplay garages on the
24 streets as much as possible, encourage porches and
25 entry features and then walkways to those features,
11
1 and then a separated sidewalk with a parkway and a
2 street tree,
3 You won't believe what -- the amount of
4 discussion that the city has had about these trees and
5 what species and how they're going to be maintained.
6 It has been -- and where the utilities are going to go
7 out here and how everything is going to work. We have
8 spent a significant amount of time planning in detail
9 how these things are going to work, and it has been a
10 challenge.
11 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: Do you have a maintenance
12 district for the trees? Is that it? Do you have a
13 maintenance district for the trees?
14 MR, ROSALER: Actually, in the Gtay Ranch
15 portion of the project, they have guarded entrances,
16 the single-family neighborhoods, so all the streets in
17 their portion of the Ranch are private, through our
18 city policy, and all the maintenance will be done by
19 the homeowners association. So this parkway that's
20 out here in front of this home will be maintained by
21 the homeowners association.
22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is that a sample of a
23 downplayed garage?
24 MR, ROSALER: It's not a three-car garage, and
25 at this point it was a victory. We do have Hollywood
12
1 driveways on some of the projects. It is one of the
2 issues that we continue to work on, We do have tandem
3 spaces in the two-car garages. We were able to
4 achieve that. And it is -- we compromised at a
5 certain point, and we think we can raise the bar now
6 and require more in the next round, in the next SPAs
7 that we're doing.
8 Again. this is Palomar. This is where the
9 alignment of the trolley will run. We're looking into
10 Village L And again, the palms and pear trees that
11 are put in the -- adjacent to the trolley alignment.
12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me, I s that room
13 for two tracks through there?
14 MR ROSALER: Yes,
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay, And the palm trees
16 will stay, right?
17 MR, ROSALER: Yes, When we did the planning for
18 the right of way here, we worked closely with MTDB.
19 As a matter of fact, the first thing that we did when
20 we looked at Villages 1 i1nd 5 is decide where the
21 trolley station is going to go, what's the alignment
22 going to be like for that, can MTDB run their trolleys
23 on that, and then we designed the rest of the villages
24 around those two stations. The MTDB required 25 feet
25 of right of way for their trolleys, and we have an
13
1 additional six feet on either side for our
2 landscaping, So even when the trolley goes in, we
3 will have a landscaping strip between the travel way
4 and the trolley right of way,
5 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: You mentioned earlier about a
6 mindset for the trolley or bus. Are you planning on
7 paving that in there and having that be the bus
8 travel?
9 MR, ROSALER: In village 1 we did that, We
10 paved the turnouts for the buses to pull into that
11 area of the trolley, This area will be signed to
12 indicate that the trolley will run through there, One
13 of our future nightmares that we have envisioned is
14 that there will be the "Save the Median" campaign when
15 the trolley actually does get built , but we are making
16 sure that every resident who buys into the Otay Ranch
17 understands in the disclosures there will be a trolley
18 that will be coming through the two villages, and it
19 will be in the Palomar right of way.
20 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: What's planted there now?
21 What's that vegetation?
22 MR, ROSALER: Basically we have agapanthus and
23 Indian hawthorn,
24 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: Okay.
25 MR, ROSALER: This is the village 5 core plan.
14
1 Again, here's Palomar, This is La Media. The shot
2 that you just saw was looking this way. We come into
3 Village 5, Here's the trolley station next to the
4 town square park. Here's the multifamily site with
5 the ground floor commercial across from that. You see
6 the church site here, the school up here, and our park
7 over here_
B We have -- We reserved pedestrian corridor
9 through the multifamily project to connect this park
10 with the town square park and then through the CPF and
11 school and park site and further up between the two
12 projects, This trail also connects to the regional
13 trail that runs in Poggi Canyon along Olympic Parkway.
14 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: That IO-acre school site is
15 for elementary?
16 MR, RQSALER: Yes, it is. Each village has its
17 own elementary school. elementary school site.
1B One of the things that happened when we had the
19 breakup of the Ranch is that there are now, as you've
20 seen, a multitude of o'...rners. Each one of those owners
21 has a different u have different priorities and goals
22 for their property. The McMillin Company wants to
23 move ahead with the planning of the rest of their
24 property, which includes Villages 6 and 7 and the
25 Eastern Urban Center and the freeway commercial.
15
1 Out of the bankruptcy, a group called New
2 Millennium now owns Village 1L They want to move
3 ahead with the planning of their village, so we are
. now looking at SPA plans or specific plans for
5 Villages 6, 7. 11, and the preplanning area 12 which
6 has the freeway commercial and the Eastern Urban
7 Center.
8 McMillin Companies have gone out and are hiring
9 a marketing consultant to look at the uses that were
10 approved in the GDP and try and decide if those are
11 the appropriate uses now for the Eastern Urban Center.
12 We on the staff are maintaining that a lot of
13 time and effort went into deciding what the Eastern
" Urban Center was going to look like, It's a very
15 important part of the Ranch, It's important to the
16 city and to the county because the property tax and
17 sales tax that comes out of the Eastern Urban Center
18 is what drives or supports the Ranch and is part of
19 the property tax agreement between the city and the
20 county.
21 COMMISSIONER BECK: Are they prQPosing to amend
22 the GDP?
23 MR~ ROSALER: Yes.
24 COMMISSIONER BECK: And:chàngethé: use?
25 MR; ROS1\.'LER.: NotsoffiDch'change the. use, but
16
1
2
3 tlj"ê
4
5
6
7
8 fhe:'ptarÌriiii'g ~öÌriÌï{j.$sfoiijÇ:'thê';
9 þ'rocess'è'd
10 MR:: ROSALEif: get :'~::;çóPY':
11 COMM:ÙfsfoNÈR BECK: N'¿'t,f'9rin~,ii'yF-btit :do' we
12 even get notice of that?
13 MR. ROSÂLER: dh; yé'~h,t; jkTb:e"'ågi'~éIl1èÌ1t'áríd
14 thè way that fhëprocess isworkirig< rþjht now is you
15 ~J;"e 'd ';;:""yby" respon,d iÚivixÓnmei1fäJ impact
16 re,~pÓri:Sibië','aqêri'l:::¥¡,,"i(~4~ we>Sèl1d
17 these affieridffiënts to you, and hàve::,b¢eri, cöord:ipating
18 with your staff to téllthem whàt'sgoing on as far as
19 the GDPis concerned, arid then it's up to the county
20 to decide whether the SRP needs to be amended.
21 COMMISSIONER BECK: Discretiònary action is
22 all in Chula Vista on these issues?
23 MR; ROSALER: Yes.
24 CO~ISSIONER BECK: We 11 ,au\éhdingtheGDP,
25 which was a combined agreement between the county and
17
1
2 t¢.'3p¿)~'5 ibl~
3
4 have?
5 Okâyi
6 MR, ROSALER: This is a composite that shows the
7 next SPA plans for Villages 6, 7, the freeway
8 commercial area and the Eastern Urban Center. One of
9 the things that we have looked at is -- is the
10 extension of Eastlake parkway to make it the eastern
11 boundary of the Eve and the freeway commercial, That
12 change expands the freeway commercial slightly and
13 shrinks the Eastern Urban Center slightly,
14 You can see that here's the alignment coming out
15 of Village 5 of the trolley. It comes into Village 6,
16 And there's the town square station. There's a
17 station in the freeway commercial with a park~and-ride
18 facili ty. And then in talking to Metropolitan Transit
19 Development Board, we believe that there's sufficient
20 densit ies and intensities of uses in the Eastern Urban
21 Center that there probably is a need for two stations
22 within the EUC, and 50 we're planning on two stations
23 here now.1 r<~-~-~~-~~1
Comment: Does 110t answer G.~.estion
24 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Pardon me. I'd like to go
25 båck to what Conurtissioner Beck had allUded" to, and I'm
18
1
2
3
4
5 êðJ(chåÍi'g~<i tsrilind aildåC:'c,ëÞfthroqg,tl '¡i:"äì~crèJiJ()ôå:£y
6 acti9h. sénhethirig: diffèréritthariwha,t h~d:':.~jj:":'ågi€ieß
7 tQ ìáitìally~
8 MR,_ ROSALER: Tha t ~S tiue. The <;Jfy<of Chula
9 Vista :ii'> an incorporated city that has itsoWh rights
10 arid abilities to plan -":'1 Comment: No<"", '" GOP & CA})
11 Sure; butevêh 'though the Ph", 1 policy S 7 (m1 IÞrí"
CHAIRMAN BROOKS: ÅTTkt~) .
12 structure was. mádeån agreement with the ci ty and the
13 cq'tmty,,>t;:hat strü¢t:Ure could be und~f1I\triéd?
14 MR. RÓSALER: ifèol1.1d' eXGept that, we are still
15 joined togetherori severalissues~ Thé city and the
16 county currently is the preserve owner-mänager for the
17 preserve, and we have to ~- we,are accepting preserve
lands together.[ There are ritiroero~s i~sl},e~_J~ð:t__!,e --,.-._-~-----
18 Comment Not true, county did nOI
acceptpreS<:TVt: lands_Page6 ofSl3ff
19 coordinate with your staff on a daily basis on the Report
20 preserve, on open space, on the development of each 12<1- . :BolT "'B1I
krTÆc~
21 area. But ~-
22 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: MSCP and so forth ~~
23 MR, ROSALER: MSC~ and all is'partof that.
24 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Okay. I'm sorry. I just --
25 MR. ROSALER: I understand.
19
1 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: How long have you been with
2 the city?
3 MR, ROSALER: I came on board with the city
4 right after the GDP was adopted,
5 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: I've dealt with the City of
6 Chula Vista since the '70s, I was the chief architect
7 for Pacific Bell when we put that Apache Building out
8 there
9 MR, ROSALER: Sure,
10 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Nothing else '....as there,
11 MR, ROSALER: That's true.
12 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: What I had to do in those days
13 in terms of that whole intersection, and out of the
14 whole southern California -- I don't -- I go on record
15 as saying that Chula Vista was one of the Toughest
16 communities that I have ever dealt with in the whole
17 half of California, and I dealt with 12 counties and
18 all the municipalities in those counties. I'm just
19 venting. I'm sorry. (Laughter)
20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's actually been
21 building up for seven years. (Laughter)
22 CHAIRMAN BROOKS, Since the . 7 Os.
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ML Chairman, if I could
24 tag on u
25 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Yes,
20
1 COMMISSIONER BECK: I remember very well
2 supervisor then Brian Bilbray, now Congressman, say ing
3 that this thing was set in concrete, and that because
4 owners would change and so forth nothing ~- the plan
5 would not change. Now, T hear that, you know I that
6 this one entity has authority to make changes wi thout
7 the other entity, the county, really having a say in
8 it any longer, It disturbs me,
9 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Well, we were practically
10 assured by the board, now, this plan was set.
n COMMISSIONER BECK: It was a long time ago.
12 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: I know you haven't said it's
13 going to change, but, you know, there's indication
14 that someone is asking for change.
15 !1R, ROSALER: As far as I blOW'; and: there is
16 nothing in any of the planning documents or agxéernents
17 that lock the county and the ci ty together in the
18 approval process of subsequent amendments. There is
19 joint cooperation that goes on between the staffs
20 right now, and we continue to work together. We have
21 not had any unresolved issues to come up between the
22 amendments,
23 A lot of the amendments that we're working on in
24 the implementation of the project come about because
25 we have to deal with Federal and state agencies. The
21
1 discussions that have gone on with the fish and
2 wildlife and fish and game have caused some of the
3 amendments that we have talked about, and we have
4 worked those out between -- at the staff level.
5 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Those are expected and
6 ant icipated, I think, but it's the others from
7 ownerships that want to change the basic concept --
8 MR, ROSALER; No, let me assure you that the
9 basic concept, the village concept ¡ the concept of the
10 Eastern Urban Center, the planning of the villages has
11 not changed.
12 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: What about densities changing
13 and so forth?
I. MR, ROSALER: The densities --
15 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Weren't some scheduled to be
16 high densities and low densities?
17 MR, ROSALER: Yes, All of those have been
18 maintained in the planning --
19 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Thus far, but they can be
20 changed.
21 MR, ROSALER: They could be, but they would
22 Say we took out the -- multifamily out of Village 6,
23 We couldn't -- we probably wouldn't have sufficient
24 densities to support --
25 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: It wouldn't hardly go that
22
1 away; it would go the other way, probably, take out
2 the single family
3 MR, ROSALER; There is sufficient multifamily
4 densities in each one of these villages that the city
5 has accepted, and we u we've kind of gotten hammered
6 on that because when SANDAG did their regional housing
7 allocation, the City of Chula Vista, because of the
8 planning that was done on the ütay Ranch, received a
9 larger allocation of the region's fair-share housing,
10 and we complained about that, Up in North County the
11 allocation for affordable housing went down, and it
12 increased in Chula Vista because of planning that was
13 done on the ütay Ranch.
14 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Okay, and thank you for
15 indulging us in our venting, \'Ie re going to have to
16 move it along because we're going to lose some of the
17 commissioners. But just some things that you said,
18 you see it kind of disturbed, triggered us --
19 MR, ROSALER: I understand.
20 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: And you can take that back
21 with you.
22 MR, ROSALER: I understand.
23 Quickly, to go through the rest of the slides,
24 one of the issues that the city has continued to work
25 on is the university, and we are working with the
23
1 property owners, the three property owners that now
2 control the university site, to get that land
3 dedicated to us, We have resolved this boundary with
4 the wildlife agencies on the developable area and the
5 preserve area of the university,
6 We have a letter of understanding with New
7 Millennium, and at the end of their SPA planning
8 process we will receive 130 acres of developable
9 university and about 500 acres of Salt Creek for the
10 preserve as part of this agreement, We continue to
11 work with the Gtay Land Company and Jewels of Charity,
12 who are the other two property owners in the
13 university site.
14 Olympic Parkway, hopefully we will begin grading
15 in -- next month. You will note that the county
16 received $300,000 for allowing the city to borrow part
17 of the five percent for the CSS loss, and we have a
18 couple more slides on this.
19 Number one, here's the construction of Olympic
20 Parkway from Brandywine, This is Paseo Ranchero.
21 Here is Village "- This is La Media. And this is
22 where Palomar comes in, This is Village 5 up here.
23 And vi llage 6, And then this is the future alignment
24 of SR 125,
25 The project will be built in three phases, and
24
1 by spring of 2002 Olympic Parkway to SR 125 will be
2 open.
3 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: 125 will be open then --
4 MR, ROSALER: Shortly after that, We believe
5 that SR 125 now will be open in 2003, but we are
6 coordinating the interchange with California
7 Transportation Ventures.
8 Our MSCP program, the draft is almost finished.
9 We anticipate that the council will approve it by the
10 end of the year and we will have it into the wildlife
11 agencies for their approval at the beginning of next
12 year and by spring, hopefully, of next year the City
13 of Chula Vista will have an adopted MSCP program.
14 MR, KINGERY; This is where we start back on
15 some of the county issues, As you know, the county
16 used to own ütay Landfill. It's now gone to a private
17 party, and they want to build it up about 245 feet
18 taller. The draft EIR has been completed, and public
19 review and the final EIR is in preparation now. I
20 understand that there will be a planning commission
21 hearing in the spring of 2000 on this issue,
22 The Gtay Valley Regional Park is another effort
23 that we're working on cooperatively with the city and
24 with the city of San Diego. It is over 8,000 acres,
25 about 11 miles long, and it doesn't preclude private
25
1 development along its length, according to my
2 informant. This is the location of the park lands
3 relative to the south bay, which is shown on the left.
4 And then Gtay Ranch over on the right hand of the dark
5 area for the park, It doesn't change existing zoning
6 land use or new development -- or add new development
7 regulations, but it does provide policy direction for
8 coordinated park land acquisition and development.
9 The goals of the regional park are to provide a mix of
10 active and passive recreational activities to protect
11 environmentally sensitive areas, and to protect
12 cultural and scenic resources and encourage
13 agricultural uses there.
14 Another issue that's coming up is the need to
15 revise the preserve conveyance plan by which the
16 preserve lands are conveyed to an owner-manager as a
17 result -- during the development process. As
18 development approval s are given, each deve loper has to
19 convey or dedicate certain lands within the preserve
20 in order to build that preserve. It's being revised
21 at this time in order to address the fragmentation of
22 ownership that we showed you earlier.
23 One major feature is that we're identifying
24 these areas in dark green for the initial conveyance
25 where the initial conveyances need to be made. Those
26
1 are areas that are identified as part of the Otay
2 planning process as the most important, most sensitive
3 areas of the open space, the so-called keystone lands
4 in the plan.
5 There have already been some dedications or some
6 irrevocable offers of dedication on the areas that are
7 shown in orange here, totaling about 720 acres. This
8 is the result of development that's occurred in the
9 City of Chula Vista.
10 MR, ROSALER: If I could real quickly, the other
11 day in the paper there was out on Carmel Mountain
12 there was the dedication of 10 acres, and everybody
13 was making a big deal of it. Currently the City of
14 Chula Vista and the County of San Diego have control
15 over 700 acres of the Otay Ranch preserve, and nobody
16 knows about it yet, so I think we need to do something
17 about that and let folks know that the preserve is
18 being implemented as development occurs on the Ranch.
19 MR KINGERY, We hope to come back to you later
20 in the year with these proposed revisions, We're
21 still working on some aspects of them, but it, again,
22 to emphasize, it has been the joint effort of the city
23 and the county which have been designated or
24 identified as the preserve owner-manager at this time.
25 Here are some of the lands that have been
27
1 conveyed -- yes, ma'am.
2 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: I have a quick question,
3 On the preserve, when those are granted, if that's the
4 right term, to the managing bodies, are they granted
5 with certain funds to handle in perpetuity whatever
6 management needs to be done on those?
7 MR, KINGERY: Yes, Commissioner Fritz, through
8 the chair, there are -- in the plan it says that you
9 will set aside certain amounts of funds for the
10 maintenance of the lands. For -- until they're taken
11 over by the preserve owner-manager. After that time
12 the preserve owner-manager will have a source of
13 funds. I believe the City of Chula Vista has set up
14 an assessment district to bring those funds in, and
15 the county is anticipating doing that later.
16 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: And those assessed are only
17 within the development that we're looking at?
18 MR, ROSALER: Yes. The city set up a Mella Roos
19 district in the Otay Ranch Company in McMillin's
20 ownership, Each home within the Ranch generally pays
21 about $25 a year to the preserve. We have taken
22 irrevocable offers of dedication on the preserve land
23 until that time when the preserve district has
24 sufficient funds in it to do the maintenance and
25 monitoring that's required. Property owners are
28
1 currently required through our supplemental
2 subdivision agreements to maintain the land until the
3 city and the county accept the rODs.
4 MR, KINGERY: These are some of the lands that
5 have been conveyed to date. We have many mOTe
6 pictures but we won't show them right now.
7 Another activity that's going on is that the
8 owners of Village 14, Otay Land Company and Home Fed
9 Corp. have filed an application to amend the
10 subregional plan to allow cultural resource surveys to
11 be done by ownership. We expect that we will bring
12 that back to you in early November to talk about it.
13 And then after that, there will be a subsequent
14 application for a specific plan, the actual
15 development plan for that area.
16 McMillin Companies, who owns Village 15, shown
17 with the orange dot, has also filed an application to
18 amend the subregional plan in the same way to allow
19 cultural resource surveys by ownership to allow Ear
20 specific plan preparation by ownership, to provide for
21 lot averaging and to remove the phasing plan timing
22 restrictions that exist on the eastern parts of the
23 Ranch, They would like to develop a little bit sooner
24 in the sequence than was originally planned,
2S COMMISSIONER BECK: If I could interrupt. And I
29
1 have to apologize because I'm going to have to leave.
2 But when you showed your second slide, and it showed
3 Village 15 as approved by the board in Chula Vista and
4 now you're report on this project actually moving
5 forward, it' 5, I think, not insignificant to note that
6 if this area gets developed as you have it on this map
7 and the other map that I saw, it's inconsistent with
8 the county's subarea plan.
9 Furthermore, the gnat catcher, the primary focus
10 of the whole MSCP is not covered in the city of San
11 Diego. That's how critical this area is, and I
12 really n because I've been involved with this thing
13 for a long time, it really makes me shutter to see
14 these conflicting land use and regulatory policies
15 kind of moving on different tracks, giving different
16 impressions to different people who happen to be
17 seeing the presentation, but I think that there's a
18 real significant conflict with this Village 15, and
19 have it represented as something tha t ' s actually
20 moving forward with amendments at this time and so on
21 is I think pretty problematic,
22 MR, ROSALER: The GDP SRP for Village 15 is
23 consistent as approved by the board of super,¡isors and
24 our city council. It did show development rights.
25 That was never n everyone understûnds that was never
30
1 accepted by the wildlife agency and is still an
2 outstanding issue with those u
3 COMMISSIONER BECK: I guess that's the point I'm
4 making, It's inconsistent with the county's subarea
5 plan. It will be inconsistent with the City of Chula
6 Vista's subarea plan. and it is inconsistent even with
7 the city of San Diego's coverage for the gnatcatcher,
8 So I'm just maybe as a tag onto these presentations
9 that could be noted, there is significant conflict.
10 MR, ROSALER: There is a problem there, yes.
11 COMMISSIONER BECK: And I have one more
12 question, and then I'm going to have to leave, I
13 really appreciate the way you have set this up; and if
14 we had more time, we could be jotting notes and so on,
15 I wonder if it would be possible for me to get copies
16 of some of these in an 8 1/2 by 11 format,
17 MR, KINGERY, Yes, Commissioner Beck,
18 COMMISSIONER BECK, So I could just kind of
19 mark them and give them to Cheryl?
20 MR, KINGERY: Are there any particular ones that
21 you would like --
22 COMMISSIONER BECK: I actually marked them, and
23 I will give them to Cheryl.
24 MR, KINGERY, We will put those together.
25 COMMISSIONER BECK: Thank you very much_
31
1 MR, KINGERY: Just for your information, though,
2 the second slide does talk about the major amendment
3 requirement by the -- for the MSCP program. So we're
4 not -- we're not playing that this is a slam dunk.
S We're simply saying that the owners would like to move
6 forward, They're applying, and we're simply saying
7 there's going to be a problem. We all recognize that.
8 COMMISSIONER BECK: Thank you.
9 MR, ROSALER: Also, this is a u
10 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: We can continue, but we have
11 lost our quorum, and that should be noted,
12 MR, KINGERY: There is going to be no vote on
13 this, as I understand it. So this simply shows some
14 of the area of Village 15 that Commissioner Beck was
15 just talking about, a view to the northwest along the
16 eastern arm of Gtay Lake, A little bit farther north
17 towards the Jamul mountains and a little farther
18 northeast there. It's a beautiful piece of land.
19 Village 13 is the area just north of the eastern
20 arm of ütay Lake, and no application has been received
21 for that at this time, but we expect that one will
22 come forward in the near future,
23 A final thing that we need to talk about is the
24 changing of the general plan to incorporate the MSCP
25 agreements that are part of the MSCP program. There
32
1 were a number of places where additional development
2 rights were granted. These are these orange dots.
3 And in the blue dots are sho'.-m areas where additional
4 preserve area, open space was provided that was
5 previously going to be developed. As I understand it,
6 there is more area by 107 acres, I think, 107 acres
7 more of open space added compared to the amount of
B development area that's been added. The applicant --
9 an applicant has filed for agreement for change here,
10 but that needs to be amended as with all the recent
11 discussions. So we hope that will go forward in the
12 near future as well,
13 That's all we have.
14 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Okay. I would like to
15 interject here to the record: What route would you
16 recommend we take on this since we lost our quorum?
17 Should we maybe continue this and there is one speaker
18 from the public, actuiJ.l1y representing one of the
19 companies,
20 MR, KINGERY: Me Chairman, there's no action
21 required. You could take the public testimony, and
22 then all the commissioners who <ire absent would have
23 to listen to the tape if there is going to be any
2' subsequent action so it would be a matter of record.
25 You could, if you wish, go ahead and just continue
33
1 this to your next agenda item and then close at that
2 time. Or you in fact could close your hearing --
3 CHAIRMAN BROOKS:
4
5
6 MR. KINGERY: TH~ie::.'iš,\o'Q ····ci'¿tiònLieqÚl:h{cL This
7 is a status report.
8 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Okay,
9 Commission Kreitzer.
10 COMMISSIONER KREITZER: Can you tell me when --
11 or wha t the number of units is that will be built
12 before the trolley is required to go in? Remember,
13 there was a number where the trolley they would
14 have to stop issuing permits until the trolley came
15 in. Do you know what that number is?
16 MR, ROSALER: There is a threshold for the
17 trolley. I believe I believe it's like a million
18 square feet -- that's not right
19 COMMISSIONER KREITZER: I've got it in my attic,
20 and 1 'd have to go into boxes and dig it out.
21 MR, ROSALER: If I had my GDP in front of me I
22 could tell you in two seconds, but there is a
23 threshold.
24 COMMISSIONER KREITZER: Are you anywhere near
2S that yet? Or is this --
34
1 MR, ROSALER: No,
2 COMMISSIONER KREITZER: Or is that several years
3 down the road?
4 MR, ROSALER: No. it will take development of
5 three or four of the villages before we come close to
6 that threshold.
7 COMMISSIONER KREITZER: And what is the prospect
8 now that the transit district is going to somehow find
9 the money or somebody is going to find the money to
10 bring the trolley in from the current lines. It's
11 going to be expensive, as we all know,
12 MR. ROSALER: It is on their plan for the South
13 Bay loop, We have talked to them about initiating
14 that process to get it into the funding cycle. One of
15 the workcasts that the City of chula Vista planning
16 department has thi s year is to continue to work with
17 MTDB to raise that issue up and get that funding cycle
18 started. So we're trying to push them as much as we
19 can to start that process.
20 One of the ideas that came up the other night in
21 one of our planning commission meetings was perhaps it
22 would be best for the city and the county to work
23 together to get the trolley line established on the
24 mesa wi th the City of San Diego and get in the
25 industrial area and then have it move north across the
35
1 ütay river valley into the Eastern Urban Center, and
2 maybe that should be the initial link of the trolley
3 to provide the jobs-to-home ratio than trying to
4 extend it from Interstate 5,
5 COMMISSIONER KREITZER: Well, that's -- you
6 know, to me this was the thrust of the whole project,
7 was to have public transit through the heart of the
8 communi ty, and that's --
9 MR, ROSALER: We take it very seriously. As I
10 said the first questions that we answered in the
11 design of the two villages was the alignment of the
12 trolley, and now that we're moving into 6, 7, and the
13 Eastern Urban Center, we're making sure that the
14 alignment cross ing over SR 125 meets all MTDB
15 standards and that we don't erect any barriers that
16 can I t be crossed.
17 COMMISSIONER KREITZER: okay,
18 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Commissioner Fritz.
19 COMMISSIONER FRITZ, Well, I'm echoing what
20 Commissioner Beck said about this report. Was this
21 prepared by staff, Mr, Kingery?
22 MR, KINGERY, Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: I'm dazzled. I'm dazzled,
24 MR, KINGERY: Thank you,
25 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: If we could have -- I mean,
36
1 this is going to set a presentation threshold for
2 every future applicant.
3 Another question T had is: Do you do these
4 presentations often, or will you do it again? I would
5 certainly like to bring somebody down from Valley
6 Center as an audience to say "Hey, never question, you
7 know, that comprehensive planning can be done," I'm a
8 new commissioner, so I didn't have the opportunity to
9 see your early stages of this, just what I read in the
10 newspaper. Are you going to do these presentations
11 again somewhere? Ever?
12 MR, KINGERY, It hasn't been planned, but
13 certainly if you requested we certainly could do it
14 again
15 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: What I was asking is I
16 would like to bring somebody ,- you know, to piggyback
17 down in the audience to watch it. It's a wonderful
18 presentation.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: With updates, too,
20 anyway.
21 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: This is just excellent.
22 MR, KINGERY: Ralph spent a lot of time working
23 on this, and we had some technological glitches in
24 trying to transfer information back and forth through
25 e-mail, but we resolved those by 5:00 o'clock last
37
1 night and --
2 u~IDENTIFIED SPEAKER; Just in the nick of time.
3 MR, KINGERY: Got the presentation pulled
4 together. I think your staff has worked very hard on
5 this for a while to pull this together, and we're
6 happy to come and participate.
7 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: Thank you.
8 [tape recording ended - inaudible]
9 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: Manny? ah boy,
10 K-I-L-L-A--
11 MR KILKENNY: Me Chairman, my apologies. My
12 handwriting is atrocious and getting worse with each
13 passing year. It's Kilkenny, K-I-L-K-E-N-N-Y,
14 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Oh, K-E'N. Okay. So it
15 wasn't just my pronunciation. I was looking at t'ÑO
16 L's, Thank you.
17 MR. KILKENNY: Me Chairman, members of the
18 Commission, my name is Kim Kilkenny. I'm with the
19 Otay Ranch^Company. It has been my privilege and, I
20 guess, pain to have .....orked on this project for the
21 last ten years, Actually one month shy of ten years,
22 1 worked with the predecessor in interest when they
23 had control of all 23,000 acres, I worked with their
24 successor, now the Otay Ranch Company, where we have
25 control of 6,000 acres on Dtay Ranch, and we're in the
38
1 process of developing Village 1 and Village 5.
2 The materials that I just passed out are
3 essentially the press kit we use with respect to Otay
4 Ranch for the many inquiries we have on how we are
5 progressing on the project, I have included my
6 business card on the cover of that, and any
7 commissioners or staff that would like a tOUT of the
8 project or further information of the project to bring
9 your friends down, anybody, we welcome the opportunity
10 to talk about Otay Ranch and what is being built,
11 After having worked on the project for a decade
12 and having made a lot of promi ses to the county, the
13 board of superv i sors, Chula Vista Planning Commission,
14 Chula Vista City Council, and a variety of other
15 folks, I was very concerned about our ability to
16 perform when it came to build the project, especially
17 after suffering a six-year recession that was
18 devastating for a lot of the parties involved in Otay
19 Ranch.
20 I'm pleased to report that I'm exceedingly proud
21 of what we have been able to build. Working with the
22 City of Chula Vista on a specific plan and tentative
23 map and facility plans, I think I can say with a good
24 deal of pride that we have I think set a new standard
25 in terms of how suburban development can happen. We
39
1 are building a pedestrian-friendly community that is
2 oriented around transit,
3 I know that Commissioner Beck pointed out one of
4 the homes, saying that was not particularly indicative
5 of how you minimize garages. If you go out 00 the
6 site, I think people will be very pleased with the
7 streetscape that has been created in ütay Ranch. It
8 is different. OUr streets are more narrow. We have
9 parkways I we have enhanced landscaping, We have
10 paseos,
11 Hopefully we will be starting on construction of
12 an extraordinary park here in a couple months. First
13 a ll'ðcre park, and in the fall we're going to be
14 building a school in the heart of the communi ty,
15 We're in negotiations now with office complexes to go
16 into our village core. So I'm very pleased in terms
17 of the village, what has happened.
18 I think I'm even more proud Hl terms of
19 environmEmtal preservation, what has happened, Out of
20 the 10,000 acres of Otay Ranch that can be built,
21 there's over 12,000 acres that are going to be
22 preserved in open space. The vast majority of it,
23 11,375 acres, are going to be open space that is
24 dedicated to a public entity.
25 Asnöted in the presentation, that dedicåtióriof
40
1 open'spàcè':j'(~5;'::,iltiêå{fy dC'ctÌri:'Ëi4'/ we':tiåv~:dedîc:åted
2 Comment: Not the land n:quixed by the
RMPPhaseIl
3 coastal sage scrub, The market value of that property
4 is well over $5 million, As the staff indicated,
5 there's been virtually no public acknowledgement of
6 that, but I defy any jurisdiction, any property owner
7 anywhere to have dedicated that amount of land for
8 public use in terms of a preserve,
9 Àrid we. håve 'ctone that:;',ih spi té of the ,'{act asct
10 today w~hâve,riöt graded'a,single blade of sensitive
11 grass ânywhere in Otay Ranch~ We haveorily graded
12 wheat fiel'çls;L and ~~__h~Y_~. }!.~.r_e~9,¥. c_o_n~~Y,~~',?()~J _~C:~,~_s Comment: This is part of the
a:rguemenl to change lbe DEAL after the
13 of open space të/a.preseive; f3et
14 In addition to this, as staff has indicated, we
15 have a funding program to maintain that preserve
16 forever, we have a funding program in place to do
17 biota monitoring for Dtay Ranch forever. This is the
18 only project, especially of this scale, that has
19 solved all the MSCP challenges that every other
20 jurisdiction, including the county, are trying to deal
21 with, How do you acquire the preserve land, how do
22 you pay for its maintenance, how do you manage it, how
23 do you ensure that you achieve the biological
24 standards, And we exceed the biological standards in
25 the MSCP, which is also an important footnote.
41
1 V.ei§ þle'à$'¢',d' ä'ñdc:'r)1:.Ôµ~·:·<?f.'wh'ãt-:,·we}i~V·ê
2 done ·in te_ÙIIs:.O{"þ're'servè' de:·s,ign" in terms of village
3 design. And staff indicated relative to trying to
4 build Olympic Parkway, Olympic Parkway is a 60, 70
5 million dollar roadway that we and the McMillin
6 Company have entered into an agreement with the City
7 of Chula Vista to build it in advance of need, and we
8 hopefully will get permits in the very near future to
9 be able to start construction. We already have a
10 design, we already have a contract, we actually want
11 to get out there and build that road immediately.
12 That is typicaL of the' próçess that,Chula Vistð
13 and thege:nerál plaq ei>tablished,''awÍ101e s~ries of
14 thrésh6ids; thescho(Ü'š';-:'I?ar)Si,:çôads·hà.ve; to be bûilt
15 coricurréntwi th or in. advance of need¡and if you
16 don't, they shut you·dOwn, And those are the rules in
17 ChuLi Vista, those are the rules under theOtay Ranch
18 plan,
19 So that's the material. I just want to tell you
20 our perspective on the project, We're very pleased,
21 we're very proud of it; and if anybody would like to
22 take a tour of it, I'm anxious to do that for you and
23 anxious to answer any questions if you have those
24 today
25 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Any questions?
42
1 Thank you, ML Kilkenny.
2 Commissioners, this closes our public testimony,
3 I would like to personally thank you for your
4 presentat ion, and I want to reiterate, re-emphasize
5 the concerns that we have after many of my colleagues
6 worked many, many hours over many years in get t ing
7 certain agreements that we thought were in place, and
B it's kind of disheartening to find out that some of
9 the things we thought were in place were not. But
10 it's encouraging that there seems to be a -- you
11 represent the kind of people we're dealing with in
12 Chula Vista that some of those concerns are still your
13 concerns, and we appreciate that attitude, and hope
14 you can go forward and do whatever it takes to
15 influence those in power to maintain that same
16 attitude because a lot of work was gone into putting
17 this together in such a way that it benefits all ,
18 MR, ROSAIÆR ; ML Chairman, just let me say that
19 because of that hard work that both the County
20 Planning Commission and our commission and your board
21 and our council put in, we have been able to maintain
22 a lot of the things that -- and the concepts.
23 We're under pressure by the development
24 community to change those, and I have able on several
25 occasions to say no, the City Council and the board of
43
1 supervisors and our planning commissions decided this
2 how it's going to be, that's what the plan is, the
3 plan is the plan, and that's what you need to
4 implement, and they have gone away and done it. Not
5 the Otay Ranch Company, but others involved in the
6 implementation of the project. Our counci 1 is
7 committed to the Otay Ranch plan, and that message has
8 come through to several developers loud and clear, and
9 Qur council is fully committed to the concepts -- to
10 that plan,
11 Now, there have been some minor amendments to
12 adjust things as we go along, but the overall concept
13 tha t you folks approved is what's being implemented in
14 the City of Chula Vista.
15 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Thank you. And again, my
16 fears--and I don't mind stating them--that councils
17 and supervisors do change and we get new ones in which
18 have a whole different agenda. So thanks for being
19 there_
20 COMMISSIONER FRITZ: I appreciate the era of
21 collegiality and also on behalf of the Ranch
22 management and recognize that everybody in the real
23 estate development industry understands that there are
24 peaks and valleys, Nevertheless, those valleys at
25 times seem broad and endless, and it's tough to hold
44
1 your faith. And then when you have a period now where
2 it's certainly brighter, much brighter, but I
3 appreciate you keeping the faith and working with the
4 jurisdictions. Something that you all can be very
5 proud ever. Point this out to your grandkids.
6 CHAIRMAN BROOKS: Thank you. So this in effect
7 closes Item No, 6, And again, we t hank you.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
45
I £:x: ~'biT \JÁ. \t
I Chapler 3 Goals, Objectives, Policies oj Ihe RMP
I be the preferable approach to achieve the goal of establishing a
I functioning, manageable preserve,]
8) Applicable State and Federal regulations regarding protection of
I sensitive habitat and species shall be followed,
) ~ Policy 5. 7 ~)
I Any change in the order of conveyance shall be considered only during the review and ,
approval process for a SPA, and shaH not require a General Plan Amendment. The ì
jurisdiction processing the SPA shall advise and consult with the other agency before \
I approval of a change in order of conveyance. However, any change in the order of (
conveyance is subject to joint approval by the City of Chula Vista and County of San
\.
I Diego, if the land under consideration for conveyance is in a different jurisdiction than \
,
\
I
the SPA under consideration. / /
I /
I Policy 5.8
Changes in land ownership resulting from the sale or transfer of ownership of any SPA
I shaH not affect the conveyance of land to the Preserve.
I Standard: The development of any viHage or SPA, even if conveyed to a third
party, shaH be accompanied by the conveyance of the appropriate parcel to the
J Preserve. To the extent that conveyance of a specific parcel of land is required,
it shaH be a condition of approval for the first Tentative Map of that SPA.
I Guidelines: If the landowner seHs a specific viHage or SPA to a third party, the
I portion of the Preserve associated with that village can be conveyed to the
Preserve at the time of sale or as a condition of approval of the first Tentative
I Map for that viHage or SPA-
I - 98-
~
8-6 - Ç¡( ~1?\f "ß>'
SUBJECT: aT A Y RAÑ~H CONVEYANCE PLAN REVISluNS, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 00-0 I (2) (District: I, 2)
incorporated Plan amendments approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 6, 1996,
including:
· Requiring the conveyance of open space in fee title at the recordation of each Final Map;
· Requiring that the subdivider execute a maintenance agreement committing the subdivider to
maintain the conveyance parcel in its current and natural state until the paM can assume
maintenance responsibilities;
· Directing that an in-lieu fee program be investigated as an alternative to land conveyance;
· Restricting applicability of the Conveyance Plan to SP A One, until further amendments to the
Plan are incorporated and approved by the County and City.
However, the document approved by the City of Chula Vista also includes several additions to
the RMP, Phase 2 that were not reviewed or approved by the Board, including:
· The use of casements as an optional open space conveyance method;
· Replacement of the Conveyance Plan map(s);
· Preparation of specific language regarding in-lieu fees.
In March of 1997, the City ofChula Vista annexed Villages I and 5 (SPA One) and therefore
gained land use jurisdiction over these villages.
On June 9, 1998, the City of Chula Vista City Council adopted the Fifth Addendum to the Final
Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 95-01) for the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and
approved an amendment to the Otay Ranch RMP, Phase 2 expanding the Initial Conveyance
Area Map to include the additional parcels,
After expanding the Preserve Initial Conveyance Area Map to include the additional parcels, the
City of Chula Vista approved several development projects within the villages under its
jurisdiction, including Village I. Approval of Village 1 would have required the conveyance of
land in the SPA One Conveyance Plan area as approved by the Board of Supervisors. However,
the City of Chula Vista allowed the property owner instead to convey mitigation land in Village
13, now within the City of Chula Vista expanded conveyance area, even though it did not
confonn to the conveyance plan adopted by the Board in 1996,
Chula Vista has addressed the conveyance issue by requiring the property owners to record \,
Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (lODs) to the benefit of the City and the County of San Diego. "
',-
The lands covered by these laDs are approximately 1,800 acres and generally have been located "
within the unincorporated area of the Otay Ranch Preserve, ,!'Ieither the County nor City of /
,Çhula Vista have accepted these IODs, It is anticipated that the timing of IOD acceptance and
related management funding issues will be addressed when the paM meets in the near future,
/
Most recently, the City of Chula Vista infonned the County that the City was no longer accepting
laDs for land not located within the County-adopted Conveyance Plan area as mitigation for
- 6-