Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/06/30 AGENDA JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 3:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1993 CITY OF CHULA VISTA PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 I. ROLL CALL . Tim Nader, Mayor City of Chula Vista . Brian Bilbray, 1st District County Board of Supervisors II. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may address the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council on any subject matter under the jurisdiction of either the Board of Supervisors or City Council not otherwise on this agenda. However, pursuant to the Brown Act, no action can be taken by the Board of Supervisors or City Council on such an item not listed on the agenda. III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - OTAY RANCH During the public hearing, the County Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council will deliberate on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and the Otay Ranch Project. It is anticipated that the public hearing will be continued to the Joint Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council hearing of July 12, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the County Administration Center Board Chambers - Room 310. IV. ADJOURNMENT . Chula Vista City Council to its regular meeting on July 13, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. . County Board of Supervisors to its meeting on July 12, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. at the County Administration Center. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) - The Otay Ranch Project Office, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, request individuals who require special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Otay Ranch Project Office for information or your request at (619) 422-7157. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired. tables:\bofsagnd.ajl 6/19/93 MINlITES OF A JOINT MEETING OF TIlE CllY OF CHULA VISTA CllY COUNCIL AND TIlE COUNlY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Wednesday, June 16, 1993 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Public Services Building CAll. TO ORDER 1. ROll CAlJ.: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Moore, and Mayor Pro Tern Rindone ABSENT: Mayor Nader 2. APPROVAL OF MINlITES: None 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None 4. PUBUC HEARING OTAY RANCH - During the public hearing, the County Board of Supervisors/City Council will deliberate on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and the Dtay Ranch Project. Mayor Pro Tern Rindone stated there would be a three minute time limit per speaker except for planning groups or committees. For any individual requesting more time, the Chair would request a vote. Supervisor MacDonald stated he had been absent from the last meeting but had listened to the tapes and therefore would participate. ~ This being the time and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened. Tony Lettieri, Joint Project Team Manager, outlined the six major issues: 1) Environmental Impact Report adequacy; 2) Otay VallEW Parcel; 3) the Lakes; 4) Central Proctor Valley; 5) Jamul/Delzura; and, 6) other text, i.e. housing element, air quality section of the GDP. He reviewed the environmental review procedures, the City was the lead agency for the EIR and the County was the responsible agency. The County was responsible for review of the EIR, holding public hearings, receiving Planning Commission recommendations, and commenting on the EIR. If the Board felt the EIR was inadequate, a recommendation on the EIR revisions should be given to Council and if revisions were substantial, then additional circulation of the EIR could be required. If the EIR was adequate, the Board would make a recommendation to Council to certify the EIR. The Council EIR procedures were the same in the initial review process except that the County Board recommendations had been added. The City also needed to determine adequacy of the EIR. The City, unlike the County, either certified or did not certify the EIR. Although sitting jointly, all actions were separate. Four recommendations were before the Agencies, two variations of a staff recommendation and two separate recommendations from the two Planning Commissions. Staff intended to go back to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation before final action by the Council/Board on the findings. Council member Fox questioned whether Council had the right to certify the EIR over any objections, including the County's. 1 Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 2 Richard Rudolph, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the question involved the application of the MOD and depended on how the disagreement worked out. If the County Board found inadequacies in the EIR and recommended those to Council and Council agreed, recirculation would not necessarily be required. If Council disagreed and was satisfied the document was adequate, then the MOD would come into play. Mr. Lettieri gave an overview of the Planning Commission actions which was included in the staff report. The areas where there was disagreement was included in the Major Issue Table. Mayor Pro Tern Rindone stated it was his understanding that the right-of-ways were provided so that when talking about the cost of the light rail it would be the actual cost of construction and the costs pertaining condemnation and right-of-way would be a moot issue. Mr. Lettieri stated that was correct. There were conditions placed on the project that required the ultimate dedication of all right-of-ways through the project for the light rail transit line including the necessary areas for transit stops. Supervisor Bilbray questioned the density to the north, adjacent to the Otay Ranch project. He stated that the Agencies needed to look comprehensively at thE adjoining properties, both the existing zoning and property use and those undeveloped uses. Mark Montijo, Jamul/Delzura Community Planning Group, responded that it was the southern boundary of the Jamul Country Town which had one acre minimums. There were some lots adjacent to the project that were half acreS. Mr. Kreitzer, Chair, County Planning Commission, highlighted the following key issues: 1) location and expansion of the preserved boundary; 2) location of the university; and 3) ensuring that light rail transit was provided as planned. The Commission would have additional comments on specific issues as the project moved forward in the hearing process. Councilmember Fox questioned the reasoning why the County Planning Commission reached the conclusion that the biological preserve, south and east of the lake, was not sufficient. He also questioned the reasoning regarding their conclusion on not holding out for a guarantee for the funding of the light rail. Mr. Kreitzer responded that the Commission made several field trips to the area. They felt it was the core of the wildlife habitat area and to put a village there would interfere with the wildlife movements. Also, the fact that urban development affected surrounding areas, i.e. domestic animals, children, bicycles, etc. Regarding transit, they spent a lot of time on the funding question. Susan Fuller, Chair, Chula Vista Planning Commission, focused on the areas of difference between the Commissions: 1) development around the lakes and need to preserve the wildlife: 2) development in Proctor Valley; and 3) transit village, i.e. light rail system. Supervisor Bilbray questioned the density of the transit served villages. The project needed to create a market to support the infrastructure that the development was dependent on. The success of the planning was based on the operation and the ability to operate a mass transit system in the area. Density would have a very big determining factor, i.e. the maintaining of the system. He wanted to be sure that staff drew upon the expertise of MTDB. Mr. Lettieri responded that both Planning Commissions and staff recommended 16 dwelling units per acre average. MTDB recommended a range of 18 to 25 on a net basis, which meant that as a piece of property was developed it should be at least 18 dwelling units per acre. On a net basis it would be approximately Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 3 20 units which was still on the low end. The issues discussed regarding transit and development around the lakes would be presented separately to the joint body for consideration. Staff would make sure that MTDB, Endangered Habitats League, etc. would be present for those meetings. Supervisor Williams stated the cost of installation for light rail was also an issue. It was quite possible, due to federal cutbacks that funding could become a major issue. Mr. Lettieri informed the agencies that staff had received specific requests from the Valle de Oro Planning Group and the Endangered Habitats League that they be allowed to give their presentation once. The way the program was organized it was broken down into the six major issue areas and assumed that staff, applicant, and public would speak on the specific six major issues. Valle de Oro wanted to make their entire presentation on 6/30/93 and the Endangered Habitats League wanted to give their complete presentation on 7/12/93. There may be other groups requesting the same consideration. Supervisor Jacobs felt the project was so large that it would be difficult to hear complete presentations and then not hear from them again as areas were reviewed "piece by piece". She wanted to make sure, for those making the presentations, that information would not be forgotten. Mayor Pro Tern Rindone felt the Board/Council would want to reserve opportunities for questions of groups as they related to specific issues. That way they would not be repeating entire presentations. Councilmember Moore felt staff should provide, as reviewing individual issues, a listing of key concerns of the planning groups and others. Supervisor Jacobs wanted a way to absorb and fit into the decision making process all of the other groups and did not expect staff to prepare a matrix. · Greg Smith, Baldwin Company, spoke on the depth and scope of the project analysis, the ten alternative plans, and commended the broad citizen participation. He presented the history of how the various phases were forthcoming, noting that the six substantive areas would be discussed later on a case-by- case basis. · Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company, explained what was occurring with the various implementation plans, Le. facility implementation plan, resource management plan, Otay Ranch Service Revenue Plan, and Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan. · Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, EI Cajon, CA, Valle de Oro Planning Group, stated they had a conflict with the meeting date and had been assured by staff they would have an opportunity to make an organized presentation before the Council/Board on June 30th. He questioned whether they would be allowed to give a twenty minute organized presentation. Supervisor Bilbray questioned whether staff had agreed upon a twenty minute presentation. Mr. Lettieri responded that no time had been discussed, but staff assumed the Planning Group would be allowed more than five minutes for their organized presentation. Supervisor Jacobs recommended they be allowed twenty minutes. Mayor Pro Tern Rindone stated they would be entitled twenty minutes to make an organized presentation in lieu of individual presentations on each of the separate issues. The Endangered Habitat League would also be given time to make a presentation on 7/12/93. Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 4 Supervisor Slater wanted to clarify that their responses were to the Program EIR. Mr. Tarr responded part of the reason they felt it necessary to make a one time response was because the focus was being lost. They felt the project being .considered was a General Plan amendment. Those speaking in support of the project were: . Maggie Helton, Chair, Gtay Ranch Governing Committee, stated public input had not been ignored, it had been one of the most open processes the public could have been involved in. She reviewed the process utilized by the Committee. . Mark Montijo, Jamul/Delzura Community Planning Group, stated the project presented an unusual opportunity to conserve open space in a planned manner; had the potential for more good than any other development in history or could do damage if not done properly; and, there was an opportunity to decide the community character. . Patricia Gerrodette, 3820 Ray Street, San Diego, CA, Land Use Chair, Sierra Club of San Diego, supported the statement regarding the importance of light rail to the project and the limits proposed by Crossroads. They encouraged higher density in those areas chosen for development in order to make light rail workable. . Doug Perkins, Executive Director, South County Economic Development Council, stated they were pleased with the unprecedented comprehensive planning, mitigation efforts, and the reasonableness of the developer to take input. Most important was the economic impacts upon San Diego County as a whole and the region. He requested the Council/Board look at the housing in regard to area transportation needs and attracting businesses. . Rod Davis, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, stated they were impressed with the conclusion of the Service and Revenue Plan and felt it would generate sizeable tax surpluses for the City/County throughout the buildout of the project. They were also impressed with the Gtay Village Concept, the resort within the Proctor Valley area, a four-star resort community north of Gtay Lake, and a premier estate community southeast of Gtay Lakes. They supported the sensitive land planning to preserve 62% of the Gtay Ranch property and urged the Council/Board to adopt the County/City plan. . Barbara Brown, President, South San Diego Bay Cities Association of Realtors, felt the Baldwin Company had done everything in their power to take into consideration the community in the South Bay. The expedition of SR125 along with mass transit, the generation of $180 million over a 30 year period, and the creation of 46,000 jobs over that period of time would be a benefit to the City/County. They endorsed the Gtay Ranch project as proposed by the Baldwin Company. Supervisor Jacob asked for the estimated amount of revenue from property taxes. She stated it was an issue because the State was currently taking a sizeable amount of property tax revenue and shifting it to schools. It was significant to the development and the region, and she urged people to immediately communicate to the legislature opposition to the tax shift. · Chuck Peter, 435 Stoneridge Court, Chula Vista, CA, stated he wanted to see the project move ahead as it was good for the City and he wanted Baldwin to do it. He was concerned that little restrictions put on the project would make it financially infeasible. Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 5 Supervisor Bilbray felt it was the intent of the Board that if development in the unincorporated areas created circulation problems in any city, it would trigger a lot of the processes that currently existed within that city. Those speaking in opposition to the project were: . John Hammond, Chair, Sweetwater Community Planning Group, stated traffic impact would be significant and unmitigable. He also expressed concern regarding the loss of Otay Lake as a resource. Supervisor Slater requested clarification of his view that the lake would be less available for public use. Mr. Hammond responded the lake was currently accessible on all sides with recreation on the lake. It was his observation that if the project was built it would psychology close the lake to the "normal" people that wanted to fish, etc. He also expressed concern with the phasing of the project and the balance of the community. . George Kost, 3609 Bell Bonnie Bell Road, Bonita, CA, Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, stated they were concerned regarding transportation and the affects on Bonita and Chula Vista, the widening of all roads in Bonita, and the effect of paving on the parks. Their main concern was SR125 and the funding available for mass transit. Health and welfare of the people should be the number one concern. Supervisor Slater questioned whether Mr. Kost had specific suggestions on how the plan could be made better. Mr. Kost stated SR125 should be east of the Sweetwater Reservoir and there should not be any turn in's into Bonita. There needed to be another north/south highway which was what was offered with the eastern alignment. . Dan Silver, Endangered Habitat League, submitted an article entitled, Plannin~ Guidelines for Protectin~ Wildlife in Fra~entin~ Systems. He felt there was an opportunity to successfully integrate conservation and development. The first step should be to identify the core habitat areas and their connections. The staff recommendation was incompatible with reserve goals. Costs to the San Diego taxpayer should be kept to a minimum and features should be designed around biology and not in conflict, fragmentation did not work. There were other areas where it would be possible to build estate homes, i.e. north of the lake which would have southern views of the lake, with no estate homes on the south or east of the lake. An independent analysis of fiscal issues should be required. Supervisor Bilbray questioned whether their group had assessed the social/economic impacts on the long term survivability of habitat and species. He also questioned whether the organization had any experience in the wildlife preservation in the extreme southern part of the County. Mr. Silver stated the article laid out the essential elements of reserve design and what was needed to gain the maximum certainty that something would work. They did not have experience with wildlife preservation in the southern part of the County and based all their recommendations upon the opinion of experts and conversations with the wildlife agencies. . . Spring Valley Community Planning Group was not present when called. . Peter Watry, Crossroads, stated they had not been made aware of the schedule and requested they be given approximately ten minutes for an organized presentation at a future meeting. ~ Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 6 Mayor Pro Tern Rindone requested that the next meeting, June 30, be held in Chula Vista with the July 12 meeting being held at the County. He felt that would give those from the community that had not had an opportunity to speak that courtesy. The total number of meetings held at the County and at the City would remain the same. Those slips not called would be forwarded to the Chair of the next meeting to be the first called. 5. ADJOURNMENf There being no further comments from the Councilor Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint hearing to the next joint hearing scheduled on Wednesday, June 30, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMC, City Clerk ~ . \ '\ \ 0', , L ''''--j ,,'N.:, "--_~\u\ C' ,') \ Vicki C. Soderquist, Depu~ 'thy Clerk by: MINUfES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF TIlE CI1Y OF CHill.A VISTA CI1Y COUNCIL AND TIlE COUN1Y OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Wednesday, June 30, 1993 3:15 p.m. City Council Chambers Public Services Building CAll TO ORDER 1. ROll CAll: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilmember Moore 2. PUBUC COMMENT - None 3. CONTINUED PUBUC HEARING During the public hearing, the County Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council will deliberate on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and the Otay Ranch Project. It is anticipated that the public hearing will be continued to the Joint Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council hearing of July 12, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the County Administration Center Board Chambers - Room 310. Mayor Nader stated the purpose of the meeting was the continuation of a joint public hearing on Otay Ranch. He had received word late in the afternoon that the County Board of Supervisors had cancelled the meeting. The County Board of Supervisors did not have jurisdiction to cancel a meeting of the Chula Vista City Councilor vice-a-versa. The meeting had been publicly advertised and he felt it should be held as there were no final decisions scheduled to be made, it was an opportunity to take public testimony, and there could be members of the public that had not received the County's unilateral action or who might be unable to appear at a different time to give their comments. The meeting was being taped and he had been advised that testimony taken could be incorporated into the County's hearing process by motion at a later time. The Supervisors would be provided tapes for their review. His intent in going forward with the Council's portion of the meeting was to make sure no member of the public was deprived of an opportunity to testify because of an eleventh hour decision by the Board of Supervisors. Councilmember Rindone agreed that the purpose of the meeting was to assure that the public would be allowed to testify, especially Chula Vista residents. He felt it important that members of both governing bodies be present to hear such testimony and was disappointed that the action by the Board had eliminated their participation in the meeting. It was also his understanding that when the misunderstanding occurred on the part of the County, the applicant anticipated that to be the action that would be taken and had made every effort possible to mitigate people from attending. Kim Kilkenney, representing Baldwin Vista, responded they understood the meeting was cancelled and took the liberty of advising people with an interest in the project that the next meeting would be on 7/12/93. There were many people not at the meeting that would otherwise have been because of their action. Councilmember Rindone stated the meeting had been unanimously agreed upon by the two governing bodies and that it would be held in Chula Vista. Therefore, he felt the 7/12/93 meeting should also be scheduled in Chula Vista due to the situation. He felt that would afford the citizens of the City and the thirty-five speakers remaining from the last public hearing to attend and express their comments. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 2 Mayor Nader noted that the thirty-five speaker slips from the previous meeting were not provided to the City but retained by the County and were, therefore, unavailable. . Ian Gardner-Smith, 4450 Dtay Valley Road, Chula Vista, CA, representing Best Western Dtay Valley Inn, spoke on behalf of the Dtay Ranch project. When the property was purchased they felt they were in the path of progress but progress had been slow resulting in financial problems. He urged the Council/Board to do everything they could to expedite a final plan. . Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, representing Crossroads, stated they were interested in the impacts around the development rather than the project itself. They were disappointed on how little the Chula Vista General Plan had been utilized. Their principal area of concern was with the Dtay River Parcel. (A series of transparencies was utilized during the presentation.) The staff recommendation for development was 90% greater than the target range of CV General Plan and 40% greater than the maximum. He expressed their concern with the maintaining of Level C thresholds for traffic with the proposed density. They felt the EIR contained dramatic assumptions, i.e. 1-5, I-80S, SR 125 were widened to ten lanes and included several pages of streets that had to be widened. The GDP specifically stated the interior roads would be allowed to operate at Levels of Service D, E, or F. In the staff plan the trolley was an integral part of the plan but there was no single condition that required the trolley in the Dtay Ranch project. If the plan was adopted, the entire Dtay River Parcel could be built without a trolley. They recommended that no more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000.000 sq. ft. of commercial use within the eastern urban center shall be approved for the Dtay River Parcel until such time as the funding was approved and construction assured for the light-rail transit system through Villages 1, 5, 6, 9, and the Eastern Urban Center. In the absence of a light-rail system, it would keep the densities closer to the CV General Plan which did not assume a light-rail system and which tested out a Level of Service C without herculean assumptions. It would also give the developer an incentive to develop the trolley line when/if it was needed to build out the Dtay River Parcel. As for the Eastern Urban Center, the General Development Plan stated it could be as high as 6,000,000 sq. ft. They recommended the Eastern Urban Center be limited to 4,000,000 sq. ft. in the absence of a trolley line. In every case of a large development in eastern Chula Vista there had been a caveat that the developer would be allowed to develop X number of units until SR125 was built. They felt there should be some limit as to how far the Dtay River Parcel could be developed without SR125. He urged the two agencies to put a limit on how far the Dtay River Parcel could be built out without the light rail system it was designed for. Councilmember Fox questioned how Crossroads had reached their proposed figures. He felt the argument could be made that the funding for the light-rail system was in the hands of another entity, i.e. something the developer could not control. Mr. Watry responded 15,000 was the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the CV General Plan which tested out for the Level of Service C. The General Development Plan for Dtay Ranch called for a maximum of 6,000,000 sq. ft. They had arbitrarily chosen one-third, 4,000,000, and then tried to put that into perspective. The 4,000,000 sq. ft. was equal to the three largest shopping centers in San Diego County which seemed a generous allowance. Council member Fox was correct that Baldwin could not control the funding for the trolley but they also could not control the funding for widening of the freeways or SR125. Mayor Nader stated the transparency utilized for Levels or Service or Traffic Levels was for Phase I Progress Plan and noted the staff and Planning Commissions had recommended the Phase 2 Progress Plan. He questioned whether the same categories and conclusions applied to the plan before them. Mr. Watry responded the Phase I densities were slightly higher than Phase 2, i.e. 1,000 units difference. Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 3 Councilmember Rindone felt everyone would like to see the light-rail transit built. He questioned whether Crossroads had explored the concept of not limiting the dwelling units to 15,000 or the sq. ft. for commercial to 4,000,000 but to fully build-out the transit villages so they would have sufficient density to break the log jam so there would be an incentive to build the light-rail. Mr. Watry stated there could be a problem in allowing full development and then have transit not fund the light-rail. . Jim Mayberry, 987 Lorna View, Chula Vista, CA, stated much of what had been said regarding the depth of the Planning Commission's review of the ErR and nature of proposal in general was vesicated by the fact that much of the proposal was altered by a substantial degree in important respects. At the second to last hearing there were many text amendments introduced which were not discussed and changed the project radically. One change was allowing the County or City to be the manager of the Wildlife Preserve, creating a situation where the ownership and trust responsibilities were separate from the responsibilities of management. He felt conflict was inevitable. Mayor Nader stated he was concerned that there were a number of text amendments at the end of the Planning Commission hearing process and questioned where the amendments were located in the documents. Tony Lettieri, General Manager for Otay Ranch, responded the text amendments were in Section G of the binder and were very specific by page in the General Development Plan. There were a number of hearings dealing with text amendments and the item was discussed at both Planning Commissions and their summary recommendations were also included for the text amendments. Mr. Watry utilized a transparency of the area around Otay Lake and stated the road hugged the lake shore which he felt was one of the most beautiful in southern California. In the Otay Ranch plan the public road was moved back with development between the road and the lake obstructing the public's view. They felt the moving of the road was appropriate due to the proposed heavy traffic but recommended that a very low speed "gawkers" road be left along the edge of the development with turnouts which would allow public viewing. Councilmember Horton questioned whether Crossroads would support something private, i.e. bicycle or pedestrian paths. Mr. Watry felt it would provide limited access and there should be a provision for vehicles. Councilmember Horton felt it would allow public access and also protect the environment. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was continued to the 7/12/93 meeting at 3:00 p.m. 4. COUNClLMEMBERS' COMMENTS: . Councilmember Rindone stated that because there were over thirty-five speaker slips from the previous hearing and that Baldwin had made a concerted effort to notify interested parties that there was a meeting on 7/12/93 he would like to see the location of that meeting in Chula Vista. MSC (Rindone/Nader) since there was unanimous agreement previously by the Board/Council that the meeting of 7/11./93 be at 3:00 p.m. in Chula Vista to accommodate the express need agreed upon at the previous meeting. Approved 4-0-1 with Moore absent. Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 4 City Manager Goss stated it was his understanding that the Chair of the Board of Supervisors understood that request. · Councilmember Rindone stated when he chaired the last meeting direction had been given that the thirty-five speaker slips were to be given to Mayor Nader for the 6/30/93 meeting. He requested that the thirty-five people be sent written notification of the next meeting on 7/12/93 at 3:00 p.m. in Chula Vista and all upcoming meetings. · Councilmember Rindone questioned the tentative dates set for future joint meetings. Mr. Lettieri responded that meetings had been scheduled for 7/12/93, 7/21193 at the County, 7/22/92 in Chula Vista, and 7/26/93 at the County. All meetings had been scheduled for 3:00 p.m. 5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS: · Mayor Nader stated there had been a substantial amount of time put into the project because it was a broad and complex project which raised a number of issues. He was frustrated that the timeline seemed to be run by County staff and Board considerations. The applicant and the public had the right to a timely consideration of the item. If a meeting was called the public had a right to have that meeting and be given an opportunity to appear. He reminded staff that Council meetings were called or cancelled only by the Mayor or a majority of the Council. He referred to past comments he had made regarding the EIR and felt they had been more of a response to comments than with the main body of the EIR document. He hoped the EIR consultant would take advantage of the time that would transpire until a final vote was taken to examine all comments and make sure they used all the existing data they developed to fully address those comments. · Mayor Nader reported that the University of California Chula Vista Task Force had met and adopted a position concerning the response to the UCCV Task Force's comment in the EIR. He requested that the City Attorney's secretary make copies of the UCCV statement for Council/Board members and EIR consultant prior to the next meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENf AT 4:13 P.M. There being no further comments from the Councilor Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint hearng to the next joint hearing scheduled on Monday, July 12, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: " " , ~\" \ I \. , . -+ '\ \ , . , _ ,'. \.,,\ ',- \ \ t l, Vicki C. Soderquist, Depu City Clerk \ \ NOTICE OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Chula vista will meet on June 30, 1993 at the city council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, at 3:00 p.m. SAID PURPOSE OF THE MEETING is for a public hearing and deliberation on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report on the otay Ranch project. DATED: June 22, 1993 Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk "I declare under penalty of perjury that 1 am employed by the City of Chuta Vista in the Office of the City Clerk c::nd that 1 posted this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at the Public erv.ces Bu;lding end at City Hall on DATED~ t/;, ',;le'). SIGNED C I ~..-:.." cY NOTICE OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista will meet on June 16, 1993 at the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, from 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. . SAID PURPOSE OF THE MEETING is for a public hearing and deliberation on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report on the otay Ranch project. DATED: June 11, 1993 Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk '" declare under penalty of perjury that I am em')loe',' by the City of Chula Vista in the O....ce.. :le City Clerk and that I posted t.-IIS .~:,.0~1i:'l/Notjce on the Bulletin Board at th~. .--'U,)li~ Ser ices Building and at City Hall on DA I ED~ {" /I C1 SIGNED C f'v:::?~" ,,.. ~ D /~ ~/ LIST OF DOCUMENTS TO BE DISTRIBUTION FOR THE JUNE 16, 1993 CITY COUNCIL / BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING Each person is to receive one each of the following: 1. Board/Council Hearing Notebook 2. Resource Management Plan 3. Facility Implementation Plans 4. General Development Plan/Subregional Plan 5. Village Phasing Plan 6. Service/Revenue Plan memos#6: \ doc61693.I1b OH-59: Project Actions OH-60: Findings Concerning Mitigation Measures OH-6l: Statement of Overriding Considerations OH-62: Prior to Final Action OH-63: City/County Planning Commission Agreement areas OH-64: City/County Planning Commission Disagreement areas OH-65: Planning Commission/Staff Disagreement areas OH-66: Program and Project EIR Table OH-67: Project Summary Table - Otay Valley Parcel OH-68: Project Summary Table - The Lakes OH-69: Project Summary Table - Proctor Valley OH-70: Project Summary Table - Jamul/Dulzura OH-7l: Project Summary Table - Totals OH-72: Issue Area/Document Sheet Matrix OH-73: Otay Ranch Open Space OH-74: Issue Area #1: Environmental Impact Report [J:\PROJECT\215\EXHIBITS.OH] [k~M COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA STATEMENT (June 16, 1993) OTAY RANCH PROJECT, GPA 92-04 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD REPORT . . . ATTACHMENT 1 - MAJOR ISSUE TABLE* ATTACHMENT 2 - STAFF REPORT* ATTACHMENT 3 - JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION SHEET/UNIT SUMMARY* ATTACHMENT 4 - BACKGROUND MATERIALS ON MAJOR ISSUES* ATTACHMENT 5 - COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GPA RECOMMENDATIONS AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL RESOLUTION* ATTACHMENT 6 - PLANNING GROUP COMMENTS* ATTACHMENT 7 - FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ATTACHMENT 8 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SUBREGIONAL PLAN (GDP/SRP) ATTACHMENT 9 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ATTACHMENT 10 - FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ATTACHMENT 11 - SERVICE REVENUE PLAN ATTACHMENT 12 - PHASING PLAN COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED CLERK OF THE BOARD MINUTE ORDER(S) 4 PAGE 1 . . . 6 PLACED IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL OTAY RANCH JOINT HEARING. BINDER BQARD05\OTAYRNCH.TOC-tf * JUN. 1 6 1!93 ~lLAI~Jf~lfIl~'~ rr-n[~\Q)rr-nTr COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 4 JUNE 16, 1993 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUBJECT: OTAY RANCH PROJECT, GPA 92-04, R92-003 (JOINT H~RING WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL) (3 Vote Matter) (First and Second Districts) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL This item is comprised of amendments to the Regional Land Use Element Text and Map, changes to the boundary between the Otay and Jamul/Dulzura SUbregional boundaries, a General Development/Subregional plan as Volume 2 of the Otay Subregional Plan Text, amendments to the Otay and Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan Texts and Maps, amendments to the Conservation Element Text and Map, amendments to the Circulation Element Sheets 6 and 9, amendments to the Recreation Element Text and Map, and amendment to the Public Facility Element. This item also consists of changes to Zone Classifications, repeal of existing Board Policy 1-109 .Planning Guidelines for the Development of the United Enterprises, Ltd. Land Holdings., and adoption in its place .Plans to Guide Development of the Otay Ranch Project., incorporating associated documents for the Otay Ranch Project, and an agreement regarding the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Otay Ranch Project. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS County PlanninQ Commission: A. Take tentative action as follows: 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the MOU with the City of Chula Vista, dated August 1, 1989, take the following actions: 1) recommend that the Chula Vista City Council certify that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is complete and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and; 2) certify that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the information contained in said EIR. 2. Amend the Regional Land Use Element Map as shown in Appendix A.I of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Ocay Ranch joint hearing binder). 3. Amend the Regional land Use Element Text as shown in Appendices A.2- 1 and A.2-2 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, JUN. 1 6 ,~ 1 4 , l , - 2 - Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 4. Amend the Otay SUbregional Plan Text as shown in Appendices A.3-1 through A.3-4 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB IS of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 5. Adopt the Otay Ranch General Development/Subregional Plan as Volume 2 of the Otay Subregional Plan Text as amended by the Planning Commission' actions as shown on Table 1, the JOINT PLANNING COMMISSIONS' DECISION TRACKING SHEETS, Attachments 3 and 8 of this report (TAB 13, and Exhibits 1, 2 1 3, TAB 14G of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 6. Amend the boundaries between the Otay and Jamul/Dulzura SUbregional Plans as shown in Appendices A.4-1 and A.4-2 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervlsors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch jOint hearing binder). 7. Amend the land Use Designations of the Jamul/Dulzura and Otay SUbregional Plan Maps as shown in Appendix A.5 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB IS of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 8. Amend the Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan Text as shown in Appendices A.6-1 through A.6-10 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB IS of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 9. Amend the Sweetwater Community Plan Text as shown in Appendix A.7 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB IS of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 10. Amend Circulation Element Sheet 6 as shown in Appendices A.8-1 through A.8-5 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). . . 11. Amend Circulation Element Sheet 9 and the Recreation Element Park Hap as shown in Appendix A.9 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of JUN. 1 6 1!!3 2 4 - 3 - Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 12. Amend the Recreation Element Text as shown in Appendix A.lO of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB '5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 13. Amend the Conservation Element Text as shown ,in Appendices A.3-3, A.3-4, A.6.S and A.6-9 of the 'County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). . 14. Amend the Conservation Element Map as shown in Appendix A.l~ of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 15. Amend the Public Facility Element as shown in Appendix A.12 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 16. Adopt revised zone classification for those villages/planning areas shown in Appendix B of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB IS of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 17. Repeal Board POlicy 1-109, ~Planning Guidelines for the Development of the United Enterprises, Ltd. Land Holdings8, and adopt in its place as Policy 1-109, Appendix C, entitled 8Plans to Guide Development of the Otay Ranch Project8, the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). B. Continue the hearing on the above matter, and refer to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation the proposed Findings concerning mitigation of significant effects required by Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program, and any proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations all addressing the project proposed to be adopted by the Board. PlanninQ GrouDs: Four planning groups have participated in the review of Otay Ranch rlans: Jamul/Dulzura, Valle de Ora, Sweetwater, and Spring Valley. The Planning Groups concur with the Planning Commission except as noted in the' Major Issue Summary Table, Attachment 1 of this report (TAB #1 of the Board of Superv;sors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). . JUN. 1 6 1993 3 4 - 4 - Chief Administrative Officer: The Chief Administrative Officer (CAD) concurs with the County Planning Commission except as noted in the Major Issue Summary Table, Attachment 1 of this report (TAB #1 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). The rationale for the CAO recommendations is presented in this report. Also see Section IV of the Otay Ranch Staff Report (TAB #2 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). ISSUES A. Environmental Resources A1. Does the EIR adequately address the impacts of the proposed project under CEQA? A2. Does the Resource Management Plan (RHP) adequately protect on-site resources, and is it equivalent to the County Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO)? 8. Otay Valley Parcel 81. Should Village 3 develop residentially or industrially? B2. How many roads should cross the river valley to Otay Mesa? B3. Should transit village core densities be increased from 14.5 dwelling units/acre? B4. Should development on Otay Valley Parcel b~ tied to transit funding assurance? B5. What area should be designated for potential university site? B6. What should control the phasing of the university site designation? B7. Should Salt Creek remain as a site for potential university use? B8. Should the Eastla~e land swap area be amended? C. Development around Otay La~es (Villages 13 and 15) CI. Should the area south and east of Otay Lake be developed (Village 15)? C2. What should be developed north of Lower Otay Lake (Village 13)? D. Central Proctor Valley (CPV) (Village 14) 01. Preserve Area: Should CPV preserve area be enlarged? 02. Development Densities: Should CPV include a Village core and associated urban densities? 03. Should Proctor Valley Road .be classified 4~lane Major Road? 04. Should CPV be sewered? . 05. Should the Jamul/Dulzura SUbregional Plan Text be amended to delete the requirement that Millar Ranch Road be a private road? 06. Should the Urban Limit Line be extended to include the development areas west of the wildlife corridor, in the .upside down L-? E. Jamul Planning Areas {Planning Areas 16 and 19} E1. Should sewer be permitted in Planning A~eas 16 and 19? JUN. 1 6 1!93 4 - 5 - 4 t F. San Ysidro Planning Area (Planning Area 17) Fl. What areas should be developed? F2. Should sewer be extended to Planning Area 171 . G. General Development Plan (GDP) and Resource Management Plan (RMP) Related Text Amendments Gl. Should the Errata Sheet containing GDP/SRP text and RMP text Amendments be accepted? 62. Should the 6DP/SRP text regarding university uses in Salt Creek be amended (see issue 87)? . G3. Should the GDP/SRP text be amended to limit development pursuant to transit funding assurance (see issue 84)1 BOARD05\OTAYRNCH.SUM-tf JUN. 1 6 1!93 5 ~llAI~"~"'I~I~ Wfi~JF(Q)ff1lTr COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 4 i MEETING DATE: June 16, 1993 DATE ISSUED: June 3, 1993 IQ: fBQt:1 : SUBJECT: SUPV.DIST.: DESCRIPTION: Board of Supervisors County Planning Commission Joint Hearing with the Chula Vista City Council on: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 92-04, Otay Ranch Project, and Reclassification R92-003; Otay and Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Planning Areas 1 & 2 This item is comprised of: 1. Amendments to the County of San Diego General Plan as follows: o Regional Land Use Map amendments consisting of the following: Expansion of the Current Urban Development Area (CUDA); Reduction of the Future Urban Development Area (FUDA); Expansion of the Special Study Area (SSA); Reduction of the Country Town (CT) of Jamul; Reduction of the Rural Development Area (RDA); Reduction of the Estate Development Area (EDA); and Expansion of the Environmentally Constrained Area (ECA). o Regional Land Use Element Text amendments consisting of the addition of a Special Study Area for the area of Otay Ranch Project that is outside of the County Water Authority boundary and other.minor amendments. o Proposed changes to the boundary between the Otay Planning Area and the Jamul/Dulzura Planning Area. o Otay Subregional Plan Text and Map amendments consisting of the addition of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan as Volume 2, changes to Resource Conservation Areas, and amendments to certain land use designations. o Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan Text and Map amendments consisting of a reference to the Otay Ranch Project, revisions to certain policies to ensure consistency with the Otay Ranch Project, changes to Resource Conservation Areas a~d amendments to certain land use designations. JUN. 1 6 1!93 6 Otay Ranch Project -2- 4 June 16, 1993 " , o Sweetwater Plan Text amendment consisting of the extension of Reo Drive on the circulation exhibit. . o Circulation Element Map amendments, Sheets 6 and 9, consisting of proposed changes to various road classifications and to the Bicycle Element. o Recreation Element Text and Hap amendments consisting of proposed revisions to existing Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs) and the addition of one RCA. o Public Facility Element amendment consisting of changes exempting Otay Ranch from Policy 1.1.2 on page XII-4-18. 2. Adoption of a Board of Supervisors Policy incorporating the following associated documents for the Otay Ranch Project: o Resource Management Plan; o Village Phasing Plan; o Service/Revenue Plan; o Facility Implementation Plans. 3. Zone reclassifications consisting of proposals reclassifying the Otay Ranch property according to the proposed plan. 4. An agreement between the County and Baldwin Vista, Ltd. regarding the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the'Otay Ranch Project. REFERRAL/ PREVIOUS ACTIONS: On June 2, 1993, the Board of Supervisors and the City of Chula Vista City Council continued their joint public hearing on the Otay Ranch GPA to June 16, 1993, at 3:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers. The Board of Supervisors and Chula Vista City Council have previously held . joint workshops on various issues related to the Otay Ranch project on July 30, September 24 and 30, October 22, November 4, 18 and 24, and December 17, 1992. On August 1, 1989 (Resolution No. 15220), the City of C~ula Vista City Council and the County Board of Supervisors signe9 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to jointly process a General Plan Amen~ment, General Development Plan, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Otay Ranch. The County and City of Chula Vista Planning Commissions have held joint public hearings on the following dates: . April 29, May IS, 22, 29, June 17, July 31, ,August 19, September 11, 16, October 7, 12, 19, 23, 29, November 4, 12, 20, JUN. 1 6 1993 7 4 . I Otay Ranch Project -3- June 16, 1993 December 2, 9, 18, 1992; January 15, 27, 29, February 3, 10, 19, 24, March 13, 17, 24, 31, April 14, 22, May 8, May 13, and May 18, 1993. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions. A. Take tentative action as follows: 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the MOU with the City of Chula Vista, dated August I, 1989, take the following actions: 1) recommend that the Chula Vista City Council certify that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is complete and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and; 2) certify that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the information contained in said EJR. 7. 2. Amend the Regional land Use Element Map as shown in Appendix A.I of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB IS of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 3. Amend the Regional Land Use Element Text as shown in Appendices A.2- I and A.2-2 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB IS of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). . 4. Amend the Otay Subregional Plan Text as shown in Appendices A.3-1 through A.3-4 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB IS of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 5. Adopt the Otay Ranch General Development/Subregional Plan as Volume 2 of the Otay Subregional Plan Text as amended by the Planning Commissions' actions as shown on Table 1, the JOINT PLANNING COMMISSIONS' DECISION TRACKING SHEETS, Attachments 3 and 8 of this report (TAB 13, and Exhibits 1, 2 1 3, TAB 14G of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 6. Amend the boundaries between the Otay and Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plans as shown in Appendices A.4-1 and A.4-2 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). Amend the Land Use Designations of the Jamul/Dulzura and Otay Subregional Plan Haps as shown in Appendix A.5 of the County JUN. 1 6 1993 8 4 Otay Ranch Project -4- June 16, 1993 t , Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 8. Amend the Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan Text as shown in Appendices A.6-1 through A.6-10 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 9. Amend the Sweetwater Community Plan Text as shown in Appendix A.7 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 10. Amend Circulation Element Sheet 6 as shown 1n Appendices A.8-1 through A.8-5 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 11. Amend Circulation Element Sheet 9 and the Recreation Element ParK Map as shown in Appendix A.9 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 12. Amend the Recreation Element Text as shown in Appendix A.I0 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 13. Amend the Conservation Element Text as shown in Appendices A.3-3, A.3-4, A.6.8 and A.6-9 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 14. Amend the Conservation Element Map as shown in Appendix A.l1 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 15. Amend the Public Facility Element as shown in Appendix A.12 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 16. Adopt revised zone classification for those villages/planning areas shown in Appendix B of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB 15 of the Board of JU~ 1 6 m93 9 Otay Ranch Project -5- 4 June 16, 1993 Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 17. Repeal Board Policy 1-109, .Planning Guidelines for the Development of the United Enterprises, ltd. land Holdings., and adopt in its place as Policy 1-109, Appendix C, entitled .Plans to Guide Development of the Otay Ranch Project., the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB '5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder)~ B. Continue the hearing on the above matter, and refer to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation the proposed Findings concerning mitigation of significant effects required by Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program, and .any proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations all addressing the project proposed to be adopted by the Board. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Receive the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and City of Chula Vista Council Otay Ranch Joint hearing binder containing: the Major Issue Summary Table, the Joint Project Team Staff Report, the joint Planning Commissions Decision Sheet/Unit Summary, background material on each of the Major Issues, the County of San Diego staff proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification, County Planning Commission Final Resolution, and letters from the Otay Ranch Citizen Governing Committee, Crossroads, and County letters from planning groups. 2. Receive the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) Resource Management Plan (RMP) , Facility Implementation Plans, Service Revenue Plan, Phasing Plan, and the Final Program Environmental Impact Report. 3. Continue the hearing to June 30 at 3:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers. At that meeting, the Board and City of Chula Vista City Council are tentatively scheduled to take testimony from the Jamul/Dulzura, Valle de Oro, Sweetwater and Spring Valley Planning Groups, other organized groups, and members of the public, and hear the applicant's rebuttal. MAJOR ISSUES: A. Environmental Resources AI. Does the EIR adequately address the impacts of the proposed project under CEQA? A2. Does the Resource Management Plan (RMP) adequately protect on-site resources, and is it equivalent to the County Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO)? ~UN. 1 6 1993 10 4 Otay Ranch Project -6- June 16, 1993 B. Otay Valley Parcel B1. Should Village 3 develop residentially or industrially? B2. How many roads should cross the river valley to Otay Mesa? B3. Shoul~ transit village core densities be increased from 14.5 dwelling units/acre? B4. Should development on Otay Valley Parcel be tied to transit funding assurance? B5. What area should be designated for potential university site? B6. What should control the phasing of the university site designation? B7. Should Salt Creek remain as a site for potential university use? B8. Should the EastLake land swap area be amended? C. Development around Otay Lakes (Villages 13 and 15) C1. Should the area south and east of Otay Lake be developed (Village 15)? C2. What should be developed north of Lower Otay Lake (Village 13)? D. Central Proctor Valley (CPV) (Village 14) Dl. Preserve Area: Should CPV preserve area be enlarged? D2. Development Densities: Should CPV include a Village core and associated urban densities? D3. Should Proctor Valley Road be classified 4-lane Major Road? D4. Should CPV be sewered? D5. Should the Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan Text be amended to delete the requirement that Millar Ranch Road be a private road? 06. Should the Urban Limit Line be extended to include the development areas west of the wildlife corridor, in the -upside down L-? E. Jamul Planning Areas (Planning Areas 16 and 19) E1. Should sewer be permitted in Planning Areas 16 and 19? F. San Ysidro Planning Area (Planning Area 17) Fl. What areas should be developed? F2. Should sewer be extended to Planning Area 171 G. General Development Plan {GDP)/Subregional Plan (SRP) Related Text Amendments 61. Should the Errata Sheet containing GDP/SRP text and RHP text Amendments be accepted? G2. Should the 6DP/SRP text regarding university uses in Salt Creek be amended (see issue B7)1 G3. Should the GDP/SRP text be amended to limit development pursuant to transit funding assurance (see issue 84)1 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR HEARING: At the June 2, 1993 hearing, the Otay Ranch Joint Project Team Manager, Anthony Lettieri, presented to the Board and the Chula Vista City Council, the site characteristics, public participation program, the process for the Board and Chula Vista City Council deliberations on the Otay Ranch General Plan Amendment, and an overview of Plan recommendations. JUN. 1 6 1!93 11. 4 Otay Ranch Project -7- June 16, 1993 On August It 1989t the Board of Supervisors and the City of Chu1a Vista signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to jointly process a General Plan Amendment, General Development Plant and Zone Reclassification for the Otay Ranch. The MOU established a Joint Project Team to process the required plans and environmental documentation. The MOU also established the Interjurisdictiona1 Task Force (IJTF) which consisted of elected and appointed representatives from the County of San Diego, the City of Chu1a Vista and the City of San Diego. The IJTF's primary role was to set policy guidelines for the development of project alternatives to be analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report, to coordinate the preparation and review of Otay Ranch plans, and to formalize the relationship between the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista's planning efforts. The City of Chula Vista was designated the lead agency responsible for the preparation of environmental documentation with the County having review and recommended change authority. The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was made available for public review on July 31, 1992 for a period of 81 days. The Draft final PEIR was presented to the County and City of Chula Vista Planning Commissions at their hearing of December 18, 1992. The County and City of Chula Vista Planning Commissions have held 36 public hearings on the Otay Ranch project, beginning on April 29, 1992. The Commissions each adopted a final resolution on May 18, 1993. The 23,088 acre Otay Ranch is located in the unincorporated area of San Diego County, with the exception of 390 acres located in the City of San Diego adjacent to Brown Field. The rural community of Jamul is located northeast of the project area; the southern boundary of the project is approximately two miles north of the United States-Mexico border; the western boundary is the Chula Vista City limits; the eastern boundary is generally State Route 94 (Campo Road). The Otay Ranch Project would be developed over a 30 to 50 year period. A range of dwelling units and projected population 1s associated with various project alternatives. The New Town Plan (original submittal) proposes 50,733 dwelling units and a projected population of 149,810 persons; the County/City of Chula Vista Staff Recommended Project proposes 27,179 dwelling units with associated population of 79,634; the Environmental Alternative proposes 9,251 dwelling units with a projected population of 28,863 persons; the Existing General Plan Alternative, retaining existing City of Chula Vista land use designations on the Otay Valley Parcel and the County land use designations on the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Parcels, would result in a maximum yield of 20,470 dwelling units and 62,487 population. With the No Project Alternative, the property would remain in its present condition as rural agricultural land and undeveloped open space. The County Planning Commission recommends a maximum of 24,221 dwelling units with a projected population of 69,936 persons. The City of Chula Vista JUN. . 1 6 1993 12 4 . Otay Ranch Project -8- June 16, 1993 Planning Commissi~n recommends a maximum of 26,017 dwelling units with a projected population of 75,706 persons. DISCUSSION OF MAJOR ISSUES AND RESPONSES: A. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AI. DOES THE EIR ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER CEQA? . Discussion: The Otay Ranch Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (OPEIR 90-01) was issued and circulated for public review from July 31, 1992 to October 19, 1992, a total of 81 days. Joint City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego Planning Commission public hearings were held to take public testimony on the adequacy of the Draft PEIR on September 16, October 12 and October 19, 1992, with an additional public hearing held jointly between the City of Chula Vista Council and its Planning Commission on October 7, 1992. On October 19, 1992, the closing of the public hearing before the City and County Planning Commissions on the Draft Program EIR concluded the public review. Public and agency comments received focused on a wide variety of environmental issues including, among others, issues of traffic, air quality, noise, land use, drainage, biology, archaeology, public facilities, and water quality. . ReSDonse Plannina Commissions: County: On February 3, 1993, the County Planning Commission voted 6-0 with 1 abstention that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report contained .sufficient information to proceed with their review of the project. . On May 18, 1993, the County Planning Commission recommended that the Chula Vista City Council certify that said EIR is complete and in compliance with CEQA. City: The City of Chula Vista Planning Commission voted 5-0 that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report contained sufficient information to proceed with their review of the project. The City Planning Commission, in .compliance with City CEQA Guidelines, certified the final EIR. Both Commissions recommended that the Board of Supervisors and Council refer to each Commission, for review and recommendation, the proposed Findings, the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program and the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO concurs with the Planning Commissions. JUN. 1 6 1!93 13 4 ~ . Otay Ranch Project -9- June 16, 1993 Valle de Oro Planninq Grouo: The Valle de Oro Planning Group sent an 18- page letter of comment expressing concerns with the DPEIR. That letter is included in the Board/Council Hearing Notebook, TAB #6 and in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR). On October 21, 1992, the Planning Group voted unanimously to oppose the Otay Ranch General Plan Amendment. The Planning Group specifically objected to: 1) intensification of and uses and densities in Proctor Valley; and 2) connecting Millar Ranch Road between Highway 94 and Proctor Valley. Their detailed comments are transmitted under "Planning Group Comments", TAB 6 in the Board/Council binder. Jamul/Dulzura Planninq Grouo: On November 10, 1992, the Planning Group voted unanimously to recommend that the portion of Village 14,which is not currently within the boundary of the Jamul/Dulzura Planning Area, be added to it. On November 24, 1992, the Planning Group voted unanimously to send the following recommendations to the Planning Commission on the Otay Ranch General Plan Amendment: 1) concur with the City/County Recommended Plan for Planning Areas 16 and 19 except that the sewer service should not be extended to those areas at this time because of insufficient information; 2) disagree with the City/County Recommendations for Village 14 because it would have inappropriate impacts on circulation, and biology and community character; and 3) the northern areas of Village 14 should be developed at lesser densities that Planning Area 16, and lot sizes should gradually increase to one-half acre next to the village core with its multiple family units. During the Planning Commission hearings, the Planning Group subsequently recommended that Millar Ranch Road not be re-designed as a public road and that Village 14 be deleted. Sweetwater Planninq Grouo: On December 1, 1992, the Sweetwater Planning Group sent a two page letter on the Draft PEIR focusing on circulation impacts of the Otay Ranch project to off-site roads located in the surrounding communities, the inadequacy of east/west routes, and impacts of the project on the Otay Reservoir. The Sweetwater Planning Group has recommended that the General Plan Amendment not include any amendments to the following Circulation Element Roads within the Sweetwater Community Planning Area: San Miguel, Bonita, and Valley Road. $orinq Valley Planninq Grouo: On October 17, 1992, the Spring Valley Planning Group sent a two page letter addressing its COncerns relative to the Draft PEIR. The Planning Group's primary comments are: 1) the east vs. west alignment of SR 125 should have been addressed; and 2) the. traffic volumes and levels of service on off-site roads are unacceptable. JUN. 1 6 i!93 1 tj 4 Otay Ranch Project -10- June 16, 1993 A2. DOES THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RHP) ADEQUATELY PROTECT ON-SITE RESOURCES, AND IS IT EQUIVALENT TO THE COUNTY RESOURCE PROTECTION ORDINANCE (RPO)? Discussion: The Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) Phase 1 is a comprehensive planning document that addresses the preservation, enhancement, and management of sensitive natural and cultural resources on the 23,088-acre Otay Ranch property. The RMP is intended to be the functional equivalent of the County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) for Otay Ranch. Subsequent Otay Ranch projects (maps and permits) are specifically exempted from the provisions of the RPO "if determined to be consistent with a Comprehensive Resource Management and Protection Program which has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the "Otay Ranch" (RPO, Article V, Section 9). No specific .guidelines are included in the RPO with respect to the content and characteristics of the "Comprehensive Resource Management and Protection Program." With respect to sensitive habitats, Article IV, Item 6 of the RPO allows disturbance of sensitive habitat .where mitigation provides an equal or greater benefit to the affected species." Although the goals of both are nearly identical, the two differ in their approach and in their general methodology to achieve the goals. The goal of the RMP is establishment of an open space system that will become a permanent Management Preserve dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the multiple resources present on Otay Ranch. The intent of the RPO is "to increase the preservation and protection of the County's unique topography, natural beauty, diversity, and natural resources" (RPO, Article I)." The RMP is intended to be implemented as part of the overall integrated planning approach for Otay Ranch. The County's RPO is implemented on an individual, project by project, basis. While both approaches are appropriate under specific circumstances, direct comparison is difficult. Resoonse County Plannino Commission: RPO Article I - Findinos. Puroose and Intent, states: "It is the intent of this ordinance to increase the preservation and protection of the County's unique topography, natural beauty, diversity, and natural resources.... Otay Ranch offers increased preservation and protection of the County's unique resources through the use of project design to preserve large blocks of natural habitat totaling approximately 11,085 acres and cJntaining the most sensitive re~ources on Otay Ranch. These are connected by verified regional wildlife corridors. The RMP provides for long term management of the Preserve, with the goal of assuring the existence of such resources in perpetuity. Through management, existing resources will be monitored and remedies recommended for observed JUN". 1 6 at' 15 4 , Otay Ranch Project -11- June 16, 1993 declines. Patrols will reduce trespassing and vandalism. Invasive plants and animals will be reduced and enhancement programs will be implemented in degraded habitat areas to increase their diversity. The combination offers protections beyond that which occurs through simple designation of open space. As does the RPO, the RMP addresses multiple resources including wetlands, floodplains, sensitive habitats and cultural resources. Steep slope lands also are described in the RMP. Approximately 92 percent of the steep slopes on Otay Ranch are expected to be preserved through a combination of Preserve and non-Preserve open space. Unlike the RPO, the RMP also addresses paleontological and agricultural resources. Chapter 3 of the RMP incudes a comprehensive list of objectives and policies to ensure long-term protection and management of these resources. The County Planning Commission reviewed this issue and received public testimony from the Valle de Oro Planning Group, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and the Endangered Habitat League. The Planning Commission concluded that the RMP was the equivalent of the RPO and that the Preserve boundary, as proposed by the Commission, would adequately protect on-site resources. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO concurs with the County Planning Commission. Planninq Grouos: The Valle de Oro Planning Group (VDO) disagrees with the Planning Commission because they feel that the County RPO is more restrictive. The RMP allows for future analysis, for recreational uses in floodplains, for exceptions for utility and roads in Preserve Areas. VDO also has concerns with studies and base data used in RMP, and with future implementation of RMP. B. OTAY VALLEY PARCEL ISSUES B1. SHOULD VILLAGE 3 DEVELOP RESIDENTIALLY OR INDUSTRIALLY? Discussion: Village 3 is one of the two areas where City and County Staff have different recommendations. In Village 3, the Land Use Map depicts the County of San Diego recommendation for a residential community of 799 dwelling units, east of Paseo Ranchero. The City of Chu1a Vista recommendation is to have all the development area east and west of Paseo Ranchero, within Village 3 designated as industrial. This would increase industrial uses by 165.7 acres for a total of 235.4 acres in the Village 3 area. The City of Chula Vista position is that Village 3 does not have a sufficient number of dwelling units to function as a true village (i.e., cannot support an elementary school) and that the existing City of Chula Vista General Plan designation of industrial is the proper land use given the surrounding uses. There is existing and planned industrial to the west and south, a landfill to the north, open space and a rock quarry to JUN. 1 6 1993 tG 4 Otay Ranch Project -12- June 16, 1993 the east. The general isolation of the area lends itself to an industrial designation. The County of San Diego position is that there is an "abundance of industrial land designated on Otay Mesa, and that the market would not support further designation of industrial land. The County states that Paseo Ranchero Road is a logical buffer to the planned industrial to the west, and that, while Village 3 may have a low dwelling count, it nevertheless can function as a low-intensity village, given the close proximity of other villages. " Resoonse Plannina Commissions: County: On March 17, 1993, the County Planning Commission voted 5-2 to support the County staff recommendation. The rationale in support of the County Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. From a regional perspective, South County has an abundance of industrial zoned land, eliminating the need to provide industrial land within Otay Ranch. b. Designating all of Village 3 as industrial would create an unattractive gateway leading into the Otay Ranch community. c. The views across Wolf Canyon from Village 4 westward toward Village 3 would be impaired if all of Village 3 were designated industrial. d. Designating the entire village as industrial could eventually lead to the creation of a strip commercial environment, undermining the viability and success of Otay Ranch village centers. City: The City Planning Commission voted 6-1 to support the City staff recon11lendation. Rationale in support of the City Planning Commission recommendation is as foll ows: a. Chula Vista currently has a deficiency of industrially zoned land and this area represents one of the few opportunities to designate land for industrial uses. b. Chula Vista's industrially zoned land does not compete with Otay Mesa's industridlly zoned land because Chula Vista's location is superior to the Mesa area, and industrial development within Chula Vista has fewer entitlement obstacles than Otay Mesa. JUtt 1 6 1993 17 4 Otay Ranch Project -13- June 16, 1993 c. An industrial designation is more consistent with surrounding land uses. Immediately to the west is the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area. Immediately to the north is the current County landfill. d. Village 3 should not be zoned residential because it is relatively remote and isolated from the other Otay Ranch residential villages. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO concurs with the County Planning Commission. PlanninQ GrouDs: The Valle de Oro Planning Group feels that any development is inadequately analyzed in the EIR. 82. HOW MANY ROADS SHOULD CROSS THE RIVER VALLEY TO OTAY MESA? Discussion: The basic question that needs to be answered is how best to accommodate regional traffic demand while minimizing the impact of the roads crossing on the Otay Valley's sensitive resources and the proposed Regional Park? In analyzing the issue, the following factors were taken into consideration: 1. Adopted circulation plans of the City of Chula Vista, the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego. 2. The SF 125 alternative alignments with are identified as SI or S2. 3. Light-rail transit and utility locational needs. 4. Proposed Otay Valley Regional Park. 5. Regional traffic forecasts (including toll road impacts) 6. Resource Sensitivity Analysis. 7. Otay Ranch Citizen Committee's comments and recommendations. 8. Otay Ranch Technical Committee's (Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Biology and land Use) comments and recommendations. The conclusions reached by the staff which were considered by the Planning Commissions were as follows: a. Provide for three transportation corridors in the Otay Ranch General development Plan/Community Plan in addition to SR 125, as shown on the land Use Map, Exhibit 1 of this report. The corridors should be general in nature until the SR 125 alignment is adopted and traffic patterns on Otay Mesa are more clearly defined. JUN. 1 6 1993 i8 4 Otay Ranch Project -14- June 16, 1993 b. To the greatest extent feasible, the environmental resource value of O'Neal Canyon and Johnson Canyon should be preserved when determining the location of any of the transportation corridors. c. Due to the environmental sensitivity of this area, Alta Road should be shown as a potential transportation corridor whose need and location shall be determined as part of future studies including the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan or other future General Plan level transportation studies. d. Roads utilities, light-rail and SR 125 should be placed- in the transportation corridors at locations that minimize environmental and Regional Park impacts. e. Bridges should be utilized for all crossings wherever possible to avoid interference with wildlife corridors and minimize noise impacts on the Otay Valley floor. f. Areas which benefit from provision of transportation facilities should participate in the funding for those facilities. Financing mechanisms for bridge crossings should be included in the Otay Ranch and Otay Mesa Implementation Plans. ReSDonse: PlanninQ Commissions: Countv: On March 24, 1993, the County Planning Commission voted 4-3 in favor of staff recommendation for three river crossings, with a potential fourth for Alta Road. On May 8, 1993, the County Planning Commission voted 5-2 to reserve the right-of-way for Alta Road per staff recommendation and review Alta Road with the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan. Citv: On March 24, 1993, the City Planning Commission voted 7-0 to accept staff recommendation for four road crossing the Otay Valley. The rationale in support of the County/City Commissions' recommendation is as follows: The Otay Ranch land plan has a 30-50 year buildout horizon. Within that time period, it is foreseeable that they may be a demand for Alta Road. It is preferable to plan for that eventuality instead of ignoring it. Failure to include Alta Road as a potential regional arterial could be detrimental to future subregional plans. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAD concurs with the County Planning Commission. JUN. 1 6 1993 i9 4 Otay Ranch Project -15- June 16, 1993 PlanninQ Groups: The Otay Ranch Citizens Governing Committee recommends the deletion of Alta Road and adjusting Otay Mesa land uses (both City of San Diego and County) to avoid the need. 83. SHOULD TRANSIT VILLAGE CORE DENSITIES BE INCREASED FROM 14.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE? Discussion: The County/City Recommended Plan, as depicted on the land Use Map, Exhibit 1 of this report, and in the GDP/SRP document, proposes that transit-oriented village centers have densities of 14.5 dwelling units per acre. Subsequent to the distribution of the County/City Recommended Plan, the Interjurisdictional Task Force Executive Committee recommended that the densities 1n the transit-oriented village (Villages 1, 5, 6 and () be increased to 16.0 dwelling units per acres. The County Planning Commission recommends that the density in the transit oriented villages be 16.0 dwelling units per acre, but that there be "no net increase" in total dwelling units within each village over the number identified in the GDP/SRP document. The City Planning Commission recommends that the density in the transit- oriented village be 16.0 dwelling units per acre, and that there be a proportional increase in the total dwelling units within each transit village over the number identified in the GDP/SRP document. Resoonse PlanninQ Commissions: County: On March 24, 1993, the County Planning Commission voted 5-1-1 to support 16 dwelling units per acre for transit village cores with no net increase in individual village densities or units counts. The rationale in support of the County Planning Commission recommendations is as follows: Transit village centers should be sufficiently intense to make transit use viable and to increase the feasibility of providing affordable housing. However, the total number of units within each village wide should not be increased because the Otay Valley Parcel contains sufficient units. City: On May 8, 1993, the City Planning Commission voted to adopt staff recommendation for 16 dwelling units per gross acre in "the village cores with a corresponding increase of 680 units over all transit villages. The rationale in support of the City Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: Transit village centers should be sufficient intense to make transit use viable and to increase the feasibility of providing affordable housing. The remaining portion of the village should not be reduced ~~ 16m~ 20 4 Otay Ranch Project -16- June 16, 1993 in number of units because there is a desire to keep a balance mix of multiple/single-family units. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO concurs with the County Planning Commissio'n. The traffic impacts potentially caused by an increase in the number of dwelling units in transit villages have not been assessed. 84. SHOULD DEVELOPMENT ON OTAY VALLEY PARCEL BE TIED TO TRANSIT FUNDING ASSURANCE? Discussion: While the County and City Planning Commissions voted to increase the density in the cores of the transit villages from 14.5 to 16.0 dwelling units per acre (Issue 83), they also directed staff to address a phasing plan for funding of the light rail transit line through the Otay Valley Parcel as villages are built out. Staff prepared language which the Commissions reviewed and voted on at their hearing of May 13, 1993., ReSDonse Plannina Commissions: County: On May 13, 1993, the County Planning COJmlission voted 4-3 to accept staff recommended languages and to also limit development on the Otay Valley Parcel to 15,000 dwelling units and/or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial until funding and construction is issued for light rail transit. The rationale for the County Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. Any increase over the existing Chula Vista General Plan should be based in part on the implementation of light rail transit. b. Imposing the restriction recommended by the Commission would provide an incentive for the developer to ensure that light rail transit becomes a reality. City: On a vote of 7-0, the City Planning Commission voted to accept the staff recommended language with minor changes. The rationale for the City Commission recommendation is as follows: a) development should contribute to funding light rail transit and should develop on interim regional express bus systems; b) the concern is level of service Circulation Element roads - the Commission felt that the City's threshold standards adequately ensure that roads will not be over capacity; and c) light rail transit planning is a regional eff0rt under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Development Board (MTOS), not the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, or the app 1 i cant. JUN. 1 6 1993 21. 4 Otay Ranch Project -17- June 16, 1993 Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO concurs with the City Planning Conunission. . Plannina GrouDs: Crossroads: Concurs with the County Planning Convnission. 85. WHAT AREA SHOULD 8E DESIGNATED FOR POTENTIAL UNIVERSITY SITE? 86. WHAT SHOULD CONTROL THE PHASING OF THE UNIVERSITY SITE DESIGNATION? B7. SHOULD SALT CREEK REMAIN AS A SITE FOR POTENTIAL UNIVERSITY USE? Discussion: The University of California Regents have expressed their intention to construct three new University of California campuses over the next 20 years, one of which will be sited in Southern California. On October 6, 1989, the Baldwin Company and the City of Chula Vista jointly submitted a proposal to the University of California Board of Regents to locate a new university campus on Otay Ranch. The proposal identified a site near Wueste Road overlooking Otay Lakes and adjacent to the United States Olympic Training Center. During 1992, the City of Chula Vista and San Diego City Council and the County Board of Supervisors approved resolutions supporting the Wueste Road location for a university, subject to several conditions; and notably, that an environmental process be completed assuring the identification and protection of significant resources. The County/City Recommended Plan identifies a generalized location for a university westerly of Wueste Road, as shown on the land Use Map, Exhibit 1 of this report. Resoonse Plannina Commissions: County: The County Planning Commission recommended that the university location be expanded to include Villages 9 and la, and that the Salt . Creek area only be used for university proposes associated with biological research and resource protection activities.. The County Planning Convnission also recommended that the university land use be preserved within Villages 9 and 10 until after completion of the first three phases of the Otay Valley Parcel. The rationale in support of the County Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. The Wueste Road/Salt Creek area of Otay Ranch is biologically sensitive, precluding locating structures in that area. b. It is unrealistic to expect that a site of adequate size could be found within the Salt Creek/Wueste Road area upon which to locate a university. JUN. 1 6 1993 22 4 Otay Ranch Project -18- June 16, 1993 c. In order to attract a university to Otay Ranch, it is desirable to graphically depict a potential university location. d. Villages 9 and 10 because of their size, over 600 acres, and their location, proximity to the Easter Urban Center, Salt Creek, and the proposed light rail transit line, are good sites for a university. ~: The City Planning Commission, like the County Planning Commissi~n, recommended that the university location be expanded to include Villages 9 and 10 and that the university land use be preserved within Villages 9 and 10 until after the completion of the first three phases of the Otay Va 11 ey Parcel. The rationale in support of the City Planning Commission recommendation is as fo 11 ows : a. The Wueste Road/Salt Creek area of Otay Ranch is biologically sensitive, potentially precluding locating a university in that area. b. It is doubtful a site of adequate size could be created within the Salt Creek/Wueste Road area upon which to locate a university. c. In order to attract a university to Otay Ranch, it is desirable to graphically depict a potential university location. Chief Administrative Officer: The GDP/SRP land Use Hap identifies the general location of the potential university campus westerly of Wueste Road, consistent with resolutions adopted by the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the County of San Diego. If the University of California decides to locate on the Otay Ranch, the exact size of the campus and exact location and intensity of necessary support land uses will be subject to discretionary action by the appropriate governmental agency. This will be done in association with complete environmental review assuring that there are significant environmental constraints at the proposed site. The CAO believes policies contained in the GDP/SRP sufficiently address the issue. Policies specifically include: o The GDP/SRP shall symbolically identify the general location for a university campus westerly of Wueste Road, to include but not be limited to z 400 {usable} acres. The area shall also be assigned an underlying land use designation which shall be utilized should the University of California decide not to locate in the area. o The University of California should be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report which would identify and protect any significant environmental resources that cannot be mitigated. o The University of California should be required to prepare an analysis to ensure compatibility with adjacent villages. JUN. 1 6 1!93 23 4 . Otay Ranch Project -19- June 16, 1993 o If the University elects to locate on this site, the Resource Management plan shall. be re-evaluated to ensure that the siting of the facility does not interfere with or adversely impact the goals, objectives and policies of that plan. . o If the University elects to locate on the site, performance standards shall be adopted to address design, access and resource protection. o If the University requires more land than designated by the GDP/SRP land Use Map, transfers of residential density shall be examined on a case-by-case basis. o If the University requires Otay Ranch land designated by the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as neighborhood or community park, the local park requirements shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If the University elects not to locate at the Wueste Road site, the underlying land use designation will be utilized. Alternate sites for the University have not been identified on the Otay Ranch Land Use Map although the Chula Vista General Plan, amended in 1989, shows a site to the northwest of Salt Creek just south of Telegraph Canyon Road. Any future university site location would receive required environmental and General Plan Amendment review. Plannina Grouos: Otay Ranch Citizens Governing Committee and Valle de Oro Planning Group: remove university designation from the Salt Creek area. B8. SHOULD THE EASTLAKE LAND SWAP AREA BE AMENDED? Discussion: When the planning effort for the Otay Ranch began in 1989, the EastLake Development Company owned approximately 160 acres completely surrounding by the Otay Ranch and identified as part of the previously approved EastLake Phase II GDP (identified as Parcel "A" on attached Exhibit "A" of this report). Without inclusion in the overall planning for the Otay Ranch~ comprehensive planning for the Otay Valley Parcel would have been difficult. Because of this, various Project Team plan alternative have been prepared which include this parcel of land, since its 10ca~ion made coordinated planning a must. During the planning effort for the Otay Ranch, Baldwin Vista Associates and EastLake Development Company negotiated a private land swap agreement whereby land area of similar size (3 separate sites totaling approximately 161 acres, identified as Parcel "B" on Exhibit "A" of this report) located immediately adjacent to the EastLake Development land holdings' (EastLake Greens SPA), but a part of the Otay Ranch, would be transferred to the EastLake Development Company in exchange for the 160 acre parcel (Parcel A). This transfer would permit the coordinated development of the Otay Ranch and could result in a logical development boundary of Eastlake. .ruN. 1 6 1993 24 4 Otay Ranch Project -20- June 16, 1993 Environmental surveys and analysis have been conducted on the Otay Ranch parcels, including the EastLake parcel. Both land swap parcels are included in the Program EIR. City staff recommends a General Plan Amendment for the Eastlake parcel whereas County staff recommends no change to the existing County General Pl an. ReSDonse County PlanninQ Commission: The County Planning Commission recommends no change to the current County General Plan Designation of (19) Intensive Agriculture (1 dwelling unit/2, 4 & 8 acres). The rationale for the Commission recommendation is as follows: a. The appropriate Land Use Designation for this property is (21) Specific Planning Area, a designation which necessitates that policies and guidelines be developed to guide development. No information was provided to the County about proposed land uses that would have led to the development of policies and guidelines. b. Eastlake is a large master-planned community of which this land swap 1s only a small part. The majority of EastLake 1s in the City of Chula Vista, and has been developed according to that City's policies and standards. It is anticipated that this land swap area will be annexed to the City of Chula Vista. c. The County has consistently not recommended any change to land that was not strictly a part of the Otay Ranch project. c. DEVELOPMENT AROUND LOWER OTAY lAKE'ISSUES Cl. SHOULD THE AREA SOUTH AND EAST OF OTAY lAKE BE DEVELOPED (VILLAGE 15) 1 Discussion: Village 15, shown on the Land Use Plan Map, Exhibit 3 of this report, is the other area where County and City staff have different recommendations in regard to the land Use Plan. Two main documents analyzed the issue of development around the Lakes: 1) the Development Around Lower Otay lake Reservoir Issue Paper (Attachment 4.C.1) ; and 2) the Resource Sensitivity Analysis (Attachment 4.C.2). The issue paper concluded that because of the visual sensitivity of this area and the physical separation from the remainder of the parcel, development was not recommended for the area immediately south of the Lake, it should be limited to a village to the east of the lake. The village core would consist ofa small neighborhood commercial component, a park, m~lti-family unas and an elementary school. The village would be the only village core in the San Ysidro Parcel. The issue paper concluded that the village should be located at this location (as opposed to being located adjacent to or in close proximity to the resort) for several reasons, including: JUN. 1 6 1!93 25 4 , . Otay Ranch Project -21- June 16, 1993 1. Economic Viabilitv/Thresholds for Resident ServinQ Uses: A total of 1,637 units are proposed east of the lake (including that area east of this parcel identified as Planning Area 17). It is proposed that the village core be located on the southeast side of the lake in an area more readily accessible for year-round resident (as compared with visitor and resort-related uses), thereby improving serviceability and the economic viability of the village core. 2. Comoatibilitv of land Use: An elementary school and neighborhood commercial land uses are not considered compatible uses adjacent to a resort and resort-related residential areas. In addition, if it is determined that affordable housing needs to be provided around the lower Otay lake, the most appropriate location would be immediately adjacent to a village core area to provide access to commercial and community/civic uses. 3. Access: locating the village core east of the lake provides easier access to services for residents in the San Ysidro Parcel. Assuming an elementary school and park are located adjacent to one another, a minimum size of 17 acres is required. While a 17-acre site can be found within proposed development areas north of the lake, it would be located either adjacent to the resort, adjacent to Otay Lakes Road (the primary circulation road in the area) or "tucked" within one of the development areas. The location east of the lake is more centrally located for all residents in the area. 4. Sense of Community: A sense of community will be created with development of the village core east of the lake by allowing local residents to identify with the uses in the village core rather than areas within or adjacent to the resort. 5. Visibilitv: The north side of lower Otay lake is more visible than the east side. The placement of community facilities will be more easily integrated on the east side of the lake. . 6. Resource Sensitivity: The village core, including commercial, park and school facilities, consists of approximately 23 acres. There are limited areas of this size north of the lake which do not encroach upon steep slopes or sensitive resources. The open space option area to the west of the village core would provide an additional approximate 222 acres of open space and decrease the dwelling units by 391 units. The County of San Diego staff feels this open space area would be beneficial to the overall open space preserve system. JUN. 1 6 1993 26 4 , Otay Ranch Project -22- June 16, 1993 ResDonse Planninq Commissions: County: The County Planning Commission recommends that Village 15 be deleted. The rationale in support of the County Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. The area southeast of the lake contains Coastal sage scrub habitat and is an area with substantial gnatcatcher sightings. . b. Development within the planning area would create adverse visual impacts looking from the resort site, Otay lakes Road'and t~e lake. c. Development in this area would adversely impact two regional wildlife corridors and two local wildlife corridors. d. The proposed development in the Village center is too intense for a location this remote from urbanized areas. e. At least one side of the Otay Reservoir should remain open space. City: The City of Chula Vista Planning Commission recommends development areas identical to the City staff recommendations, but that Village 15 be a high quality, estate development, substantially reduced in dwelling units from the County/City Recommended Plan. The rationale in support of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. This planning area presents the only opportunity within the Otay Ranch property, and probably within the South County, to create a truly exclusive high-end, estate community. b. Development of lower densities (compared to higher densities recommended in the County/City plan) can be accommodated'within this planning area while minimizing adverse environmental effects. c. GDP/SRP regulations ensure that development will be sited to ensure the long term viability of regional wildlife corridors adjacent to Village 15. d. Designation of this area as open space would preclude the pOSSibility of planning Village 15 as a premier area should environmental considerations change at a later date. e. An estate community is desirable to the South County in order to attract owners, Chief Executive Officers, and other key business JUN. 1 6 1993 27 4 , Otay Ranch Project -23- June 16, 1993 persons who are likely to make locational decisions regarding new industries locating or expanding within South County. f. The development of Village 15 as a high-income. premier community will generate significant surplus tax revenue to the benefit of all South County taxing entities. g. Creation of a premier estate community within the Otay Ranch will enhance the image and influence of the entire South County community. h. Protection of the gnatcatcher is assured since any proposed development affecting this species will require u.S. Fish and Wildlife permits, and compliance with the HSCP/NCCP programs. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO recommends that a village be developed east of Otay lake with an urban core and an elementary school, but that no development be allowed south of the lake. Planninq Grouos: Otay Ranch Citizens Governing Committee and Jamul/Dulzura: Concur with the County Planning Commission. Sweetwater: Agrees that development could be allowed south and east of lower Otay Lake, but that a minimum one-quarter mile buffer be planned around the Lake. C2. WHAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED NORTH OF LOWER OTAY LAKE (VILLAGE 13)1 Discussion: Consistent with the Development Around Lower Otay Lake Reservoir Issue Paper and the Resource Sensitivity Analysis (Attachment 4.C.l and 4.C.2), the staff recommendation includes a resort village located on the relatively flat plateau north of lower Otay lake. This village consists of two areas: A resort center to the south and low and low-medium density residential areas in the foothills to the north. The development proposal includes a buffer which will consist of trails and a public promenade to follow the existing alignment of Otay lakes Road. (See land Use Plan Hap, Exhibit 2 of this report.) The Resort Village will reflect a Village concept similar to other resorts such as La Quinta, California; Sun Valley, Idaho; and Vail, Colorado. The core of the village will contain shops, .restaurants, art galleries, and service commercial for the convenience of residents, as well as the hotel/resort visitors. The hotel(s) will be located near the Village core, arranged in rambling fashion covering the mesa top with groups of low rise buildings and casitas. Heights will generally be from one to three stories, with occasional four-story buildings. The rooms will be located to capture views and create courtyards. The hotel(s) will include eating JUN. 1 6 1993 28 4 , Otay Ranch Project -24- June 16, 1993 establishments and a medium-sized conference facility. Championship golf, tennis, a swimming complex, equestrian, hiking and mountain biking may be offered. . The single-family homes north of the planned Otay Lakes Road alignment will be linked by trails and underpasses to the hotel, recreational amenities, restaurants, and the lake. These homesites will be sensitively designed to capture the views into canyons and across the lake. In the western portion of the village, medium density resort residential uses are planned. Residences may be condominiums or individual casitas, compatible with the resort in architectural character. c>> The existing road will become a major pedestrian and bicycle path, providing public access across the north lake frontage. Staging.areas at each end of the path will include public parking. Up to a 27 hole golf course may be built. It will be designed to help preserve sensitive resources through careful route design and use of natural vegetation buffers which may also function as wildlife corridors. The canyon in the eastern portion of the site will be preserved as a wildlife corridor and open space link from Otay Lake to the north, where it will connect with the large open space of Jamul Mountain. The Birch Family Estate Parcel will be utilized for a specialty conference center/community center, with low density residential uses and open space on its western edge, consistent with the residential densities of nearby EastLake Vistas and EastLake Woods. The City of Chula Vista/s greenbelt would continue to the east of the Ranch House next to the City of San Diego property. There has not been a market study done for the resort site. However, it is seen as an appropriate use for the site and given the 30 to 40 year buildout of the project, it seems likely that there would be a market for a well designed resort. ResDonse Plannina Commissions: County: The County Planning Commission recommends deletion of the three development areas (346 dwelling units) east of the wildlife corridor identified in the County/City Recommended Plan. Rationale in support of the Planning Commission recommendation is as foll ows: a. Elimination of development in the area, coupled with elimination of the village southeast of the lake (Village 15), creates a large open JUN. 1 6 1993 2 ~) 4 Dtay Ranch Project -25- June 16, 1993 space system which can act as a habitat linkage between the San Ysidro Mountains and the Jamul Mountains. b. These areas could serve as areas for Coastal sage scrub habitat revegetation. c. This area has been the subject of a gnatcatcher sighting. Citv: The City of Chula Vista Planning Commission supports the County/City Staff recommended Plan including retaining the development areas east of the wildlife corridor. Rationale in support of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. The three development areas are not environmentally constrained. b. The viability of the adjacent wildlife corridor is not compromised by development within these three development areas. c. The destination resort, envisioned within this village, is a desirable South County land use. Elimination of a large portion of the village undermines the viability of the resort. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAD concurs with the City Planning Commission. Plannino GrouDs: Dtay Ranch Citizens Governing Committee and Crossroads: provide a minimum one-half mile buffer on the north side of the Lake. Sweetwater: provide a minimum one-fourth mile buffer around the lake. Jamul/Dulzura: Concurs with the County Planning Commission. D. CENTRAL PROCTOR VALLEY ISSUES 01. SHOULD CENTER PROCTOR VALLEY (CPV) PRESERVE AREA BE ENLARGED? 02. SHOULD CPV INCLUDE A VILLAGE CORE AND ASSOCIATED URBAN DENSITIES? 03. SHOULD PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD BE CLASSIFIED 4-LANE MAJOR ROAD? 04. SHOULD CPV BE SEWERED? Discussion: Village Concept: Village 14 in the Central Proctor Valley Parcel ;s proposed as a "Specialty" village serving as a transitional area between urban densities to the west and rura1 development in Jamul to the east. JUN. 1 6 1!93 30 4 Otay Ranch Project -26- June 16, 1993 located in central and lower Proctor Valley, the proposed land use plan includes a golf course and medium, low-medium and low density residential uses, as shown on the land Use Plan Map, Exhibit 2 of this report. Also proposed is a mixed use area containing medium-high r~sidential units, an elementary school, neighborhood park, and limited commercial/public facility acreage. . The staff recommendation is consistent with the Village Character Issue Paper (Attachment 4.8.3) and the Central Proctor Valley Issue Paper (Attachment 4.0.1) by proposing a specialized, transition village with neighborhood commercial and community services provided in a smaller village core. This will promote community character and identity in an area that is physically and visually isolated from the Otay Valley Parcel and from Jamul. Development would take place in the less sensitive areas as identified by the Resource Sensitivity Analysis. Commercial: The proposed low-intensity village core will provide 3.3 acres of commercial services needed to support the immediate community of Central Proctor Valley. The small size of the commercial area will limit the ability of the center to draw customers from other areas. Proctor Valley Road: Proctor Valley Road serves as a regional link between communities. If that linkage were not available, significant community impacts in Chula Vista, Jamul, Sweetwater, Spring Valley could occur. The width of this road should be sized to acknowledge its regional importance. Sewer: The City/County recommendation is that sewers be provided in the area to serve the proposed densities and avoid impacts to the water quality of the Otay lakes reservoirs. Staff is also recommending that sewers be designed to meet the demand of the project and adjacent properties within the Central Proctor Valley. ReSDonse P1annina Commissions County: Village Concept - the County Planning Commission recommends that the southwestern-most two development area be eliminated along with the southern edge of the Central Proctor Valley village. The Commission further recommends that development within the Central Proctor Valley area restrict lot sizes to an Estate Development Area Regional Category, 1 dwelling unit/2, 4, 8 or 20 acres. The rationale in support of the County Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. Eliminating development on either side of the Proctor Valley regional wildlife corridor increases the viability and potential success of the wildlife corridor. JUN. 1 6 1993 31. 4 Otay Ranch Project ~27- June 16, 1993 b. The Proctor Valley area is too remote for urban levels of intensities. c. The Planning Commission recommended intensities are consistent with the community character established in the greater Jamul area. d. Elimination of urban levels of intensity in the Proctor Valley area could eliminate the need to construct Proctor Valley Road as a four 1 ane Major Road. Proctor Valley Road - the County Planning Commission recommends that Proctor Valley Road be limited to two lanes. The rationale in support of the County Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. Decreasing the width of Proctor Valley Road increases the viability of the regional wildlife corridor which crosses Proctor Valley. b. A two lane road is more consistent with the rural character envisioned for Proctor Valley and the greater Jamul area. c. Creation of a larger road would have an adverse growth-inducing impacts on Proctor Valley and Jamul. Sewer - the County Planning Commission recommends that sewer be prohibited in the Proctor Valley and Jamul planning areas. Rationale in support of the County Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. Provision of a sewer system in Proctor Valley and Jamul will have an adverse growth inducing impact. b. The level of development recommended by the County Planning Commission does not warrant the introduction of sewer into Proctor Va 11 ey or Jamul. City: Village Concept - the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission endorses the City/County Recommended Plan creating a recreational village within the Central Proctor Valley area. The rationale in support of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: a. Proctor Valley serves as an area for consolidation of development from more remote or environmentally sensitive areas, thus creating large areas of inter-connected open space. JUN. 1 6 1993 32 4 Otay Ranch Project . f. -28- June 16, 1993 b. The Proctor Valley village serves as a transition between more urban uses to the west and the rural development in Jamul, and is visually separated from Jamul by a ridgeline at the north end of the valley. The 'Proctor Valley area is not environmentally constrained. The regional wildlife corridor which crosses Proctor Valley is protect~d through the preservation of a 2,200 foot wide wildlife corridor. Further analysis at. the SPA level will enable the wildlife corridor to be adjusted as needed. c. d. e. Development intensities within Proctor Valley complement intensities in the Chula Vista Eastern Territories. Proctor Valley provides an opportunity to create a golf course oriented community to serve the entire South County. Development of Proctor Valley will expedite and facilitate the timing of the provision of Proctor Valley Road, a needed regional linkage between South County and the East County area. Proctor Valley Road - the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission endorses the Staff Recommendation to designate Proctor Valley Road as a four-lane road. g. Rationale in support of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission recommendation is a follows: a. Proctor Valley Road has historically been designated on the County Circulation Element as a four lane road. Downsizing this road at this time would disrupt regional circulation patterns. b. The Wildlife Corridor Study states that an under-crossing or over- crossing can be designed to ensure the Viability of the Proctor Valley wildlife corridor. c. Proctor Valley Road is a necessary transportation corrid9r between South County and East County. d. Traffic studies clearly demonstrate that, if Proctor Valley is . eliminated or downsized, traffic volume and congestion would be increased in Jamul, Sweetwater, Bonita and Chula Vista area. e. Portions of Proctor Valley Road, which cross open space or wildlife corridors, can be downsized to two lanes without adversely affecting regional circulation. However, four lanes are necessary to serve regional circulation needs and adjacent land uses. Sewer - the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission concurs with the County/City Recommended Plan which would permit sewer within Proctor Valley. JUN. 1 6 1993 33 4 Otay Ranch Project -29- June 16, 1993 The rationale in support of the City of Chula Vista Commission recommendation is as follows: a. The greater Jamul area is served by septic and groundwater systems. These are not compatible with long-term utility systems. Current studies indicate that, even without additional development, it is desirable to convert the greater Jamul area to a sewer system. b. Jamul and Proctor Valley are within the northeastern watershed of the Otay Reservoir. The Otay Reservoir is a source of potable water for the City of San Diego. It is unwise planning to mandate septic systems close to a potable water reservoir. c. The prohibition of sewer or other public utilities is an inappropriate means to control land uses. Chief Administrative Officer: . The CAO concurs with the City Planning Commission. Plannina GrOUDS: Dtay Ranch Citizens Governing Committee: concurs with staff on the classification of Proctor Valley Road. Jamul/Dulzura: Eliminate Village 14 and include Central Proctor Valley into the Preserve. 05. SHOULD THE JAMUL/DULZURA SUBREGIONAL PLAN TEXT BE AMENDED TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT MILLAR RANCH ROAD BE A PRIVATE ROAD? Discussion: Staff proposes to amend the Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan Text to delete the requirement that Millar Ranch Road be a private road. The Jamul/Dulzura Planning Group strongly objects to this amendment. Millar Ranch Road is off-site the Otay Ranch Project area. It was modeled as a public road in all the Alternatives analyzed in the project EIR because of the Board's prior actions on the Hidden Valley Estates Specific Plan (7/10/91, Minute Order 11), and because 1ts capacity was needed to serve the proposed project. ReSDonse Plannina Commissions County: The County Planning Commission agreed with the Jamul/Dulzura Planning Group that the Jamul/Dulzura Plan Text should not be amended to delete the requirement that Millar Ranch Road be a pri~ate road. It agreed with the Planning Group's rationale that: a. Additional environmental review is necessary before the Jamul/Dulzura Plan Text is amended as proposed by staff. JUN. 1 6 1993 34 4 Otay Ranch Project -30- June 16, 1993 b. Proposed traffic on Millar Ranch Road, if it becomes a public road, would degrade Jamul's community character. c. Traffic from Proctor Valley should be routed to the west. City: The City Planning Commission recommends that the Jamul/Dulzura Plan Text be amended as proposed by staff because: a. Board of Supervisors' action on the Hidden Valley Estates Specific Plan mandated the "preservation of additional' right-of-way of Millar Ranch Road for future regional traffic needs." b. The need for the capacity of Millar Ranch Road was demonstrated in the traffic analysis conducted for the Otay Ranch project. c. The County cannot accept the reserved right-of-way unless Millar Ranch Road is recognized as a public road. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO concurs with the City Planning Commission. Plannina Grouos: Otay Ranch Citizens Governing Committee: concurs with the City Planning Commission except that Millar Ranch Road should not be improved to public road standard until Proctor Valley Road is realigned to the south and SR 95 is upgraded. Jamul/Dulzura: concurs with the County Planning Commission. Valle de Oro: concurs with the County Planning Commission and opposes Millar Ranch Road connecting with Proctor Valley Road. 06. SHOULD THE URBAN LIMIT LINE BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT AREAS WEST OF THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR, IN THE -UPSIDE DOWN L-1 Discussion: Staff proposes to extend the Urban Limit Line into Central Proctor Valley to include all of proposed Village 14, which would be developed at urban densities. This proposal is an amendment to the Regional Land Use Element, from the Estate Development Area (EDA) and Rural Development Area (RDA) Regional Categories to the Current Urban Development Area (CUDA) Regional Category. Resoonse Plannina Commissions: County: The County Planning Commission recommends the CUDA Regional Category on the "upside down L" area and EDA on the remainder of Planning Area 14, consistent with their land use action on Central Proctor Valley (see Issue D2). ~. 16~~ 35 4 Otay Ranch Project -31- June 16, 1993 City: The City Planning Commission recommends extending the CUDA Regional Category over all of Village 14 because their recommendation is for a specialty village with some urban densities and uses. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO concurs with the City Planning Commission. Plannino GrouDs: Jamul/Dulzura and Valle de Oro: The CUDA Regional Category should not be applied to any part of Central Proctor Valley. The whole area should be placed in the Environmentally Constrained Area (ECA) Regional Category like the rest of the Preserve. E. JAHUL PLANNING AREA ISSUE (PLANNING AREAS 16 AND 19) El. SHOULD SEWER BE PERMITTED IN PLANNING AREAS 16 AND 191 Discussion: Planning Areas 16 and 19 are located north of Central Proctor Valley, as shown on the Land Use Plan Hap, Exhibit 2 of this report, and are partially within the Jamul Country Town. They cover 1,136 acres, and would accommodate 410 dwelling units on lots ranging from 1 to 4 acres in size. Because the soils of Planning Areas 16 and 19 may not accommodate septic systems from 410 dwelling units, and because over time, septic systems may have a negative impact on the Otay Reservoir, staff recommends that Planning Areas 16 and 19 may be sewered if necessary. ResDonse Plannino Commissions: County: Sewer in Planning Areas 16 and 19 should be prohibited because it would have growth-inducing impacts on the community of Jamul, which to date is not served by sewers. ~: The City Planning Commission recommends that sewers be allowed in Planning Areas 16 and 19 for the following reasons: a. Septic and groundwater systems are not compatible with long term utility systems. Current studies indicate that, even without additional development, it is desirable to convert the greater Jamul area to a sewer system. b. Jamul is within the northeastern watershed of the Otay Reservoir. The Otay Reservoir is a source of potable water for the City of San Diego. It is unwise planning to mandate septic systems close to a potable water reservoir. JUN. , 6 '993 . 36 4 Otay Ranch Project -32- June 16, 1993 c. The prohibition of sewer or other public utilities is an inappropriate means to control land uses. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO concurs with the City Planning Commission. PlanninQ GrouDs: Jamul/Dulzura: concurs with the County Planning Commission. F. SAN YSIDRO PARCEL ISSUES Fl. WHAT AREAS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED? Discussion: Planning Area 17 is located in the eastern por-tion of the San Ysidro Parcel, easterly of Lower Otay Lake, as shown on the Land Use Plan Hap, Exhibit 3 of this report. The Staff Plan proposed 287 dwelling units on 1,543 acres, with lots ranging from 4 to 8 acres in size. The applicant requested an additional 9 dwelling units on 90 acres. ResDonse PlanninQ Commissions: Countv: The County Planning Commission recommendation is for 287 dwelling units on 1,543 acres. The'County Planning Commission did not agree with the applicant's request for the following reason: development in the Southeast corner of Planning Area 17 is not warranted because the area has sensitive environmental resources. Citv: The City Planning Commission agreed with the applicant and . recommends that the staff-proposed Planning Area 17 be expanded to the southwest by 90 acres and 9 additional dwelling units for the following reasons: a. Nine homes located on 10 acre lots within a 90 acres area, can be sensitively located so as to avoid any environmental deg~adation. b. limited large lot development in this area is necessary to provide effective and sufficient access to an adjoining privately-owned property to the south. c. Resource maps indicate minimal sensitive resources in this area. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAO concurs with the County Planning Commission. .AAt 161m 37 4 Otay Ranch Project -33- June 16, 1993 F2. SHOULD SEWER BE EXTENDED TO PLANNING AREA 171 Discussion: Planning Area 17 is proposed to retain its existing Rural Development Area Regional Category, a category that is applied to areas outside the boundaries of the County Water Authority which are.primarily made up of agricultural or unimproved lands. Sewer is not customarily proposed in such areas. County staff and the County Planning Commission recommend against extending sewer to Planning Area 17. . City staff and the City Planning Commission recommend that sewer not be precluded from this area. ResDonse Planninq Commissions Countv: The County Planning Commission recommends prohibiting sewer in Planning Area 17 because it would be growth inducing and the proposed level of development does not warrant introducing sewer in this area. Citv: The City Planning Commission recommends the extension of sewer to Planning Area 17 because of the possible long-term impacts of septic systems on the potable water system of the Otay Reservoir, and because the prohibition of sewer of other public utilities is an inappropriate means to control land uses. Chief Administrative Officer: The CAD concurs with the County Planning Commission. Planninq GrouDs: Jamul/Dulzura: concurs with the County Planning Commission. G. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT/SUBREGIONAL PLAN (GDP/SRP) TEXT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP) Gl. SHOULD THE ERRATA SHEET CONTAINING GDP/SRP TEXT AND RMP TEXT AMENDMENTS BE ACCEPTED? G2. SHOULD THE GDP/SRP TEXT REGARDING UNIVERSITY USES IN SALT CREEK BE AMENDED (SEE ISSUE B7)1 G3. SHOULD THE GDP/SRP TEXT BE AMENDED TO LIMIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO TRANSIT FUNDING ASSURANCE (SEE ISSUE B4)1 . Discussion: ERRATA SHEET - The General Development Plan/Subregional Plan Text (GDP/SRP) was printed in October of 1992. Since that time, certain clerical and policy revisions were prepared and compiled in the document nt 1 6 1993 38 4 Otay Ranch Project -34- June 16, 1993 titled "ERRATA SHEET." These reV1Slons were agreed upon by County and City staff and by the applicant, and were presented to the County and City Planning Commissions. UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE - The County and City Planning Commissions recommended some changes to the GDP/SRP chapters addressing a future university on Otay Ranch. These suggested revisions were especially directed at the siting and phasing of a future university (See Issue 87). There is a disagreement between the Commissions on. the language describing university uses in the Salt Creek area. TRANSIT RELATED THRESHOLDS - The County and City Planning Commissions recommended revisions to the GDP/SRP that would ensure funding for a light rail transit through the Otay Valley Parcel. The County Commission also recommended that development on the Otay Valley Parcel be limited to 15,000 units and/or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial until funding and construction of a light rail transit line is assured. ResDonse ERRATA SHEET: County and City Planning Commissions and the CAO all concur with the staff-proposed revisions to the GDP/SRP Text, except the County Planning Commission disagrees that "minimal structural improvements in the Preserve" should be allowed. UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE: County and City Planning Commissions concur on the proposed revised language except that the County Planning Commission recommends prohibiting structures in the Salt Creek Area (see Issue 87). The Executive Committee for the Otay Ranch project has not taken a position on the revised language. TRANSIT RELATED THRESHOLDS: The County and City Planning Commissions concur on the proposed revised language except that the County Planning Commission recommends that development on the Otay Valley Parcel be limited to 15,000 units and/or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial (see Issue B4). The Executive Committee for the Otay Ranch project has not taken a position on the revised language. PLANNING GROUP/PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Four planning groups have participated in the review of Otay Ranch plans: Jamul/Dulzura, Valle de Oro, Sweetwater, and Spring Valley. Their comments are summarized in the Major Issue Summary Table, Attachment 1, of this report and presented in the Issue Discussion.Section of this report. Letters of comments from the Planning Groups can be found in Attachment 6 (TAB #6, Planning Group Comments, of the 80ard of Supervisors/Chu1a Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder) OTHER RELArEu .INFORMATION JUN. 1 6 1993 39 4 Otay Ranch Project -35- June 16, 1993 Subsequent joint hearings of the Board of Supervisors and Chula Vista City Council have been tentatively set as follows: Wednesday, June 30, 1993 - 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. Board Chambers Monday, July 12. 1993 - 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Wednesday. July 21. 1993 - 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. Board Chambers Thursday, JUly 22, 1993 - 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Monday, July 26, 1993 - 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. Board Chambers The hearing of June 2, 1993 was the publicly-advertised date. The Board and Chula Vista City Council may revise the schedule, as required. JUN. 1 6 1993 40 Otay Ranch Project BOARD POLICY APPLICABLE: 1-109 - PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED ENTERPRISES, lTD., LAND HOLDINGS; 1-163 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNSEL AS TO LEGALITY: DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ~~~Ra=: BOARD05\OTAYRNCH.LT2-tf -36- 4 June 16, 1993 CONCURRENCES: NONE NEEDED .CAO OR AU"'W~RIZED REPRESENTATIVE: t/J/UtM~ (06S0) CONTACT PERSON CHANTAL SAIPE 694-3014 JUN. 1 6 1593 41 .. :s: ." .. ....... .. 0 5 .. ;; " .. c ~ .. .. .. o . c: .. rOO .. . .. . ....... . ::J 0. OJ " .. c: .. :s .. c .. .. 0.'" .. ... ... ... 0. .. .. .:ro. :s · .. " ... ..... _Of :; ! ~ 0..... -. ...0" :s ;.. c .. " :r :r c · ... .. .. .. . . .. .. . ",:r fIT C .. ..... .. . II> .., C : . ... .. ... .. " . ~:'-o .. CI\~ " '0 :s II .. :I :s...... ~:s , ,," O'<l'l " . , c ... .. ... " .. o .. .. :: .. !I " .. .. :l g .... 0. .. 0<. .. . . 0.=- :."~ -0." : .. r;' " 0" :I .. :s " 0 .. " . :n \: :I :s 0. 0- ~ ;. "Cl .. .. ... .. .. ~ ." S ....... .. ::J ;s" I> ..." "':1 .. l" ~ .. ~ '0 =,0': ....; : .. .. I> .. ... g : ::l iI .. . " C o.:l :ro-~ . .. .. .. " .. ...... .,,~~ ... .. ."0- so... ....... :s:r'" WI .. ~ ('l 0' .. .. o .. ~... '0 :II o .. .. ~ ::; :r ...n o .. :l .. .. ... 0." .. " ...:s ..... .. ('l .. 0 C .. .. .. .. .. :r;. .. :I :r" .. n -;1 '0 .. o .. .. .. " .. n. .. ~s:1Cl ~gN lIt"'~ ~-o &~ i.3 III Ql ... ::l c< lit ... 5~ 0: 0-:1' ;I~ < - ~ ."" '" 0 ... S o - t ~ ;;F III 5' ~% . g. 6':) ?1Q ~ . ~ o Ql ~ ;~--4 ~_2.-:1' '" . ,.;; .:=:::~ ~iQlo tll~:=lIl (') o~ 5:(.... (')~~:( ~mo::: ..,:r = '" :( - . --" ~ 9::l~ ~~!!. -0- ~ ::s ;~ ...- ~~ ~o " c ~Q. ~~ 5'- 0.1Q C .. !e.~ i'o. ~l o "0 g S ~ <: S ~ ~ a ~~ S:~ !!.::lI c: ~g: '!' ::l ~ o ::l -< 0."(') .s.~2 . Q::S -~ =~ 8::l1 ::lOt gi -:1'- .. ~ - III 00: O=:;fll $t ~:~ ":,,,,~i 2.,... ~lIt .~ ...0. .. tll o ::I ~'i " - ::I~ g.~ ..!!. - 0 0"0 0=:;3 cgfll IDa. lib' 8 ::s ls ~ :E ::s := g.:r ::.U) g. . = 0: .. ::I ~ o ~ 5' ~ S. !!. c: '" fll jI' -(') ~ 0 ~g ~~ g.:r g-Y2 ::I .. ,= lb' ~g Cl:( b'~ !b' '" c: I/O ::I 5< ? C:=(')O .. 0 0 - ~ ~3~ O'.~::l .:=::~ co."('l u.":r s: ,g. (5 (') :JC:::;:J'# t'OeoN 3.0G)~ . ;I (') '" <~G) ~OO .. .. .. : i3 s"5' ::I ~Cl ~co ~o..-%. < _.."000.0 ",c"O "0 . 6' li rrt~ .. g:" Ill.. ~~ !' 3Cl _!!.c _II>~:Z:<" ~..",,,o _<"'" u;~0"3 ~~0\1'" :O('l~a. s::.~~~ .. 3 ~::I =' i'O"'s. e :)-:r ~ -.. 0. m 5' ~ ~.. ;; ". > ~.g II> 0. N O_oll ~~S"Co _('1,,0 !..-" ....~.,. g" ~ " ;. ...o.._CD -:1'_2.~ ......~ 0==9.-0 o ~o S..a .:< = o .. ;; .. 5:"0 -< ~~,g~~9.\1 :r~i-::;"~'co' ..~~g':l~-4 0"33~...:r ...~tD" .".(1 ~;~~i'i:c ~_.."o-~ .;.:;=c:=~ ~.....ClO. g.(')~~g.Sg. ~~.~..g~ 0::1- .. l~i~ =i ~~ ""0 '0 -< .. !" ~ n c: ... ~ ~ Y2 I>> = li ('l o ~ III ~ 0. II> ~ --0< . . ,~ !~ i~ ::::( 0::: ?:r Y2 II> ::& 5"5'!.!'-C:-3< is _.g:2.00 _~-:1'!I's....2'i9 !! ::0." -' .' - ~~_ __::sr:"z. .. c: <:~ -. ::s,,9oO ,..!!.~ =::ltllO!!~.::lo :::.o.~.c.a::J9.-- o:(~;;;_'O!-<i ::I:=o.o~i:.IIl~ 2.~O'-:1'o.api-4s; ~cco.". _=c: ,._....5"_0.::l ::0. S III ('I g:.".:< ~tllo.o:p."~'" !!.5")<~-~ . .. III ('I tll .. 0 :a1\~i~ 0. ::l::t:E .. !!. .. =---=--- moQ.- g"8 " 0 ~"",o .. .. " 0.-" ~i~ o 11\"" "li'-6m ~,,3i sa. o.o~ !l -,g ~c: CI !!. ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~8 ~ (')c: ~ 1% ~ e~ ~ g~ 5 z~ -< t ~ rn . !.-< "0 ~ It ..::1' ~C:-4 ",!!.:r 0" CI =i!!! &iD:= "0 -~ s:i ~=g: . \l" '" g. .. . ~~ t, III .. i~ ~i ;;m g"S; g.~ lit ~ I: ~o: o .. 1: ~o. II> ~ !!. CD 0. !!. . 0' . .. II' " ~ I 8 i~ ~~ ZZ ! ..'., \ I' [. ~ . ,',.,. . \' ~.: ':\ \; ~::~: : .:.:.:.,~, .. ~g..-< o III ~1lI "li';-~ !" S1."i .. .... . n.i -im g".:tl ~ _"0 ClOO . .. .,C: to CD ~'" '" i89~i?~i?.g' .:lO"::Ia~::lo ..(')r:CI::I~::I::l S ; ~ i :;- ~:;-4O \l .. (I)!!. 1Q c 4C ~ . -~!l~~~:= .g-:1'(')0"'~~ a. ': 0 -% · "0 (') 5'''' ~_s;......!2 Cl..~a3!:Q3 i-Si-;~-:""~ .5,,<::1::1 ~ 0I=~0.= ooi(: =-..Ii' ooi(: g 0. $ oS ~~~g"t9~ "E"CD:T~O:= ::. 0..::1 CI tll c: III ::l _ c: -'l.:1 0. Cl::s~"Or:~CI (')4C " 0 · o~-<"li'CioQ c<..n-.-......o ::s '" 0.::": 0 .' (') ':<oQ-;s"zo (;)'0.0.= 03 ,!3=~\l' 3 !l~~"";!S !!.-I2:;:1:TIlI~ "Q ~ ::I 9. ..m.... .:.!!. ~3il ?:r< "0-:;:1 III II> 1lI"::S ... S1. 5' .. Cl , --' -- 4 . 9 ~ ~ CO) i ~ o z "fJJ C ?' - ?' - > '::0 <.,.l 0> ~< ~::: >> c-Z o~ -- ....- - "fJJ "fJJ C ~ "fJJ \ ~ -i ::P (""l ~ 3: ~ :2 ... ':q ~ ; % CO) ~UUN.1E ~ . . l't '"t .... ,'" I .. ~~ , .. ",'" .. ... ... .. .. :1'" .. .. ..... . .. . l :. ~=: -:1- .. :. c ;~i .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. ':rt'i' ... .. .. .. '" .. .. ~\ ~ ~ ..... .. . :.:'~ .. .A .. ..;o~ .:.'" 1;.& o<~ " .. i ;';... . ... 0"" .. ~ .. . .. '0 ~i.;. 0<. '" .. . 0.':- ::..~ "'0.-- ~ . r; .. 0" l1. .. :I "It 0 "". t\i \;.';!. "":; ~ ." :I '" ~t;: .,.~ti ~ ~.. ': ..:I '0 c. " . ~"'. .. 0 .. .." .--5 .. ~ ~...\ .. .. ~~\- :~:. .. ... 0 ...;, -- .. .. 0- so... ;;.';: tit · ~ ~ o' .. .. ~~ '0 ~~ o ::l .. " -;.:'::' o~ ::l .. .. .. 0.': ... ::l ::." .. ~ ... 0 ;.1 .. ... :1:- .. ::l -:r" .. ~ 1\ ~ .. o .. .. .. Nt~ .. .. .. go f1\ .. fIl ~ l} lit so :;) ~ ~ ~ !!. .. ~ ~-;;Cl ~g~ ~~<e . ~::P- t~ ~"O o - :;)9- "OllI ~(/) ~~ GO ::. ~ ~ ~~ il ~i .,..::p- 'q0 oC!. ~~ "'- ~o .(') ~ ~ o o g s ~ ::: ':: re ::. ;; (I o % ~ ~ !!. 5 ? \ <' ~ ... t.l'!(/) II' "J ;:;.0 """,e: e:.o. Ill",(/) ~=-(l. lit #S cO ;C; 9-1} ~ E ...... ~;-~ .. c:a :r ~o!. :;)-'" ;.,)g::r .0 cs. ~~ t.lg !i "":1 ~cD ..0.(. ::l - .. 4: .. '" .. .. . 01:'~ :lCll~ ~a-~ ~tr ~ ~~i ~o!l II ,'" :z-!l '" S ... ;:cs-- . ~ S' t 9 .l: i :::l o:'l ::r \ i i.5"i~ !~~~ I ~~~i l-~c .' -;; i %'A ~ -:lt~ 9-~.:z . .. '6'~ ~~ ..c. s- S' .(. ;; (/) :. i~i !I~~ 9:-"0 .' 9- ~.. oi-, ~i. -;'5 ... ~ 1:.. e: ~ ",:::; .."'" III e: !.':. -0 %% \% ~~ ~'::f !.,~ 5- :::l!. .- 5"~O .!!III~ "'150 'q:lO 0.0 "0 ~." !:g~ !I S"C ~i .. Q~ ...:z I} ~ i~ ~ ~!!.::r ""..!. "'~. ::;:...-"' ..0" ..,)... "0 '" 9.::r ~~ ~~ ~(1' .. ~c5oi ~i ~\.!- ~C1..o.:::l "ii:;)"'!!. ....0 CD ~QC"~!!. _CD",-CD !!.",o.~. . c:." ~(1'~i:S' ..~CD-'" .:zCD~ct;" 'a-~li~ . ~ e !l.:2: ~3~9.. S.. v: CD g ;os (') .g % ~ ~ ~ GO ::. i o \ t ~ ...(. \\ t~ g:::: .'::f ~ l::: ~"" ..0 :t9 .Z ~~ :::I~ 53 - 0 ~~ -c Qi CD CD 9:-- 'i -0 ~g \% ,~ o.~ ~~ ~!& c:. -- :::I~s. % ~ C):c. .al1 ~ !I. %- c (t"O ;.~ ~ ~.. ~~-a. ""'Cig ..",n% ..::roo "3. 0 :l " gs.~o .~..... _o.s,.:: fttftli.~ oS ~Ci-% :.% e~ ",.a.:l (1':::1:5'- ~ s:c:a ~ 1.\~%: 3 ~ " 0. '9,.9..0 !!."':. .. -- ~~~ CD!. ~ '" CD _",c oa.i ~ a. t.l .-"'~ III (;).:z '" ~. ~ ~'" o '::f"O ~~% GlGl5 ~~.:<. ~~lii o.\~ ~ ~ '" c :.~~ . ~ 5" ~~ CD . . ~",._.(. ",~:-9'CD ! Q.. 9.. lit ~ ;~n~~ <<:;lII%t\ 2,~3"0. ~n!t. ~1 aoi2.!!. , ;._...0 a \"9. "% !).-~~ ~ "q'" r;: '60 -(') ~\ \; o.~ i~ ?!& cO a.~ " 0 ~o ~9 cO '" 0 . :::I 5"9- (f)~ 10", Q~ CD!. .. .. 'F ~~ ~ 1 · C. ~..;. 5"- Q~ ..- .!l:l ~.. 0. ';oJ ~ ~ ",".(. a~" GOc:.'" u:a ::. CD '5'- <{oO ~ ~S'~ _" 5' II' .~ (I .. --- CCDO -. - ~,&ffO got 5 o'~ ~ i. ~ %~ C')c ~S fno as -;~ o~ z"f\ .e~.(. f~:' "i~:- i~~ to"" !is''' cQ~o i~C; -CD sS't so~ :--i. ~ C')c is ~~ ~% ~ -;;i g. %~ ~\ t~ (5';: ~:r . ~ ~ ;;- g If' \~ !!:::l t% g~ ?~ ~ ~ (') ~ i ; ~ C') ~ ;. ~ o % J ~S't~ ~Qii''!' nln ~_..5' ::sCD:.a r-o~' OS-III _ c:a CD e.--o <{:::l _ .. ell J cQ ~ ( ~ . " - (') (') ~o- oCO ~:::I'" .:z~ o .. ""0.. a..~ Gl $ .. g.$'.(. ~!l:l ~ . o' 0(') %g .-~ %-~ :::l~ ,\11 JUt-\. '\ 6 ,~ 43 \ .n.i: '" '" ",.,"- ,. 0 . 0 : 5 .. .. .... o :l . . . . Q, c: .. n" . .. .. o . c: II -..." .. ;, .. .. .... - .. :l Q, .. n . c -:I . c: .. .. Q. .. . '" .. Q, .. .. .:rQ, :I .. .. - -.... :1. " ! .. A.__ ,. -0- :I :. c .....:r :r c: .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. · ... :r <:r' c .. -II .. .. III .. .. i!: : .. . ::':! .. ... . : ~ 5 g,;,;- .. :<n n _ j c _ . - .. .. g"C : !I · 0- ~ [i! o < . .. ::. . 0._. :;tt:g "'a.- = II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ; f; Q,eo. ea"O ...~. ~ "05 .. - .. - :I ;"s. " .... -:l .. &.. g .. n" ~ ~ .: ... oS ~ ~;i .. . .. ~t5. ~ :; = .:;;- ;! :I ; ."Q, 5 0 _ -..... :I:r'" . . = no' .. .. o . ~... -g : .. ~ ::;:r o~ :l .. .. - a.N - .. ... :J ..... .. n .. 0 c < ... ... .. :ra .. :J :r- . n " 0 ~ S "iI .. o .. .. .. ~~: ~(')O .sa oa.o cr.O .9 ii~N .. ::I . ~. -"U;" a. a..... ~ < ~ '< .. lO"O"U ,..O~ ~I(I) ~ .. .. .. ~ ."0 !!,c..::r a.... ~c." lIr'... 0-0 ~~ .a.- "005, '3g~ ..-a. r- -I " III a.""_ I !~ } -;:10 i~: : .::r S. " " 0 ..oa. -It. ~ . . _-cr · oii: cre,; ~ Coo> .... .. ~/i'. .::r - 0 ~ 0 ~~ -~ ~ .. c: !! Ul~c: g a: ~ -:::;~:r . ~ ~ II -= a.~ I\) r- ::I .. n -< 0 c.5"z n ~a.~ ~ .::r~o ~~1Il ii: 0 ~ -.0. ~.. o . l Ill. ~~a.~.~ -< !a.JI ="<0 c._!!.I"';';'~I:I. ii"OIt ~ ~n .. . n] - a.iit CLO!l.=::I~ mo ~~.. i ~II '~-o.::ra.o Oc: si! g~~ .Cl. -!!,2."O,,!!.~ a:-~ -8~='i-8:i3 ~~ < I ~~ "g"~ 'i ~ e = II",," llli"!lIr'gf ~-..; il: - . .. 0 cr" g CLcrCl _.~ mn .. ..a ..,.-!....l..~ ~; - liS' -&:.::rc. -0 -< "0 .. ..2.~q ~~ .. c:ft . .::r ~g ~~ CLr- .ca::r n:f ;:,: :a: 2.jr c:. c.<1Io .::r;:: ! 6~ " ~ -~-~~.::r C ... Jt @- II Q,. Z." ~ ";:' _. $ ;;CLnoof-< ~i-:i -JIll Z tQlt!o It a:<. ::~p 0'; S ~ ="c .~ 0 :;It 0 ::10' :ri~ Ga. -.. 00 !!. "0 ~ a iii n j.... S' :r .a n3.....a. o w .. ~~ 3.! a.3..~ 3.~"$ .- ....::r go;-g g i-~ a.-.. .. o . . ~. ~~ .....g, " .. j =-,j:.a.::: . .. 5": g !!-8! .- I Illcr -. Oz · c: .::ro "'- " c z_ -:::~. OCL :;. Z ::r .. .. o _ .. -!!, . Q - lit -Ill ~ 0 .::r_ :. . . Q, I. ~~ ~ n @-gS'?~~ .,. n g -. ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ n ~~ 0 ~ 3 2 ... a.o" ! .. 3 .. ~~..-:~ ~ .. ::I g!. Q.i--2--0 ::I n i~ i:;' ~:-~...2.~ ., -~ =(1) !!..- () ~ a. '. Z g~ o - oo="~~ ::I lit 'i.i'a..1ll Z en . = cr - CT ~ .. a .. Q :; G ;pi' !!. Ii ,., n ...0 .. ",r,':' ~, S'liSJr=- .....IOt! . ~ -!o!lo_!!.g ., I .g,-~-<- .. at g o.::r ':-i.. 0 it Z ... lit cr-IIQ,C!"Ciz 2.~ ~.S'f. C · II !!..f"'~ CLII. 0-< ,)?::{ ~"'Q6''''::\.no n.gQ i".~Q.n:r. ~H~ifl;' ::rQ.5"S.Sg OQ.OO(t " Q,OC:l'" f8"~f.fji j!!f::a.:iffjJrc " "0 ",Cj g "'a" 3!~ ! fCit:'"iacr!!.! ~g I);:;;; ~ -lgf!.-ii ! oQ.! =- c.!i-w&:ollCi'S:i-.2 ",;. :~!_a.::r 2!t='~.'f~ ,,_::r .aso !.SS-q"~:'. ....=,; I;': ! lit ~ c."O ;; .::r oi'2.&c;}.& "O:;''':s-.aQ g=~ '<<103. " -ii'. J" ~II :i1s: .;, 0 .....'.. ,"1It~lDcr~ !t1 :'"ei..~~ . <nc::~ ! c:- . ,. :rr-i"~ ~'< a. lit 83a5"~a- It.- = ..~ ~ ..-< .,< 2. ~. =~ =;; - 0 . 0 . ~ a. .::r lit ~ _ J N. 1 j 5"~5- ii"cro n5 .(1) ""0 Co ....~ .-ano 1 ,....... a~ a: :D ~ Q"'O::D ~ !~ !'cr~ o " 0.. i~ c: " ID~O i~ t~ 1D~c:O ~'" aa ac:Q .e.a.::IQ ~ ..~ -a " " 1:-<':0 III - (II :2 r-:2 r-30 lit :2 . " (I) <"s. cr. III n =-g lit lit ... n 0" I\)-=< " S!lI !!.g. -c: lIr'_::I -c: c: :r g .. \) .. _lit. Z ::; ~ :": . ~ !' 3 !'~Q. ? ~ =0 w =. Z ..z It> ~ ~ <.11"0- Cl "0 = = CLOn Q :-s ::r - ::r II ~ ::J .. :i;; " 1:1 ~ !! g j :;'2 (') t .. 0 ~~ ...~ 0 0''' 0 !!.g2 II :!t c: 5:a s 0 ::1-< ::J " a.' .g. .. ~ a." o c: -< -< lit .. ~ ~Q. fl . ~ ' .. c.. 1- 5'. .. 1- ~ :r - g -- n . . ~ c: ::J::r ::I 5 . 3 - CL a.o ::I ::l . .. c: :r ! 5" I it C ::r C 199, 4 ;."" :t "' n """ . "" ,. .... '-' _ 0 . 0 : 5 .. .. -- o ::l . . - . ... c; . 0 It .. . o . c; . .T 'U .. .. . It '": g = 3. C 0 ....:.:~;a. Q....Q.-(I) o~..C:r :-- ... - .- 0 3"~~C5. -OQ.CTQ. ;=~":r .=-lt~lt c"-"'C ~!.g~a- 0:0:3Q.lD ..=~!.::I o.ca__r- o 0 2: ~ - ::I --- . ::l ... . n .. l: .. ::l It l: ,. .. 0.... .. ... ...,." It :r'" ::l It ,. . _woo .... ; ! = A,::: - 0" ::l :. c .. .. :r :r c It - .. .. . . .. ..- .. ~~i ... .. .. .. II> .. ,. i : =- ~ .. ... . .. - ... :' .. ... .. .. II> . : ~ 5 i;-;; ..- O'<n n .. ! c .. .. ... .. - o 'ol II ::l . !l " 0- ~ i. ; 0<' .. .. - a.::. - It 'U ... 'U :'~= .. n ~ ~ ~ :'I 0 ,.. .. noo ~ ! ~ ~50. . ,.. ... "Ca; g ... 5 ....- . ::l = S - n ...- "'::l .. [..g It n "'. :. a .. -.e : ~ ~ i .. . .. ~~i .. ... . .. .. ,. -;0' ...;:1;:1 ... .. · .. A- so,.. ........ ;:I :r'" .. . = () 0 " .. ,. o . l: 'ol 'U "& : .. ~ :;::r -n o _ ::l ,. .. - ~: ... ::l ..... . () .. 0 ;. : ;1 ,. ::l :r- .. n ~ ! 'U ... o ,. . .. . . .. - 0.." s" < ~g: ... =-. "e"2.."1:I ~.:co :;:0" , _0 It III "" ~ =" ...a. ::I-a. "" 0 ! o (') ... ::I~= !2.o3 C c;. ,... :r ::I rca. is' :1'< ~:: ~o ! g ie -~ o:=" ::I:r '(1) ii = :r g. cq;: a ..<S",..... "1:I!!.Q.-Z ; 0 c ... 0 ..." a." . lt~ftloc ~."''''' . ::I:ro.. a.g::o: ... 0: Q. .. S::IOg. 5.2.tr~ a.tr,,::I CT"."" CD 3. -0 !!~ . a.; :1 /II"" 2- a. .. n< :ro !;g cgz ~~ C ~ '" :r o c c: ::I 2. CT CD -g~Q..~Qr~ C-=!llD3U1 lDii"!!.::l _-~-4C:cn "::c_"c;:r o~;~5.g ~n_CT~C: ....:r.....,.,_ ::c~..:r 0~3(').. ''It''o Q.3=' CT..a.3 .. ::I .. 3 -a.c: . - _::2 !o~ 5" :r -I" ~ 0 - (I) · < ~ CII ;g.5;'::"1:I>&:: ilc...,,=!:a.3 o. 3lD_n::c9:lD-:::::i='ta ftl 3.s;. =::1:;;:0 0 =,c"'co=,oa.o::l. jji.c::;;o-n::llD."".::t- _o::g:r~ii'~_a. 2:~a.!l::C~a.. 8:2- ""c-::O:r:r3!(f) ta;3.~":"CIIS" c: o "' 3 0 . c: <" lD :!2::1 n 0' -;-" -. .. a.. Q..:= _ ~ -. ="< . ::I 3 .. r;. :: 0 ~ji" n;-!tO-"<ft>>c.mo :.~-Q.50<~"" ~ O~.CI_~zg o 0 .. ::I. .. < .. !" (') o := n 5 !. :r en iD = ;; n o ~ !! Q. !!. ~ ~O~=&,o co_o""=,::D ..=-n:=n(') ."oo:rc> g.""..-::c(') "" 0 <n 0" " s.o.< =-5;a.3 !=2:::" Q.oSl-o~ o~~g.i: (f) _" := g. ~t5"~~ .~:'~r 3 0 g .. .. ao :a . ... "1:In-< oo:rO !!.sgg Q~O:Z :=o~~ =-::1- ,. "-<3.::0. "<.-<= ::co.. O(l)ii'; ~:p.. .. Ctl;:' ;:, .a.n . ..:r ssi$' ia:!. "'Z So ::I' :I(f) 3"c c" O~ _ 0 ,g ~ " 0 l~ gi- . "< -oo~ o-no lD 3: n .. P-=5Z ~ ~!' ::c. - ~ 0" ~ n ~ c :r.= ==l\2. o !: l! lD__ Q. -- .a.CI "'~~ . !!il ~Q:r g.-- -0"" n" :l - ~:. !l!(I) .. :r a.o ....c c: (') ~ tr .. t< . .. _loll ... .. ~ =-- .. 0 P-~ Clt ~ It '" o " o ;; !!. ~~ ~(') ~ g i2 -.. ot ?~ (f) iD = Z o " o <II IE o ? --< CII .. n .. o . ~C) ! g a.2 . - 6"!. ::I- . =- sa - = 3"c... ~9 Q.Z :l 0 co . 'en ~ is . . c o ! :r iii 0'- _CIty Qa.(./) ~CT:r o .. 0 ~1l5. ~.a. "'" .. ~ ::;0 ftl n a.- ,. Q .:...< . . ;:, = .. .. "< -"'< ;:, :r .. .ao.. Q 5. . _Q."O OCT'" . cD 0 P-ll; DO - ..< .. . a;= ~~. ..::D ':'0 . . ; a. Z l' ~ It n e- Q. . . ~ It .. 5" o ;g n::cZ 000 -. . ~a.(') 0.- ... . III . I~ ~ s,ff :l"1:l .. - 2 g i~ < . 5 -< .. !" ~ o ~ '" ~ II . 3" (') ;g - < ~ .. o !" 3 3 fi ~ ~ g.5; 6"! ? ~ (f) ~ -< .. It g !" ~(') ! g i'e 6"~ ?g: (f) iD = ~~ 0(') 3c> ip. :1(') a.o !!.:I g-g . ! :r (f) ;- = '" c... :ro o .. 5.z a.o CT" ftl "0 N"" . 0 -n . - ::I 0 "' - 2 ~ it ii' -"< n ::c 2.0 -. ~Q. ~ .~ ; 5 N ~.5.0 ii"::IQ... .. a. (') < ~."1:1!!. "" < 0 .. " o 3' 3 r;.ll~ _c_ ~g.O c . ~ a-~!!!.. ~li"= cc :: .. .. n < o "' ;; !ft .0 .. "1:1 .. < :r"" o :r ~ g 5"0: (;)S" On ~[ (./).. ~< = S co .. 5'~a.~~~~Z <-!.oo"iii'l' ftl.....c.ao :1n =" -'" cD (') ....__a.::I. a.:a::(f)CTOS~ .....<11!. iDct:1~ ,...O<=N~"" o(f)ID . ....:r OO:-.~;A.a.O :=;on- ",~5. Q.;~!i~~ ~ fti 3 ~~ ii" ~ ~:;~a.fti;'" ::c;ca.c" ;:, !.!D ~...~ 0 ~ Po . ~;;< o !" ~ (') ! g i"2 -- g~ " :r (f) iD = a. . ;; . "C ::I .Q. < ....=;::1.0".. l.g~=-:1t!" O a._ ~ o:r - Q:- ~ c:: 0 ::I ~ =-:r ~ ... -ao .. igg"i-tc~ ::1..--::1-::1 a. --O:..i!i:= ~ ~.Jl.-g ... nO.. . . 5"0-5" ~ '" Q!Cz.lQ ~ 1051 - .... " .. . .. Itll .... c.... 9 ~~iiig~ cgg~(') e.o3i:C> ;:,-3..(') ao:=~o" a.~e-~-: .,<--", ::Iji"o[" Q....:l 0 "' c:'" 0 :l ell 0 ::I ~.1 (; 2 .. 'tl" .. !"~~ 1- ~ :r ~ ::l ~ m :(') mO nc ~~ 3:- m(') ~~ ~~ 6~ z.." C) 1:")0 oC: ~~ ~~ -z 0% z- Z c> (') ~ i z ~ 8 3: ~ ~ o z ~ ~ - IU 993 ~5 z p m [ :l . c; ~ - Z Q ~ o c ~ :5 iD 0Cl ell - 1"" . . ~ :; . ~Q,. x " n.".. n ... _ '-. ,. 0 . 0 : 5 ,. .. - .. o =' .. . . .. 0. C .. n. .. " o ... c: . :r "0 .. . " . ...... .. =' ... " " . c: -=' . c: .. " c.... . ... - - ... .. . . :r '" =' .. .. . .. ... .. :: I _ .. ! .. ...... .... -1:1" =' =. c .. " :r :r c: . - .. .. .. . .. .. .. · ell :r ~ c . .. . . . III .. .. .. ~ c . . ... .. ... . .. . .. :' -g. .. - " III . . ." =' . .. =' =' .. .. '" =' =' .. O'<n " . ~ c: .. " ... . - O"C .. =' .. . .. J =' 0 . '" =' .... .. 0<_ .. . . 0.:- ...." ... ." ...",- .. It .. .. ". It 0 .. :l .. =' II a .. " . : ~n : :l =' '" '" I ~ "" ... .. ... '< . 6 ow ~ ....... . =' S~. II ... .. =' .. l. g .. n"" =- ~ .- ....; " :: : i : =' iI " . . c '" =' ..",'" i .... · .. .. .. ..... a 0 ow = =' ... " .. .. 0- 3 0 .. ....... =,:r'" .. . ~ no' .. .. o . .;'" "0 '" o .. .. ~ ::;:r "n o .. =' .. .. .. ..." .. It ... =' ..... " n .. 0 c < .. . .. .. :r =' .. ;- :r- .. n ~ ! ... .. o .. .. ... VI" .. ... .. <ii"Oi;Q ~;;;CN " ~:l (/) t;zlcr<::r ......!to ~!~& ; '< - ::c::r a.1II" ....e;) a.:' 0 --"'tl :G~~ "="'tl iD ~ lII::cnc g~g:.. ".,,- "O_!..(/) -":I::r "!S.5"O es.4O 50 3QQ, ~c~ a.J!" 3(/)m " "':l :I_III -,,- "~III cr.(/) ,,::::r Q," !1 ;=z ~:;~ D III ~ III e;) . s. 0 ..:..~ ':l (fj !l." oiD rl ~ ; . 11:"- g i = III ~ C =-2' 2." Q.-< III " III ... n' ::. > ern lt~ 5""0 m= ::; " III .l5. Gin (/)~ ::r:l "Cl !1" , ... III '" 11I11I0-<: 2: a.~a n~"" 2'="~ ;;;11~3 ~5"S III , _ = reo-Q, =;~ 0=" ;3;- ""~ '""11I- .....-0 ga.=. o ~ ~2.!.;;;"z 1i! ::D :T.g g ~ ~~l~~o ~ ... " " !! g 1Il~..a.0.2 a3~~IIl'" ... 3"'0 ... a. ~ !5"~6"~~~ ~!..;!!6"& a~-~=(/) "2":1"'- ~!l~!!g~ . C"'_ i"'c. ;;z n ~ ~ 0 = g ~ 2 a.... !..:e g~ . (/) ii = ;;; -< n " o !II 3 3~ !! ~ i-s; g! . ::r (/) ii = Q:Q.Q~~~~.~~~.!...~~ O~;~O~::I~~~a.~:T~~~~a!ll ~ ~ n"C ~!!. 5 a.!!."C :; a!"C ~"C "C 3 0 w,..!!.oC/)--5"g-o":r 0(/)0030 ."_nlll.,,2,,Cl "'Oc "'~"''''''::I -~" -a. "0 -""."::In ~~~ ~.c:rc:r~S~3."'ooa.~~::ca.c ~ - ~ ~<=.. C" '10.... s~R S!~~i!~~~i ~~g~ '''c' ;;"400. n~_ .. . '" "'''''' a(/)5" III ,,(/) :e a ~ Cl ~ ~ii Ci c. g ~..g= ::I ~ .9 -...." -.j!:l.N -..I~ o..(/) .. ::r o..g oS: ~'" . ~ :l .. :: ... !iCT Cl.. ;;- " .. 8 ." ! = 3: -,:l ::c m ~ E ~ m Z o ~ m ~ . -cr-< ~ c: It !!.-'" . Q.' 110 -0 ~ ::l 5"~ .." = ;; It n a.[ III . -", !g~ >!! lit . it;: i~ !! 8 i-2 -... g! ..~ ~(/) lit ii J= ~ ...... "'(')11I-< 1t!::IlI n a.. o . ~ 1119~ ! '" ~= i-f::l2 :: ::I~ g 5'= '" Cl ~ . en .- = 5"b a... ~z 5'0 c' .(/) t !! lit III ;; Cl o ! ::r z $) ." o ::r ~ '" J It :"' 0....0 ~ ~ 0 II~:S 0- 2 "0 .. 3 !! ~ !a.~ ;~sa ... 0 III a::l= ~~ III 9. ::l oa a. '" > .. ~ g 8: ... ! ~ ca."':,.:" "0 ~ ~ . '.. 3 II ~i II - .. .'. a2.~ III (/) oa ;; me III == ......= . .... a g ~ m I:., !. I".,..,. a. 'I,.,:,..:. CD .. . ".".,. a.. ~~ ::l :s 5-2 40'" o ~ I': !~ ..!l lit 6" ? g ~~ O::lo ~ ~ 0 !Cl~ ~~s -i~ - = g ~ .~ ;, ~ g::z III ::I a. () o c = .:< e;)~ 0- ~i (/)0. ."" 3 ~ III - "0 0 ."0 3 .1 a..." IV' e - S-~ ,,::r a.~ -..111I it . lit .. ~ o c ~ c:r .. ~ II III '" "0 ~ <. ......':: :. . . . JUN. 1 6 l 93 ~ ~ 6 z z CO) ~ o c CE .11 ~ -< ~ g o ~ z Z Q S; ~ j .1 J -"Om Cft"_ !i(/) a.=:r - [0 CI:l c -.J5'S: ~lIt III ~ 5 !! 3'er la.. ;;- .. III '" - ,:i. 40-< ... It o ... C . ::l i'~ III 0 -~ !! III ~~ ~~ It_ a~ o ? .': ..: .: :.. ~~ :l . ~4' Cl~ ~a. III .. lit III ;i III ~ &'5" ..:....':. - !:D ;-< n :: o . 33 0 o ! = a.2 III ... g! , ::T S!2 III = ;~ a!'" ~ gO ! i-2 g-! .~ (/) .- = .., 5'0 a... Cz 2.0 =, 'P(/) ~ !! . ;;- 00 o ! ::T :::. I ...., \.... "; !:r . .::: .., \:.,. ...:..... :.': : --I .Q) J, ~~ ra ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ 1 3' c J lit - -=- ! ~.. = _. ::DO mO OC ~z 3:~ mO E;:2 ~~ o~ z." I'" . o 00 ~c: 3:~ ~~ Oz z- z Q , o ~ ~ Z Z Q o ~ 3: ~ o z ~ ~ ' . . ... .. . c: .. .. .. .. , . \ ... ... 1 ~:I~~S.l ~ O)%' ~~ .lI.lQ; 0 ~ -:::a _ c: ell ~ \II---Q ","'30 eC=:: -- ~ -;!,. (j; .. ~o ~ i ...~% 3'1? -ell gO'Q F.g e. "0 0 ~Sl.:E. ~~ ~"i ~ ~~- ~C; ~%~ ~.... e~ ~ell ~~-@ ~~ ~~ O~ '" Z-n - ... ) 0. " .. ...~ c: ,. 0.... .. ... ... ,. .. :3'0. . , . ..... .. l .. i!.: -" ;<i'" ...~ ;.~.. ... .. .. '" " . ..' ,. "111:3' <r c · ;; fit; CIl ~ ,. '", ~ :.. ...... . . '" :' ... ... ... .. Ill. · ~ S .. ... ... i-:i 0'<" " " \ c: ... --;.- 0.... ~ .. 9 .. '0 .. i-ll -- .. 0<' .. .. . o.~. ....-0 ... '0 ...0.... .. . ... ~ 0 <<; ~ .. ,. .. 0 . :" \: i- i- t ~ .., " ... ... .. :: ; i ... II " ...... .. ~ '; S .. " .... ... ~ .. c: .. 0 0. c: .. ~ '0. " 0 .. ::-i: ~ :." \ . =' .. .. C 0. II :3'0.t' .. ... ,. .. to ... .. ... 0 ...;=' ... .. ."Co SO~ ...to... ii~ C'l O' .. ,. o .. c: -< -0 -0': o II .. " ';; :3' ..." o .. II ,. .. ... 0.: ... II ::.. .. C'l .. 0 ~ <: .. .. .. .. :3'~ ... ,. II :r" .. " ~\ '0 .. o ,. .. .. .-." .. 'or 0. .. ;----< ... :.. <1' (II ..~:I' .~'" -. ~ 0 . -5"- - "'lQg ~ ~~\~~ ~~ ~i g 0 ~:l9....!!. '" e. ...-% --a:- "3 ~i~~ 5' "9,- :I :SO S!. N~ _0) V\-< -C.N ~~ c: _ ~-o . -0 ::.~ ~ ~<e. l~ ~~ ~~ % Q -% \~ 3g ~g i~ S"~ ? CJ) ~ ~ \ %. Q ~ ~ ~ Z ji %. ('10 o . ~~ ~g ~~ ~~ g~ . (II . == ~ o ~ Jt~. 1 ji(')Q ('100 Os \II ~.:zB ~~~ i"5~ ~5'~ ~"'~ . (') ~ o 0 i2 ... ... ~~ g::r ~ \ . \ t; '.. . ,..--' .. ....... ". ., :'.' :' .,,,',' \' . I ," \..... .' ..' . . \ 'i ........ . \ ,l' . "., .'. \ \ . \ 1/ 11.( . . '.' . I",'. .. .( i' . ,J,. ,,\1 \.,~ ....\1, \ r- . C' '. ' '. ,',\ .'. ,h." \. i\ I' . .,\ -' t~\'\~~~~\ "4 ..~~:\. ,. I, . -. .' .. . . .- g "d -.. ~'6~~ .4 t ~ ~ 00 e U'I (t OS ~ 1. 1191~3 ~c ~t.J . ~ J...I. ~ A.-" ...... ,....,. ...., I I .. ..... f EASTLAKE LA.N 1) ~ W A.t' EXHIBIT B I.M EXISTING GENERAL PlAN 4 RssIl1laH-Med.rn (3-6 c1JIac) Resid MecUn (6-11 c1J/ac) Pesid ~ (11-18 c1J/ac) P&sI1 H9' (18-27 c1J/ac) CamwciaI- RetaI Ccmn - Prd. & Mrri F\bIc Q..U.P\bIC Patk3 & Aec:. ~~ MaP' 0cJalicn Hr;t1 Sc:tI:ld ea... 01 y Sdlod l.cc:II PW APPUCANTS PROPOSAL STAFF ALTERNATIVE . u JUN. 1 6 1993 50 t.A.lD.l I Co - ~ I,) U) ::;J '0 j ~ en ...... ~ Q CJ 4 . . ~ I, I . ..H > .. ',.. ~r::''- . , , " ,... ; i .. .. ^,', \ . L...J\... ,.. .., .~ I I .JJN. 161m ~'1 ~. J:l' } .... : . " I'" ; I ) I . . ! .. ".. r} ',' , , " ,I '\ . I ,', I It . I.~ " .' ~ /1 .... .. ..~ ~. .. ,- ,. Ii: ' , " . I . r " ::' . . I I :'. 'j'\ , j"1io . ( lU CIl :J 'C ; ~ ga en ........ ~ Q o 4 1!13 5 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEONESOA1, JUNE 16, 1993 HINUTE ORDER NO. 4 SUBJECT: continued Notioed Publio Hearing: Joint He~ring with the Chula Vista city Counoil: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 92-04, otay Ranoh Project, and Reolassitication R92-003; otay and Jamul/Dulzura subregional ?lanning Are~s (carryover Itom From 6/2/93, Agenda NO.6) COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIO~: The planning Commission recommends that the Board of supervisors take the following actions: A. Take tentative action as follows: 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Memorandum of Understanding with the city of Chula vista, dated August 1, 1989, take the following actions: 1) recommend that the Chula Vista city Council certify that the Program Environmental Impact Report is complete and in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and; 2) certify that the Board of supervisors has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Environmental Impact Report. No. 4 6/16/93 ACG Page 1 of 2. Amend the Regional Land use Eletnent Map as shown in Appendix A.l of the County Planning Commission Final ,Resolution, Attachtnent 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of supervisors/Chula vista City council otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 3 . Amend the Regional Land Use Element Text as shown in Appendices A.2-1 and A.2-2 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula vista city Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder) . 4. Amend the otay Subregional Plan Text as shown in Appendices A.3-1 through A. )-4 of the county Planning Commission Final ReSOlution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council otay Ranch joint hearing binder) . Adopt the otay Ranch General Development/Subregional Plan as Volume 2 of the Otay subregional Plan Text as amended by the Planning Commissions' actions as shown on Table 1, the JOINT PLANNING coMMISSIONS I DECISION TRACKING SHEETS 1 Attachments 3 and 8 of this report (TAB #3, and Exhibits 5. a Pages I Bi 1, 2 & 3, TAB #4G of the Board of SupervisorsjChula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder) . 6. Amend the boundaries between the otay and Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plans as shown in Appendices A.4-1 and 11..4-2 of the County Planning . Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of supervisorsjChula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder) . 7. Amend the Land Use Designations of the JamuljDu1zura and otay subregional plan Maps as shown in Appendix 11..5 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of SupervisorsjChula vista city Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder) . a. Amend the Jamul/Dulzura SUbl.-egional Plan Text as shown in Appendices A.6-1 through A.6-10 of the County Planning commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City council otay Ranch joint hearing binder) . 9. Amend the sweetwater community plan Text as shown in Appendix A.7 of the County Planning commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula vista city council otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 10. Amend Circulation Element Sheet 6 as shown in Appendices A.8-1 through A.S-5 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula vista city Council otay Ranch joint hearing binder) . 11. Amend circulation Element Sheet 9 and the Recreation Element Park Map as shown in Appendix A.9 of the County Planning commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAD #5 of the Bo~rd of Supervisors/Chula Vista city Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder) . 12. Amend the Recreation Element Text as shown in Appendix A.10 of the county Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula vista City Council Otay Ranch joint he~ring binder). 13. Amend the Conservation Element Text as shown in Appendices A.3-3, A.3-4, A.6.S and 11..6-9 of the County Planning Commission Final ReSOlution, Attachment 5 of No. 4 6/16j93 ACG Page 2 of 8 Pages this ~eport (TAB ~5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula vista city council otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 14. Amend the Conservation Element Map as shown in Appendix A.l1 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula vista city council otay Ranch joint heal:'ing binder). 15. Amend the PUblic Facility Element as shown in Appendix A.12 of the County Planning commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of SupervisorsjChula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 16. Adopt revised zone classification for those villages/planning areas shown in Appendix B of the county Planning commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City council otay Ranch joint hearing binder). 17. Repeal Board policy I-109, Planning Guidelines for the Development of the united Enterprises, Ltd. Land Holdings, and adopt in its place as Policy r-109, Appendix C, entitled Plans to Guide Development ot the otay Ranch Project, the County Planning commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of SupervisorsjChula Vista City council otay Ranch joint hearing binder) . B. continue the hearing on the above matter, and refer to the Planning commission for review and recommendation the proposed Finding's concerning mitigation of significant effects required by section 15091 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program, and any proposed statement of overriding considerations all addressing the project proposed to be adopted by the Board. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive the San Diego county Board of supervisors and city of Chula vista council otay Ranch Joint hearing binder containing: the Major Issue Summary Table, the Joint Project Team Staff Report, the Joint Planning Commissions Decision Sheet/Unit Summary, background material on each of the Major Issues, the County of San Diego staff proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification, County Planning Commission Final Resolution, and letters from the otay Ranch Citizen Governing Committee, Crossroads, and County letters from planning groups. No. 4 6/16/93 ACG Page 3 of 8 Pages 2. Receive the otay Ranch General Development Plan/subregional Plan, Resource Management Plan, Facility Implementation Plans, Service Revenue Plan, Phasing Plan, and the Final Program Environmental Impact Report. 3. Continue the hearing to June 30, 1993, at 3:00 p.m. in the Board of supervisors Chambers. At that meeting, the Board of supervisors and City of Chula Vista City Council are tentatively scheduled to take testimony from the Jamul/Dulzura, Valle de Orc, sweetwater and Spring Valley Planning Groups, other organized groups, and members of the public, and hear the applicant's rebuttal. PRESENTz County of San Diego: Supervisors Bilbray, Jacob, Slater, Williams, and MacDonald City of Chula Vista: councilmembers FOX, Horton, Moore, and Rindone Mayor Tim Nader being absent ~ DOCUMENTS~ Chief Administrative Officer's Report, Board of Supervisors' Document No. 755916. Viewgraphs, OH-57 through 08-72, submitted by Anthony Lettieri, Joint proj ect Team Manager, Board of Supervisors' Document No. 756057, Exhibit No.1. Article entitled Planning Guidelines for protecting wildlife in Fragmenting Systems, submitted by Dan Silver, Board of Supervisors' Document No. 756054. Letter from Cintra cunningham expressing opposition to the project, Board of Supervisors' Document No. 756055. Daniel Tarr, valle de Oro Planning Group, list ot eight major issues, Board of Supervisors' Document No. 756056. DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Anthony Lettieri, Joint proj ect Tealn Manager, outl ined the she maj or issue areas: Environmental Impact Report adequacy; otay Valley parcel; the Lakes; Central Proctor Valley; Jamul/Dulzura; and other text, i.e., housing, air quality; reviewed the environmental review procedures; reviewed the definition and purpose of a Program Environmental Impact Report versus a Project Environmental Impact Report, and project summary of total dwelling units and open space, with the aid of viewgraphs, OH-57 through OH- 72, Board of Supervisors' Document No. 756057, E~hibit No.1. The Chair of the County Planning Commission, David Kreitzer, and the Chair of the city Planning commission, Susan Fuller, presented statements regarding the history of the process and their issues of concern. No. 4 6/16/93 ACG Page 4 of 8 Pages I I r The question was raised regarding how funding would occur for the light rail system. It was noted that there was no funding at~ this time. councilmember Rindone stated that it was his understanding that the majority of the cost associated with construction of the transit system would be condemnation proceedings, ~hich included right-of-ways. Mr. Letteiri concurred, noting that there are conditions placed on the project that require ultimate dedication for the light rail transit line, including the area necessary for transit stops. There was discussion regarding the various recommendations for the density level, which varied between 16 to 25 per acre. Mr. Lettieri stated that light rail system issues and- development concerns will be addressed in detail with the Metrpolitan Transit Development Board. Supervisor Williams cautioned that funding for construction will be an issue, as the federal government is backing away from financing transit. ,I Greg Smith, Baldwin Company, spoke on the depth and scop~ of the project analysis, the 10 alternative plans, and commended the broad ci tizen participation. He presented the history of how the various phases were forthcoming, noting that the six substantive areas would later be addressed on a case-by-c8.se basis. Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company, explained what is occurring with the various implementation plans: facility implementation plan, resource management plan, otay Ranch Service Revenue Plan, and otay ~ Ranch Village Phasing Plan. The following people addressed the Board/Council in support, generally, of the project; Maggie Helton, Chair, otay Ranch Governing Committee; Mark Montijo, Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Group; Patricia Gerrodette, Land Use chair, Sierra Club; Doug Perkins, Executive Director, south County Economic Development Council; Rod Davis, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce; Barbara Brown, president, south San Diego Bay Cities Association of Realtors; and Chuck Peter. Their various remarks/concerns included: · Favorably impressed with the system and process. Commended the exemplary planning and the amount of public participation solicited and incorporated. · proj ect presents an unusual opportunity to conserve open space in a planned manner; has the potential for more good than any other development in history or can do damage if not done properly: great opportunity to decide the community character; No. 4 6/16/93 ACG Page 5 of 8 Pages j pleased ~y the housing balance; look at housing in regard to area transportation needs: need housing to attract businesses; Project is likely to damage resources and habitat; Encouraged a higher density in areas that will support transit rail. Most important are the economic impacts to the County and region; the south region is out of balance, has more industrial than needed; needs commercial, office space and housing; will need a pool of workers to draw from in the region; will result in 46,000 much-needed jobs; helps to encourage manufacturing; Impressed by conclusions of the service and Revenue Plan, that it will generate sizeable tax surpluses; Excited about the village concept, resort, and golf course: area will be pedestrian friendly and less dependent; ~ . Impressed by sensitive land planning to preserve 62 percent of the Otay Ranch property. Revenues of-_$}SO million over a 30-year buildout period will benefit the cOun~Y and city. Concern that restrictions placed on the project will make it financially infeasible and the developer will back out; Traffic concerns in terms of threshold standards. The following people addressed the Board/council in opposition, generally, to the project: John Hammond, Chair, Sweetwater Community Planning Group; George Kost, Sweetwater Valley civic Association; and Dan Silver, Coordinator, Endangered Habitat League, submitted article enti tIed, Planning Guidelines for Protecting wildlife in Fragmenting Systems, Board of supervisors' Document NO. 756054. Their various remarks/concerns included: Recognize the traffic impact is significant and unmitigable. Concern about loss of otay Lake as a resource; it will not be available for people to enjoy; no buffer zone is being provided; project will close the lake, psychologically, to people who want to fish; No. 4 6/16/93 ACG Page 6 of 8 Pages . Concern that they will build but will want to work elsewhere; Industrial jobs will not be there; . Disappointed plan was not done better; . Concern with health and general welfare; Transportation '~'isues: concerned with effect on Bonita and Chula vista i every road will be widened because of the building that will occur; extensive paving will wreck parks; main concern is that state Route 125 will be 10 lanes; Highway 125 should be east of the Sweetwater Reservoir,/with no turns into Bonita; not certain mas~,transit will obtain funding; i . Concern for the gnatcatcher; first, identify core habitat areas tind their connections; statf recommendation is incompatible with reser.Ve goals; \ This is an opportunity to establish a model that integrates conservation and development; Hold taxpayer costs to a minimum: II ,\ Design desired features around biology and not in conflict with thcm~ fragmentation does not work: are there other areas where it is possible to build estate homes, i.e., north of the lake wrd ch have southern views of the lake; estate homes cannot bo build south or east of the lake; F . Analysis of fiscal issues will be required. . Article by Professor Soule, Board of Supervisors I Document No. 756054, outlines elements of design, in simple terms, of what is needed to gain maximum certainty of success; have applied five principles to this project. Supervisor Bilbray sai.d his major concern was lack of appropriate phasing-in, which needs to be integrated with the proposed circulation. councilmember Rindone stated that each phase should be balanced. Supervisoe Jacob asked for the estimated amount of revenue trom property taxes. Mr. Lettieri replied approximately $180 million. Supervisor Jacob stated that was an issue because of the state currently taxi ng a sizeable amount of property taX revenue and shifting it to schools. She stated that it is signifiCant to this development and the region, and urged people to immediately communicate to the legislature opposition to this tax shift, in ord~r to pr~serve the monies for future development of this region. No. 4 6/16/93 ACG Page 7 of 8 P~qos I i \ \ r----- ! On bohalf of the Board and Council, Chairman Rindone expressed appreciation to the Commissions, groups, and individual citizens for their input. Daniel Tarr, Valley de Ora Planning Group, presented a document outlining eight issues of concern that impact the area, Board of Supervisors' Documont No. 756056. councilmember Rindone acknowledged that the Endangered Habitat League will speak at the July 12 meeting. Chairman Rindone noted that persons who submitted slips and were not allowed to speak today because of time constraints will be called on first to speak at the next meeting. ACTION: Evidence being on file that due and proper notice of the hearing had been given as required by law; there being no motion and no objection, the Board heard the presentations; and continued the public hearing to June 30/ 1993, 3:00 p.m., Chula Vista council Chambers. ,. state of California) county of San Diego) ss \ ..~ the foregoing is a full, true and correct entered in the Minutes of the Board of ARLINE S. HULTSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By . @a 41Jlt~ ' Adair Gomez, De uty No. 4 6/16/93 ACG Page S of 8 pages OH-I: OH-2: OH-3: OH-4: OH-5: OH-6: OH-7: OH-8: OH-9: OH-10: OH-ll: OH-12: OH - 13 : OH-14: OH-15: OH-16: OH-17: OH-18: OH-19: OH-20: OH-21: OH-22: OH-23: OH-24: OH-25: OH-26: OH-27: OH-28: OH-29: OH-30: Oh-3l: OH-32: OH-33: OH-34: OH-35: OH-36: OH-37: OH-38: OH-39: OH-40: OH-4l: OH-42: OH-43: OH-44: OH-45: OH-46: OH-47: OH-48: OH-49: OH-50: OH-5l: OH-52: OH-53: OH- 54: OH-55: OH-56: OH-57: OH-58: OTAY RANCH PROJECT JOINT BOARD/COUNCIL HEARINGS OVERHEAD EXHIBITS (through 6/16/93) Otay Ranch Regional Vicinity Map Organization Chart Baldwin New Town Plan Map Chula Vista General Plan Map County Existing Land Use Designations Map Otay Ranch Goals, Objectives, and Policies Otay Ranch - The Planning Process Otay Ranch - Open Space Fundamentals Otay Ranch Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Standards Relationship of Planning Documents Otay Ranch Surrounding Land Uses/City and County Open Space Otay Valley Parcel Surrounding land Uses/Open Space San Ysidro Parcel Surrounding Land Uses/Open Space Jamul Parcel Surrounding Land Uses/Open Space The Lakes Surrounding Land Uses/Open Space Resource Sensitivity Analysis Map Otay Valley Parcel: Resource Sensitivity Analysis San Ysidro Parcel: Resource Sensitivity Analysis Jamul Parcel: Resource Sensitivity Analysis Resource Sensitivity Analysis Study Area Summary Central Proctor Valley Issue Paper Outline Development Around the Lakes Issue Paper Outline Otay Ranch City/County Recommended Plan Map Otay Valley Parcel: City/County Recommended Plan Map San Ysidro Parcel: City/County Recommended Plan Map Jamul Parcel: City/County Recommended Plan Map The Lakes: City/County Recommended Plan Map Central Proctor Valley: City/County Recommended Plan Map Village #1 Map Village #2 Map Village #3 Map Village #4 Map Village #5 Map Village #6 Map Village #7 Map Village #8 Map Village #9 Map Village #10 Map Village #11 Map Village #12 (Eastern Urban Center) Map Eastern Urban Center: Open Space/Transit Corridors Chu1a Vista General Plan Greenbelt/Open Space Network Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plans Listing Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan Summary (3 pages) Otay Valley Parcel Phasing Plan Map Otay Valley Parcel Phasing Plan Table Eastern Parcels Phasing Plan Map Eastern Parcels Phasing Plan Table RMP Phase I Items RMP Phase II Status Summary of Major Issues - CEQA Summary of Major Issues - Otay Valley Parcel Summary of Major Issues - The Lakes Summary of Major Issues - Central Proctor Valley Summary of Major Issues - Jamu1 Summary of Major Issues - San Ysidro Summary of Major Issues - GDP/RMP Text County Board EIR Procedure Chula Vista EIR Procedure OH-59: Project Actions OH-60: Findings Concerning Mitigation Measures OH-6l: Statement of Overriding Considerations OH-62: Prior to Final Action OH-63: City/County Planning Commission Agreement areas OH-64: City/County Planning Commission Disagreement areas OH-65: Planning Commission/Staff Disagreement areas OH-66: Program and Project EIR Table OH-67: Project Summary Table - Otay Valley Parcel OH-68: Project Summary Table - The Lakes OH-69: Project Summary Table - Proctor Valley OH-70: Project Summary Table - Jamul/Dulzura OH-7l: Project Summary Table - Totals OH-72: Issue Area/Document Sheet Matrix OH-73: Otay Ranch Open Space [J:\PROJECT\2l5\EXHIBITS.OH] County Board of Supervisors Environmental Review Procedure Pursuant to l\10U OH-57 City of Chula Vista Environmental Revie'\'v l)rocedure Pursuant to lVIOU OR-58 OR-59 0l-f-60 OH-61 OH-62 City/County Planning Commission lVIajor Agreement Areas OH-63 City/County Planning Commission Areas of Disagreement OH-6t+ 014"- 65 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS I I PROGRAM EIR I PROJECT EIR I DEFINITION . Prepared on a series of . Prepared on a specific actions development project . One large geographically . examines all project phases: related project planning construction operation PURPOSE . Ensure review of . Resolve all issues related to cumulative impacts project: degree of impacts . Resolve basic policy feasible mitigation considerations feasible alternatives . Examine broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation USE ON SITE . Site specific issues not . No new review required SPECIFIC addressed in prior EIR must unless circumstances or project PROJECTS be analyzed in "second tier" change or new information is available . "Performance criteria" of goals to be achieved must be . Project EIR must contain established during first tier specific mitigation measures approval . Subsequent studies may be necessary for implementation or refinement of methods to achieve goals [215\progmeir.tbl] o l'\- to" ~;;-s.;;- C>cl f'\ ... f'\ ~;:~;: ~ ~~ ~ '" '" ::.- '" - "" 0 "" ;::' ~ ~ 0 .'" 'l::l ..,-cO", C '" -::: -;:S-!::l", 1::. 'l::l ":: 'l::l · ~ ~!::l ... '" !::l f'\ o ;:: ;:: '" ~ - f'\ '" ,"",!::l ;::- ~ ~ ~ ;;:'~' ",!::l~~ - l::l ;;: ;:: ~ ~ l:l.-c ;;: ~ ;;:'::: "'~C>cll::l ... '" '- C>cl 0,"",..." '" ~ ... '" !::l "-~~~ ~~~l::l ;::-",,,,'" ~':::, !::l C ;::- is' ~ :::.. ;;:' =- l::l ":: f'\ 'l::l l::l '" -!::l;::X ~"'l:l.f'\ '" ~'l::l ~ l!::l - l::l- ::::::2~...., l::l ~ ~ o:Q' ~ ~ ~ '" '" '" !::l... '" C>cl f'\ '" is' - - ;::- - C3 :io ;;: l:l. C>cl ;;: 5~ ~ is' O=- - '" l::l f'\ ,,::;::- ~2 ~ ~ ri :.. ;::-, _, 0 ;:: I f'\ ~ ;:~ l:l._ ;;:' ~ C>cl>- ~;;:. '" '" '" ... -c '" :::, - - l::l C>cl '" ~!::l ~... I '" .....l::l N'" v,C ;:: ... - ''':: o - , '" ~ ~ ~~ ~~ o .... o i ..:J ~ :- "'0 < 0 >>-1 ;xlr-> ("') r--< 1'1"11'1"1 r- -< V') n V') n n n rT .... rTO .... 0 l>> c-+ l>> ~ c-+ ~ ....,,< ""'::::1 '< ::::I ...., ...., c-+ c+ '< -C '< n -C n N o CO c.n ~ (J'I o c.n o ;;:. ~ - !::l - .... C ~ '"'" - l::l '" - ...., o ;;: .... .... o ~ '" "- ~ < c+ _ ....."0 ~ . ~ ..... ~ 0::::1 ~ C'D C'D ...... CT~' .....0 ~............ ~30n Vl~C'DQ.~~30 to ~C'D~3S:: C'D~C'D~'<C'D::::I C'D...... ::::Ic+ 0.....,......0......0..'< C'D ..............., ~ Vl C'D::S ::s C ~ ..... 0 to < o..::s ::s to c+ ..... 0. ::s s::...... s:: < ~ c+::s ......Vl C'D n c+ ::s- ..... ~ C'D ~ ..... ..... C'D c+tO VI c+ o VI C'D 0....... '< ::SS:: VlC'Dc+ Vl::::l Vl'<-C o..::s "'..... n ""'C'D tO~Vl O~c+~::sVl ~......::s- ~ '<..... c+ c+..... Vl ::s- ::::I 0 CD to ::::I Vl C'D ~ ;::- ri' ;::- ;;:' f'\ - ;;: l:l. '" I~ C 'l:l '" ::: '" 'l::l l::l f'\ '" l::l .... '" l::l '" N - m c.n w c.n - ~ '" - N m c.n m o '" ~ N o m w c.n .....~ <~ . ::s ::::I .....C'D 0.. 0.. ...... 0 s:: ......on Vln~30 c+ -I. to 3 s:: ~C+C'DC'D::S -I. '< ::s c+ ~ W 0..'< ...... V') c+- ~ " ....,~""-IC'Dn O....,"'Vl.......... ~ ....,"'.....n 0..0 <~O"C'Ds:: -I.C'D s:: ::s ::s ......o-c+c+ ...... o~. .....'< ~3 ~ to 3 n......V') C'D CD -I. c+ ::s c+ -I. ~ W 0.. '< ::s ...., ...., " n c.n o c.n o N o ~ '" CO N c+Q.< . o s:: -I. c+.......... ...... ~~......n ......O~O tos:: <~C'D::::I c+ ......c+o'< ...... ::s- 0 ~ ~" to::SC'Dn C'DO 0.. -I. S::::SC'D::S ::s C'D ::s 0 -I. r+ VI ~ r+ -I.C'D -I. c+ ~ O::::l'<Vl 00 CD s::~C+Q. ::SC'DO r+~ Vl C'D ::s r+ -~ m~ ::s Vl r+ ~:::i-:: ~ ~~ ~ .... ;: ;: ;: ~ ~~~ _. c.., c "" ;:: l:l..~ <::l : C1l ~ ..,~CC1l a~i:i':: l:l <::l ~ '" -~ ~ : ~ :::tll:l .... C1l l:l (") <::l ;:: ;:: C1l ~ - (") '" -.,l:l ~~ ....... ~ -.-. l:l l:l ;:: :i- '" (")-. ..... ~ i:::: ....... ~ l:l.. ~ Q f'b -.-. ;: l:l ;:: - ....~~ i:l .... C1l "tl~ ~-.,....C1l '" .... C1l l:l '-~?l:~ ~ ~;: l:l ~C1lC1l'" ;=;. ~ l:l <::l ~C:;. ~ it =:i. :- l:l ':e ~~l:lC1l -l:l;::>< ~""l:l..~ C1l ~~~ Il:l' l:l_ ::::g~....... l:l ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ C1l C1l C1l l:l.... '" ~ ~ C1l C:;. - - ~. ~ ;:" ;: l:l. ~ ;: ~'" <::l ::; ~ t;. C,- - '" l:l ~ ~~ :::tl8 ~F" ~ .... ~ I _. <::l ;:: I ~ ~ ;;:~ l:l.._ =:i. ;> ~~ '" .... C1l '" C1l .... ~ ~ =:i. ~ -. - - l:l ~ C1l V)l:l :::tl.... I C1l .....l:l l\.J'" v.g .... - I~ <::l . I C1l ~ ~ ~~ ;> - 'Q' .... o f ro !'-' :- VI (""') ~ .... C/~ -t,'< -t, w ~ CO N N .po 1.0 c.n - -. - .., <::l t) .... .... <::l ~ - - l:l ~ ~ ;: .... .... <::l ~ '"" '- - N - 1.0 -o..C/N. (.J'1ll)~W ~ll)W ll)ClI(""') ~ ClO ...... VI n t: :30~:3 tQt:ll)~ ~ '< W:3"O 1.0 ~ Vl ......Oll)~ -t,:3C1 0.. -t, ~~VI-t, :3"~ -t,ll)CI~ ~ nll) O~ll)n 3C/ 0 A03 <ll)~ 3 .... ~ ~ ll) .-.I -'I. =' ~ 00.. C/ :3V1 I.C ll) ~ ::t- ;=;. ::t- =:i. ~ - ;: l:l.. C1l i:: <::l ~ ~ '"" ~ l:l ~ C1l l:l .... C1l l:l '"" Vl (""') ~O C/t: -t,:3 -t,~ '< -<- c.n - :::a -~ll) ~cn ClO CO ., ll)C"t' .. w .po W - .po W (.J'1 ....... 1.0 1.0 ....... ~- . CI ;l'l:'"CI ll):3("",) 0.. ...... ~ N'< I CI -,;J n(""') ~ ll)~ ll) ~n 00 ~3 Vl3 ll) VI:3 o 0.. t:VI ~ :3"3 0:3 -t, ...... 3 ~ t: :3"3 ll) >-4 :::a: 1"1'11"1'1 > r- > ,.:: ITl Vl (""') .... ~ '< -,;J (""') N ~ 1.0 (.J'1 .po (.J'1 N .po CO o - N - o VI~o..~o... .... ...... ll) :3" ll) o..~<ll)< ll) 0.. ll) ll) (""') .-.I ~ ~ .-.I 0 0""'.0 ClO t: -t,-t,~ A~ :3 ll)3ll)3~ ~ ll) ll)'< :3"n:3C1:3 ll)O~:3~-,;J ~ 0.. (""') ~~CI VI CI ...... ~ ll) 0 ~ ;l'l:'"o..ll)~~ll) CD 0 CI......~n ~Vl3:3"0 3 o ll):3 C/3 :3C1C/:3ll) VI ~ 0.. :3 ~~...... 0.. :3" Oll)Vl ll)O:3C1 -t, VI:3 :3 o~o O~-t, ~:3" 0 ~ll) -t, :3" (""') o t: :3 ~ '< -,;J (""') N o 1.0 N W W 0\ ....... 0\ c.n (.J'1 --. .... - .... _. ::: :s--:: ~ <") ., <") ;:: _0_ ., ;:: ;:: ;:: ~ ~~ ~ "" <1> =:- <1> _. c.., Q ~ ::~~O ~~ c~ o <1> -... ""'Q~: a. 'l::l '<:: 'l::l .:!~~ ... <1> ~ <") C :: :: <1> ~ - <") "" ........ ~ :::-~ -... ~ -. -. ~~:::;. "'" ~-. -~i::: --'q ~~ C tb -. -. ;:: ~ ;:: - .,~~ ;;- ., <1> .,,~ ~.........,<1> "" ., <1> ~ _<1>""., "" <1> <1> ~ ~::l ~ ::-~~"" ;:;- i! ~ ~ ::t- -. ..., - ~ <1>- 5. :- ~ ~ <")'l::l~<1> -~::lo< ;:: ., lO:).. <") ~"'="_ <1> """''l::l I~ - ~- :::::g~--. ~ "" -. ~ ,;:s . Ol:l q:! ~ ~ <1> <1> ~., "" ~<") <1> t;- - - ::- - ., -. c :: ;:: lO:).. ~ ;:: =:-"" c ::; ;:: -. -~ C':- - "" ~ <") '<:::::- ~g l::l - :: ;-> <") ., ;::- I __ C :: I <") ~ i:~ l::l.._ -. <") ::. ~':- ." :;. ., - <1> "" <1> ., ~ ~ :::. - - l::l Ol:l ~ Cl)l::l ~., 1 <1> ....l::l l\,J"" Vo~ ., - 1'<:: o . 1 <1> ~ ~ ~~ ~~ o ., ~ ~ !'" :--- V) ("") r+ .... t:1> .-+ -t,'< -t, 5- ~ - l::l - . ., c '5 ........ - l::l "" - --. c ;:: ., ., o '5 "" - '5 :::- <=i- :::- ;;. <") - ;:: lO:).. <1> ~ c 'l::l ~ :: "" 'l::l l::l <") ~ l::l ., <1> ~ "" .... - ~< -- - - AI co (I) < "tI (") >::a1Tl r-oz r- (") -4 1Tl-4::a <0> ::ar- V) ("") r+o t:1>1::: -t, ~ ~ .-+ '< ("") .... .-+ '< "tI ("") ..... ~ ..... N 1.0 ..... 1.0 o CD N 1.0 '-+-S~~AI.-+o..<n~. Cl) Cl) 0 Cl) ~ ::r Cl) ..... 0 .... x n C I/) 0..Cl) < -~ 0.. r+o-r+ Cl)-~Cl)("") 30.. Nn-Al.....::so 3 000 OCO o.......c CD C- -t, -S"'O Cl) 0 ~ ~ ::s Cl) AI ~ 3 ""S CO r+ 0.. .-+ n ..... CD n .. '< CD t:1> ::r -S o..::s 0 .-+ 0..1/)Cl)Cl)0'-+~Cl)::r-a I/) -S Cl) - Cl) ("") en I/) ~ . Cl) ..... o ::r .... AI AI AI 3 ~ ~ -a 0 - r+ I/) ::s .......... Cl) ,~o..O r+o..::s-n V)::S-Cl)....., Alo..o -a .... < ~ AI r+ - 3 .... ~ Cl) 0.. 0 -.......... 3 3~CD-C-S-~~CD t:1> O'.-+OCO CD ~ "'0 I/) n"'O N::r ~ 0.. r+ 0 3" Cl)..... AI I/) AlAI""SCl) AI::S ~ -t,-S ~ ~I/)CO 0.. -t, .... .-+.. .-+ 0.. o CD 0 ~ ~ ("") o I::: =" r+ '< -a ("") ~ U'l o ..... o o o '" ..... ~ ~~So:: ~ ~~ ~ ... l:: l:: l:: ~ ~~~ -, '" <::> '" ;:~5.Q .l'll "::s ""l<Cl'll a~El;: l:l Q",= '" _'1:::1 '1::1 · :: ~ l:l ... l'll l:l (') <::> ;: ;: l'll ~ - (') '" ........l:l ~~ ...... ~ -.-. l:l ... ;: So '" .... (') -, "" s::::. i::: ---q ~< c ~ _._. l:: l:l ;: - ... Oll Oll t;" ... l'll ~ Oll ~...........l'll '" ... l'll l:l '-~~~ ~~~l:l ~l'lll'll'" ~' ==. l:l Q ~~.~ :::. ;:' =- l:l ':: (') '1:::1 l:l l'll -l:l;:~ ~...~(') l'll ~'1:::1 l'll ~l:l'1:::l ~ 8 ~.:: l:l :: ~ 0:;' q:: ~ l'll l'll l'll l:l... '" Oll (') l'll ~' - - ~- ~ ;:' l:: l:l.. Oll l:: ::::-'" <::> ::;- 5. ~' c=- - '" l:l (') "'=~ ~g gF" (') ... ~ , -, Q ;: I (') ~ s:~ ~- 50 ~ Oll~ ~ ;:' l'll '" l'll ... < ~ ::, - - l:l Oll l'll v,l:l ~... I l'll ....l:l N'" \JIg ... - ,,,,= <::> . I l'll ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ... @ .J o N .... '. en ("") c+ .... S>> c+ -1'1'< -1'1 -, ... - ~ - l:l - . ... Q ~ ........ - l:l ~ --- Q l:: ... ... Q ~ '" '- ~ ::::- ;=;' ::::- ;:' (') - l:: l:l.. l'll F:: Q '1:::1 l'll ;: '" '1:::1 l:l (') l'll l:l ... l'll l:l '" .... >- ....,.,~ ft> - sa-c>>c>> ln~ .... ~ CD .... - -cn~ .. co en ("") c+o s>>c -1'I::S -1'1 c+ '< ~ \0 ....., N ~ co o C~ c> r- ::c NC cr- ~....... ("") .... c+ '< " n ....., o ~ ..... o o o ..... ..... ~ U1 ):Ioo..~C>>C+ln. ""S ft> ft> o..::r 01 ft><lno..ft>3 01 ft> c+.... Cl)):Io - c+ ("") - _0 0 ........~..... ....., '0 -1'1 0 c+.... 3 ::s '< c+ ""S Cl) c+ 01 ::r Cl) ::s ::r....." (') c+Cl) nc+o c ::r3 C>>ln::S""SCl)3 ""S c+.... Cl) Cl) Cl)S>>c+(')Cl)::S C>>-1'IlnOXo.. -1'1 3(')01 03Cl)c+ ::s Cl) '0 .... ::s c+ 0 ~ 0.. .... ::s colnOln ::s \0 01 C+""S ::r Cl) 01 c+ c+ ::r Cl) .... ::S""S Cl) ,,(') .....0 013 ::S3C>> ::SCl)(') ....::s ""S ::s 0.. Cl) l.CCl)ln 0.. N ....., ~ CO ("") o c ::s c+ '< " n ~ \0 ....., N ~ CO o ':::::~:: ~~ci~ .... l::: l::: l::: <1> s::...0'Cl s::... VI /1:) ~/1:) "" c "" :: s::... ~ C ,<1> 'l:::s ;::3~Sl~ ..... -l::l B'C~"" _'l:::s 'l:::s ,;:! ::tl l:l ... <1> l::l (') C :: :: <1> ~ - (') "" ..........l::l~~ ;:;- ~ ;;. ;=:.. VI l::l (') ~ - l::l i:: ;::' ~~ s::.....: l::: ~ ;::' :: ... ~ 0'Cl l::l ci <1> "tl 0'Cl ~.............<1> "" .... <1> l::l '--~~~ ~ ~ ~ l:l ~<1><1>"" ~'~ l:l C ::- ~' ~ ::.. ;::' =- l:l ~ (') 'l:::s l:l <1> -l:l::~ ~...s::...(') /1:) ~'l:::s ~ Il::l' l:l- :::::8~...... l:l ;:! ~~' ~;:! ~ <1> <1> /1:) l::l... "" 0'Cl (') /1:) ~' - - ::- . ~ ~. l::: s::... 0'Cl l::: ~~ E. ~' o=- - "" l:l (') ~::- ::tlg ~ c:;;- ~ :, ::- I _, C :: I ~~ l::: /1:) s::..._ ;::' ;> 0'Cl>-- :,0 ;::' <1> "" /1:) .... ..: <1> ~, - - l::l 0'Cl /1:) v,l:l ::tl.... I <1> .....l::l ~VI v,~ ... - I~ C . I <1> ~ ~ ~~ ~~ C .... o :C !J !" :- ;::' ~ - l:l - , .... C ~ .......... - l:l "" - ~ l::: .... ... C ~ "" '-- ~ ::- ~' ::- ;::' (') - l::: s::... <1> I~ C 'l:::s /1:) :: "" 'l:::s l:l (') <1> l::l .... <1> l:l VI Vl ("") c-+ .... 11.Ic-+ ~~ ~ N ....... o CO (J"I - -~ C'I~ NN ~(J"I -0'1 '" ... '" - 'tl t1 o ..... ~ (t '" Vl ("") c-+ 0 I1.IC ~~ ~ c-+ ~ N ....... ~ \0 W (J"I ~ ~ 0'1 - -~ C'I~ W~ ~....... -\0 VlO o .... C:~ c-+ ~ ~CD ""'S OCD ~~ (") ,CD ~ 7' .... CD~ < -l o -l ):10 r- (I) ("") c-+ ~ -0 ("") - -~ C'I~ N_ ~\O -....... N N \0 - \0 --' --' ~ 1.O CD W ~ ~ 0.. ("") o C ~ c-+ ~ -0 ("") N C'I o o ....... N ~ N N - (J"I - ~ \0 - -(J"I C'I~ C'lO ~W -N <3: ~~ --'c..... --' 0 CD""'S ~ 0.. ~ .... ~~ 0.. ~ CD c-+""'S ~CD CD~ (") ,CD 11.1(1) 7' CD .... Vl~ -0 ""'S o (") c-+ o ""'S !'l 9' ~ P !" :-" DlCVO 'c... (") -l 0 m o-O-l :t> m I ~ :0 o "'0 I 3: Z m <--m C :a ~ -< :t> ~cn::IJ & ~ 0 "'0 :t> ^ m m-rrl c r m r 0 ?S.~ N "'0 en r C ::IJ m :t> ::l C 0 -< (") o~ -CV ::IJ (") ~ -< Dl"'O :t> -l a.:t> 0 ::IJ a.- ::IJ (") .... ::IJ m lJl 3: ~ r CJl "'0 ~m- r r :r ?S. m -< ;:+~ ~a. CJl 0 Ng !!l 01 ~ ~ = -l > II> ........ ~ 0- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CJl 0- ~ 0- 0- 0- 0- ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Ro b (") OJ i> ~ ~ "" ~ ~ ~ ~ (") Qg CV -<::l::IJO G)-< 3: ~ "'OCV"'Ocn )>" " :t> 'TI II> o ~~ CV -II> 0 -5cg ~ 1il"'O::IJ"'O 3::T3:3: (I) II> III 3. ~" "'O"'C a. ~ S20 15" "'0 -l ::l iiI (I) "'O::l ~ iiI ::l CJl N ..... u. r:r o ,.. .. .. C /I) o P'" rt 'TI II> o ~~ CV -Ill 0 -5cg ~ 1il"'O::IJ"'O 3::T3:3: (I) III III 3. ~" .,,"'C a co SlO 15" "'0 -l ::l iiI (I) ." ::l ~ iiI ::l CJl 'TI II> o ~~ CV _ II> 0 -5cg ~ 1il"'O::IJ"'O 3::T3:3: (I) III III 3. ~" .,,"'C au::t ~ 15" "'0 -l ::l iiI (I) "'O::l ~ iiI ::l CJl 'TI II> o ~~ CV -Ill 0 -5cg ~ 1il"'O::IJ"'O 3::T3:3: (I) III II> 3. ~" .,,"'C a co SlO 15" "'0 -l ::l iiI (I) ." ::l ~ iiI ::l CJl 'TI "'0 m :0 og ~~ ~:D JC~ O)~ ~~ . oCl) _(1) ~ :;j "'::(1) - "jJ~ 0) -. :;j~ S3-c. "'00' - (') ro~ m _" ro 0 - :;j .c. 0 ro _ I NOTICE OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CBULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Chula vista will meet on June 30, 1993 at the city Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, at 3:00 p.m. SAID PURPOSE OF THE MEETING is for a public hearing and deliberation on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report on the otay Ranch project. DATED: June 22, 1993 Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk '" declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the C1ty of Chula Vista in the Office of the City Clerk znd that' posted this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at the Public erv.ces BurldinJ end at City Hall on DATED~ ';;2"- SIGNED C.' I ~....-.:.." (Y