HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/10/13 (3)
GDP TEXT/MAP CHANGES
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
Text and Map Changes
10/6/93
TEXT AND MAP CHANGES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Clerical Text Changes
. . . . . . . .
PAGE
2-1
Text changes to Conform the GDP/SRP to The
Draft Findings of Fact . . . . .
. . 2-6
Text Changes Reflecting Tentative Policy
Decisions by the Chula Vista City Council
And/Or Board of Supervisors
2-11
Village 3 - Industrial
Sewer Service . .
University Location and phasing
Parks and Open Space
Neighborhood Parks
Village Libraries . . .
Cultural Resource Studies
preservation of Sensitive Resources
Wetlands Mitigation Revenues
Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Setback
Alta Road . . . . . . . . .
Adult Education Facilities
Village 13 Resort Buffers
Transit Thresholds
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-20
2-21
2-22
2-23
2-24
2-25
2-26
2-27
2-28
2-29
2-30
Part III Implementation
2-31
Map and Land Use Table Changes
2-38
CLERICAL TEXT CHANGES
;I.-I
DRAFT GDP/SRP COMMENT
PAGE
Universal Change all figures which reference dwelling
units, acreages, land use categories, popula-
tion and facility requirements to reflect the
land use plan ultimately adopted.
7 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: "The purpose of
the Otav Ranch GDP/SRP Ota) TIanch"
17 1st paragraph and first box: "Executive
Staff Committee"
22 footnote: correct alignment on left side
36 4th Bullet, last sentence: 1-805 should be
SR-905
38 1st bullet, last sentence: "This project SPA
approval li for... II
43 1st paragraph: add period following "Nelson
Sloan quarry"
51 1st paragraph following bullets: (-i-SPA)
65 2nd Objective: replace " " with " " following
,
"surrounding villages"
89 2nd bullet under Parks, last sentence: liThe
Otay Ranch Parks Plan identifies H 19 neiah
borhood Darks."
101 1st, 2nd and last bullet under Transit Poli-
cies: should be made the same as corrected
policies per the last errata sheet:
"Transit line right~-of ways shall be
reserved at ODr/Snr SPA level and
irrevocably offered for dedicateeion at
the Tentative Map level within Villages
1,5,6,9 and 12.
Trolley stops and/or stations shall be
reserved at the ODr/ORr ~ level and
irrevocably offered for dedicate<'ii.Qn at
the Tentative Map level in village core
areas
;L ~ ,)-
DRAFT GDP/SRP COMMENT
PAGE
101 A 25-foot transit right-of-way shall be
reserved at the GDP/GRP SPA level and
irrevocably offered for dedicatedion at
the Tentative Map level within village
Entry Sheets designated as transit
routes. "
107 2nd paragraph: inCOflsi8te.a.cy rc. freC".lay
cOffifficL"cial acrc3.~e.. tCJrt Days 192.5, table 13.
1Ce oa} 0 leiS. 2 acres, tl:.:JC table: 11'0. "Adja-
cent to the EUC is approximately 168 acres of
freeway conunercial (Planning Area 12) ."
134 3rd bullet: Change (25 DUs/acre) to (2.5
DUs/acre) .
135 Last bullet, second sentence: "Restrict
access to active quarry uses from adja-
cent.. . "
142 3rd sub-bullet: nviews to the mountains on
the east and soutlY..estcast. "
142 1st bullet under village Core policies: "A
transit stop shall ~ reserved..."
147 2nd bullet, third sentence: "The average
width and continuous aftd character of... II
149 5th paragraph, last sentence " .,. to secure
service~, beyond those provided..."
155 1st bullet:.. ,a transit/traRsit tro11ev stop.
160 2nd bullet, 2nd sentence " . . . based upon the
fol16ning concept~ developed in the... "
164 4th bullet, 2nd sentence: " . . . based upon the
folle,/ili~ concepts developed in the... "
193 4th paragraph, first sentence: " with
.. .,
-Hte- some as small as one half acre. "
205 add heading above second to last paragraph:
paseo Ranchero Industrial Area Setting
205 last paragraph: move text up to directly
follow subheading of Open Space & Habitat
206 all paragraphs: move text up to directly
follow subheadings
206 first paragraph: add " " after landfill
,
0(...3
DRAFT GDP/SRP COMMENT
PAGE
206 tables: change row heading "Commercial Acre-
age" to "Industrial Acreage"
214 last paragraph, second sentence: delete peri-
od following IIradiiu
225 4th paragraph, third sentence: "Carte travel
is permitted. .."
235 1st paragraph, last sentence: "recordation of
the respective final map, M or final project
approval. . . "
237 last paragraph: ".. . shelters for homeless
person~. . . "
254 1st paragraph, first sentence: delete period
following "Implementation"
259 1st paragraph, first sentence: add period
following "safety"
259 2nd Objective: " . . .based on statistical
models 10081':16 and engineering..."
307 3rd paragraph: Change 43,7 to 43.7
310 Goal: Add punctuation.
317 d. Facilities, First Paragraph "Within the
Chula Vista Elementary School District, llH-
Elementary Schools.. ."
329 4th Policy: "Allow preferential (free or
reduced fee par](iR~) parking for... "
331 2nd paragraph, second sentence: Add "include"
between "operate, II and "additional" .
334 Last Implementation Measure, correct spacing:
IISan Diego-, II.
344 Remove Child Care and Solid Waste Management
from Regional Facility Report list because
Master Plans are required (consistent with
Findings of Fact) .
359 3 . Title IIEnhance and RestfOrell
387 1st pOlicy:..."a dcmeRstratioR fa.rffi an aari-
cultural activities area.. .
387 Implementation Measure:...operation of the
aCffiGR8tratioF.J. farm aaricultural activities
~... "
;z -4-
DRAFT GDP/SRP COMMENT
PAGE
387 2nd Policy: . . . "Otay ni ~v cr Valley Parcel. . . "
387 5th Policy: " or if contiguous to~ added
.. .
to the Preserve. . . "
387 last policy: "policies and guidelines shall
be developed at the SPA level for conununity
gardens .t;i thiR t.he dCDi~Rate.d opcn apace
area:.) ..;i thiFl each urbaR .v.illagc adiacent to
or within individual villaaes. Some conununi-
tv aardens mav be located within ODen SDace
areas beina maintained bv an ODen SDace main-
tenance district. with sDecific desian and
maintenance issues to be addressed durina the
SPA Dlan review. "
389 2nd paragraph, last sentence: liThe number in
parenthese<2. used below.. "
~-5
TEXT CHANGES TO CONFORM THE GDP/SRP TO THE DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT
~-~
DRAFT GDP/SRP
PAGE
113
COMMENT
Add new sub-bullets:
o
Buffer and/or transition techniques
should be developed which deal with
the transition between different vil-
lages within and outside of the pro-
posed Project.
o
view corridors shall be integrated at
the terminus or periodically along
the length of streets paralleling or
intersecting undeveloped open space.
o
Walls, including acoustical barriers,
shall be integrated into the archi-
tectural theme and scale of the vil-
lages.
o
Landscape themes shall be used to
define village character and blend
with adjacent existing development.
o
Naturalizing and native plantings
shall be integrated into revegetation
plans for manufactured slopes adja-
cent to open space areas.
o
Scale and architectural treatments
(i.e., rooflines, building materials)
of all residential and non-residen-
tial village buildings shall be di-
verse and yet compatible.
o
Signage shall be controlled and de-
signed to fit in the pedestrian envi-
ronment.
o
Buffer techniques shall be developed
to address transitions between vil-
lages and incompatible land uses to
minimize visual impacts.
o
Architectural colors for development
adjacent to open space areas shall
incorporate natural tones and shades.
,)...1
DRAFT GDP/SRP
PAGE
176 and 190
COMMENT
Add new Village policy:
o Buildings shall be visually compati-
ble in terms of height, scale, and
bulk and shall be set back from the
edge of the mesa and composed of low-
rise structures, no more than three
stories in height, with occasional
four story buildings.
o Buildings shall maximize the use of
non-ref1ective/non-g1are surfaces.
177
Add to first bullet:
To mitigate visual and policy impacts from
the realignment of Otay lakes Road, a sce-
nic roadway, a visual resources evaluation
shall be conducted by the applicant once
the actual roadway alignment and surround-
ing development have been determined to
identify key view corridors that would be
available to travelers. Significant views
of Lower Otay Lake and the San Ysidro
foothills and mountains shall be preserved
by a combination of the following mea-
sures:
Heights of buildings adjacent to the
southern edge of the roadway shall be
limited to heights which enable views
of the lake and surrounding hill-
sides, or site planning adjacent to
the southern edge of the roadway
shall enable view corridors of the
lake and surrounding hillsides.
Viewing areas shall be established
along the roadway corridor to allow
travelers to stop and enjoy the view
above the lake.
;2..8
DRAFT GDP/SRP
PAGE
178
178
(End of Section)
191
(End of Section)
190
379-380
COMMENT
Add policy to Grading and Landform Poli-
cies:
Policy:
The abandoned Otay Lakes Road
alignment shall be rehabilitated
and open for pedestrian and bi-
cycle viewing access. Rest ar-
eas and vistas shall be incorpo-
rated into the rehabilitated
walkway or promenade.
Add section Other policies:
The Project plans shall be submitted
to the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion (FAA) for review as soon as pos-
sible to determine whether or not
land use incompatibilities exist be-
tween the proposed Project and the
existing San Diego Air Sports Center.
If it is determined by the FAA that
such incompatibilities exist, then
the SPA plan shall be designed to
fully comply with the FAA. The pro-
posed Project Application shall then
revise the proposed Project's phasing
plan to allow for use of the sports
center until its option expires.
[Conform to Final Findings of Fact
Language. ]
Add new village Charactor pOlicy:
o
Color schemes shall be limited to
natural colors that blend with the
existing environment and surrounding
hillsides.
Add new policies to 3. Steep Slopes.
o
policy:
Roadways shall be designed to
follow the natural contours of
hillsides and minimize visibili-
ty of road cuts and manufactured
slopes.
.). Jj
DRAFT GDP/SRP
PAGE
379-380
policy:
Policy:
policy:
Policy:
COMMENT
Excessive use of manufactured
slopes ~n the Otay River valley,
Jamul and San Ysidro Mountains,
and the area around Otay Lakes
shall not be permitted.
Natural buffering (e.g., unde-
veloped open space) shall be
provided between development and
significant landforms, including
the Jamul and San Ysidro Moun-
tains.
variable slope ratios not ex-
ceeding 2:1 shall be utilized
when developing grading plans.
__% of the steep slopes (steeper
than 25%) shall be preserved.
[Complete consistent with final
Findings of Fact.]
;J. ....ID
TEXT CHANGES REFLECTING TENTATIVE POLICY DECISIONS BY
THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND/OR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
J~II
VILLAGE 3 - INDUSTRIAL
(CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 68 as follows:
I Industrial This category includes light manufac-
turing, warehousing, flexible use
buildings and public utilities. Very
limited amounts of restaurant and
office oriented commercial are also
permitted.
villaae 3
Primary Land Use Desianation: The
area indicated on theGDP/SRP Land
Use MaD as Villaae 3 has a Drimarv
land use desianation as Industrial.
Secondary Land Use Desianations:
Villaae 3 also has secondary land use
desianations for villaae Durnoses as
described in Part II. Chanter 1. Sec-
tion F3. This area maY be develoned
for said secondary land uses only if
and when Plannina Area 18a. desianat-
ed on the GDP/SRP Land Use Man as
Industrial. is de-annexed from the
City of San Dieao and annexed to the
City of Chula Vista. and remains des-
ianated as Industrial Use.
J - J)..
SEWER SERVICE
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 186 as follows:
(CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ACTION PENDING)
o "The Drovision of sewer service is not Drecluded in Plannina
Area 14.
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 191 as follows:
o
"The Drovision of sewer service is not Drec1uded in P1annina
Area 17." (CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
o
"The provision of sewer services is Drecluded in Plannina Area
~ (COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 196 as follows:
o
"The Drovision of sewer service is not Drecluded in P1annina
Areas 16 and 19.
01-/3
UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING
Note: The following sections of the GDP/SRP are recommended for
modification:
Page 68: Land Use Designations
Page 87: Components of Land Use Plan
Page 109: Potential uni versi ty
Page 153 : Village 9 Description
Page 155: Other village 9 policies
Page 157: Village 9 Graphic
Page 158: Village 10 Description
Page 160: Other village 10 Policies
Page 161 : Village 10 Graphic
Page 342: Phasing
J ../4-
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 68 as follows:
Universitv University PrimarY Land Use Desianation:
Site The area indicated on the
GDP/SRP Land Use MaD as the Uni
versity Site has a Drimarv land
use desianation as a university
site. At any time. this area
may be develoDed for a univer-
sity camDUS and ancillarY uses
such as camDUS related commer
cial, residential. and research
and deyeloDment SUDDort servic-
es. Howeyer, use of the area
west of Wueste Road, east of
Hunte Parkway. by a camDUS is
Dermitted. Drovided that the use
of Salt Creek Canyon (includina
definina sloDes) is limited to
trails. Dassiye recreation. and
to bioloaical research and edu
cational activities in keeDina
with the Dreseryation of sensi
tive habitat and bioloaical sne-
cies located here. No buildinas
or structures shall be Dermitted
within Salt Creek Canyon.
SecondarY Land Use Desianation:
The university Site also has
secondarY land use desianations:
the land within villaaes 9 and
10 has secondarY desianations
for villaae DurDoses as de
scribed in Part II. ChaDter 1.
Sections F9 and Fla. and the
area west of Wueste Road. east
of Hunte Parkway. has a second-
arv desianation as ODen SDace.
This area may be develoDed for
university DurDoses at any time.
)-/5
universitv Universitv This area mav be develoDed for
Site said secondarv land uses onlv
(Continued) after the develoDment of "West-
ern Phases 1. II and III" . as
identified in the Otav Ranch
Phasina Plan. has been comDlet-
ed. ComDletion of such develoD
ment for DurDoses of this re-
auirement shall be deemed to be
the issuance of buildina Dermits
for 75% of the residential units
in Phases I throuah III.
*** Uni.rcr8ity URi~" ers i tl oite petcFltial is
iRdicatca ~ tllis de.Di@"flatisfl.
'J'fic locatiofl io CORsiotCRt n~i th
rcoelutiens of the. City of Chtlla
ViDta, County of CaR Die:g-o .J.nd
City of Can Diego. l. CeflCr:l!
rlaR I.J'RCRdmCRt is rCfIuircd for
implcmc:atatioFl af this laRa 1:1SI:.
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 87 as follows:
e. University
The GDP/SRP Land Use map identifies ~ tfic ~cRcral location for
~ tfic petcRtial university campus in the area delineated as
villaae 9 & 10. as well as the area west~ of Wueste Road
(Salt Creek). \iith. QR l1.H.aerl) iR~ laRd use. clC6i~flQ.tica~ sherula
the Uni.>I ersity af C:llifernia dcciae:. Rot to locate in thio
areft. The purpose of this land use tficsc designationft is to
afford a universitv tfis URivcFsity ef CaliferRia the opportu-
nity to locate a university campus at this location,~h6ula the
Uni.y.croity occ]( to aa DO.
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 109 as follows:
4. potential university
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 Councils and the
d-/h
County Board of Supervisors approved resolutions supporting the
Wueste Road location for a university, subject to several condi-
tions; notably, that an environmental process be completed assuring
the identification and protection of significant resources.
The GDP/SRP Land Use Map delineates the ~cncral location for ~
potcntial a university campus in areas within Villaqe 9. Villaqe 10
and west~ of Wueste Road. It is the intent of this GDP/SRP to
reserve the land so desiqnated for a university for a Deriod of
time deDendent UDon Dhased develoDment as set forth in the
University Dolicies below, after which other uses. as described
herein. may be develoDed on that land. If tfic Uni7crsity of
C:lliforflia de:e:iclc3 t.o located. OR the Otay TI.J.flch, the enact oic€: of
the campu:J, CJGlct lec.J.tiea aRa ifltCRsity of RCCCOGary oupport L::u.~.cl
uoco .n"ill be oubj cet to discrctioflar.l action b~ the appropriat.e
~ovcrnmcRtGl agency.
University Policies
o The CDI',' SRI' LaRa Doc Hap ohall oymbolico.ll} 0. srcficral locatioR
for 3. tlRi..crsit} camptls .;cotcrly of vluc8tc noad.. ~hc gcncral
locatioF.J. ohall iFlcludc, but not be limited to, 1.991/ (usable)
acreD ad) accRt to t'}ucotc n03a.. The area ohall a166 be
o.o:Jigncd aFl u:adcrl:ying l,::ll"la use dcoignatien ..hieh ohall ee
utilized, 6fie~ld the Uni~croity of Califernia clccidc flot to
locate in tHe .J.Eca.
o The area indicated on the GDP/SRP Land Use MaD as the Univer-
sitv Site has a orimary land use desiqnation as a university
site. At any time. this area may be develoDed for a university
camDUS and ancillary uses such as camDus-related commercial.
residential and research and develoDment SUDDort services.
However. use of the area west of Wueste Road. east of Hunte
Parkway, bv a camDUS is Dermitted. orovided that the use of
Salt Creek Canyon (includinq defininq sloDes) is limited to
trails. Dassive recreation. and to bioloqical research and
educational activities in keeDinq with the Dreservation of
sensitive habitat and bioloqical sDecies located there. No
buildinqs of structures shall be Dermitted within Salt Creek
Canyon.
o The university Site also has secondary land use desiqnations:
the land within Villaqes 9 and 10 has secondary desiqnations
for villaqe ourDoses as described in Part II. ChaDter 1.
Sections F9 and FlO, and the area west of Wueste Road, east of
Hunte parkwav. has a secondary desiqnation as ODen SDace.
This area may be develoDed for university ourDoses at any
time. This area may be develooed for said secondary land uses
only after the develoDment of "Western Phases 1. II and III".
as identified in the Otav Ranch Phasinq Plan. has been
comDleted. ComDletion of such develoDment for DurDoses of
this remlirement shall be deemed to be the issuance of
buildinq Dermits for 75% of the residential units in Phase I
throuqh III.
d.-17
o SPhe Uni~v croity of CaliforBia ohoula be rCCIuirca to prepare an
En~v~ironmental Impact TIC]?Ol:t ~nTIiCh .Jould. iacBtify aBa protect
~ff} Oi~Bific~flt cBvironfficFlt~l reoourcco that c~nnot be
mitigated.
o The Uni~v~eroity of CalifcrBia should be reCIuirca tc prepare The
Droeessina of universitv develoDment Dlan shall include an
analysis te eRB~re Qf compatibility with adjacent villages,
conformance with all Dublic facilitv Dlans. includina Darks.
and consistencv with the RMP.
o If the uBi. eroity elect::; to loca.te ~.;ithiB the UaBa~cmeBt
['reDer.e, the Reoource HaIla~CIRcflt ['Ian ohal! be re eVlllu.atecl.
to casure that the oitiRg of thio facilit} aoes flct interfere
~.;ith or .:J.d.verscl} iffipact. the goalo, obj ccti ~\'~eo ana policies of
that. I?laR.
o
If the university
ohall Be adopted
protection.
clecto to
to addreoo
locate,
deoign,
perfermance otandards
.::tcce:Jo .::tIld reoource
o If the ~niJer6ity rc~uireo more laRd thaR deoigRa.ted by the
CDP/SRr LaRd. Use !tap, traBsfers of rcoidcIltia! dCIloity ohall
be c)caffiinea oR a ca.oe by case Basio.
o If the a uni-,,-.:croity requireD Otay TIaFlch laRd desigHatea by the
CDI\'Cnr LaRa Uoe Ha.p aD nei~hBorhccd or coFAfftURity pa.r](, the
!oc~l p;:lr]c rcquircfficnto ahall be rc\~ic..;cd on a caoc ~- case
baoio.
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 153 as follows:
The Drimary land use for Villaae Nine is desianated as a Universi-
tv. Part II. ChaDter 1. Section D. herein, describes this land use.
See also Part II. ChaDter 9. Section B. for Dhasina Dolicies.
The secondary land use for Village Nine consists of ~ an Urban
Village with transit/trolley. Urban Villages are adjacent to
existing urban development planned for transit oriented development
with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village
Nine contains:
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 155 as follows:
::) 'l?he mi){turc of laRa U8eo, deRsitico, aHa ocr-..:icco rC(Iuirca for
a uaivcyoitj- ~ C3uoe chaRgcs in the fabric of the COffiffiURity
eaot of cn 125. SPhio ~illa~c and adjaccflt villa~cs oRal1 be
re eJ~affliRe)d, sHould the) Uni"..ersity be located 'n'ithin the Otay
n.J.Rch.
d-/8
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 157 as follows:
Add graphic showing university as the primary land use.
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 158 as follows:
The orimarv l~n~ us~ for VillaGe Ten is desiGnated as a universitv.
Part II. Cha_t r 1_ Section D, herein. describes this land use.
See also Part II, ChaDter 9. Section B. for DhasinG Dolicies.
The secondarY land use for Village Ten consists of ~ an Urban
Village. Urban villages are adjacent to existing urban development
planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and
mixed uses in the village cores. Village Ten contains:
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 160 and 165 as follows:
:J The l,J,ncl tiDeS for thio v~ill.::lgc arid 3.djaccRt -rillagcs l,.,rill he
rc cnG.ffliacd, oheuld the URiycroity he located "uitfiiFl tae Ot~.
no.nch. g?fic mixt:l1.:E'c of laRd useD 1 dCFlsitico, ana ocr-\r-ie:eo
required for a uRi~croity may require chaRgeD in the fabric ef
the cCffiffiunity cast ef cn 125.
Modify GDP/SRP, Page 161 as follows:
Add graphic showing university as the primary land use.
Modify GDP/SR, Page 342 as follows:
The Universitv ;ite may be deve10Ded for university DurDoses at any
tim~, This ar a may be develoDed as secondarY villaGe land uses
onl. after the comDletion of "Western phases I. II and III. as
identified in the VillaGe PhasinG Plan. See also GDP/SRP: Part II,
ChaDter I. Sections F9 & Fla.
d--/
PARKS AND OPEN SPACB POLICIBS (CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 125 as follows:
o wildlife corridors shall be provided across Paseo Ranchero
linking Wolf and poggi Canyons as shown on the GDP/SRP Land
Use Map, innut should be solicited from aRa aeec~taslc to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PARKS AND OPBN SPACB POLICIES (COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 125 as follows:
o wildlife corridors shall be provided across Paseo Ranchero
linking Wolf and Poggi Canyons as shown on the GDP/SRP Land
Use Map, inDut should be solicited and recommendations be
considered from aHa accc~taslc to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
d- ...;).0
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
ACTION PENDING)
(CITY OF CHULA VISTA; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 243 as follows:
Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks are located to serve
people within a 1/2 to 3/4 mile radius within each residential
village. These parks serve the day-to-day recreational needs
of local residents. Each neighborhood park should bE: a
minimum of 7 acrcs, uith aa a-"cragc size: of 10 acres, ana be
sited in conjunction with a school site wherever feasible.
The size and location of neiahborhood Darks shall be deter-
mined at the SPA level of Dlannina. Neighborhood park
facilities typically include tot lots, parking,
rest rooms/maintenance buildings, playground equipment and play
areas. The neighborhood parks are located in or adjacent to
the village core, within the residential areas of the village.
Pedestrian trains are provided to link these neighborhood
parks to the residential neighborhood parks to the residential
neighborhoods.
In the more populated villages, neighborhood parks may be
supplemented by town squares.
.;2- ;/.{
VILLAGE LIBRARIES (CITY OF CHULA VISTA; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ACTION
PENDING)
Modify the GDP/SRP, page 314 as follows:
New Policy: "The libra:rv facility standard may be satisfied
throuah the Drovision of decentralized facilities within
villaaes. The size and character of these facilities will be
determined, in Dart, by the necessa:rv oDeration structure and
cost by lurisdictional arranaement at the SPA level."
d'" ;}.;}.
CULTURAL RESOURCBS STUDIBS
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 351 as follows:
3rd POlicy: "In conjunction with the first SPA in the I'hasc
2 rufI' Otav Valley Parcel, complete cultural resource studies
to assess cultural resources throughout Otay RaRch the Otav
Valley Parcel."
New POlicy: "In coniunction with the first SPA in the Proctor
Valley Parcel. comDlete cultural resource studies to assess
cultural resources throuahout the Proctor Valley Parcel."
New POlicy: "In coni unction with the first SPA in the San
Ysidro Mountains Parcel. comDlete resource studies to assess
cultural resources throuahout the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel.
.J,d3
PRESERVATION OF SENSITIVE RESOURCES (CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 353 as follows:
Implementation Measure: Preservation and restoration activi-
ties shall be consistent with the guidelines of -E-fte iill:i:
aDDlicable reaional ODen sDace/resource Drotection DrOararn
MSefl and shall result in equal or greater overall habitat
values than occur under existing conditions.
;Z - J.. If-
WETLANDS MITIGATION REVENUES
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 358 as follows:
"Opportunities and plans for mitigation banks shall be
developed in conjunction with the preparation of wetlands
enhancement plans for the Otay River Valley and the vernal
pool preservation plan in conjunction with the Phase 2 RMP and
the first SPA. All revenue generated by wetlands mitigation
banks shall be given to the ['rcscrvc O'.fficr(e)/UaRa~cr(s) to
fund Preserve activities."
J....;),5
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB HABITAT SETBACK (CITY OF CHULA VISTA; COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO ACTION PENDING)
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 358 as follows:
2nd Bullet: "Gnatcatcher or cactus wren occupied coastal sage
scrub habitat shall be provided with a setback of 298 fCEt,
',;ith rcduetiofl to lno less than 100 feetl beifl@' alle..cd efl a
casc By caso sasis, determined in consideration of topography
or other factors clctcrmifloa through additional study at the
SPA level. ["Occupied habitat" includes the area encompassed
by a bird's foraging territory.]"
c2 -;Jfo
ALTA ROAD (CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 91 as follows:
Revise map to delete Alta Road
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 211 as follows:
Delete reference to Alta Road from Circulation Element Road list.
J.~;).7
ADULT EDUCATION FACILITIES
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 316 as follows:
8, School Facilities
c. Goals, Objectives, policies and Implementation Measures
GOAL: COORDINATE THE PLANNING OF ADULT EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
WITH APPROPRIATE DISTRICT.
Policy:
Provide for the reservation of one
for adult educational facilities
residents of Otav Ranch.
or more sites
to serve the
ImDlementation Measure: Provide for the reserva-
tion of sufficient land/floor SDace within the EUC
for the Sweetwater Union Hiah School District adult
education facilitv.
d-~:
VILLAGE 13 RESORT BUFFER (CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
Fifth bullet
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 176 as follows:
"Buffer the lake edae from deve10Dment throuah a
variable setback and landscaDina reauirements to be
determined at the SPA level."
d~J.9
TRANSIT THRESHOLDS
Modify the GDP/SRP, Page 210 as follows:
ImDlementation Measure: No more than 15.000 dwellina units or
4.000.000 sauare feet of commercial use within the EUC shall be
aDDroved for the Otav Vallev Parcel until such time as the fundina
is aDD roved and construction is assured for the liaht rail transit
system. II
;< ~?J)
PART III, IMPLEMENTATION
REPLACE PART III IMPLEMENTATION WITH THE ATTACHED TEXT (CORRECTED
TO REFLECT FINAL REQUIREMENTS AND PAGE NUMBERS) .
~~I
OtmJ Ranch GDPISRP o Part ill
Part m
Implementation
Introduction
This Chapter summarizes the tasks that must be performed as a condition of approval of Otay
Ranch SPAs, The source of the listed requirements Is Part I and Part II of the GDP/SRP. The
listing Is presented to assist the public and governJng agenCies to more completely understand the
various SPA processing requirements, This Chapter neither establishes new or different
requirements from those Identified In the GDP/SRP. nor alters the obligation to perform
requirements contained In the GDP/SRP,
The Implementation requirements are organized Into four categOries:
Q Project-wide Tasks
Q SPA Tasks
Q Annual Tasks
Q SPA Specific Tasks
The project-wide tasks Include those to be performed as a condition of the first Otay Ranch SPA.
regardless of which vtllage or planning area Is the subject of the first application. SPA tasks must
be performed as a condition of each Otay Ranch SPA. Annual tasks must be performed annually,
regardless of which SPA Is being processed, Primarily, major tasks are listed. Other tasks,
subordinate to the major tasks must also be performed, Specific SPAs tasks must be performed In
connection with SPAs which contain specific vtllages or planning areas.
;;( - 3;l
OtmJ Ranch GDP/SRP o Part ill
PROJECT WIDE IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
1. Overall Design and Land PIaDII
1.1 Develop an Overall Design Concept for the Three Parcels............................................, 112
1.1.1. Establish a Design RevIew Process...........,..........................................................,.... 114
1.1.2. Develop a Schematic Design Plan for the Arterial Road System
and Scenic Corridors ...............,.........,........................,............................................. 112
1.1.3, Develop Landform Grading Guidelines ..................................,..,..............................112
1.1.4, Identt1Y the Locatlonal Slgnage Concept...........,.........,......................,...,...........,.....112
2. Facllity Muter Plana
2.1 Prepare a Child Care Master Plan ..,.......,.,................................,..,................................,284
2.2 Prepare a FIre Protection and Emergency Medical Master Plan....,.........................,....306
2,3 Prepare a Law Enforcement Master Plan......................,...........................,.,.,..,.............311
2,4 Prepare a Library Master Plan ....,.....,....,.....,...........................,.....................................314
2,5 Prepare a Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan ...........................................247
2,5,1. Prepare a Local and Regional Trail System Plan.......,................... ,...,.........,..,........ 239
2,6 Prepare a School Master Plan ...........................................,............................................319
2,7 Prepare a Sewer Master Plan..........................................................................................264
2,8 Prepare a Water Master Plan ..........................................................................................274
2.9 Prepare a Water Reclamation Plan.........................,................,................,...................., 276
2,10 Prepare an Urban Runoff Plan ......................................................................................,270
2,11 Prepare an Integrated Solid Waste Management Master Plan ......................................268
2,12 Prepare a Build-Out Transportation Model AnalysiS.................................................... 240
3. Phase n RMP
3.1 Complete the Cultural Resource Swvey .........................................................................351
3,2 Complete Habitat and Population Studies for the Gnatcatcher and
Cactus Wren ....."...." ........ "...."" ..,.,."..,'....".,..,." ".,......,.,." "...,......,." "......,.,." ......,'.,... 351
3,3 Complete Studies of Raptor Foraging and Habltat........................................................351
3.4 Develop a Vernal Pool Preservation and Management Plan......................................... 357
3,5 Prepare a Vernal Pool Study.....................................,..................................................... 3 51
3,6 Complete a Wlldl1fe Movement Corridor Study............................................................,351
3,7 Consult with Resource Agencies .................................................................................,..,376
3.8 Negotiate a MOA with Resource Agencies......................................................................, 376
3,9 Prepare a Procedure/Process for Amending the RMP....................................................377
~-33
Otan Ranch GDP/SRP 0 Part III
3,10 Refine the Preserve Boundartes..............,.,...,.,......,...............................,.................377-378
3,11 Evaluate Management Responslbl11ty for the Otay River Valley........,..................,....., 370
3,12 Develop an Order of Conveyance Plan,....................,..........,.....,..,..........,.................,....,367
3,13 Prepare a FInanCIng Plan for RMP Implementation................,...,.,.........,...,........,...... 369
3.14 Select a Permanent Owner/Manager.......,........."..".."...,.,.,....,.....,..,.,..",...,....,..,...."....364
3,15 Develop a Range Management Plan.,..........................,...........................,......,................376
3.16 Develop Conceptual Infrastructure Plans......................................................,...............373
3.17 Establ1sh a Comprehensive Biota Monitoring Program.........................,........,.,...366-377
3,18 Identify Locations of Permitted Uses In the PreseIVe,...................................................370
3,19 Identify a Potential Location of a Nature Interpretive Center...............................,369-370
SPA IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
4. SPA Land Plan
4,1 Prepare SPA Land Use Plan..,.,.................,...................,................,........,.,............. 111,342
4.2 Prepare a Village DesJgn Plan..................................................................................112-114
4,2,1 Identify a DesJgn RevIew Process..............................,............................................... 114
4.2.2. Prepare Grading Plans........................,...................................................,......... 111,381
4,2,3. Prepare Architecture Plans ..,...,.................................,..,.........................................,111
4.2,4. Prepare Landscaping Plans .....................................................................................,111
4,2,5, Provide Standards for Publ1c and PrIvate Streets................................................... III
4,2,6, Review Community Garden Requirements .........................,....................................359
4,3 Perform a Visual Analysis Study ...................................,...............................................114
4,4 Prepare a Noise Abatement Program ...........................................................,................,332
3. PubHc Facilities yt.....('I..1I II: PhulDg Plan
5,1 Prepare a Public Facilities Financing & Phasing Plan .................................................342
5,2 Inventory of Existing and Proposed Factlttles ..............................................................343
5,3 Prepare a Fiscal AnalysiS.....................,.........................................................................342
5,4 Prepare a Capital Factlttles Plan ...............................................................................,...343
5,5 Prepare a VtJlage Vlabtltty Analysls..,........................,.,.......................................,........345
5,6 Update Village Phasing Plan .........................................................................................,342
6. RegIonal FacWtlea Report
6,1 Prepare a Regional Facilities Report..............................................................................288
6.1.1 Prepare a Community and Regional Purpose Facilities Report.............................. 288
6,1.2 Review the Demand for Cemetery Factlltles..,.................................................,.......281
Determine the Destrablltty of Memorial Gardens......,............................................281
d. -34-
OtmJ Raru:h GDP/SRP o Part ill
6.1.3 Establ1sh Design Guidelines for an Arts/Cultural Facil1ty..............................,..,...280
6,1.4 Identify Social and Senior Services Facilities .................................................296--297
6.1.5 Prepare a Correctional Facility Report....................................................................301
6,1,6. Prepare a Justice Facility Report..........,...,..".,.,...,..,....,.."....,...."............................301
6.1.6 Prepare a Health and Medical Facility Report.....,..............,....................,..............,288
7. SPA Master FacWty Plana
7,1 Prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan..............................................................,.,...330
7,2 Prepare an Animal Control SPA Master Plan........,......................................................298
7,3 Prepare a Civic SPA Master Plan ........................,...................................................299-300
7.4 Prepare a Drainage SPA Master Plan........,.........................,........,...,...............,.............261
7.4,1 Prepare a Watershed Impact and Protection Report ,..........,....................................270
7,4.2, Prepare a Basin Specific Drainage Improvement Plan ,..........................................261
7.5 Prepare a Fire Protection/Emergency Service SPA Master Plan,.................,..,..,..,.....,306
7,5.1 Prepare an Emergency Disaster Plan.......................................,................304, 334-335
7,5,2 Prepare a Fire Break and Fuel Modtftcation Plan.....,.............................................306
7,5,3 Prepare a Fire Suppression Analysis/DeSign Plan .................................................306
7,5.4 Evaluate the Residential Fire Suppression Sprinkler Systems.............................. 305
7,6 Prepare a Law Enforcement SPA Master Plan...,...................,.,...................,.................311
7,7 Prepare a Library SPA Master Plan .........,....................................................................,314
7,8 Prepare a Parks SPA Master Plan........,.................................,.......................................247
7,9 Prepare the School Master SPA Plans ...............................,....,.................,....................319
7.10 Prepare a Sewerage SPA Master Plan........,................................,.................................,.263
7,11 Prepare a Transportation SPA Plan ........,.....................................................................228
7,11.1 Design a Phased Transit Plan...,.................................,.....,...................,...................228
7,11.2 Design a Phased Bicycle Plan .....................,............................................................,228
7.11.3 Design a Phased TraIl Plan..........,.....,......,................,.........,..............,.....................228
7,12 Prepare a Water SPA Master Plan ..................................................................................274
7,13 Prepare a Water Reclamation SPA P!an..,.......,...................................................... 276,384
7,14 Prepare a Water Conservation SPA Master Plan................................................... 274.385
7,15 Prepare a Child Care Facility Master Plan ....................................................................284
7,16 Prepare an Integrated Sol1d Waste Management Plan,...............,...,........,.,.................,.268
8. Community Gudens
8,1 Prepare Policies and Guidelines for SPA Community Garden................,..................... 387
9. Biological ReIIOIUCeS/RMP Implementation
9.1 Complete SPA Specific Biological Resource Plan....,.......................,........,..........,.........377
9,2 Implement Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration Plans......,...........................,.....................360
;/.,,35
OtmJ Ranch GDP/SRP 0 Part III
9,3 Implement Native Grasslands Plan...,..........................................................................,362
9.4 Implement Restoration Program for Riparian Habltats.......................,......................,361
9,5 Implement Wildlife Corridors Plans,.."...."..".....,..",.".""..,..,..",."..,.,..",."...,..".......,,363
9,6 Conduct Wetland Delineation SUIVey ...........................................................................,358
9,6,1 Identify Areas Subject to CDFG Streambed Alteration
Application .."" ..,."...."..., ....,.,."....".,.,..,."" "..,." "..,."...." ".,.."".,..,."" "...... ".,.."",376
9,7 Identify SPA Specific PreseIVe Boundary Modifications....,......................................... 377
9,8 Prepare "Edge Plan".... ....".., ........,., ,........, ...,.,.. ...... ,..... ..., ...,....... ,.........".. ,..... ,.....,......... 374
9,9 Demonstrate that Mitigation ActMUes are Financially Feaslble...............................370
10. Energy Conservation
10,1 Prepare a Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan....................,..........,..................,381
11. Geo~hnl~1 Review
11.1 Provide Geotechnical Investigations ........,.............,..,...........,......,....................,.........,.379
12. Cultural Re8ource8
12.1 Prepare a Cultural Resources Plan .........,...................................,..,.......,.......................,351
13. Housing
13.1 Prepare a Housing Program SPA Master Plan.......,................................................233-234
13.1,1 Develop Regional Share Allocations,.."..".."..",...,.."..,...,.",."",.".."."......,.........", 233
13,1.2 Prepare an Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan...............................,........,.................236
13,1.3 Support the Use of Accessory Unlts..........................................................................235
13.1.4 Identify Housing Opportunities for Spec1al Needs Groups......,.....,....,......,....,.....,...235
14. Jurlsdic:tionallalmes
14.1 Establish aReseIVe Fund Program..................,..........,........................,....,....,...............,257
14.2 Negotiate Property Tax Agreements.....................,...........,..,.........................................,256
ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
115. Annual Review
15,1 Provide an Analysis of Compliance with Threshold Standards................................... 345
15,2 Determine Annual Development Projections...,...,.,.,....",..,...."."",..,..,."".,...,..,....".." 345
15.3 Project Facilities Needed To Meet Threshold Standards..........,...,................................345
15.3,1 Identify Recommendations for Alternative Compliance,.......................................345
15,4 Prepare a FIve-Year Development Phasing Forecast.......,.......,.,....,................,.,...........346
15,5 Review V1llage Phasing Plan .........................,..............,...............,..................,.............,346
15,6 RevIew the Service Revenue Plan and Revenue Sharing
Agreement(s)..", "."..., ".,." '" ,..' ,'...", .,." ".,."" "..." ,..", ,..,., ..."...,., "..., "..", ,.,...", ...,.", ,.",,346
d.-?;b
otau Ranch GDP/SRP o Part ill
15.7 Identify Adjustments To FIND Model..,.....................,.....................................,.............257
SPA SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
16. Eastem Urban Center - plllnnh'g Area 12
16.1 Identlf'y Land and Space ReqUirements for Arts and Cultural
Facilities.........".........,..,'" ,..,....".".,.,...".."".."".""",....".,.,.........,........,.,.,......."".'...... 280
16,2 Identify Land and Space Requirements for Civic Uses ..................................................300
16,3 Identify Size. Location and TIming of Correctional Facilities ..................................... 301
16,4 Identify Size, Location and TIming of Justice Facilities..................,........,...................308
16.5 Identif'y Site for Law Enforcement Fac1lily......,..................,...........,..........,...,..............311
16,6 Identify Site for Library FaciI1ly..,..,..,....,..,..,.......,..,.......",...,....".........,...........,....",....314
17. Lake Protect1oa. - Plllnnhog Areas 13, 14, and lIS
17.1 Prepare Urban Runoff Plan ...........................................................................................,270
18. Transit .t\1Igr>mentll - Plllnnh-.g Areas 1 and IS
18,1 Conduct Transit Alignment Study..............................................................................,.. 120
19. Industrial n-Igr> - pJannl"g Areas 18a, 18b and 3,
19,1 Establish IndustrIal Design Guidel1nes................................................................, 128. 2fY7
20. Resort DesIgn- plllnnl"g Areas 13
20.1 Establish Resort Design Guide!1nes..,.............,..................,.............,..............................176
21. Freeway CommercJal- Plannl"g Areas IS, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12
21.1 Prepare Freeway SIgnage Program...........,..................................................................... 107
22. Proctor Valley PIaD8 - Plllnnl"g Area 14
22,1 Prepare Plan for Adjacent Land Uses............................................................................. 185
2S. Agriculture - Last Otay Valley Parcel SPA
23,1 Provide for Demonstration Farm ..,..............................................................................,387
d-37
NAP AND LAND USB TABLB CHANGBS
cJ~38
MAP AND LAND USE TABLE CHANGES
GDP/SRP EXHIBIT PAGE
PAGE
Universal Modify all maps to delete 'Umbrell N/A
Property' . the westerly i20 acres of
the development area immediately
south of the . reverse L'. and make
corresponding acreage changes on land
use tables.
70 Overall Project Summary 2-42
72 Otay Valley Parcel 2-43
73 Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Map: N/A
Modify map to reflect final action.
76 Proctor Valley Parcel 2-44
77 Proctor Valley Parcel Land Use Map: N/A
Modify map to reflect final action.
79 San Ysidro Mountains Parcel 2-45
81 San Ysidro Mountain Parcel Land Use
Map: Modify map to reflect final ac- N/A
tion.
84 Otay Ranch Village and Rural Estate 2-46
Areas by Planning Area Numbers.
86 Add note to Otay Ranch Regional Com-
mercial. Office and Industrial map as
follows: 'See Village 3 discussion N/A
for City of Chula Vista condition
precedent to activate residential
uses in Village 3.'
88 Otay Ranch Open Space Map 2-47
91 Circulation Element Roads: Add note
to map stating 'Alta Road is not a
Circulation Element Road within the N/A
City of Chula Vista. The County of
San Diego's Circulation Element
reserves right-of-way for Alta Road.
118 Village One Land Use Table 2-48
121 Village One Land Map 2-49
123 Village Two Land Use Table 2-50
126 Village Two Land Use Map 2-51
eJ...?JI
GDP/SRP EXHIBIT PAGB
PAGE
128 Village Three Land Use Table 2-52
131 Village Three Land Use Map 2-53
133 Village Four Land Use Table 2-54
136 Village Four Land Use Map 2-55
138 Village Five Land Use Table 2-56
140 Village Five Land Use Map 2-57
142 Village six Land Use Table 2-58
144 Village Six Land Use Map 2-59
146 Village Seven Land Use Table - NO 2-60
CHANGB
148 Village Seven Land Use Map - CLERICAL 2-61
CORRECTIONS, TEXT CHANGE ONLY
150 Village Eight Land Use Table 2-62
152 Village Eight Land Use Map 2-63
154 Village Nine Land Use Table 2-64
157 Village Nine Land Use Map 2-65
157 University Map 2-66
161
159 Village Ten Land Use Table - NO 2-67
CHANGB
161 Village Ten Land Use Map 2-68
163 Village Eleven Land Use Table 2-69
166 Village Eleven Land Use Map - 2-70
CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, TEXT CHANGE
ONLY
168 Village Twelve Land Use Table 2-71
172 Village Twelve Land Use Map 2-72
175 Village Thirteen (Resort) Land Use 2-73
Table
179 Resort Village Land Use Map 2-74
183 Village Fourteen Proctor Valley Land 2-75
Use Table
187 Village Fourteen Land Use Map 2-76
C) ~t{l)
GDP/SRP EXHIBIT PAGB
PAGE
189 Village Fifteen (San Ysidro West) 2-77
Land Use Table [CITY]
192 Village Fifteen Land Use Map [CITY] 2-78
189 Village Fifteen (San Ysidro West) 2-79
Land Use Table [COUNTY ]
192 Village Fifteen Land Use Map [COUNTY] 2-80
194 Planning Area 16 (Jamul Rural Estate
Area) Land Use Table - CLERICAL 2-81
CORRECTIONS
195 Planning Area 19 Land Use Table - NO 2-82
CHANGB
197 Jamu1 Rural Estate Area Land Use Map 2-83
200 Village Seventeen (San Ysidro East 2-84
Rural Estate Area Table
203 Planning Area 17 (San Ysidro East 2-85
Rural Estate Area) Land Use Map:
206 Planning Area 18b (paseo Ranchero 2-86
Industrial Area) Land Use Table -
CLERICAL CORRECTIONS
208 Paseo Ranchero Industrial Area 2-87
(Planning Area 18b) Land Use Map -
CLERICAL CORRECTIONS
C),lff
Overall Project Summary'"
Village SF MF Total Res, At. Park CPF Sch C'ml. Open Sp. All, At. Other Total Approx,
Untts Unls Units At;' A.. At, At, Ac. Pop.
OIay Valley 10,883 10,803 21,686 3,367 189.1 84.5 260.0 369.9 4,330,6 542.8 305,1 9,449 62,373
Parcel
Proctor 3,003 1,558 4,561 2,0232 132 18.9 10,0 2.9 5,516.4 80,0 230,4 7,895 13,583
VaIey
Parcel:
San Ysidro 1,057 0 1,057 1,589.8 7,9 5.8 10.0 3.3 3,938,4 0.0 0,0 5,555 3,382
Mountai1s
Parcel
(CITY)
San Ysidro 720 0 720 1,157.9 7,9 5,6 10,0 3.3 4,370,3 0,0 0,0 5,555 2,305
Mountains
Parcel
(COUNTY)
Total, 14,943 12,361 27,304 6,980 2102 109.0 280.0 376,1 13,785,4 622,8 535.5 22,899 79,33&
(CITY)14,94
3
Total, 14,606 12,361 261Nfl 6,548.1 210.2 109.0 280,0 376.1 14,217,3 622,8 535,5 22,899 78,261
(COUNTY)
'30.8 ac. of park land included in residential acreage. Actual distrbulion of acreage wiD be delennined with the Park Master Plan,
" See Village 3 c!SCUssion for condttion precedent to utiHzing residential uses within the CIIy of Chula V'1BIa.
- Subsequent references to the 'OY9I8I Project Summ8l}' Table' includes the summ8l}' tables by parcels (pages 72,76, and 79).
Note: Total may change depending upon clarification of Board and Council action
concerning Village 15
d.-1j.J-
Otay Valley Parcel
Village SF MF Total Res, Parle CPF Sch C'm!. Open Art. Ac. 0Iher Total Approx.
Unks Unis UnIts Ac. Ac Ac. Ac, Ac. $p. Ac, Pop,
Vilage 1 1,701 1,566 3,323 547.5 10,0 12.3 10,0 11.4 265.9 48.5 0.0 903,6 9,616
Vilage2 1,355 566 1,941 486.6 35.0 92 10.0 18,7 1822 32.7 0.0 774,6 5,830
Village 3 613 128 741 149.0 8,0 3,4 0,0 5.3 136.5 16,1 0,0 318,3 2,288
VDlage 4 532 0 532 290.7 0.0 3,0 10,0 3.0 265,5 35,0 0,0 607,2 1,703
VDIage 5 1,263 1,615 2,878 370.3 10.0 10,2 10,0 6,0 71.5 15.4 0,0 493.4 8,160
VDlage 6 990 1,242 2,232 275.3 10,0 8.0 10.0 4,6 40,5 16.5 0.0 364,9 6,335
Village 7 1,053 448 1,501 241.5 9.3 6,3 85.0 72 45,3 17.1 0.0 411,7 4,512
Village 8 1,021 436 1,457 2fJ,7 8.6 5.6 10.0 13,4 23,1 142 0.0 342.8 4,379
Village 9 735 1,010 1,745 251.1 8,8 6,3 10.0 8.7 59.9 19,1 0,0 363,9 4,928
Village 10 819 271 1,090 178,1 34.3 4,4 35,0 20.0 40.7 21.1 0.0 333,6 3,311
Village 11 745 1,001 1,748 238.9 9.9 6.6 60.0 10,4 95.4 33,8 0,0 455,0 4,936
Ping. Alee 0 2,500 2,500 70.1 45,0 92 10.0 261,2 19,7 242 0,0 439.4 6,375
12
P~. Area 0 0 0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 215,8 215,8 0
ISA
Ping. Area 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 89.7 89,7 0
188
Other:
Open 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 ~ 0.0 0.0 ~ 0
Space
SRI25 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 182,0 0,0 182.0 0
Public 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 19.6 19,6 0
Arterial 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 89.1 0.0 69.1
Total 10,883 10,803 21,688 3,367 169.1 84.5 260.0 369.9 ~ 542,8 305,1 9,449 62,373
dJ.B
Proctor Valley Parcel
Village SF MF Total Res, Park CPF Sch C'm!. Open Art. Ac. Other TelaI Approx,
Unn. UnIs Units Ac. Ac Ac. Ac. Ac. Sp. Ac. Pop.
Vilage 13 1,030 1,408 2,438 512.5 0,0 9.6 0,0 0,0 0,0 30.9 230.4 763.4 6,667
Village 14 1,563 150 1,713 773.8 10,7 7,6 10.0 2,9 0.0 23,7 0.0 628,7 5,384
Ping. Area 390 0 390 716.9 2.5 1,7 0.0 0,0 370.0 25,4 0.0 \1165 1,248
16
Png. Area 20 0 20 20.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 20.0 64
19
Other.
Opan Sp. 0 0 0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 &161 0.0 0.0 &161 0
Total 3,003 1,558 4,581 ~ 13,2 18.9 10,0 2,9 &51114 80.0 230,4 7,915 13,563
Note: County final action is pending on ViUage 14,
d - 'flf
San Ysldro Mountains Parcel
Village SF MF Total Res, Park CPF Sch C'm!, Open Art, Ac. Other Total Approx,
Unks Unls UnIts Ac. k k, Ac, Ac. Sp, k. Pop,
VHIage 15 761 0 761 773.1 7.9 5,6 10,0 3,3 0.0 0.0 0,0 799.9 2,435
(CITY)
Vilage 15 433 0 433 4092 7.9 5,6 10,0 3,3 0,0 0,0 0.0 436 1,386
(COUNTY)
VDlage 17 296 0 296 816.7 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 794.5 0.0 0,0 1,6112 947
(CITY)
Vilage 17 2B7 0 2B7 748,7 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 794.5 0,0 0,0 1,5(12 919
(COUNTY)
Other:
Open Sp. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 ~1069 0.0 0,0 ~1069 0
(CITY)
Open Sp. 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 ~ 0,0 0.0 ~ 0
(XlNT'Y')
Total (CITY) 1,057 0 1,057 1,'HI8 7.9 5,6 10,0 3.3 ~ 0.0 0,0 5,555 3,382
Tolal 720 0 720 1,1S'9 713 5,6 10,0 3,3 4,.m! 0.0 0,0 5,555 2,305
(COUNTY)
Note: Total may change depending upon clarification of Board and Council action
concerning Village 15.
~-45
~
<
;
J1
1!!
::J
a:
gj
~
'5
8
g.
<J
>
Q
c
u
=-=
G>m
E~
.cCl)O)
We
g---
",ec
a:::J~
>- a: a:
.s~>-
OCUCO
c:nCl)
Sea
=CD
>-
<(
j
r=
>~
~
:)
tI)
ro
C!)
<
C!)
~
......
tI)
~
.....
ro
I-<
~
"'0
1a
tI)
C!)
0..
~
C!)
~
.....
.....
......
>
..s:::
C)
~
~
o
or)
N
......
......
,.D
~
;),-4/p
r
.cG)
UU
cca
cae..
a: en
>oC
caG)
_ C.
00
Q
-
o Q)
c:>
0'"
.- Q)
-III
BQ)
0'"
_0-
ii3
N e
=as
ea:
Q)>.
em
Q)-
CJO
II
~
~
Q)
(,)
(OJ
0..
r/J.
;:::
Q)
0..
o
...c:
(,)
;:::
~
~
....
o
r-
N
....
.-
.D
~
~
d.J-f7
Village One
Use SF MF TcQI Res. Dens PIIIk CPF Soh C'mI Open A'rt, ToIs! Approx,
Unhs unas Units Ac. Ac" Ac. Ac. Ac. Sp, Ac. Ac, Pop,
LMV 1,314 0 1,314 328,6 4,0 7,S' 328.6 4,205
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10.0 12.3 11,4 0,0 33,7 0
MH 0 1,566 1,566 87,0 18 10.0 97.0 3,993
LM 299 0 299 99,9 3,0 99.9 957
LM 144 0 144 32.0 4.5 32,0 461
OTHER 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 265.9 46,5 312,4 0
TOTAl 1,757 1,566 3,323 547.5 10.0 12.3 10,0 11.4 265,9 46,5 903.6 9,616
'Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage.
"Part of park acreage requrements have been allocated to community parks, Actual park size to be del8I!IIined by Parks Masler Plan,
d.Jfg
Scenic Corridor
Create Slope and Landscape
Utilize Landform Grading
Open Space
Create Slope and Landscape
TransIt Right-of'Way
Reservation with Stop
at Village Cor.
Bike Link to
Southwest COllege
Design for Compatibility
with Sunbow
Open space
Preserve Slope
and Enhance
Habitat
75-foot Average
Buffer Along
Arterials
Open Space
Preserve Slope and
Enhance Habitat
Scenic Corridor
Landscape Treatment
Open Space
Preserve SIDpe and Habllat
Exhibit 39 - Village 1 Land Use Map
d -1f9
Village Two
Use SF MF Total Res, Den. Port< CPF Soh C'ml, Open AJt,k, ToI8I Approx,
Un.. Un.. Un.. Ac. Ac" Ac. k. k. Sp. Ac. Pop.
LMV 1,156 0 1,156 330.2 3.5 3.1' 330,2 3,699
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 10,0 9.2 18,7 37.9 0
MH 0 586 586 58,6 10.0 10.0 68,6 1,494
LM 134 0 134 53,6 2.5 53,6 429
LM 65 0 65 44.4 1.5 44,4 208
CP 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 25.0 25,0 0
OTHER 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 182,2 32.7 214.6 0
TOTAl 1,355 586 1,941 486.8 35,0 9.2 10,0 18.7 182,2 32.7 774,6 5,830
'Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage,
"Actual park size to be determined by Par1<s Master Plan.
J.'5l
'"
Q.
III CD
~ C
-0-
i~
oJ"
... ~ E
01110
-oep_
i: J:L. "0
0.9 i
Ocn....
00>0>
--..
~Z=
o~_
cno:;:)
..
CD
eo
'" C
> 0
--",
~<-
-~"
Ot,Ui::
0_0>
--\:
,j,"c(
.....ID
0>
o
!!'"
0> C
> 0
c( - <n
<-
-....
Oc>>'t:
0_ ..
--t:
v,::J_
.....ID~
o
:::I
..w
o 0
111-
0...
VI CI
C os
11>'"
Q..!O
0..J
<nO>
os 0
os
0>0.
i::cn
.. C
~!
Q.o
s:
-=
"i=
-0
Cc
0..
-oJ
o_
S I;)
-'5
Co
8..
c: .,
-os
..S:
"'11.
" ..
S:s:
0._
.. ep
'::Q.
==0
"'-
cen
~'2
....
~-
o>S
''':is
!!!co
0..:1:
~
'@
"
en
-
C ..
....
0..
.!!!.::;)
'O_
ct;:
"-0
.. C
3!j
..
c."
8i
~
'2
~
c
o
,..
c
-....
....u
';:--
CE-
.._~
32=>
=:! 9
a:oc:
C;;;i
SPes
:es
Dc(>
CDc:
Co
-,..
-gc
c';~
e:a
.. o~
1:1 :; 0
'0 c_
>oW CD_
~.c: -I i
~ ~ . u
.c ~.!L
0"--0
"0 54
;::
!3~
ilia
"c
00
.fCi:
~
~
(])
rJ:J
::J
"0
a
~
C'I
(])
00
ro
......
......
:>
......
~
.....
.....
.D
~
~
d.-SI
Village Three"
Use SF MF ToIaI Res. Dens Park CPF Sch C'm!. Open Art. Ac, Total Approx.
Units Unis Units Ac. k' Ac. Ac, Poc. Sp, Poc. Pop,
LM 613 0 613 1362 4.5 136,2 1,962
MU 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 8.0 3.4 5.3 16.7 0
MH 0 128 128 12,8 1,0 12.8 326
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 136,5 16,1 152,8 0
TOTAl 613 128 741 149,0 8.0 3,4 0.0 5.3 136,5 16.1 318,3 2,288
'Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan,
" Within the City 01 Chula VISta the primary land use for Vilage 3 is industrial. See the discussion withi1 this section for the raqurements
which must be satisfied in Older to utOize the secondary residential village land uses described above,
~-5d
Wildlife Corridor
Ullllze Landfonn Grading
Techniques Along Wolf Canyon
Connection with Industrtal
(Planning Area 18-B)
75-foot Average
Buffer Along Anerlals
Connect to
Existing Industrial
Provide Trail Links
10 Otay Valley
Otay
Valley
Road
~"'~~I
,
::20
"".,.-----
"'8ff n: - - -
75-foot Average
Buffer Along Anerlals
Orient Residential Uses
Toward Canyon
Consider Olay Valley Park
In Design of Residential Uses
City of Chula Vista:
Primary Land Use Designation:
The area indicated on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as Village 3 has a primary
land use designation as Industrial.
Secondary Land Use Designation:
Village 3 also has secondary land use designations for village purposes. This
area may be developed for said secondary uses only if and when Planning
Area 183, designated on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as Industrial, is
de-annexed from the City of San Diego and annexed to the City of Chula
Vista. and remains designated as Industrial use.
Note: The County of San Diego designates Village 3 as a residential village as depicted above.
Exhibit 43 - Village 3 Land Use Map
Cl- 52>
Village Four
Use SF MF Total Ree, Den. Park CPF Sch C'm!. Open Altlv;, Total Approx,
Unhs Unls UniI. Iv;, At;" Iv:. Iv;+ Iv;, Sp. Iv;, Pop,
L 173 0 173 89.1 2.5 89.1 554
L 156 0 156 156,1 1.0 4,3" 156.1 499
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3,0 6,0 0
LMV 85 0 85 18,8 4,5 18.8 Z72
LM 68 0 68 34.1 2.0 34.1 218
LM 50 0 50 12.6 4,0 10.0 22,8 160
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 265.5 35.0 300.5 0
TOTAl 532 0 532 290,7 0.0 3,0 10.0 3.0 265.5 35.0 607.2 1,703
'Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage.
"Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined by Parka Master Plan,
t&hool needed W Village 3 developed wih residential,
d -54-
Utilize Landfonn Grading
Techniques Along
Wolf Canyon
Half-acre Lots Adjacent to
Wolf Canyon with Remainder
Average 10,000 sq. ft. lots.
75-loot Average
Buffer Along Arterials
Open Space and Preserve
Rock Outcropplngs
Preserve as Open
Space Amenity
Provide Trail
Connections to
EUC and Otay
River Valley
Provide for Compatibility
with Village 8
75-foot Average
Buffer Along
Arterials
Wildlife Corrldor-
Limited Development
Time Development with
Quarry Closure
Lower Density Development to
Preserve Rock Outcropplngs
Study Road Alignment to
Minimize Biological Impacts
Exhibit 45 - Village 4 Land Use Map
~-55
Village Five
Use SF MF ToIaJ Res. Dens Park CPF Sch C'm!. Open Alt.Ar:. Tala! Approx.
Unhs Unb Units Ac, Ac" Ac, Ac, Ar:. Sp. Ar:, Pop,
LMV 1,263 0 1,263 280,6 4,5 4,6' 280,6 4,042
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 10.0 102 6,0 262 0
MH 0 1,615 1,615 69,7 18 10.0 69.7 4,118
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 71,5 15.4 86,9 0
TOTAl 0 1,615 2,878 370,3 10,0 102 10.0 6.0 71.5 15.4 493,4 8,160
'Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage.
"Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be delermined by Parks Master Plan.
;?,5b
Open Space
Scenic Corridor
Secondary Parks In
village Neighborhoods
Locale Village Core
al Highest Elevation
Potential Park
sc~ned/Landscaped
Reservoir Slle Edge
Complementary
Relationship
with village 1
75-loot Average
Buffer Along
Arterials
Transit Right-oj-Way
Reserva!lon with Stop
at village Core
Open Space Scenic COrridor
Create Slope and Habitat
Exhibit 47 - Village 5 Land Use Map
d.-57
Village Six
Use SF MF Total Res, Dens Par1I CPF Sell C'mt Open Art.~, Total Approx,
Un.s Unts Un.s Ac. Ac" Ac. Ac. Ac, Sp. ~, Pop.
LMV 990 0 990 206,3 4,8 1,3' 206.3 3,168
MU 0 0 0 0,0 0,0 10.0 8,0 4,6 22,6 0
MH 0 1,242 1,242 68,0 16 10,0 79.0 3,167
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 40.5 16,5 51,0 0
TOTAL 990 1,242 2,232 275,3 10,0 6,0 10.0 4,6 40.5 16.5 364.9 6,335
'Neighborhood park land included in residential aaeage,
"Part of park acreage requrements have been allocated to community parks, Actual park size to be determined by Perks Mast... Plan.
d. -58
Buffer and Land Use Design
to Minimize Freeway Impacts
Open Space
Scenic Corridor
Some Complementary
Relationship with
Village 2
75-loot Average
Buller Along
Arterials
Transit Rlght-ol-Way
Reservation with Stop
at Village Core
Exhibit 49 - Village 6 Land Use Map
~-Sl
Village Seven
USE Sf Mf Total Res, Den. Park CPF Sch C'ml. Open AIt.k, Total Approx.
Unh. Unl. Unit. Ac. k' lie. Ac, k, Sp, k. Pop.
LMV 1,053 0 1,053 210,6 5.0 75,0 265.8 3,370
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 9.3 6.3 72 22.8 0
MH 0 448 448 30.9 14.5 10,0 40.9 1,142
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 45.3 17,1 62.4 0
TOTAl. 1,053 448 1,501 241.5 9.3 6,3 85,0 72 45,3 17,1 411,7 4,512
'Part 01 park acreage requiements have been allocated to convnunily parks. Aclua/ park size to be delermined by Parks Master Plan.
d.-toD
Transition Densities Irom
EUC/SR125 to Lower Intensities
75-loot Average
Buffer Along Anerlals
Open .Space
Provide Regional Open Space
Linkage Irom Wolf Canyon to EUC
Average 200-Ioot
Width Across Village
Eastern
Urban
Center
Connect School
to Open
Space System
Coordinate Mixed Use
Area with Village 4
75-loot Average
Buller Along Anerlals
Exhibit 51 - Village 7 Land Use Map
eJ-bl
Village Eight
Use SF !IF Total Res. Dens Park CPF Sch C'm!. Open A/t,At, Total Approx,
Unfts Un" Unfts At. At' Ac. At, At. Sp, At, Pop,
LMV 587 0 587 1222 4,8 122,2 1,878
LMV 299 0 299 85.4 3.5 85.4 957
LMV 135 0 135 30,0 4.5 30,0 432
MU 0 0 0 0,0 0,0 8.S* 5,6 13.4 19,0 0
MH 0 436 436 30,1 14,5 10.0 40,1 1,112
OTHER 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 23,1 14.2 37.3 0
TOTAL 1,021 436 1,457 267,7 8,8 5,6 10,0 13,4 23,1 14.2 342.8 4,379
'Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to communily parks. Actual park size to be delennined by Parks Master Plan,
d -fa;;.
Buffer and Land Use Design
10 Minimize Freeway Impacts
Screen/Landscape
Reservoir Site Edge
Transition 10 Lower
Densities Toward
Park Edge
75-1001 Average
Buller Along
Arterials
75-1001 Average
Buller Along Arterials
Consider Regional Park In
Designing Edge 01 village 8,
Including Landlorm Grading
01 Edge: Design Guidelines
Required In Ranch Design
Plan and Village Design Plan
Exhibit 53 - Village 8 Land Use Map
CJ..- h3
Village Nine
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens Park CPF Soh C'm!. Open Art.Iv;, Total Approx,
Unhs Un" Units Iv;, Iv;' Iv:. Ac, Iv:. Sp. Iv;, Pop,
LMV 621 0 621 138.1 4,5 138,1 1,987
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 8,8 6,3 8.7 23,8 0
MH 0 1,010 1,010 56.1 18 10.0 66.1 2,578
l 114 0 114 56.9 2,0 56.9 385
OTHER 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 59.9 19,1 79,0 0
TOTAl 735 1,010 1,745 251.1 8.8 6.3 10,0 8,7 59.9 19,1 383.9 4,928
'Part of park acreage requi'ements have been allocated 10 community parks, Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan.
d..-t04
75-loot Average
Buffer Along Anerlals
Transit Rlght-ol-Way Reservation
with Stop at Village Core
Design Nonhern Areas lor
Compatibility with Adjacent
Land Use of EUC
Utilize Landlorm
Grading Techniques
Preserve Habitat
Buffer and Land
Use Design
to Minimize
Freeway Impacts
Transition to Lower
Density Uses
Toward Otay valley
Regional Park
* Primary use of Village 9 is University. Secondary use
of Village 9 is depicted above. See Otay Ranch Land
Use Designations Table, Part II, Chapter 1, Section C.
Exhibit 55 - Village 9 Land Use Map
c1-bf
\ ,00;{ u' '",e^>
\'~ ~
~
~ "'/ ,r~~
:\\\~ Bd.~'
~ '" II
, ,
" ""''''~
~\.~\
.'
. ,
"
,
,
,~',:~,::
"
,
50.
:,:..: .
Village 9 and 10 Primary Use: University
o
'"
"
a
..
"
iiI
'"
'-..)
~._- -----.
~...bh
Village Ten
Use SF MF ToIaI Res. Dens Park CPF Sd1 C'm!. Open M.k, Total Approx,
UnMa Unts Units Ac. M Ac, Ac, k. Sp. A&. Pop.
M 407 0 407 67,9 6.0 25,0 92.9 1,302
MU 0 0 0 0,0 0,0 6.3 4.4 20.0 3tJ.7 0
MH 0 271 271 16,7 14.5 10,0 26.7 691
LMV 412 0 412 91,5 45 91.5 1,318
CP 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 26,0 26.0 0
OTHER 0 0 0 0,0 0,0 40,7 21.1 61.8 0
TOT At. 819 271 1,090 178.1 34,3 4.4 35.0 20,0 40.7 21.1 333,6 3,311
. Actual park size to be determined by Parks MastSf Plan,
~-fo1
, -~-,~,,,.,...-^ ,,-, .--
75-foot Average
Buffer Along
Arterials
Provide Connection to Regional
Greenbelt In Village 11
\
,
I
This area Is Designated fora
, Community Park which will
be specifically sited and sized
(! 28 acres) In connection with
the SPA Park Master Plan.
Grade Community Park In
Association with Road,
Minimize Impacts to Salt creek.
Provide Trail Connections to Salt
:;:::;:;,; :~;r:~~r~:;:,:", 75-foot Average
Buffer Along Arterials
75,foot Average
Buffer Along
Arterials
Open Space
Scenic Corridor
Utilize Landform Grading
on Edges of Salt Creek
Pedestrian Linkages
to Regional Park
* Primary use of Village 10 is University - Secondary use of village
is depicted above. See Otay Ranch Land Use Designation Table,
Part II, Chapter 1, Section C.
Exhibit 57 - Village 10 Land Use Map
.,,{-02
Village Eleven
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens Pari( CPF Sch C'm!. Open Aft. N:. Total Approx.
Un~. Un.. Uno Ac. N:' Ac. Ac. N:. Sp. N:. Pop.
MH 0 304 304 25.3 12.0 25.3 775
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.9 6.6 10.4 26.9 0
MH 0 697 697 46.1 14.5 10.0 56.1 1,m
LMV 745 0 745 165.5 4.5 50.0 215.5 2,364
EA 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 15.6 15.6 0
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 79.6 33.8 113.6 0
TOTAL 745 1,001 1,746 238.9 9.9 6.6 80.0 10.4 95.4 33.8 455.0 4,936
'Part of park acreage requi:ements have been allocated to community perlcs. Actual park size to be determined by Parlts Master Plan.
;)'-b1
... e
00
:ECI
:: e
0-
'0
U",...
u...",
-0",
e E ...
B...o
(/)0::
--",
~-gCl)
"'",-
C>.-J 0
en",,,,
eN'"
c>> = C)
c..;::: 't:I
O::;)W
'"
Oi
;:
'"
",1:
"'<
C!'"
'" e
> 0
<;;(
15...
oS!
~'5
,..m
g
&'0
"'0
...,c
e u
::;en
",.c
'Oa
>~
o .
......
11....
'0
o CD
.cu
u '"
en 0.
.cen
"'e
- '"
:1:0.
"'0
.5 0
-J_
~
...
2
.!i!
go
II:
I
'"
Oi
;:
'"
CD 1:
a<
ea
"'e
> 0
c:[;;(
o~
0_
--
'::I
;em
!!!
'"
;:
'"
"'1:
"'c:[
C!'"
"'e
> 0
<;;(
-...
0",
0_
--
'::I
;ecc
>-Oi
=c:;
E ...
-...
"e
ee
11.0
eC)
-...
"'",
'" iI:
~e
&...
"0"0
We
......
"=c)
"'::;)
~w
ss
CD
0: a
.....'"
.Q a=
e E>
e",.5
o 1U,c
215j
o.2J:
0....;;
"'i5-
II:NiI:
g.
~
Q)
rn
~
"'C
:::
ro
.....:i
,...;
......
&
ro
-
-
......
>
0'\
Ir)
....
......
~
~
c2-70
Planning Area Twelve (EUC)
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens Pari( CPF Sch C'ml. Open Aft. N:. Total Approx.
Un~s Un!s Unite Ac. N:' Ac. Ac. N:. Sp. N:. Pop.
EUC" 0 2,500 2,500 70.1 35.6 45.0 9.2 10.0 134.3 6,375
Reg. Mall 0 0 0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0
VISitor 0 0 0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0
Cornm.
Cuttural 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0
Off-Low 0 0 0 0.0 80.0 80.0 0
RiselBus.
Off- 0 25.0 25.0 0
MedlHigh
Rise
Fe 0 106.2 106.2 0
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 19.7 24.2 43.9 0
TOTAL 0 2,500 2,500 70.1 45.0 9.2 10.0 261.2 19.7 24.2 439.4 6,375
'Actual park size to be determined by Parlts Master Plan.
.. Regional Man, Vis~or Commercial, OIfice-Low Rise Busil1888 and Office-MediumIHigh Rise area aI uses permitted ~hin the EUC land
use designation. The characteristics and location of these subordinaJe uses wil be defined as pari 01 the EUC SPA plan. h is anticipated thai
all uses ~in the EUC could equate to 6,000,000 sq. ft. 01 toIaI usee.
c2-7J
75-loot Average
Butler Along Arterials
,
Buffer Edge
Reserve Rlght-ol-way
lor Transit
Provide lor Multi-Modal
Park and Ride Facility
'/
Buffer/Allow For
Visual Access
to EUC and
Freeway
Commercial
75.1001 Average.
Butler Along Arterials
Exhibit 61 - Village 12 Land Use Map
75-1001 Average
Buffer Along Arterials
Provide lor Complementary
Relationship with Core of
Village 10
200-foot average
width within Village
;;-7;'
Village thirteen
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens Pari( CPF Sch C'ml. Open Art. N:. Total Approx.
Un~s Unb UnO Ac. N:' Ac. Ac. N:. Sp.... N:. Pop.
L 261 0 261 130.9 2.0 130.9 835
LMV 769 0 769 256.2 3.0 5.0- 256.2 2,461
M 0 227 227 28.4 8.0 5.0- 28.4 579
see 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 18.7 0
MH 0 632 832 42.1 15.0 42.1 1,612
MH 0 549 549 54.9 10.0 54.9 1,400
RESORT 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.6 221.3 0
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 30.9 30.9 0
TOTAL 1,030 1,408 2,438 512.5 10.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.9 783.4 6,887
'Neighborhood park land included In residential acreage.
"Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to community perlcs. Actual park size to be detennined by Parlts Master Plan.
"'Open space totals incklded In the Proctor Valley Parcel summary.
d.-73
1
~
II
fr
~~ i
II i ~
il
.E:
co
~E
~ W
E -
~~
Ii
ii
.
oS
r!
]cn~
d~
~jJ
~H
=-16
5~z
~
'~ ~
"
,.
~.'"
,,,
"'~Iw,..
.' -./ IV!. ')-1..", .
1- . " )
I>. \ '--" \
. ~~ '. y'l,
~! \,-Y \~')
~ _.: '_ )1'<",,]( ,'\ '"-
~ u..~1 ~. .
Q: ..-~----!---........ ... ~"'-\'V--V'\V-'\
~.. I.}( .,1'
> I I,
m "'j }\
,\', ) . /
.''\ /" \' "''--) j"l\
h
II I!
I al~
II~
II Uf
I
~
~-
s I 81
II 8
Ii
0..
~
<I)
'"
~
-0
~
.....1
<I)
~
'"
-
-
:>
t::
o
'"
<I)
~
M
\0
...
:E
~
~
eJ-1LJ-
Village Fourteen
Use SF MF Total Res. Den. Pari( CPF Sch C'ml. Open Aft. N:. Total Approx.
Un~. Un.. U~. At. Ac' At. N:. N:. Sp.... N:. Pop.
L 190 0 190 190.0 1.0 190.0 808
L 956 0 956 478.3 2.0 478.3 3,059
M 262 0 262 43.7 6.0 43.7 838
MH 0 150 150 10.0 15.0 10.0 383
MU 0 0 0 0 0 10.7 7.6 10.0 2.9 31.2 0
LMV 155 0 155 51.8 3.0 51.8 496
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 23.7 23.7 0
TOTAL 1,563 150 1,713 m.8 10.7 7.6 10.0 2.9 0.0 23.7 826.7 5,364
'Part of park acreage requirements have been aDocated to community perlcs. Adual park size to be determined by Parlts Master Plan.
"'Open space totals included in the Proctor Valley Pan:elsumnuuy.
Board 01 Supervisor Action Pending.
J-15
Open Space Buffer to Jamul
Open Space
Scenic Corridor
COnCenfra1e Lowest
Densities Along
Jamul Edge
Consider Negative Impacts of
Electric Transmission Lines
u
Cluster ResidentIal Uses
Around Golf Course
Conceptual Golf
Course Location
Utilize Landform Grading
Adjacent 10 Resource Management
Plan Open Space
Regional Wildlife Corridor
Design Guidelines Required
for Uses on Wildlife Corridor Edge
Exhibit 65 - Village 14 Land Use Map
eJ.-7h
Village Fifteen (CITY)
Use SF MF TocaI Res. Dens Park CPF Sch C'ml. Open Aft. N:. Total Approx.
Un~s Un" UnIts At. Ac' Ac. Ac. N:. Sp." N:. Pop.
M 245 0 245 33.9 7.0 33.9 784
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0 7.9 5.6 10.0 3.3 26.8 0
VI. 516 0 516 739.2 0.7 739.2 1,651
TOTAL 761 0 761 m.l 7.9 5.6 10.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 799.9 2,435
'Part of park acreage requirements have been aJIocsted to community pW. Actual park size to be determined by Parlts Master Plan.
"Open space totals inckJded in the San Ysidro Mountain Parcel summary.
Village fifteen (CITY-OPTION)
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens Pari( CPF Sch C'm!. Open Art. N:. Total Approx.
Un~s Un!s Un~s Ac. N:' Ac. Ac. N:. Sp." N:. Pop.
M 245 0 245 33.9 7.0 33.9 756
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0 7.9 5.6 10.0 3.3 26.8 0
VL 271 0 271 739.2 See 739.2 893
Map
TOTAL 516 0 516 m.1 7.9 5.6 10.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 799.9 1,651
'Part of park acreage requirements have been aJIocsted to community perlcs. Actual park size to be determined by Parlts Master Plan.
"Open space totals included in the San Ysidro Mountain Parcel summary.
d,-T!
_.__u_ur"
Provide 'or Regional
Wlldll.. Corridor
Design Guidelines Requl~
for Uses on Wildlife Corridor Edge
Vernal Pool Study
Area: Subject to Further
Study al SPA level
utilize Landform Grading
Adlacenllo Reaource
Management Plan Open Space
UIllIza Landform Grading
In Lower Density Areas
H"'r'] Single Family Estate Areas
:::::::::: (Minimum lot size .5 acre, total units 271
Exhibit 67b - City Approved Village 15 Land Use Map
d-73
Village Fifteen (COUNTY)
Use SF MF T oIaI Res. Dens Pari( CPF Sch C'ml. Open Aft. At. Total Approx.
Unb Unls Unite Ac. Nt N:. Ac. N:. Sp." N:. Pop.
VI. 188 0 188 375.3 .5 375.3 802
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0 7.9 5.8 3.3 16.8 0
M 245 0 245 33.9 7.0 10.0 43.9 784
TOTAL 433 0 433 409.2 26.0 7.9 5.6 10.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 436.0 1,388
'Part of park acreage requi:ements have been eIIocated to community perlcs. Actual park size 10 be determined by Parlts Masler Plan.
"Open space totals included In the San Ysidro Mountai1 Parcel summary.
Village Fifteen (COUNTY-OPTION)
Use SF MF T oIaI Res. Dens Pari( CPF Sch C'm!. Open Art. At. Total Approx.
VMs Un" Un~s At. N:' Ac. Ac. N:. Sp." N:. Pop.
VI. 41 0 41 83.2 .5 83.2 131
VI. 56 0 56 113.3 .5 113.3 179
VL 69 0 69 178.6 .5 178.8 265
MU 0 0 0 0.0 0 7.9 5.6 3.3 18.8 0
VI. 7 0 7 33.9 .5 10.0 43.9 55
TOTAL 203 0 203 409.2 26.0 7.9 5.8 10.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 436.0 650
'Part of park acreage requi:ements have been allocated to community perlcs. Actual park size to be determined by Parlts Masl81 Plan.
~Open space totals included In the San Ysidro Mountain Parcel summary.
;;'-79
1..1 Single Family Estate Areas
........... ........ (Minimum lot size .5 acres,
total W1its 203)
Provide for Regional
Wildlife Corridor
Design Guidelines Required
lor Uses on Wlldllle Corridor Edge
Vernal Pool Study
Area: Subject to Further
Study at SPA Level
Open Space
Scenic Corridor
--~
.~
---
Provide For Regional
Trail Connections
utilize Landform Grading
Adjacent to Resource
Managemenf Plan Open Space
Utilize Landfonn Grading
In Lower Density Areas
Exhibit 67a - County Approved Village 15 Land Use Map
,;2-<30
Planning Area 16
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens ParltA CPF Sch C'm!. Open Art. N:. Total Approx.
Un~s UnAs UnAs Ac. 0'+ Ac+ N:. N:. Sp." k. Pop.
VL 99 0 99 169.5 0.5 29.2 198.7 317
VI. 291 0 291 547.4 0.5 340.8 888.2 931
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.7 25.4 29.6 0
TOTAL 390 0 390 716.9 2.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 370.0 25.4 \1165 1,248
'Part of park acreage requi:ernents have been aIIoca1ed to community perlcs. Actual park size to be determined by Parlts Master Plan.
"Restricted development area used in density oaIcuJations but restricted as open spaoe. Open spaoe toIaIs Included in the Proctor Valley
Parcel summary.
+ The location of required park and communI}> pUlpose facrlty land WIll be subject to review at the SPA level.
cJ-'6/
Planning Area 19 (Adjacent To JamuO
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens Pari( CPF Sch C'm!. Open Art. N:. Total Approx.
Un~s Unis Unb Ac. At' Ac,- Ac. N:. Sp. N:. Pop.
VI. 20 0 20 20.0 1.0 20.0 64
TOTAL 20 0 20 20.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 64
'The location of required park and communky purpose faci~ land will be subject to r8'liew at the SPA level.
.;I, 3~
fJ
.1
Ii
d
!J
J
"
!
,
II
.
.
~
~
J
"
!
a
~
i
II
H
}I
!!
Ii
,-.,
0-,
.....
i
"
c
8
!
.
I
=
II
~
oj
~
~
.S
~
p::
"0
8
~
.....
oj
Q)
<
~
=
.~
p::
'-'
Q..
~
Q)
'"
::J
"0
8
....:i
oj
~
Q)
~
-
'"
~
<Ii
3
~
"3
S
oj
.....,
I
o
r-
-
:.s
~
~
;2- :3'3
Planning Area 17
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens Pari( CPF Sch C'm!. Open Aft. N:. Total Approx.
Un~s Un's Unite At. N:' Ac. Ac. N:. Sp. ... N:. Pop.
VI. t53 0 153 323.7 0.25 287.1 610.8 490
VI. 105 0 105 299.8 0.15 397.2 697.0 336
VI. 29 0 29 125.2 0.125 110.2 235.4 93
VL (CITY) 9 0 9 68 0.125 69 29
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
TOTAL 296 0 296 816.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 794.5 0.0 11iC32 919
(CITY)
TOTAL 287 0 287 748.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 794.5 0.0 1j!112 946
(COUNTY)
'The location of required park and communly pUlpOse faci~ land will be subjecl to reviewal the SPA level.
"Restricted development area USEd in density calculations but restrided as open space. Open space totals included in the San Ysidro
Mountain Parcel summary.
cJl-8'f
I " !
i !I
I Ii II
J 61
J 1/1/
! 1/11 .~
..
i I .._~~\~. u' '''I' ~
U>
. ',..', .
! f 1/,-. .
. '.
t'
I "- \ \
! I
!
,
J
~ ,
I
::>
. ~ r-
~ U> .....
<; 0::1
II ~
E Q,)
J " ..
E <r:
~ "
:; I:J/)
~ ~ i::
.~
. ~
.....
p..
N
r-
.....
.~
,D
.~
~
~
;2 -,85
Planning Area 188 (Mesa Industrial Area)
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens Pari( CPF Sch Ind. Open M.N:. Total Approx.
Un~s Un" Un" Ac. N: Ac. Ac. N:. Sp. N:. Pop.
I 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 215.8 215.8 0
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 215.8 0.0 0.0 215.8 0
Planning Area 18b (paseo Ranchero Industrial Area)'
Use SF MF Total Res. Dens Perl< CPF Sch Ind. Open Aft. N:. Total Approx.
Un~s Unls Un~ Ac. At Ac. Ac. N:. Sp. At. Pop.
I 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7 0
OTHER 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 0.0 0.0 69.7 0
. Within the Ciy of Chula Vista, industrial usee are the primary use in the ad'J8C8I1! Vdlage 3 planning area, however secondary residential
village land uses may be utilized upon the occurrence a certain requirements described II the Village 3 discussion.
d)-8b
Connection with Industrial
(Planning Area 18-8)
OIay
Valley
Road
Connect to
Existing Industrial
~=--~~j
"
::20
"-.;a._______
.......TE
~0j1.
"
75-foot Average
Buffer Along Arterials
75-foot Average
BUffer Along Arterials
Exhibit 75 - Paseo Ranchero Industrial Area
(Planning Area 18b) Land Use Map
d--87
\. .
FPEIR TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
To The
OTAY RANCH
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
"Summary of Valle de Oro Issues/Concerns and
JHK & Associates Responses"
Prepared For:
Otay Ranch Project Team
Prepared By:
JHK & Associates
8989 Rio San Diego Drive Suite 335
San Diego, CA 92108
October 8, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION
1
ISSUES AND RESPONSES
2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
9
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF VDO ISSUES AND JHK RESPONSES
11
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. OTAY RANCH FPEIR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS COMPARISON ANALYSIS
OF SEGMENT VOLUMES & IMPAcrS 6
TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
SUMMARY OF VALLE DE ORO ISSUES/CONCERNS
INTRODUCTION
IHK & Associates (JHK) in consultation with the City of Chula Vista and the County of
San Diego, has prepared this Technical Addendum to document our response to a series of
"Issues/Concerns" raised by the Valle de Oro (VDO) Community Planning Group. These
issues/concerns were presented by the VDO Community Planning Group during a joint City of
Chula Vista CounciVCounty of San Diego Board of Supervisors Public Hearings on the Otay
Ranch Project and the Final Program Environmental Input Report (FPEIR). The issues and
concerns of VDO dealt primarily with the transportation analysis conducted for the Otay Ranch
Project and the Transportation, Circulation, and Access portion of the FPEIR. Specifically, their
concerns focused on model validity and the accuracy of cumulative volume levels reported in the
VDO planning area. Concerns over project traffic contributions within the VDO planning area
were also questioned by the VDO Community Planning Group.
This document is prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines section which allows
use of an Addendum when:
"...;(2) only minor technical changes or additionas are necessary to make the EIR
under consideration adequate for CEQA; and/or (3) the changes to the EIR made
by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant affects
of the pro;ect."
The purpose of this technical addendum is to define the VDO issues/concerns and to
provide JHK's response. The addendum is organized into the following sections:
. Introduction
. Issues and Responses
. Summary of Findings
The Issues and Responses section is divided into a "Summary" section and a separate
section entitled "Additional Background Discussion". This second section provides further
infonnation to support the findings of the summary section.
1
ISSUES AND RESPONSES
A series of meetings have been held with Mr. Jack Phillips of the Valle de Oro (VDO)
Community Planning Group during the month of August, 1993 to discuss specific issues related
to the Olay Ranch Traffic Analysis. Attendees at a total of three separate meetings have included
Mr. Phillips, members of the Olay Ranch Project Team, JHK & Associates (Dan Marum), and
represenlatives from the County of San Diego, the City of Chula ViSIa, San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG), and Caltrans. Based on these discussions, a series of responses
have been developed by JHK. The following section of this memorandum identifies each of these
basic issues raised by Mr. Phillips, and the VDO Community Planning Group along with JHK
and Associates responses.
Issue 1:
Is the "South bay Model" valid in Valle de Ora and other fringe areas for
predicting Otay Ranch impacts?
Response:
Summary:
Yes. Staff has consulted with SANDAG, Caltrans, the County, the City of San
Diego and Chula Visla staffs as well as professional transportation consultants
throughout the process and sought their advice on every aspect of traffic modeling
for this project. All of the agencies remain convinced that the model used is a
valid tool for predicting impacts associated with the Olay Ranch Project. There
is no evidence before the decisionmakers that the model used for the analysis of
traffic impacts for the Olay Ranch Final Program EIR (FPEIR) is adequate.
Addiiional Background Discussion:
The Final Program EIR (FPEIR) Transportation Analysis was based on an
evaluation of build-out traffic impacts within a defined study area south of SR-54
and SR-94 in the south bay. This study area not only fully encompassed the
23,000-acre Olay Ranch project but extended well beyond its boundaries. Within
this study area and throughout the entire southbay, all land use assumptions used
in the transportation model were based on build-out conditions.
For all community planning areas along the "fringe" of the study area, including
the Valle de Oro Community Plan Area and the remainder of the San Diego
County (to the north and east of the South bay), all land use assumptions were
based on SANDAG Series VII Growth Projections for Year 2010. All of the EIR
Traffic Analyses considered the cumulative effects of development in the region,
based on the "Combined South bay Model" developed for the Olay Ranch
Transportation Analysis.
The process for defining the study area boundary involved an analysis of "project
only" traffic assignments. This computer assisted analysis indicated that the
2
majority of project generated trips would utilize regional facilities as the trips
enter or exit the Southbay subregion. Thus, facilities such as I-80S, SR-S4, SR-
94, etc., represent the primary network for project traffic based on average trip
length and the fact that the core of the project is located some 7 to 10 miles south
of the northern edge of the study boundary (along SR-S4 and SR-94). Essentially,
once project gerated trips access a primary network facillity, the impacts beyond
that facility significantIly dissipate to an insiginficant contribution.
The method for detennining the Study Area for this project is consistent with the
methodology that is utilized when analyzing projects of this size and scale.
Technical assistance provided by SANDAG and all affected jurisdictions,
including the County, cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, Caltrans and MTDB,
ensured that the modeling of future traffic volumes and the subsequent
identification of traffic impacts were prefonned accurately.
Valle de Oro references the SANDAG SR-S4 Corridor Study as an analysis which
contains a different conclusion concerning the traffic volumes on Millar Ranch
Road. Specifically, Valle de Oro cited a portion of the SR-S4 Corridor Study
which indicated a traffic volume of 36,000 ADTs on Millar Ranch Road near SR-
94. In contrast, the Otay Ranch traffic study of the Phase II Progress Plan shows
27,000 ADTs along Millar Ranch Road. The SANDAG SR-54 Corridor Study
and the Otay Ranch EIR traffic study appear to conflict because each study
employs different assumptions concerning the land use and the traffic network.
However, these differences are irrelevant because the increased trips on Millar
Ranch Road are due primaily to cummulative traffic impacts not Otay Ranch
traffic.
1. Land Use Assumptions. The "Combined Southbay Model" used for the Otay
Ranch Transportation Analysis assumes build-out of the Southbay study area.
That area includes the area south of SR-54, including the Otay Ranch. For the
area north of SR-54, the model assumes a 20 year planning horizon consistent
with the SANDAG Series VII population forecast.
The "SR-54 Corridor Study Model" assumes build-out of the SR-54 corridor area.
The Otay Ranch model did not refine the area north of SR-54 to include build-out
data, because Otay Ranch's forecasted contribution to traffic volumes north of SR-
54 fall below levels of significance. Specifically, for those facilities north of SR-
S4 forecasted to exceed LOS "C", project impacts for the New Town Plan (the
most intense development plan evaluated for Otay Ranch), never exceed 10% of
the project traffic volumes (Otay Ranch Response to Comments document, p.
LO.2S-S). However, under the "SR-S4 Corridor Study Model" cumulative volume
conditions, two additional roads are forecasted to operate over LOS "C" (Millar
Ranch Road - LOS "D" and SR-94tCampo Road (eto Millar Ranch Road) LOS
"F"). Project contribution for these facilities ranges from 13 to 33 percent. These
3
Issue 2:
higher cumulative volumes may necessitate special design considerations, at some
time in the future, perhaps as late as Year 2010. Specifically, on SR-94, the high
cumulative volume from this model indicates the need for increasing the capacity
of this future freeway facility from four lanes to six lanes. SR-94, however, was
sized based on 20-year traffic volume projections rather than the buildout volumes
predicted by this most recent modeling effort.
2. Traffic Network: The SANDAG SR-54 Corridor study assumes, for analytical
purposes, a series of alternative traffic networks. The alternative that causes Valle
de Oro concern assumed SR-54 to be a six-lane expressway terminating at Main
Street in EI Cajon (an alternative which has not been approved). Configuring SR-
54 in such a manner diverts and encourages trips to flow onto Millar Ranch Road,
which may explain the increase in trips from 27,000 ADT (as shown in the Otay
Ranch analysis) to 36,000 ADT shown in the SR-54 analysis. A review of the
two models indicate that if similar network assumptions are used, similar volumes
occur on Millar Ranch Road. This is true in the SR-54 alternative that tests SR-
54 as a six-lane expressway from SR-125 to SR-94 continuing as a four-lane
collector, "t"-ing into Jamacha Road at Hillsdale.
At the point in time when the Otay Ranch Transportation Analysis and modeling
work was conducted (and at the time the Draft FPEIR was released for public
review), the "Combined Southbay Model" was the most accurate model available
for project related impacts. The Project Team spent considerable effort refming
all input parameters for conducting computer modeling within the Southbay Study
Area. It is recognized that the "SR-54 Corridor Study Model" generates much
higher cumulative volumes within the fringe planning areas along the north-east
edge of the Otay Ranch study area. However, the response to-comment number
two below provides a discussion of the level of project contribution for the Otay
Ranch development as a proportion of the cumulative volumes predicted by the
"SR-54 Corridor Study Model" and the "Combined Southbay Model" used for the
Otay Ranch Transportation Analysis.
Additionally, the Otay Ranch contains safeguards to ensure that proper traffic
assumptions are used at each SPA level. Upon the selection of the final facility
for SR-54, all subsequent modelling will be based on that facility. At each phase
of the Otay Ranch the most recent network configuration will be used and
appropriate mitigation will be developed for each phase.
Are the level of impacts to the Valle de Oro area correctly reported in the
FPEIR for the Otay Ranch Project?
4
Response:
Issue 3:
Response:
Summary:
Yes. The new traffic projections from the SR-54 Corridor Study enable a new
comparison of the impacts associated with the Otay Ranch Project (as compared
with the county General Plan Land Uses for the property). The new "Impacts"
(the differences between the Otay Ranch Volumes and the county General Plan
volumes) are consistent with the impacts reported previously.
Additional Background Discussion:
As indicated at the end of response to comment number one, JHK has prepared
an updated reference table (see Table 1) for all Circulation Element facilities
within the Valle de Oro Community Plan Area. This table identifies the
cumulative volume levels on these local facilities from each of the travel forecast
models discussed above ("Combined Southbay Model" used for the Otay Ranch
Transportation Analysis and the "SR-54 Corridor Study Model").
10 addition to identifying the significant differences between the two models in
tenns of cumulative volumes on these local facilities, the table provides an
indication of the estimated amount of project related traffic contribution from the
Otay Ranch development. The Otay Ranch land use alternative which has been
selected for this analysis is the New Town Plan which represents the most
intensive plan evaluated for the Otay Ranch and would thus create the greatest
degree of project impact. As revealed by the table, the percent contribution of
project traffic to the total cumulative traffic volume is insignificant when
comparing the "Combined Southbay Model" with the "SR-54 Corridor Study
Model." It is important to recognize that a number of facilities (including: Millar
Ranch Road, Avocado Boulevard, SR-94/Campo Road, Troy Street, Fuerte Drive,
Jamacha Road, and State Route 54), located along the fringe area of the Otay
Ranch Transportation Study Area, are forecasted to experience poor operating
levels of service (LOS D, E, or F) under the cumulative volume scenario predicted
by the "SR-54 Corridor Study Model" and/or the "Combined Southbay Model"
regardless of Otay Ranch.
Is the FPEIR valid with respect to analysis of impacts related to inclusion of
MiUar Ranch Road as part of the project?
Summary:
Yes. Staff has included Millar Ranch Road as a transportation facility based on
the following considerations:
5
z
~
~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ " .
, .
r i t r . ~ ~
, . ~
;: r . ~ j
" ! . ~ .
.. .. 1 ~ ! j ~
. ~ ~ . . .
or . . 0 . .
. ; ~ . .
~ . ;: .
~ \' .
! l . f i 0
a . ~ ::
. , .- ~ . ,
r . ! ~ F . ~
i ~ r 0
" 8 ~ , , ~
. ~ ! .
r ~ ... ~ r [
i . ?
. 1 f ~ !I . g
. . ~ ~
. ~ .. .
, . i " .
~ . . !I i. .
.. . . it
-; ~ ~ .
~ a- ! [ .
! ~ .- .
i' .. .
. .
.. ... i , r ~ ~
~ r !I .. .
. .. r 8
. . ; ! ~
I i . . r
" . =
= i . 'I. .
~ . . .i .
, ~ . ..
.. i . i ;:
~ .
.
. . . . . ,0
, . :-
: . . . .-
. i z ~
! ~ 1 i ~
. . .
i. . ; ..
. ! ~ n
. r ~
. . .
. ~ :
!' .. [
" !
. i' ~ i
. l
" ~ ..
, f ~ .
", , ...
~ . .
! .
0 -
! . s
"
.
. . . r
. ... !
i' i i.
. i 8
. ~ r
.
~ ~ z
... ! 1
! r ~
i S :
. ! i .
r . :
i ~ ;: <
.. ! .
i1 . ,
. . . ~
. ~ . .
~ [ . .
z ! ...
. ~
.. . .
. .
i ~ . $
.
:
."
- ;;; - :;: - ;:; - - ~ ~ ~ '" ~ .. ~ ~ - ~ ~
~ ~ ~ - 0
'"
'" '" .. ~ " ... '" '" ~ n ;p ~ ~ '" '" > ..
~ " . ii ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 '" '" < 3
<; ~ . ~ '" f ~
~ . ~ ;; ;; .
'" '" ~ ~ g, r- 0 0 .. . n
~ ~ . 8 , > ~ '" '" n n ~ ~ '"
0 0 . . ~ , . Z 0
. . '" '" ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . '" .
<; <; < ~ 3 to ~ ~
;;- ~ 0 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ " n .
.. .. ~ '" ~ .
'" ~
~ ~ '" '"
. : ~ ~
. ,
. ,
, . ,
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ 0. 0. '" '" ~ '" '" n
'" '" '" . ~ :: 0 ~ '" 8 ::' '" ~
~ 0 , ~ io
0 . ~ 0<0 " ;; ~ ~
.. t;: ~ ~. ~ ~ i .. t
." .- ~ 0 ~ . !a. ~
V. ~ ~ '" :> . " ~ " '"
'" . ~ ~ ~ " '" " '" ~ ~ I
~ 3 '" ~ ~ > ~ ::' ;;
r- .. ~ '" '" ~ '" '" ." . 0<0 ~
, ~ ~ '" . ~ , .. '" '" "'
. ~ ;:; '" ~ c 0 !'i < ;- ~ ~ 0
'" '" ~ ~ .. , .. i- 0 r- 3
~ .. " ~ ~ ,
~ '" 0
~ '" '" ~ ;: '" ...
. u. ~ - ~ 0
'" .. ii: g <
" ..
~ 0; "
~ '"
~ ~
.
'" ~ ~ I;: ~ :: ~ ;: ~ ~
r- ~ r- ~ r- r- ~ r- ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 n . ~ ." ."
m m n . Ii n n n n ;r. ." n ~ ~ ~
:<: :<: :<:I€ :<: ;r.
, " . "- .. "- "- ~. ~. ::r' "- "- " . ,
~ if ~ if if if if if 3 0 3 0 '" 0
. . ~ ~ - . . " 0 ~
~ ~ g g n ~ ~ .
g,
~
=> >
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? " ~ :<:
,. ~ N N N N ~ ~ t N t 0 ... .
=> => ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" .
8 8 '8 .. '8 8 .. .. 8 ~ 8 .. .. 8 5 8 '", < " 3
8 8 8 8 8 => rj 0 ~
'" => ~ .
~ " 3
j ,
. 0
~ w - ~ -~ .. N - ~ N N W g: ~ w " '" 0
.. => - .. Z ~ .. ~ ~ .. "
-~ ~ -~ ~ w w ~ .. ~ " 8 ~ ~ 8 w 'w "- 0 ~
8 8 8 -< .
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 " '"
< ! ~
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C'
~ :<: n
0 0
z z - ~ 3
> > > m > > > > to to n '" " ." '" r- 0 0-
" " 0 -; S'
'" . 0
~
'" ~ N ~ N ~ N - N N N W W ~ ~ .. .. "
0<0 ~ => '" .. w .. .. => '" => 0<0 ~ w
~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 8 8 ~ 8 '8 "- '" '"
-< - '"
. ,
< ~ ~
0
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - C' :<: n
~ ~ ~.
" " " - ~
n " n m '" m n > to '" ." m ." m ." ." n r- . ~
0 .
z =<'
." -".
:: ;:;; ,. w - N - - - w - - - N - ~ .. ~ 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 N .. . ~
~ 8 g 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ 0<0 <
~ w ~ 0'
~ w '" cE 0
. C'
, 3 =<'
0 0
I' 0 ~
.. - , n
.. .
" .. :;; ;; ;:; .. w ~ ~ Z Z .. w ~ - ~ ~ ~
w ~ ~ ,. ~ '" ~ w ~
> ~ ;f< ;f< " .. " ;f< ;f< " " .. .. ~ .. .. " _ 0
- ~ ! 0.:
I I. s
. . " o'
,
:
.. ~
;;; :;; ~ - ~ '" .. ~ ~ - .. W N .. ::; ~ ;; ~ 0 ~
;f< => ;f< tit ~ " .. w ... w ~ .. .. ~
" .. .. ;f< .. .. ... "
I I ~ ~
0
...;
>
..:
:>0
>
Z
n
:::
:::
0
0
'"
t""
~
Z
'"
::J
...;n
00
::J:::
z...
...>
t"":>O
>-
'- ZOO
::: >Z"';
;.;t"">>
...; ..:
Ro.:....~'"
>::Jt"">
OO_-<:'Z
1:Il~1:Il(j
0:::-:::
ratI'J~"!1
>~~~ --4
....,f.A~_ ..
t!:I~~== cr
r.n("'1~...., iD
> 0"':>0 ~
"'~>
c: "''''."
~ _Z::J
c: 0"';
'" o<n
...; :>00>
- "'t""Z
.;<> ...;c:>
~ C:"'t""
'" O~..:
'" ..:"'",
.... "'-
:':Ro~
0-
0:::
"''''
t"">
?<"1
.."...;
:;''''
:::
>
'"
'"
-
-
...
:>0
0
~
:>0
'"
'"
'"
...
t""
>
Z
>
t""
,j
1. Traffic analysis has shown that the elimination of Millar Ranch Road
would not eliminate a significant number of trips from the corridor.
Rather, it would force the traffic to take a longer path through Jamul and
along SR-94 with associated additional congestion and pollution.
2. The Board of Supervisors provided direction to County Staff in the Hidden
Valley Estates hearings.
3. The inteIjurisdictional Task Force provided direction in response to the
Millar Ranch Road Issue Paper.
Based on this direction and the professional judgement and experience of staff and
consultants, Millar Ranch Road was included in most of the Gtay Ranch Plan
Alternatives. The FPEIR then analyzed the impacts of those plans appropriately.
If the City Council and the Board of Supervisors select a Plan that does not
include Millar Ranch Road, as a public road, an assessment of the adequacy of the
FPEIR will be required to address that facility.
Additional Background Discussion:
In traffic modeling for the Otay Ranch Project, Millar Ranch Road was assumed
to be a public road, except in the "No Project Alternative", which did not assume
Millar Ranch Road and the Composite General Plans Alternative (which did not
assume a connection to Proctor Valley Road), consistent with previous Board of
Supervisors' action on Hidden Valley Estates development.
It should be noted that staff is not recommending that the Circulation Element be
amended to classify Millar Ranch Road as a public road, only that the Jamul text
be amended to delete language mandating private use only. Under County Road
Standards, a maximum of 250 dwelling units (2,500 trips) can be served by a
private road. It is estimated that the Gtay Ranch Project could contribute up 10
10,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to this facility under the Phase II Project Plan
Alternative, while total cumulative volumes on Millar Ranch Road at a mid-
segment location range from 24,000 vpd (according to the "Gtay Ranch CombinedæSouthbay Model") to 30,000 vpd (according to "SR-54 Corridor Study Model").
Thus, even without the Otay Ranch, projected traffic flow on Millar Ranch Road
would exceed County standards for use as a private road.
7
Issue 4:
Response:
Is the Final Program EIR valid with respect to analysis of impacts related to
modeling the SR-125 as a freeway instead of modeling as a toll road?
Summary:
Yes. Traditional transportation modeling utilizes standard speed and delay
parameters for freeways and surface roads. There are no standard parameters or
even guidelines for toll roads, since each one is unique. The project team did
develop projections in conjunction with SANDAG, Caltrans, MTDB and the other
involved agencies (Chula Vista, the County and City of San Diego) to estimate
those impacts. The estimated impacts were reported in the Otay Ranch Traffic
Analysis Technical Report for the Phase I Progress Plan which was included as
an appendix to the FPEIR. However, no discretionary approval was sought for a
toll road by the Otay Ranch Project. Caltrans is currently involved in seeking
such a discretionary approval and will be analyzing toll road impacts as a part of
their EIRJEIS process. As the Lead Agency for that proposed project, Caltrans
will be conducting a seperate environmental analysis.
Another issue related to the impacts of a toll road facility in the Southbay is that
the Otay Ranch Analysis is based on buildout of the project (40-50 years), which
extends beyond the 35 year term of the toll road franchise agreement. In the
interim, numerous SPA level EIRs will analyze the evolving traffic situation
including actual diversion from the toll road. Performance Standards (Threshold,
Standards, Congestion Management and Growth Management restrictions) will
prevent impacts from occurring.
Additional Background Discussion:
The Toll Road Analysis conducted by IHK for the Phase I Project Plan
Alternative was conducted with the assistance of SANDAG staff and members of
the Transportation Sub-Committee. This analysis revealed that the toll road
facility would potentially have a positive effect on Circulation Element facilities
within and adjacent to the Valle de Oro Community Plan Area. Circulation
facilities in the north eastern portion of the Otay Ranch Study Area such as
Proctor Valley Road, Millar Ranch Road, State Route 94, and State Route 54,
would experience reductions in Average Daily Traffic (ADT) in the range of 3,000
to 8,000 vpd. The logic within the modelling process Ihat would result in these
findings is based on a concept of "Reverse Attraction" when the SR-125 facility
is coded as a toll road instead of a free facility. Thus, under toll road
assumptions, vehicle trips are directed away from State Route 125 and seek out
new trip paths and alternate routes which present viable options in completing
their trip. Roads which would be used to access the freeway experience the same
type of reduction in volumes as the freeway itself when SR-125 is converted to
8
a toll road. The EIR/EIS for the State Route 125 facility, currently being prepared
by Caltrans, will include an assessment of toll road impacts base on potential
levels of diversion. This EIR will also be required to mitigate the impacts of
diverted trips as a result of toll road implementation on an area-wide basis with
in the Southbay. This analysis will include the segments of the critical facility of
Proctor Valley Road and Millar Ranch Road in the impact and mitigation analysis.
Issue 5:
Is the Final Program EIR valid with respect to analysis of impacts related to
modeling the SR-125 using a western alignment instead of an eastern
alignment?
Response:
Summary:
Yes. When the EIR was prepared Staff consulted with the involved agencies to
determine how SR-125 should be modeled. The consensus was that the Eastern
Alignments were not viable and that the Western Alignment, as depicted in the
Chula Vista General Plan, should be used in the Otay Ranch Traffic Analysis.
This decision has been reinforced by the exhaustive and thorough Alternatives
Report recently issued by Caltrans in which they determined that none of the
Eastern Alignments showed sufficient promise to justify future study.
Additional Background Discussion:
During the initial phases of the Transportation Analysis for the Otay Ranch
Project, the western alignment of State Route 125 was the only alignment under
consideration by Caltrans. As the Transportation Analysis continued over a
number of years, the concept of Eastern Alignment alternatives were introduced.
A series of preliminary evaluation and assessments on the viability of Eastern
Alignments vs. Western Alignment have been conducted by Caltrans. Recently,
these evaluations have resulted in the selection of a sel of final alternative
alignments which will receive consideration as the draft and final EIR/EIS for
State Route 125 is being developed. Thus, the validity of the Otay Ranch Traffic
Analysis is upheld by the elimination of Eastern Alignment alternatives for future
consideration by Caltrans.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The review of the transportation analysis conducted for the Otay Ranch Project and
included in the FPEIR, as a result of the issues/concerns raised by VDO, confirmed the level of
Otay Ranch project contribution to the future cumulative traffic volumes within the VDO
planning area. The following items summarize the primary fmdings of the technical
review/analysis conducted by JHK and Appendix A provides a series of graphics which were
developed to further summarize our findings:
9
. At the point in time when the Gtay Ranch Transportation Analysis and modeling
work was conducted and the FPEIR released for public review, the "Combined
Southbay Model" was the most accurate model available for project related
impacts. The Project Team spent considerable effort refining all input parameters
for conducting computer modeling within the Southbay Study area.
. It is recognized that the "SR-54 Corridor Study Model" generates much higher
cumulative volumes within the fringe planning areas along the north-east edge of
the Gtay Ranch study area. As compared to the model utilized for the Gtay
Ranch Project ("Combined Southbay Model").
. However, the level of project contribution from the Gtay Ranch on the VDG
Planning Area streets is consistent between the two models and agrees with the
project impacts reported in the "Response to Comments" included in the FPEIR.
The increased trips on the circulation network with in the VDG Planning Area are
derived from other areas of the Southbay and the surrounding subregion.
. Additionally, the Gtay Ranch contains safeguards to ensure that proper traffic
assumptions are used at each SPA level. Upon the selection of the final facility
for SR-54, all subsequent modelling will be based on that facility. At each phase
of the Gtay Ranch the most recent network configuration will be used and
appropriate mitigation will be developed for each phase.
c'bd\3230046\danoro.rpt
10
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF VDO ISSUES
AND JRK RESPONSES
IIQ
<<)
IIQ
c:I
o
CIo4
IIQ
<<)
=
IIQ
<<)
....
as
....
(,)
o
IIQ
IIQ
<
lid
~
IIQ
<<)
='
IIQ
IIQ
1-1
o
...
o
<<)
~
<<)
-
~
iZI
~
>-
.c
-
.~
<1) ....
u 0
C ~
.. u
E .~
..8 ...
C 0.
o ...
u..8
.50
-0<
&0
~~
>CIJ
<1)
"0 >>
",.1:>
.. -0
~ <1)
"0
C
<J <1)
"8 5
;:E ~
>> u
.. <1)
.1:> ...
.c >>
- bIj
5.2
CIJ 0
"0"8
<1).c
C ~
._ <1)
.1:>;:E
5 -0
o ... <1)
U .. N
: "'0 ov:;
<1) C
~~.s
.
-
u
_ '" <1)
Q) "'0 I:'d 0\:'1
"'0 c: a.> 0
o.....c.,
::;;O<bIj
<1) C
>>0 bIj.-
E > .5 t>
... .-
.c C u.. "0
'0 .- .... Q)
~_ ::! <1) 6:
_.c...
~~o..8
......
-0
~
'"
.;;::
'"
..
e
o
.-
-
:::>
.1:>
"E
'"
o
0.
E!:
>>
c
o
-
u
<1)
'0'
6:
C
o
5 C
~ .9
~
-0 'c
~I;:
.. <1)
~-o
C ..
<1) <1)
~~
~ >>
:::>"0
c.:::>
5 -
oCIJ
U .5
.
0:-'
'"
-
u
..
0.
5
-
...
:::>
u
g
>>
1:: .
.. ~
5 '<1'
._ 0'\
5..~
=CIJ
.~ .,f'
on
'" ,
"0::
~CIJ
.. -
<1) on
bljN
C -
;S~
<1)~
.c '"
~ <1)
C .-
.- ~
.c:.=
~ .-
.- u
~ ..
'" u..
c.>>
.- ..
-= ~
-o.c
~ .~
r:X
<1)
C C;;
<1) C
bIj 0
- .-
u bIj
<1) <1)
'0' 0::
... C
c., 0
.
... -0
&.... ~ &
OOCOo
-co~-
0.0-0-<1)
-.I ._ ..'\ a) >
td ..... ..... C Q)
-=~~.-"'O
., _.1:> C <1)
i:: tJ.) (I) Q) .c
:::> '" u
CI'} !1).c ~ -
c ..c = ...... 0:;
Q) -,.- r.n ~
oc~oc
- 0 bIj E .52
tf.) 0. C ....-
"E ::> :: ~ .~
::s OJ - ...."
~ ~ "8 "fi 'E
~ ~ E 1; <1)
~ -o:::~
",~5>>'c
CCIJ:::>",c.
.- 0'" ~ 0
5.c<1)0'"
c U C.f;I 0-
0,,:::><1)0.
uQ)CI:I;td
.c-=c....."O
u~..Oc
C . <1) ..
~~~VJ"'O
0::: =' ";i ~ ~
~~O::c.:::>
_..CIJ.c<1)
o '" ... u.1:>
<1)c..8<1S-
~ 0 <1) =
"= .Q - ~
0.'- < 0
-:5= c'"
~ U' 0 <IS
=::Stdao.::.c
~~~==o.
.0_ ~ t; 'u 5 oJ:
_uCtdOOu
:.;:::t;:~~t:~
'-' ("j,.., ...... .....
""OtdCIJ!:I:SC....
<-=-5-58..8
.
'"
.;;::
>>
C;;
C
<
C
.c .52
~ ~
~ 8-
>> '"
5 1;
O~
r:n
~
~
..
U
o
r:n
r:n
-<
~
~
::c
~
-
I
--<
..,..
,
t'-
~o
to to
= '<
'"
-g :;0
::1 to
to ::I
_ n
i5' ::r
=
>
=
to
'<
~.
'"
:....c
::t:
~
Ro
>
en
en
o
(l
-
~
~
en
:;0 <;;. 2: :;j
o 0 (r:f .....
::.;I ~ ::;r' (11
o..-n ("')
'< ~ 0
VJ -:::s
~:!:. 3 -
~~ 3 ~
--" ~ :::
~~;--
:::I ("") ...... o'
::>. to -. =
= <
(,f)'- (11 0
;::0- -<: ~
I V 0 "0
\0_-""
-1>0 0 32.
- ~ C'P g
VJ "-' C/'.I -
~ 0 ..., ::;
=<>to
_"'0 ....,
~~s;1?
~ 0 c;
OQ..~
0"'" 0
'""I"j::~3
::::<>""
:: ~
<>
: 0
vo-
;>;:I~
,
v.:;o
-1>0 to
ng
o ::r
..,
"" 0-
~ ~
s; <>
::::voo
- "'0
-5.3
to '< <>
"" =
;>;:1::::-
~ 0 0'
n c. _
~ (1;1 :r
<>
..
-5
:; e..
:;0'<
to N
::I <>
2,0-
..... ~
;>;:In
:J ~
to _
~ (S.
'"
.
VO"'O C ;;0 " :;0 :::'
o ..., \.\I t;.) ..., ~
c ("D < :J -. ~ C/'.I
::.9:(1)("')~("'J
0- ~ en" ::r ~~ ::r 3
to <> 0 ~ '- :;0 "'0
,,<c..~...,~oo
:0"'(,f)~3~~
::::,<<>~too.to
0-:J"'O!l.- :J
c..:r.....o-'~-
(t) (1) n" ;:1. ~ ..... 0
:<>to:;oo...
C/').-..:=.o g ("D
:;oro to o.g
v,~~..o.o(J':>
-1>0 _ ~ 0:1 :2.
nO=o.ON
.0. =<>
o .....'< VO
3. ~., >> ;>;:I ~ 50
o..O...,I~~
O...,(tILh...,-
""--r:1P,.:;fl-~
cn-~"'CI):::I
-cO- -
=_...0:;03
o..5.(tInl
'<(1)n~\OO'"
~...,~(D~~
"'" v. 0. (')
o;~~~~
0. ,. - 0" 3 ....,
~ g 8' :J ~ ~.
to3<>(JQ0
=3.f;5o:;'g'
.e:c('tl(tl~cn
S; ~ ~. s: ~ -=:
- -. ::I ::I --' :I
::r <:: (') (jQ ::? n_
<> <> (1) (1) 0
=<"'O~"<5.
nOO'"
o-o(1)vo=
3 C ..., ~ ::;- (JQ
c-300~"
-. '" "'0 ...., _ ::::
:J CI) (tI =-...
(1)nC2n:~-
0. ~ __. ::: t:.:I
~ ::1 0 (t) ...,
::!. {fQ S' ;:1.
o '< (1)
::I n
_ 0
::r=1
(1) <>
'T1~
"1:1-
tTJ'<
-;>;:I
;>;:1(1)
..., "'0
o
...
co
0.
.
::::tTJ
o <
0. <>
(1) ::I
-
::r
n to 0
o = =
=:.o.~
::!. .-
::r '"
'" (JQ
VO ::I
:;o:::J
, n
v. to
-I>o=:.
::::0.
o ::1i
0. <>
<> ...
-(1)
=
n
<>
'"
"'0
...
2.
(1)
n
-
c-
=
:=.
o
::I
'"
to
@
n
o
=1
<>
n
:::.
'< <
o.~
{1J ::: r:::r
:::J 3 <>
::I <> ~
<>"'0 <::
p.. ..., (1)
~. g
~ -
:. ~
o
~ n
<> 0
~. 3
tIJ ::r
-
-.
::>
:I <>
c.
<vo
o 0
Os.
to ::r
... C-
<> to
to '<
N
- >>
o ...
50 <>
(1) "1:1
...
< .0
" (ii'
O~
>>-
... 3
<> "'0
to to
n
-
'"
.
vo
<>
<>
j
c-
'"
-
.
~
-
-
CD
Po.
CD
o
'"'
o
-
GII
GII
=
CD
GII
.-<
tTJ
en
'-4
==
~
~
>
GII
GII
o
n
....
~
....
CD
GII
~
CD
GII
"1:1
o
=
GII
CD
GII
~
..:
...
<
z
<
...
""
'"
'"
'"
"
"
o
"
""
-
-
'"
'"
<
::
"'~
GE
<...
""'"
:EQ
-0
:!Jo1J:E
cnCl};..f""I
>~Q~
...:E;;,:::
~:;;JF-o\
Z..J~-
<0"...
U>O'"
S:"'S5
'-~C::~
<....ea::......
"'=Z:OIito-'"
.!~e"u~
iCII::~..,.~
....~'-~~
",ocnu
:::!J::o
utI'JE-tI'J
z>-tf:I
<...~<
" ~ '"':' o1J
;..<~~
~z<=
OOz""
:!J<
"...
<""
""z
:E~
00
u...
~
'"
~
~
-'
'"
Q
o
:E
::
u
z
<
"
;..
<
...
o
~ C
::i: u ::"..
~ t ~
~ ..
:
.
c
j ~
's ~
~ ~
~ 0
~
u
E c
-E ~ ~
:> t-o :
~ . Ii
.!1, ~ a:
e -
..
- .
.g ~
.~ -g
u ::0
~ .;
~ =
'" '"
~
c :
:c u
E ~
o 0
u ::0
-B .~
Ii ,&,
'" oS
~ "
a ~
E u ~ r
~ ~ '0 ~
"K .~ > '"
101 U t-o 0
::E Q ~ 'd
] :E u
a .~ ~
0: ""
~
E
o
'"
~
. u
~ Ii
g z
'"
.~
== ,.
~
I.
.J......;
.... ~ r~ ,'.
~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~I~ ~
I' ,"
~ ~
~
"
~ ~ < $ ~ ~ * * ~
~ ~I~ z..... 0\ ~ ~ N
~ ~ *
~ ,.. =
"" .:/;'
; .,~ .~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ N ~ N 2 2 - ~ -
"
'"
o
-'
-
u
E
"
'0
>
~
';
c
U (.t.. ,tL ~ tLa Lt.
I -1-1 '::';c; ~ -1-
,
,-.
I',
.~
-
~ ~- ~
.
~
, ,
- - N _
~ ~ ~
~ N!~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
co CCI 0( U ~ a:I ~ U C u
c
1
-I -I - - - - ,.., '-I -I -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
M N 0\ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ M ~ ~ _ d _ ..... _ ~
~ . ~ ..... M M N N N _ N M N ~ N . ~
'"
o
-'
-
u
E
"
~
~
';
c
"
CCI tL Q CCI U CCI ~ ~ co < 0( < < ~ < < <
z z
'1'1
-..,',- -1-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ <
z Z
~;:g~~~ ~=
- - '"- - - - - '... - .:.. -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'It 00 ;;; :: :- aO
~
~ ~ S
; ~I ~
I> co
..
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ t--
'., .
~ ~ ~
N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0\ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0\ ~ 0\ 0 d
N N N N N M N N ,.. ~
1 I
'j ~ ~ ;3 ~ ~ ~
.~~ E.i~~.s.~.~]]~ IS
~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 j ~ ~ 8 8 8 ~
!!!!!.n!!!!!!
'" .,' ~
c
-'
J j
~il
~ ;t
u e;
~
'"
t
:;;
>
~ ~
'" '"
~ ...
s ~
::0 .::!
~ !
~ ::
'" ::0
j
~
:s!
~; ~ ::
~ ~ fi;
11 .. ~
oS . g U ::::0
..,. > I:: "0 :;
~ b ~ 1; u.
~~<o~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ e; :f :E !
.
.
.
~ ~
'" '"
~ ~ ! !
'q ~ ~
j .< ~ e;
. .
. .
. .
. .
~ ~
'" '"
... ...
" u
Ii Ii ..
'" '" "'
~ ~ ~
~ ~ Ii:
u
.< c
j ~
u .i
~
~ ~ J j
I,) to) I,) u
.B.B
~ ;;r,
~ '"
~ ~
, Q
~ "8
- .
~ g
co "
Q ~
'5",
i '2
co c
~ .5
;;; :1;
'" '"
...
,;:
co
.
>>
J ~
..; ~ .. c
D:: 1\1 0...J
t ~ 0: ~
i ., "I ...
- ~ ~ .t
M ;; ; ~
In VI "" VI
-...~...~"'~..~::-~~::~~!:: i!
~
z
Q C
~
g
.
11
"
~
... >
;; ':: ~
. ... ~
~H
co _ _
;!; ;!;
!! !!
g g
'" '"
s ~
. .
tiS Vi
.::
o -
- i
~ e
co ....
~
I
~
~
]
~
~
:
.
I
1
~
;
,
~
~
'"
.i
~
!
1
:0
.
1 t
. ~
.:! .!
; ..
! !
i !'
. ~
; "
t j
. -;
! ;
1 ~
1. i
~ ~
.. .
~ ~
E ~
:; ;f;
f ~
3 .
: :;
. i
= i
1 !
~ ~
~ .
~ .
~
~
~
.
r
co
.
.
~
.
~
:0
.
~
,
!
~
~
f
.
.
"-
,
!
ii
I
.
.
.
.
~
~
j
t
z
.
. !
: ::
.! i
1 I
t .:
1 f
~ ~
. &
; .
. .
. ~
I :
i i
~ .
8 !
i ·
~ f
:: ~
i i
1 ~
l i
'i "
. ~ .j
I 2
i ! :i
j i t
t : .
~ ! i
! i .
! i ~
1-:; !
~ b
~ . I
:H
. . ~
1 .III I'
~ f i
< . ~
b : Is
. -
o i II
"2 :i !
Iii
! ~ ~
t ~ !
! ~ I
: i ~
~ u !
. '" .
I .. ·
'" ~ i
; .t l
; E -
. . ~
.
~
~
E
~
~
<I
.
1
j
I
=
~
.
!
t
~
~
.
.
.
.
~
:
.
1
;
.
.
'"
..c
b
~
t
.
1
i
.
~ ;
! r
I ;
i f
t ~
~ ~
J ~
~ i
1 i
. ~
L .
. ~
~ t
~ ~
. l;'
1 ;
. 5
1 i
,; .
i or
! 1
e
~ ~
~ t
.
~ 0
Q> 0:;
::> '-<
V>
":) ;;0
0
.... Q> W ~
- ::>
Q>
:=. n "" 0 ;:0 :> :E -
0 ::r" V> ...., V> -
!!. ::> -
::> "::I ~ Q> - - CD
Q> Q> ::r" ::r"
> .., --<" ",
- ~ ", V> ;:0 Q.
::> 0 I:>- _. ", :iJ
Q> ...., .., - V> V> CD
-<" - ;:0 0 0 "::I tI1
::r" - ..., ", - 0
V> ", Q> ::> - n ;:0
-. ::I - '"t
V> "::I n n 3 -
.., ::r" ;: "::I 0 ~ 0
2. ;:0 V> Q> ~
", 0 n
n 0 - I:>- 011
- "" ::> V> 011
." l:>- e:
CD
011
.
. ..-<
- tI1 w ~
U1 < - 0' en tT.1
8 ", - (/.)
::> - - :::: -3 ~ ;j Q>
::r" :r ~. :E ::> :? 0 :::::
0 :E ", Q> ::r" :E
- ", ", 0 0 Q> ::r"
:> Q> Cb - - 3 Q>
- l:>- I:>- Q> - t!:I ::r" = ", ::I
0 ::r" ", 0 .... ::> '-< 0: cr.. V>
- 0 Q> n
-3 0 .c ", ;:0 ", t'I1 V> 5'
= = V> w. Q> V> 0' 3 Q> n ~
~ - Q> V> .... R ::I 0 n
Q> ::> ::> = - I:>- ::>
:E - n "" M ::I 2!..
::r" 0 n :J. V> =
'-< - 0 00' Q>
0 ", - ::r" ", ", '-< 5: l:>-
V> ..., -
= 0 l:>- V> '" ", ~. ",
0 ::I en - ", I:>-
....... 0: ...., n - ;:;. ::r" I:>- :r Q> V> .., ~
- - ..., ", = ", Q> ~
Q> ::r" = - "::I Q> V> ::r" ::-.
", '-< - o' Q> -
>< ", I:>- ::r" :J. ", I:>- .., cr.. Q> 0 >
n ;:0 ", ", ::> .... I:>- "" V>
", 'TJ 2!.. ::I < ..., :1. ~ ::I ~
Q> "'0 :::: 0. cr.. (;;' ::-. :'1 V> 011
", ::> ~ n :'1 -
l:>- n tI1 -. - ;3 0 0 n 0 ;:0 011
- ='-< .... ::> - Q> :E 0
nP" ;:0 V> V> 2!.. 0 ::> Q>
Q> n ::> ::I (')
0 .., ;>;" "::I - - n
= ::; :E ;:0 0 6' .... n "" ::> - ::r" ....
::I Q> = 0 0 ;>;" = ::r" ~
- 3 - Q> ::> < ::I ", 3 Q> ;:0 ....
'-< ::> .., -
~. n 5: cr.. "" 0 CD
n 0- n ", 0- -
V> ", ::r" ", ", ::r" Q> 011
- ::J l:>- V> 0 ", ", I:>-
"" .... Q> "::I ::-. ..,
::> 0 ", ;:0 ::> .., I:>- 0 ::> !!. Q> \:lei
I:>- :E .c 0 I:>- 0 cr.. 0 V>
::;. ::> ", ..., CD
Q> = Q> < 3
.., 0 ,po - 5: ", Q> .., - Q> 011
::r" :J.
I:>- ::> @ ", n ::> "::I - "CI
V> ", - I:>- :::. "::I ::> ..,
~ I:>- Q> I:>- o' V> Q> "" 0
0' V> t!:I ::>
- Q> 0 I:>- ::> "::I - =i' ::-. V> =:I
.., 0 0 - 0 "::I
"0 ~ ::;. - ::r" 0 ::>
'" "" Q> ", 0 3 0 011
V> .... l:>- e I:>- = .., :J- CD
n n 0 0
", ;:0 l:>- S!: 0 - ::-. = :;. ...., "" 011
Q> Q> n: ..., o. 0 0 ~ :::: -
-.... V> n = ? ", o.
::I V> en ::I ::I -
== "" n V> .., ::: -. - '-0 (") - ::I
"::I :r :;. 0 "::I ::> '-< "" 0 - Q;'
~ Q> ", 3 3. ""
.., ;:0 Q> ,po .., en .... n
=:- ~ ",
0 - V> ;- = I:>- ;:0
Ro "" "" Q;' Q> -. "0 ::::: - 0 Q> -.
'" I:>- ::> V> 0 "" :'" ::> -
n ~ ::> '-<
> .., ~ -. Q> ::I n
0 - V> V> V> ::> I:>- ::r" 0-
0 - V> ", - ;:0 ""
(/.) Q> ':< ", V> "" ;:0 V>
p.. 8 V> !!. - - 0- ~ ",
rLJ V> 0 ", 0 I:>-
3 ", - - ::> - ""
0 0 n ", I:>-
- ::r" .... cr.. .'" 0
Cl - ", ", 5: :E ::>
0 ::> Q> en
- "'0 I:>- ;:0 - 0 -
.... ", ::r"
~ 0 ~ ::> , ::: ",
...., '-=' -
::> .... I:>-
~
rLJ
COlI
o
::I
COlI
COlI
.....
o
...
o
o
"C
o
~
COlI
o
COlI
r:I
o
c::I..
COlI
o
~
COlI
o
...
as
'...
C)
o
COlI
COlI
<
dd
~
en
~
>-
'"
c c
'" '"
=01)
0;....
U 0
" >,
0.-::::
~U
~]
~ '"
01) a
.c c
- :I
._ 0
~ u
C II)
o.c
.- -
-
0,) "
C ~
'2~
o '"
0,)_
C :I
._ .c
"'U
C ~
.9 tI'.I
- II) .
() .- tf.)
II) 0,) -
.~ c u
o II) '"
.. bl,) 0..
0.. '" S
Q.. ""I:j .-
011)"0
"i> ..:: ~
> 0 0
11)>"
"0 C
"'tj': ~
=t3cor
E-5~
'" 0 '"
~ ~.5
["'" - -
t) "'Cj ~
II) C
.~ ca .9
~I:O,,"",
.., 0 ~
,c ~ ..,
t-,.:;O
.
.c
- ....
.~ 0
:':!
~
"
-
~
ft
.,..
N
-
,
"
01)
..,
.c
-
1:10
C
.... tI'.I.-
0,) _-
II) 8.. ~ Q)
-5 tI'.I c.. "0
II) S 0
~,,_:E
'"
.- 0
'" -
b"O
'" ..,
c: -
<~
o ..,
_0:::
"""
..
.E
1:
o
0..
4)
"
-
'"
0,)
.-
C
.c
0,)
~
'"
'Vj
>,
0;
c:
~
0,)
IE
'"
~
.c
0,)
c:
'"
"
>,
'"
-
o
C
"0
~
o
0.. .
4) c:
.. '"
",6:
-
0,) '"
'" '"
o..~
E 1:10
.- 0
~Q:
(;j-
.5 ~
- '"
",.c
I1JQ.,
.
'"
:I
'"
..
..,
>
>, ",.
"'"0
~ '"
.., 0
~"
~
"'E8
'"
'" '"
"0
'"
o
"
-
E8
..,
N
>,
0;
c:
'"
-
.~
"0
c:
'"
0;
>
o
..
c.
c.~
'" '"
c..,
'" g
c: ..
o c.
.::: ~
.., -
G~
.~ "
"0_
bl,)~
c: ..
~ "i}
..,.c
.., ....
'" ....
>,0
-::: 1:
c: '"
~ ~
:I '"
0,) '"
~ ~
'" 0,)
= '"
_ c.
'" S
u ._
.
-
E8
..,
.c
....
....
o
S
..
~
~
II)
>,
.,..
M
II)
.c
....
"0
c:
o
>,
..,
.D
'"
"0
c:
..,
-
><
..,
"""'
'"
..
'"
II)
>,
o
";> ..;
~ [j
';::;S
0,) ..,
.., ~
'0' bO
s.~
.., II)
.c .~
-.c
.... 0,)
o c:
.... '"
:I ..
o ~
;g-g
:I 0
1:0"
.
c: "0
.9 "0
-..r::=
~ en'-
.~ ~ ~
'-- '"
uc=
IE VJ.9
~"'Ot)
= :a '5
bl,)"O '"
c: c: ..,
.- ~ ..
'::CI)-
o " c:
> U ..,
.., c: S
.., '" ..,
-S E ~
.., 0 c:
~'t:: '"
_ ..,:E
~~=
~-d~
'" ..
~~O
"'_"0
"-c:
~~~
'i) It) C
> .c ~
~E~oO
~ 0 1:10.5
Q.,..::~t:
01) c: '" :I
~ .S! :E g
O '" c:
....oS
co ~.-
S .- ~ 8
:1"0..,....
C-bOVJ
'" C _
":100,)
S....u'"
'c ~ "c.
.., bl,) '" S
C = ~.=
.- .- ~ C
..,"0"011)
.c -= C >
.... 0,) '" ....,
c: C ....
_ ._ tI') Q.
.
C'-)
~
~
-
U
o
C'-)
C'-)
<
~
~
==
~
Ir)
I
~
'"
.-
'"
>,
-
'"
C
~
c:
o
.c .;::
~ t!
p::: 8..
>, '"
~ !a
O~
(.J,
~
==
~
~
>
r:r.J
r:r.J
o
<1
....
~
~
r:r.J
----30
.., -
~ ~
::I '<
'"
"0
o
S
-
o'
::I
;:=:I
~
::I
(")
::I'"
>
::I
~
'<
'"
C;;'
t'!1;;o:j
~ ("D ::.
'" "0 '"
- 0
~ ;:I. 0.
::I ""'I ~
> '" '"
- (")
-. '" 0
(JQ ::I ::I
::I _
3 -< ::I'"
{"O _. ~
a ~ C"
'" c: '"
'" '" '"
::1'"0.::1
o c- ..,
:E '< ~.
'" n::l
o..~~
'" -..,
c: - n
~ ~ ('t)
::1::1 0.
n '"
(j)" C"
::I 5. '<
';:ES-
.., ::I'" '"
o -. ("D
~. g. ~
'" - ~
(tI ~ ~
0''< .-.
0. :;:-
1:0 {"O ("p
~ ~ ~
~3i5.
~ 5' :;.
:=. ("D a
c: 0. c:
@ 50 ~
'" ~ ::I'"
-->
5.Z:::,
'< 0 '"
. ~ 3
o ;:;
:: ;;"
'"
C;; '"
Ut
~;::;;;:::::3~~
-. -. 0 "'0 t;n So
m~::so..r.,')"'Oo
~::S(JQ{"On('D
"'3 =-n":1
..... ~ _. V';J ..... ~
"''''~::I;;o-t'!1
3:='~(JQ("Do_
>-~S-~>;;O
-t;;""',,::I-<:
CJQ~3~Q.~~
::13 ~ ;;0 0- '" _0..
0. , _.
g ~ N ~~.
..... t.JI-,.....
.", ::I'"
.
.
~
'"
-
~
o
'"
::I
'"
..,
~
t'!1
~
'"
-
'"
..,
::I
;::
(JQ
::I
::2g
~ ::I
::I u;
:E ::I
~ 0
'" -
c: :::.
'" ..
'" c-
o."
::I ..
:::. ::I
_ 0.
'"
o~
s ~
'< '"
;;03
~ >
~ ::
::I'"(JQ
::I
:;J 3
.. '"
"*'::1
::1_
(") -
> ~
::I 0.
:::..'"
'< -0
~. nO
'" "
0.
5.
-
::I'"
'"
Q
-
:.
..
. -<
1t ~ tI1
- ::I'" en
'" '"
.., ::I
3
::I S-
'" '"
::I'"t'!1
o -
:E ;;0
~ :E
;;o~
,
--0
tv ii!
UI-o
'" ..
::I'" ..,
o '"
c: 0.
-~
0._
c-~
'" ~
3 n
o 0
0. ::I
'" ~
"
0."
0.
:g.
-
::I'"
-
::I'"
'"
::I
<
o
<
'"
0.
~
(JQ
'"
::I
n
C;;.
'"
-
o
~
-
-
o
c:;:I..
o
o
"1
o
....
!III
!III
=
o
!III
~
PI'
>
QII
!III
o
(')
....
I>>
....
o
!III
~
o
!III
~
o
=
!III
o
!III
FPEIR FINDINGS
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
~
~........ ~....
OTA'"r' RAnCH
JOINT
PLANNING
PROJECT
COUNTY Of SAN mEGO . C!1Y OF CHULA VISTA
OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WCTIY COUNCll.. FINAL PLANW
(MITIGATED PHASE II - PROGRESS PLAN)
FINDINGS OF FACT
October 28, 1993
l
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157' FAX: (619) 422-7690
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. PROGRAM EIR ................ ........................ 6
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .............................. 6
V. 1ERMINOLOGY /THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA .. 7
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM..... ... ... ... . .. . .. . 9
VIII. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MffiGATION MEASURES 9
A Land Use, Planning and Zoning ........................ 14
B. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics ........................ 18
C. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
D. Cultural Resources .................................. 91
E. Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95
F. Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97
G. Agricultural Resources ............................... 99
H. Mineral Resources ................................. 102
1. Water Resources and Water Quality .................... 103
J. Transportation, Circulation and Access .................. III
K. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120
L. Noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 123
M. Public Services and Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 126
N. Risk of Upset ..................................... 142
IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES......................................... ....... 143
A.
Land Use, Planning and Zoning
...................... .
147
B.
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
...................... .
148
C. Biologil._I Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 149
D. Cultural Resources ................................. 150
E. Geology and Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151
F. Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 152
G. Agricultural Resources .............................. 152
H. Mineral Resources ................................. 153
I. Water Resources and Water Quality .................... 153
J. Transportation, Circulation and Access .................. 154
K Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154
L. Noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 155
M. Public Services and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.56
N. Risk of Upset ..................................... 162
X.
FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECf ALTERNATIVES..... 163
A. Phase I-Progress Plan Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 164
B. Phase II-Progress Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 166
C. Fourth Alternative ................................. 167
D. The Project Team Alternative .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 168
E. The Composite General Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 168
F. Low Density Alternative ............................. 170
G. Environmental Alternative ........................... 170
H. No Project Alternative .............................. 171
Offsite Alternatives
A. Greater Dulzura Offsite Alternative .................... 172
B. West Ramona Offsite Alternative ...................... 173
C. East Ramona Offsite Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 174
D. Rancho Guejito Offsite Alternative ..................... 174
E. Deluz Offsite Alternative ............................ 175
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ......... 176
October 28, 1993
BEFORE THE CHUrA VISTA
CITY COUNCIL
RE: Otay Ranch General Development Plan;
"City Council Final Plan"
(Mitigated Phase II-Progress Plan)
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
INTRODUCfION
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) prepared on this project
addressed the potential environmental effects of developing over 23,000 acres of land with
a new community. The New Town Plan submitted by Baldwin Vista Associates contained
both a land use plan and policy language to guide the long-term development of the
23,088-acre property. The New Town Plan proposed a mix of residential neighborhoods,
commercial centers, research-oriented industrial uses, natural open spaces, recreational
parks, a civic center, art centers, resort facilities, a town center, and an university site. That
plan, like the plan approved by the City Council envisioned a series of villages or clusters
of development within a cohesively planned community.
In addition to Ihe New Town Plan, the FPEIR evaluated twelve onsite and offsite
alternatives to the Project, including the Phase II-Progress Plan (with EastLake Land Swap
parcels) which, as modified with additional mitigation, became the basis for the City Council
Final Plan. This recommendation came after numerous hearings and lengthy review. The
modifications to the Phase II-Progress Plan, which result in the City Council Final Plan or
the Mitigated Phase II-Progress Plan (hereinafter, "Project"), include the following:
, Total land area is 23,068 acres (22,509 acres in County and 390 acres in City
of San Diego); includes 169-acre East Lake parcels of Phase II-Progress Plan.
, Total dwelling unitsl is 24,224. (If the university is not developed, total
dwelling units is 27,059.)
ITotal dwelling units and proposed population is based on the City obtaining industrial property on the south
side of Otay River Valley. If Village 3 develops as industrial, total dwelling units is reduced by 741 units, and
projected population is reduced by 2,288 persons.
Page 1
, Projected population (see, footnote 1 is approximately 70,315 persons. (If the
university is not developed, proposed population is 78,555.)
, More open space, located along the western edge of Salt Creek and northern
slopes of Otay River Valley Central Proctor Valley.
Twenty-two (22) fewer acres of Commercial use.
Village 3 on Otay River parcel east of Otay Landfill; area proposed as
Medium and Medium-High Residential/Commercial could be developed with
Industrial use.
, Scenic Corridor designation changed to General Plan Open Space near major
roadways to preclude density transfers.
Roadway alignment adjustments for Hunte Parkway, Otay Valley Road, and
deletion of Alta Road to mitigate impacts to biological resources.
Adjustment of development area to avoid wildlife corridors on parcel near
Proctor Valley and Little Cedar Canyon.
, Golf Course within Proctor Valley Village.
, Required funding for LRT prior to exceeding 15,000 dwelling units or
4,000,000 square feet of commercial.
, Designation of estate housing south of Lower Otay Lake.
After reviewing the FPEIR prepared for Otay Ranch, which included the analysis of the
Phase II-Progress Plan, the Chula Vista City Council is of the opinion that the impacts
identified for the Phase II.Progress Plan are substantially the same or less as those for the
City Council Final Plan or the Mitigated Phase II-Progress Plan, (hereinafter "Project").
Therefore, the Council determined that the FPEIR is adequate for considering the Project.
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project involves 22,899 acres and allows a maximum of 24,224 dwelling units (if the
university is not developed 27,059 dwelling units) to be constructed, resulting in a population
of approximately 70,315 (if the university is not developed, 78,555). The buildout of the
Project is projected to take 30-50 years.
The plan is generally divided into 14 villages, 6 planning areas, plus the Eastern Urban
Center (EUe). Most of the proposed homes are localed in 14 villages; 11 on the Otay
River parcel, 2 on the Proctor Valley parcel, and one on the San Ysidro parcel. Rural
Page 2
estate development is planned for the eastern parcels. An extensive open space system and
circulation system, including greenbelt parkways and hiking trails, would connect the various
development areas and parcels of Otay Ranch. A Resource Management Plan (RMP),
including an approximate 11,400-acre management preserve, would be implemented. The
management preserve will be conveyed in perpetuity to an entity other than the Applicant.
The Otay River parcel is dominated by the Eastern Vrban Center (EVe). This mixed use
area features a wide variety of office-professional, retail commercial, commercial, civic,
cultural, park, and high density residential uses. Within the EVC, pedestrian traffic is
encouraged by the close proximity and mixed nature of the uses. The potential future
extension of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) line, which would run north to south through the
EVC, ultimately would also encourage non-vehicular travel. As noted above, the Project
limits development until funding and construction of LRT is assured. In general, villages
around the EVC decrease in residential density with distance from the EVC. Each village
is internally designed to encourage pedestrian traffic featuring mixed.use village centers near
the core. All villages are connected by a system of paths and trails.
A major four-year university could locate with additional environmental review in the far
eastern portion of the Otay River parcel west of Wueste Road. The GDP/SRP Land Vse
Map indicates the precise area where an university might locate. At any time, this area
could be developed for an university campus and ancillary uses such as campus-related
commercial, residential and research and development support services. However, the use
of the area west of Wueste Road, east of Hunte Parkway, by a university is permitted
provided that the use of Salt Creek Canyon (including defining slopes) is limited to trails,
passive recreation, biological research and educational activities in keeping with the
preservation of sensitive habitat and biological species located there. No buildings or
structures shall be permitted within Salt Creek.
In addition to this primary land use designation, the Council has identified a secondary land
use designation. Essentially, the secondary designation allows for villages to be developed
in the areas of Villages 9 and 10 in accordance with the GDP /SRP Part II, Chapter 1,
Sections F9 and F10. The area west of Wueste Road, east of Hunte Parkway, has a
secondary designation of open space. This area may be developed for university purposes
at any time. The secondary designations described above will only be allowed after the
development of Western Phases I, II and III, as identified in the Otay Ranch Phasing Plan.
Completion of development for purposes of this requirement shall be deemed to be the
issuance of building permits for 75% of the residential units in Phases I through III. Should
an university site be proposed on the site, appropriate environmental review would be
required prior to project approval.
Land uses on the Proctor Valley parcel are generally confined to three geographically
distinct areas arranged around the Jamul Mountains. These three areas include the Resort
Center Village, Central Proctor Valley Village, and North Proctor Valley. The Resort
Center Village (Village 13) consists of 783 acres and includes 2,438 dwelling units and a
Page 3
destination resort of 800 rooms. This village is located on the mesa northeast of Lower
Otay Lake. The Resort will be developed with a village concept with residential
neighborhoods arranged around the resort. The Central Proctor Valley Village (Village 14)
is located in a gently rolling valley, bounded by San Miguel Mountain on the west and the
Jamul Mountains to the east. Residential densilies vary from low to low-medium to
medium, with one village center. Approximately 1,713 homes are be located in this
828-acre village. A golf course or equeslrian complex is situated within this portion of the
Project. The 1,136-acre North Proctor Valley (Planning Areas 16 and 19) area allows for
410 residences. Lots are a minimum of 1 acre in size, with most areas featuring lots of
3-acre average size. No villages would be located in this area.
Land uses on the San Ysidro parcel are clustered in two distinct areas. A small Estate
Village (Village 15) is located on the western portion of the parcel south of the lake in a
village consisting of approximately 516 dwelling units located on 773 acres. A mixed-use
village center of approximately 27 acres is also situated near the residences. Circulation is
provided by rural roads, which attempt to follow natural topographic contours. The eastern
portion of this parcel (Planning Area 17) features very low density residential uses
intermingled with "limited development" on steeper slopes. In this area around the lake, the
Project allows 516 dwelling units on 773 acres, for estate housing. Residential densities
vary based on terrain, slope, and proximity to developed areas; a lot minimum of 4 acres
is required in the northern region near Otay Lakes Road, minimum lot sizes increasing east
and southward to approximately 8 acres in the more remote locations of the parcel near
Dulzura.
Commercial and institutional uses, schools, and parks proposed in the Project are distributed
throughout the entire Otay Ranch. The majority of commercial uses located in the EVC.
In an effort to reduce vehicle miles travelled, each of the 14 village centers contain a small
component of commercial, office, and quasi-public/public uses. Freeway commercial is
situated on the Otay River parcel adjacent to proposed SR-125.
The Project will convey 13,685 acres of natural open space, encompassing the Otay River
Valley, Jamul Mountains, and San Ysidro Mountains. A 1l,375-acre managed preserve
operated in accordance with an approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) shall be
established to preserve and manage the resources and ensure their viability. In addition,
another 1,165 acres is proposed as natural open space outside of the Preserve (Jamul and
Dulzura Planning Areas). The Project also proposes a system of paths and trails that
connect the urban villages and their parks, forming a passive and active recreation network
throughout the Project. The total open space in the project is therefore 13,685 acres (13,786
without the planned university).
The circulation system includes an integrated system of prime arterials, major roads, and
colle~tors to maximize circulation efficiency. Three Otay River crossings will carry traffic
to and from Otay Mesa: SR-125 (proposed), Heritage Road, and La Media. The potential
future extension of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) line which would run north to south
Page 4
through the EVC ultimately would also encourage non-vehicular travel. These pedestrian
and public transit components provide the ProjecI with means of transportation other than
automobiles.
The Project objectives as set forth in the FPEIR are hereby incorporated by this reference.
(FPEIR, p. 2-1)
The discretionary actions taken by the decis:onmakers in approving this Project are:
, Amendments to the General Plan - incorporate the entire 23,06S-acre Otay
Ranch Project into the General Plan.
, General Development Plan (GDP) - a comprehensive plan for Otay Ranch
which identifies land uses and patterns, objectives and policies, and provides
a focus for developing SPAs and subdivision maps, including:
Resource Management Plan (RMP) - a program designed to provide for the
long-term protection and management of natural, cultural, and scenic
resources located on the Otay Ranch property and serves as an equivalent of
the County's Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO).
, Service/Revenue Plan - defines and compares the estimated operation and
maintenance costs and revenue characteristics of various land use plans.
Outlines municipal and regional service and infrastructure responsibilities, and
how facilities and services will be financed.
, Village Phasing Plan - an implementation requirement of the GDP Growth
Management chapter to ensure the timely and orderly development of
villages. The plan is designed to ensure that Otay Ranch complies with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management chapter and the
facility threshold standards and processing requirements contained in the
Capilal Facilities chapter of the GDP.
, Facili(y Implementation Plans. consists of 22 facility implementation plans for
public, social, and community facilities. Each individual plan will evaluate
existing facilities and analyze demand for new facilities necessary to serve the
build out of the Otay Ranch.
Prezoning - 22,509 (Ihis number excludes San Diego City (369 acres) and East
Lake (169 acres) acreages) acres of the Otay Ranch to be prezoned to PC
(Planned Community) zone, to be effective only upon future annexation into
the City of Chula Vista.
Page 5
III.
PROGRAM EIR
A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as "one large project" and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as logical
parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with the issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program;
or (4) as individua' activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in
similar ways. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg., ~ 15168, subd. (a).)
Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program EIR can: (1)
provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than
would be practical in an EIR on an individual action; (2) ensure consideration of cumulative
impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; (3) avoid duplicative
reconsideration of basic policy considerations; and (4) allow the Lead Agency to consider
broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the
agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems of cumulative impacts; and (5)
allow reduction in paperwork. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg., ~ 151268, subd. (b).)
"Use of the program EIR also enables the Lead Agency to characterize the overall program
as the Project being approved at that time. Following this approach when individual
activities within the program are proposed, the agency would be required to examine the
individual activities to determine whether their effects were fully analyzed in the program
EIR. If the activities would have no effects beyond those analyzed in the program EIR, the
agency could assert that the activilies are merely part of the program which had been
approved earlier, and no further CEQA compliance would be required. This approach
offers many possibilities for agencies to reduce their costs of CEQA compliance and still
achieve high levels of environmental protection." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg.,
discussion following
~ 15168).
IV.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the
City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of the
following:
. The Draft and Final Program EIR for the Project, including appendices and
technical reports;
All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning
documents prepared by the planning consultant, the project Applicant, the
Page 6
environmental consultant, the Otay Ranch Project staff, the City of Chula
Vista, and the County of San Diego that are before the decisionmakers as
determined by the City Clerk;
, All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in
connection with the EIR on the Project;
, Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public
hearings held by the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego, or video
tapes where transcripts are not available or adequate;
. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings
and public hearings; and
Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they consider,
including but not limited to, the following:
Chula Vista General Plan (update) - 2010
County of San Diego General Plan
County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance
Relevant portions of the Zoning Codes of the City of Chula Vista and
County of San Diego
V.
TERMINOLOGY /THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEOA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental
effect identified in an EIR for a Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding
reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that "[c]hanges or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which .J!Yill.d or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR."
(Emphasis added.) The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making
the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is that "[s]pecific
economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the final EIR."
Regarding the first of three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the
difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially
lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be gleaned from
Page 7
other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which
CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially
lessen." The CEQA Guidelines, therefore, equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening."
Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code
section 21001, which declares the Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects
with significanl environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" shall refer to the ability of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level.
In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" shall refer to the ability of such measures to
su bstantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a level
of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving
agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ ed] or substantially lessen[ ed],"
these findings, for purposes of clarity, will specify whether the effect in question has been
fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has been substantially
lessened (and thus remains significant).
The purpose of these findings is to systematically restate the significant effects of the Project
on the environment identified in the Final Program EIR, and determine the feasibility of
mitigation measures and Project alternatives identified in the Final Program EIR which
would avoid or substantially lessen those significant effects. Once the City has adopted
sufficient measures to avoid a significant impact, the City does not need to adopt every
mitigation measure brought to its attention or identified in the Final Program EIR. The
City shall not reduce housing units as a mitigation measure to a Project, if the City
determines another specific mitigation measure will provide a comparable level of
mitigation.
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista to not approve a
Project if there are available feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives which
would substantially lessen that Project's significant environmental effects. Only when such
mitigation measures or Project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific
economic, social or other conditions set forth in these findings may the City approve a
Project in spite of its significant effects.
Another purpose of these findings is to bring focus to Project alternatives in the ultimate
decisionmakers' decision whether to approve or disapprove the Project. If, after application
of all feasible mitigation measures to the Proj~ct, significant impacts remain, Project
alternatives identified in the FPEIR must be reviewed arid determined to be feasible or
infeasible. The findings set forth Ihe reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record,
that the decisionmakers conclude any such Project alternatives are infeasible (see further
discussion in Feasibility of Alternatives Section).
Page 8
VI.
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the exlenl Ihat these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Chula Vista ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible
parties, including the Applicant and its successors in inleresl (hereinafter referred to as
"Applicant") , to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely
informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the Project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements
are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these
findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
VII.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Chula Vista, in adopting
these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by
the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to
ensure, that during Project implementation, the Applicant and any other responsible parties
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described
in the document entitled "Otay Ranch General Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring
Program."
VIII.
DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final Program EIR identified a number of direct significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that the Project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of
feasible mitigation measures, while others can not be avoided.
The Project will result in the following significant irreversible environmental changes: Land
Use, Landform/Visual Quality, Biology, Archaeology/Paleontology, Geology/Soils,
Hydrology, Water Quality, Transportation/Access, Air Quality, Noise, and Public Services
and Utilities. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in both the
Draft EIR 90-01, at pages 3-1 through 3.16-8, and the Final Program EIR, at pages 3.1-1
, through 3.16-6.
Page 9
Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
Potential incompatibility with existing adjacent land uses, including Otay Landfill,
EastLake, San Diego Air Sports Center, and two quarries. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p
4.9.2-1 ]
Potential incompatibility with internal Project land uses including residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-1]
Inconsistency with policies of Jamul-Dulzura Subregional Plan by extending Current
Urban Development Area (CUDA) adjacent to Jamul and City of Chula Vista
policies and goals for the Eastern Territories. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-1]
Conversion of the site's overall character from undeveloped open space to developed
land. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-1]
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1]
Alteration of significant or sensitive landforms. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1]
Change in overall visual character of the Project area. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1]
Development in highly visible areas. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1]
Biological Resources
Sensitive uplands, including coastal sage scrub, wetlands, and vernal pool habitat
would be impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-1 through 4.9.4-3]
State-listed endangered plant species would be impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
4.9.4-4 ]
Second, third, and fourth priority sensitive plant species would be impacted. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-4 through 4.9.4-5]
Least Bell's vireo, cactus wren, tricolored blackbird, and California gnatcatcher points
of occurrence would be impacted and Ihe habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher
would be impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 Ihrough 4.9.4-6 and p. 4.9.4-18
through 4.9.4-21]
Riverside fairy shrimp and San Diego vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat would be
impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-18 through 4.9.4-21]
Page 10
Harbison's dun skipper, Hermes copper, Thorne's hairstreak, and Quino checkerspot
habitat would be impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-18 through 4.9.4-21]
California red-legged frog and southwestern pond turtle habitat would be impacted.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-6 and p. 4.9.4-18 through 4.9.4-21]
Fifty (50) other sensitive species may be impacled. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5
through 4.9.4-7]
Regional raptor-foraging areas would be impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 3.3-48
through 3.3-51]
Regional wildlife corridors would be impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-8
through 4.9.4-9]
Cultural Resources
Disturbance of significant prehistoric and historic resources. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
4.9.5-8 through 4.9.5-9]
Geology and Soils
Geology impacts include: slope instability, development proposed on metavolcanic
bedrock, and seismic hazards. Soils impacts include expansive soils, erosion, and
liquefaction. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.6-1]
Paleontology
Disturbance of significant paleontological resources. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.7-1]
Agricultural Resources
Conversion of prime farmlands and elimination of existing crop production. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 4.9.8-1 through p. 4.9.8-2]
Inconsistency with existing County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista plans and
policies. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.8-3]
Land use interface impacts associated With agricultural activities and urban uses.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.8-2]
Mineral Resources
Page 11
Potential loss of mineral resources of economic value due to development or land
use conflict. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.9-1]
Water Resources and Water Quality
Increases in surface water runoff due to increase in impervious surfaces could
increase potential for downstream flooding, cause potential safety impacts, and
increase erosion and siltation. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.10-1]
Development may encroach into the 100-year floodplain. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
4.9.10-1]
Potential increase in contaminant concentrations in Lower Otay Lake due to
conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.10-1]
Page 12
Transportation, Circulation, and Access
Impacts to the road network in the Soulh Bay area will occur if SR-125 is not
constructed. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.11-1 and p. 4.9.11-4]
Impacts to road segments and intersections due to increase in traffic associated with
Otay Ral'!ch. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.11-1 through p. 4.9.11-13]
Air Quality
Air quality impacts would exceed the current State Implementation Plan (SIP) air
quality attainment regulations which were based on SANDAG Series 7 growth
projections. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.12-1]
Project emissions of NOx, reactive organic gases (ROG), CO and PM-I0 from
vehicular and stationary sources would add to existing violations of federal and state
ozone standards. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.12-1]
Short-term emissions would occur during Project construction. [FPEIR, Volume 2,
p.4.9.12-1]
Noise
Noise levels in many areas of the Project would exceed the 60dBA CNEL standard.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.13-1 through 4.9.3-3]
Indirect roadway and construction impacts on Least Bell's Vireo and California
Gnatcatcher habitat. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.13-1]
Public Services and Utilities
Water Availability and Supply; Project-generated water requirements would impact
the capability of local jurisdictions to provide water. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-1]
Wastewater and Sewer Service: Facilities to accommodate additional sewage flow
and wastewater treatment would be required. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-2]
Integrated Waste Management; Project-generated solid waste would impact the
landfill capacity in the region. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-3] .
Police and Fire Protection. Emergency Medical Services: The Otay Ranch
population would result in the need for additional staff and facilities to provide these
services. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-3 through p. 4.9.14-4]
Page 13
Schools: The Otay Ranch student population would generate the need for additional
schools. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-4 to 4.9.14-5]
Library Service: Additional library facilities would be required to serve the Otay
Ranch population. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-5]
Parks. Recreation. and Open Space: Otay Ranch would generate additional demand
'or regional and local parkland, open space, and recreational facilities. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-5 through p. 4.9.14-6]
Electrici(y and Gas: Additional substations and associated distribution lines would
be required to service the Project. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-6]
Health and Medical Services Facilities: Otay Ranch would generate the need for
additional health and medical, and senior and social service facilities. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-7 through p. 4.9.14-8]
Other Public Services: Otay Ranch would generate the need for additional child care
and animal control facility space. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-8 through p. 4.9.14-9]
Risk of Upset
Increase in urbanization would result in an increase in the use, transport, storage, and
disposal of hazardous materials and an associated increase in the risk of an upset condition
in the area. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.15-1]
Certain of the above impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided at the General
Development Plan level; but, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
the City Council has determined Ihat the impacts are acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations. The following sub-sections describe specific impacts, setting forth
either the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures
adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation
measures proved to be infeasible due to specific economic, social or other considerations.
. . .
A. LAND USE. PLANNING. AND ZONING
Significant Effect: Potential incompatibility with existing adjacent land uses,
including Otay Landfill, EastLake, San Diego Air Sports Center, and three quarries.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
Page 14
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR, however, not to a level below significance. As described in the
statement of overriding considerations, however, the City Council has determined
that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. These measures are required at the GDP jSubregional Plan level and
will be implemented at the SPA plan level. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-1 through
4.9.2-2]
The SPA plans developed for the areas of Ihe Otay River parcel adjacent to
East Lake, industrially designated lands in the City of Chula Vista, the Otay
Landfill, the Nelson and Sloan quarry site, the Rock Mountain quarry and the
Daley quarry shall contain landscaping, grading, and buffering standards
(including any standards contained in Sections 3.13,3.14, and 3.16 of the Final
Program EIR) designed to prevent land use interface impacts such as health
hazards, noise, lighting, and loss of privacy between Otay Ranch and these
adjacent land uses. The SPA plan shall be reviewed by the city or county
planning department that has jurisdiction over these areas to ensure that
standards avoid significant interface impacts from occurring. In the event that
these standards are not ensured, then, in the case of the Otay Landfill, which
is scheduled to close in 1999, mitigation would require phasing the
development of adjacent residences so that this part of the parcel is not
developed until after the landfill has been closed.
, The Project plans shall be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) for review as soon as possible to determine whether or not land use
incompatibilities exist between the Project and the existing San Diego Air
Sports Center. If it is determined by the FAA that such incompatibilities
exist, then the SPA plan shall be designed to fully comply with the FAA. The
Project Applicant shall then revise the Project's phasing plan to allow for use
of the sports center until its option expires.
, Development proposed adjacent to Ihe Daley quarry, the Nelson and Sloan
quarry and the Rock Mountain quarry in the San Ysidro parcel shall occur in
accordance with the following mitigation measures:
Residential development within 9300 feet of the quarries shall be
staged such that construction shall not take place unless the quarries
have been mined-out and mining operations have ceased or noise
impacts can be mitigated as demonstrated in the site-specific noise
study to an exterior noise level of 60 CNEL or below and an interior
noise level of 45 CNEL or below for residences.
Page 15
A site-specific noise study shall be required to determine the specific
noise impacts and measures necessary to achieve an exterior noise
level of 60 CNEL or below and an interior noise level of 45 CNEL or
below. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician in
accordance with local noise standards.
The mitigation measures outlined above shall be included in the
applicable SPA (an for this area of the Project.
. . .
Significant Effect: Potential incompatibility with internal Project land uses including
residential, commercial, and industrial uses. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR as related to the incompatibilities of internal land uses and the
majority of immediately adjacent external land uses. Land use interface impacts on
the Jamul Country Town, Proctor Valley development, and along the northern and
southern shores of Lower Otay Lake are unavoidable and remain significant after
implementation of the following mitigation measures. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-2]
Pursuant to 15091 (a)(3) as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable because
of specific overriding considerations. All other impacts related to potential
incompatibility with internal project land uses are, with the implementation of the
following mitigation measures, avoided or reduced to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these findings. These mitigation measures are required at the GDP jSubregional
Plan level and will be implemented at the SPA plan level. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
4.9.2-1 through 4.9.2-2]
, The SPA plans developed for the above mentioned areas of the Project site
shall contain policy language that explicitly sets forlh standards for
landscaping, grading, and buffering to prevent land use interface impacts such
as noise, lighting, and loss of privacy from occurring between adjacent internal
land uses, especially between single-family and multifamily residential land
uses and between residential and non-residential land uses. Lots contiguous
to Jamul in the Proctor Valley parcel may not be smaller than one acre in
size. All SPA plans shall be reviewed by the city or county planning
department that has jurisdiction over the area in which the proposed SPA
Page 16
plan is located to ensure that proposed standards are adequate to prevent
significant interface impacts from occurring.
. Buffer and/or transition techniques should be developed which deal with the
transition between different "villages" within and outside of the Project are
included in the land use policies of the Project's GDP.
, If the existing FAA VORTAC facility is not relocated, the Subregional Plan
map shall be revised to indicate this existing land use. In addition, the SPA
plan developed for this area shall set forth standards for landscaping, grading,
and buffering guidelines to prevent land use interface impacts. The SPA plan
shall be reviewed by the city or county planning department that has
jurisdiction over this area to ensure that proposed guidelines are adequate to
prevent significanl interface impacts from occurring.
The Applicant shall implement the development criteria in the RMP to
protect resources located outside the management preserve.
. . .
Significant Effect: Inconsistency with policies of Jamul-Dulzura Subregional Plan (by
extending Current Urban Development Area (CUDA) into Proctor Valley), City of
Chula Vista policies and goals for the Eastern Territories. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
4.9.2-1]
Finding: Implementation of the Project would result in significant land use impacts
due to inconsistencies with County of San Diego policies and goals to retain the rural
atmosphere of existing rural lands, with Jamul's Country Town land use designation,
and with City of Chula Vista policies and goals to develop the Eastern Territories
primarily with low-medium densities of residential development. No mitigation other
than to decrease the density of the Project in the Jamul area of the county, leave the
Regional Land Use designations as they are now, and to decrease density of the
Project in the Easlern Territories of the City of Chula Vista is available to mitigate
these Project inconsistencies. Therefore, this impact remains significant. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-2] Pursuant to section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, there are no feasible miligation measures which would mitigate the
impact. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
. . .
Significant Effect: Conversion of the site's character from undeveloped open space
to developed land. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-1]
Page 17
Finding: The Project would change the eXlstmg character of the site from
undeveloped or underdeveloped open space to developed land. This change is
significantly adverse for the areas in or adjacent to Jamul, Proctor Valley, Lower
Otay Lake, and the San Ysidro Mountains and is unmitigable. Therefore, this impact
remains significant. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-2] Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible mitigation measures which
would mitigate the impact. As described in the Sta' .~ment of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this impact is
acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS
Significant Effect: Change in overall visual character of the Project area. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1]
Finding: No measures are available to mitigate the loss of open space and
unavoidable alteration in visual character of the site. The proposed
GDP ISubregional Plan provides for a large amount of open space; however, the
overall character of the site would become one of developed land. Measures
intended to reduce the specific potential visual impacts of the development are
contained in the following sections. However, their implementation would not
reduce this unmitigable effect of the GDP ISubregional Plan implementation to
below a level of significance. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1 through 4.9.3-2]
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are no
feasible measures which would mitigate the impact. As described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this
impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
. . .
Significant Effect: Alteration of significant or sensitive landforms. [FPEIR, Volume
2, p. 4.9.3-1]
Findings: Pursuant to 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
After the implementation of the mitigation measures, the alteration of significant or
sensitive landforms (Le., steep slopes, Lower Otay Lake area and Otay River Valley)
would remain a significant impact of the Project. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1
through 4.9.3-2] Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) there are no other feasible
measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described
in the Statemenl of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
Page 18
determined that this significant impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1]
The GDP jSubregional Plan developed for the Otay Ranch Project contains
specific landform alteration standards that provide stringent protection of
sensitive landforms. The Applicant shall implement, at a minimum, the
following mitigation measures:
Roadways shall be designed to follow the natural contours of hillsides
and minimize visibility of road cuts and manufactured slopes.
Excessive use of manufactured slopes in the Otay River Valley, Jamul
and San Ysidro Mountains, and the area around Otay Lakes shall not
be permitted.
Natural buffering (e.g., undeveloped open space) shall be provided
between development and significant landforms, including the Jamul
and San Y sidro Mountains.
Variable slope ratios not exceeding 2:1 shall be utilized when
developing grading plans.
Eighty-three percent of the steep slopes (steeper than 25%) shall be
preserved.
The GDP jSubregional Plan contains standards regarding the amount and kind
of grading allowable in Ihe Olay River Valley 10 remediate mining
disturbance.
. All grading plans submitted for the Otay Ranch property will be prepared by
a certified engineer and evaluated by the planning and engineering
departments of the appropriate jurisdiction. Development shall be
constructed in accordance with those plans as well as the grading policies of
the GDP jSubregional Plan. .
The following mitigation measures are rejected as infeasible:
No disturbance of steep slopes (over 25 percent) shall be allowed; the
disruption of rock outcrops (particularly on the San Ysidro parcel) and the
filling of canyons shall be avoided.
Page 19
The GDP jSubregional Plan shall contain language that provides adequate
protection to meet the goals of the County Resource Protection Ordinance
No. 7631, and the existing City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego Grading
Ordinances, all of which regulate or restrict the grading that can occur on
slopes with gradients steeper than 25 percent and a minimum rise of 50 feet.
Encroachment into natural slopes shall not be permitted.
Limit grading and development to below the top of major ridge lines to
maintain natural terrain lines.
Rationale: Avoidance of development of all steep slopes and ridgelines is infeasible.
It would result in circuitous, elongated roads and utility systems serving isolated and
fragmented pockets of development. This approach is inconsistent with project goals
of creating pedestrian-friendly communities where homes are clustered near village
cores and people are encouraged to walk. This fragmented development would not
permit concentrated development that supports transit ridership. Further, this
approach, by fragmenting development, would increase the amount of "edge effect"
between natural habitat and areas of homes. While the Otay Ranch development
is sited in areas containing some sensitive environmental habitat and slope
constraints, it generally avoids large areas of steep slopes and significant
environmental constraints. The current plant only impacts 17 percent of slopes over
25 percent, within the range of the County of San Diego's Resource Protection
Ordinance.
. . .
Significant Effect: Development in highly visible areas. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
4.9.3-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final
Program EIR. After the implementation of the mitigation measures, however, the
following impacts would remain significant impacts of the Project:
, An unavoidable adverse change in the existing visual character of the Project
site.
, Alteration in areas of sensitive landforms (Le., steep slopes, Lower Otay
Lakes area and Otay River Valley).
, Grading of steep slopes that may be visible from future development and
roadways.
Page 20
Realignment of the scenic roadway of Otay Lakes Road.
Development of the resort on the Proctor Valley parcel.
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State Guidelines, there are no other
measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that this significant effect is acceplable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible
and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant
through these Findings.
, The GDP/SRP contains a requirement that at the SPA level, after the receipt
of more specific development plans, specific mitigation measures to reduce
grading and visual resource impacts of the resort, residential, commercial,
industrial, and public/civic land uses and the associated roadways must be
developed. Future analysis shall include either engineering cross-sections
depicting existing and proposed topography or photo documentation
illustrating proposed topographic and design features. Any cut and fill slopes
in excess of 15 feet in height shall be identified. Special attention shall be
placed on grading and design of the following, highly visible, features of the
Project:
Size, location, and setbacks of the resort building above Lower Otay
Lake.
Grading and development of residential areas within the San Ysidro
parcel in the higher elevations in Ihe vicinity of Lower Otay Lake.
Height and length of manufactured slopes along Telegraph Canyon
Road, Otay Lakes Road, Proctor Valley Road, and Otay Valley Road.
Development and grading along major ridgelines, such as within the
San Ysidro and Jamul mountain areas, and adjacent to all natural
open space areas.
Setbacks and building heights of industrial development south of the
Otay River Valley.
Location and visibility of new public trails through open space in
proximity to existing and future development.
Page 21
Placement of clustered development or stepped (split-level) building
pads in hillside regions, if possible, to minimize landscape disturbance
and retain ridgelines.
The GDP /SRP contains binding design guidelines that will pertain to future
streetscapes, buildings, and villages to enhance the visual appeal of
development and prevent contrasts in site character. The design guidelines
shall include the following:
View corridors shall be integrated at the terminus or periodically along
the length of streets paralleling or intersecting undeveloped open
space.
Walls, including acoustical barriers, shall be integrated into the
architectural theme and scale of the villages.
Landscape themes shall be used to define village character and blend
with adjacent existing development.
Natural and native plantings shall be integrated into revegetation plans
for manufactured slopes adjacent to open space areas.
Scale and architectural treatments (Le., rooflines, building materials)
of all residential and non-residential village buildings shall be diverse
and yet compatible.
Signage shall be controlled and designed to fit in the pedestrian
environment.
Buffer techniques shall be developed to address transitions between
villages and incompatible land uses to minimize visual impacts.
Architectural colors for development adjacent to open space areas
shall incorporate natural tones and shades.
Overhead and night lighting shall be developed in accordance with the
County's Dark Sky ordinance in the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro
parcels. Street fIXtures shall utilize low glare bulbs (Le., amber light)
and be placed, only as necessary, near key intersections for security
purposes in accordance with the county policy.
. SPA plans and all implementing documents shall require design review for all
building and site plans to ensure compatible architectural styles, building
Page 22
male rials, building proportions, landscaping, streetscape, and signage
throughout each village.
, To mitigate impacts on visual resources associated with the resort, to be
located on the mesa north of Lower Otay Lake, and all other development
surrounding the eastern and southern sides of the lake, site plan and building
schematics shall be reviewed by the appropriate jurisdiction to ensure the
following measures are incorporated into the design:
Buildings shall be visually compatible in terms of height, scale, and
bulk and shall be set back from the edge of the mesa and composed
of low-rise structures, no more than three stories in height with an
occasional four story building.
Contour grading shall be used to transition graded slopes into the
natural topography of surrounding hillsides.
Manufactured slopes shall be revegetated upon completion of grading
activities.
Color schemes shall be limited to natural colors that blend with the
existing environment and surrounding hillsides.
Buildings shall maximize the use of non-reflective/non-glare surfaces.
To mitigate potential visual impacts as a result of the university site, the
following design guidelines shall be required of a private university and
strongly encouraged to be followed by a public university. (Because
development of a public university is within the jurisdiction of another agency,
these guidelines cannot be mandated.):
Building heights must be gradually reduced toward the Lower Otay
Lake shoreline.
Setbacks must be incorporated into the site plans to prevent the
university from dominating the views to the lake.
Non reflective/non-glare building material must be integrated into the
building whenever possible.
Design must be compatible with the architectural, landscape and
building treatments of the Olympic Training Center and other adjacent
developments.
Page 23
Clustering of buildings is required.
, To mitigate visual and policy impacts from the realignment of Otay Lakes
Road, a scenic roadway, a visual resources evaluation shall be conducted by
the Applicant once the actual roadway alignment and surrounding
development have been determined to identify key view corridors that would
be available to travelers. Significant views of Lower Otay Lake and the San
Ysidro foothills and mounlains shall be preserved by a combination of the
following measures:
Heights of buildings adjacent to the southern edge of the roadway shall
be limited to heights which enable views of the lake and surrounding
hillsides, or site planning adjacent to the southern edge of the roadway
shall enable view corridors of the lake and surrounding hillsides.
Viewing areas shall be established along the roadway corridor to allow
travelers to stop and enjoy the view above the lake.
The abandoned alignment shall be rehabilitated and open for
pedestrian and bicycle viewing access. Rest areas and vistas shall be
incorporated into the rehabilitated walkway or promenade.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As part of the Project the City is adopting a Resource Management Plan (RMP) that
defines minimum standards of biological preservation for project development. These
standards are also reflected in the findings as standards that the Projecl will achieve.
However, during the environmental review process required at the SPA level, "effects
upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which
were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report,
or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described
in the prior environmental impact report" shall be examined. (Pub Resources Code
section 21083.3) Feasible mitigation measures for effects that are "peculiar to the
site" or for any other reason defined by the statute shall be required pursuant to
CEQA.
Therefore, it should be recognized that the standards set forth herein are minimum
standards subject to increase after completion of more precise surveys, identification
of new information, change of species status and/or other factors.
Significant Effect: Sensitive uplands (including coastal sage scrub), wetlands, and
vernal pool habitat would be impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-1 through 4.9.4-
4]
Page 24
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final
Program EIR. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
there are no feasible measures at this level of planning to mitigate impacts below a
level of significance for impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Maritime Succulent
Scrub, Non Native Grasslands, Valley Needlegrass Grassland, Alkali Meadow and
Vernal Pools. As described in Ihe Statement of Overriding Considerations, however,
the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of
specific overriding considerations. Impacts to Woodlands, Floodplains Scrub,
Southern Willow Scrub, and Aquatic Freshwater Marsh, are mitigated to a level
below significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-8 through 4.9.4-14 and Table 4.2.4-8]
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)
The project is designed to preserve 70 percent of the coastal sage scrub onsite
including significant portions of CSS in the key areas identified below:
Salt Creek
Poggi and Wolf canyons
Rock Mountain and existing CSS on north side of Otay River Valley
Palches of CSS south of Lower Otay Lake and the San Diego Air
Sports Center
, 1,300 acres of identified high priority CSS areas on the Project site shall be
restored (see Figure 3.3-8 in the FPEIR). This restoration shall include a
minimum of 56 acres of maritime succulent scrub.
Coastal sage scrub restoration activities shall commence prior to or concurrent
with approval of the first SPA/Specific Plan within Otay Ranch and shall have
achieved success, based on performance standards described below and in
future detailed restoration plans, prior to or concurrent with any Project
approval for development resulting in significant impacts to coastal sage scrub
habitat occupied by California gnatcatchers.
The success of a specific coastal sage scrub restoration effort wiil be measured
by its ability to replace the habitat values lost, and directly by its ability to
Page 25
support native plant and wildlife species typical of coastal sage scrub. The
following are success criteria that shall be achieved:
The shrub layer within each revegetated patch will consist of at least
four site-typical nalive shrub species found on Table 3 (p. 142 of the
RMP), and the herb layer will consist of at least four native grass or
herb species.
The percent cover composition of the shrub and herb layers will be
determined by qualitative analysis of a target patch of vegetation. The
target patch may be a different sub-type of coastal sage scrub than that
being disturbed; the availability of the mitigation site will determine
which sub-type is most appropriate for restoration. Factors as
described hrein regarding current habitat quality of the to-be-disturbed
site will be measured, including total species number, number and
prevalence of exotic species, and shrub and herb density. Additionally,
factors contained in Chapter 4, specifically Table 4 of the RMP, shall
be achieved.
Wildlife use will be measured using birds. In a patch greater than 25 acres,
there will be use by al least five scrub-requiring bird species from the
following list of residenl species:
Bewick's wren
Cactus wren
California gnatcatcher
California quail
California thrasher
California towhee
Rufous-crowned sparrow
Rufous-sided towhee
Sage sparrow
Scrub jay
Wrentit
, Potential indirect impacts shall be mitigated by providing a minimum IOO-foot
buffer area around all preserved coastal sage scrub. No development,
landscaping or in wholesale clearing for fire management shall be allowed
within the buffer area. Seleclive' thinning for fire management shall be
allowed within the buffer.
Maritime Succulent Scrub (MSS)
Page 26
The project is designed to preserve 80 percent of the maritime succulent scrub
onsite.
Disjunctive stands shall be protected, especially where they support cactus
thickets and can logically be tied to a larger open space network.
, A minimum of 56 acres of maritime succulent shall be restored in conjunction
with the CSS restoration of 1,300 acres.
Floodplain Scrub. Soulhern Willow Scrub. and Aq,uatic/Freshwater Marsh
, The project is designed to retain 95 percent of the floodplain scrub, southern
willow scrub, and aquatic/freshwater marsh habitats.
Restoration/enhancement of disturbed wetland habitat shall occur in the Otay
River Valley within tamarisk/mulefat scrub habitat (See Figure 3.3-8 in the
FPEIR) to mitigate the remaining impacts.
, Impacts shall be substantially lessened through placement and design features
(Le., road location and infrastructure design) and the application of ratios as
defined by the appropriate public agencies. Development shall not occur until
compensation has been approved by the California Fish and Game through
the Streambed Alteration Agreement and/or Ihe Corps of Engineers 404
permit process, as required in accordance with their no net loss standard.
Non-native Grassland (NNG)
, The provision of a large open space system with open habitats and native
grasslands will substantially lessen this impact; however, not to a level below
significance.
Valley Needlegrass Grassland/Perennial Grassland (PG)
, The project is designed to preserve 25 percent of the valley needlegrass
grassland.
, High priority areas for preservation and restoration shall include the disturbed
perennial grassland contiguous within the K6 vernal pool complex and large
San Diego thorn-mint population north of Lower Otay Lake, and in selected
areas in the Otay River parcel to be determined by subsequent field transect
studies.
, A ratio of between 1:1 and 3:1 (restored to impacted habitat) shall be
required.
Page 27
Alkali Meadow
The project is designed to preserve 72 percent of alkali meadow.
, Impacts shall be substantially lessened through placement and design features
(i.e., road location and infrastructure design) and application of a ratio as
defined by the appropriate public agency, however, no less than 1:1 based on
habitat type and quality and whether pre-establish._lent of in-kind habitat has
occurred. Development shall not occur until compensation has been approved
by the California Fish and Game through the Streambed Alteration
Agreement and/or the Corps of Engineers 404 permit process, as required in
accordance with their no net loss statement.
, Potential indirect impacts shall be mitigated by providing a minimum 100-foot
width buffer area for all alkali meadow habitat. No development or
landscaping shall be allowed within the buffer areas. Impacts to alkali
meadow from hydrological alterations (including potential displacement of
native habitat with exotic and wetland species) shall be mitigated as described
herein. The water runoff from surrounding development shall be diverted and
controlled to retain the same amount and seasonality of water input existing
before development. A study shall be required at the SPA level of analysis
to determine existing hydrological conditions of streams containing alkali
meadow and what hydrological changes will occur to these streams after
development. The results of these studies shall be used to engineer the storm
drain system to achieve pre-impact hydrological conditions.
Vernal Pools
, The Project is designed to preserve 95 percent of large or high value vernal
pool complexes and preservation of 95 percent of all other vernal pools. The
vernal pool complexes on Otay Ranch that are large or of high value and
which require 100 percent preservation include J23-24, J25 on Otay Mesa and
130; K1 and K15+ in Otay River Valley; and R3 in Proctor Valley. K6, K8
and K12 are in a special study area to determine whether they should be
preserved.
The Project is designed to preserve that portion of vernal pool J29 containing
sensitive species, including a minimum 100-foot width buffer.
The allowed 5 percent impact to any of the lower quality vernal pool
complexes shall be mitigated by restoration/enhancement of damaged vernal
pool habitat within disturbed areas of the preserved vernal pool complexes so
that no net loss of vernal pool habitat value or area occurs. Mitigation shall
be consistent with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Page 28
Restoration shall include decompaction, sculpting and recontouring, and
seeding of basins disturbed by dirt roads, trails, or scraped areas. Vernal
pools shall also be enhanced through removal of exotic plant species.
Reintroduction of declining vernal pool species to suitable areas for
recolonization shall also be required. Impacts to vernal pool habitat shall
occur only after successful completion of the restoration program. Vernal
pool restoration shall achieve the following:
Restore the biota of individual, badly degraded vernal pools;
Increase diversity and frequency of native biota in all disturbed vernal
pools;
Preserve and enhance vernal pools on K-6 where little mouse tail
occurs;
Reduce the effect of alien plants;
Enhance the populations of sensitive species;
Stabilize soils on mounds and in watershed areas;
Provide research and educational opportunities.
. Potential indirect impacts shall be mitigated by providing a minimum lOO-foot
width buffer area around the vernal pools and their watershed. A larger
buffer area and implementalion of other measures e.g., fencing, educational
signage, diversion of urban runoff, shall be required as necessary to eliminate
adverse effects of drainage, trampling, vehicles, dumping, and collecting and
to provide sufficient resources to support appropriate pollinators and dispersal
agenls.
Woodlands (Coast Live Oak Woodland. Southern Live Oak Riparian Forest.
Southern Interior Cypress Forest. and Sycamore Alluvial Woodland)
The project is designed to preserve 100 percent of the southern interior
cypress forest, coast live oak woodland, and southern live oak riparian forest
and sycamore alluvial woodland.
. Potential indirect impacts shall be mitigated by providing a minimum 100-foot
width buffer area around the sensitive habitat, within which no development
or landscaping shall be allowed. Impacts to these woodlands from
hydrological allerations (including potential displacement of native woodland
habitats with exotic and wetland species) shall be avoided. The storm drain
Page 29
system shall be engineered to achieve the pre-impact hydrology for each of
Ihe woodland habitat types.
The following mitigation measures are rejected as infeasible:
. The project is designed to preserve 80 percent of the coastal sage scrub on
site. All existing CSS in Wolf and Poggi canyons and Salt Creek shall be
preserved.
Rationale: The Project preserves 70 percent of the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)
onsite rather than 80 percent, but also requires restoration of an additional 1,300
acres of CSS. Accordingly, the Project actually preserves and restores 85 percent of
the CSS, a percentage that exceeds the proposed mitigation measure for preservation.
The goal of the mitigation is, in short, met and, in fact, exceeded by combining
preserved habitat with restored habitat. Adopting the proposed mitigation standard
of 80 percent preservation is infeasible since it is effectively met by combined
preservation/restoration standard as described above and would require preservation
of an additional 1,300 acres of CSS within the Otay Ranch Project. This requirement
would result in two negative impacts: (1) possible elimination of areas designated
for low (L), low medium village (LMV) to medium high (MH) density development
on the Otay River parcel, and (2) elimination of areas available for potential active
recreation uses within the future Otay Valley Regional Park (FPEIR, Figure 3.3-8).
Assuming a density range of 2-4 dwelling units per acre and elimination of 1,300
acres of development on the Otay River parcel, development potential on the Otay
River parcel could be reduced by 2,200 up to 4,400 dwelling units. The area
available for active park uses in the Otay River Valley could be reduced by 200 acres
assuming 200 acres of additional Diegan coastal sage scrub restoration in the Otay
River Valley.
The reduction in development potential on the Otay River parcel associated with the
additional preservation of Diegan coastal sage scrub would adversely affect the
village concept incorporated in the land use plan for this parcel. The village concept
has been determined to have significant benefits with respect to community design,
reduced trip generating and encouragement of transit use. (See, Statement of
Overriding Considerations.) Additionally, the reduction in potential area for active
recreation uses in the Otay River Valley may adversely affect future plans for the
Otay Valley Regional park.
With regard to the area south and east of the lakes, the City Council delermines that
there is a need to balance housing types in the South County. To this end, the City
Council is desirous of providing estate housing opportunities as reflected by the
Project. The City Council further believes that the provision of a broad range of
housing types help to attract business opportunities to a particular area. There is
currently a vast amount of industrially zoned land in the City of San Diego on the
Page 30
Otay Mesa. A broad range of proximate housing opportuIDtIeS will assist III
achieving the jobs-housing balance sought in the City's General Plan.
No clearing for fire management shall be allowed within the buffer (required
for CSS).
Rationale: For safety purposes (fire control) it is necessary to do some selective
clearing. An absolule prohibition of clearing is infeasible because it does not address
this safety issue.
, Purchase of approximately 1,000 acres of coastal sage scrub offsite shall be
required to provide long-term protection to mitigate the impacts remaining
afler avoiding 80 percent of onsite habitat and restoring the high priority
areas. Offsite mitigation is necessary to reduce impacts to below a level of
significance and, Iherefore, shall not be used in lieu of avoidance or onsite
restoration. Offsite mitigation shall be purchased in areas identified by the
Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) and the Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) (if adopted) as key areas for a South
County biological preserve.
, Restoration of approximately 1,500 acres of coastal sage scrub within
identified high priority areas within Otay River parcel. Resloration of 1,300
acres of coastal sage scrub as described above, is found to be feasible
mitigation; however, restoration of the remaining 200 acres is found to be
infeasible.
. Restoration shall be completed and shown to be successful prior to impacts
to CSS of five or more acres. The restoration program shall consist of a four-
year experimental phase and an eight-year phase for full-scale restoration and
shall be initiated with the first SPA Because the restoration must be
successfully completed prior to impact to sensitive habitats, the first SPA shall
be located within non-sensitive habitats. The experimental phase of the
restoration program shall include a collection of biological data to refine the
locations for restoration, to obtain baseline informalion on adjacent
undisturbed habitats, and to develop the most effective restoration
methodologies. The full-scale restoration shall include a one-to-three year
period for site preparation (i.e. weed removal and planting) and a five-year
period for quantitative monitoring and assessment of restoration success.
Horticultural monitoring and remedial maintenance shall be ongoing. The
restoration must meet success criteria and be satisfactory to the appropriate
jurisdiction before impact to the original sensitive habitat can occur.
Rationale: The Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub mitigation measures requiring offsite
purchase of habitat; requiring 1,500 acres of restoration rather than 1,300 acres as
Page 31
the Project requires; requiring restoration and monitoring programs with four year
experimental phases and eight year restoration phases prior to impacts to five acres
of habitat; and requiring development reductions as described above, are rejected as
infeasible for a number of reasons. Most significantly, all of these mitigation
measures would significantly hamper implementation of the Resource Management
Plan (RMP). Implementation of Ihe RMP is dependent on funding from the first
phases of development to acquire a Preserve Owner/Manager and implemenl RMP
management, maintenance and restoration activities. Funds devoted to purchase of
1,000 acres of offsite habitat and implementation of a twelve year restoration
program on 1,500 acres prior to impacts to five acres of CSS would not be available
for RMP implementation activities. This is unreasonable given that (1) the Project
already sets aside 11,375 acres, or 50 percent of the Project's total acreage, in
managed open space preserve and, therefore, need not require an additional 1,000
acres of offsite mitigation nor an additional 200 acres of restoration, and (2) the
RMP already establishes stringent criteria for demonstrating successful coastal sage
scrub restoration efforts, but simply does not require an identified number of years
to demonstrate success. Successful restoration efforts may require a longer or shorter
period of time Ihan set forth in the mitigation measure. It is the success of the
program as measured by objective criteria that is critical, however, not the time
frame.
Reductions in approved developable areas would impair the ability of the Project to
obtain density sufficient to justify and support the transit-oriented design of the land
use plan and the concept of the "village" that underlies the land plan as discussed
above. Requiring 1,500 acres of CSS restoration rather than 1,300 as is required by
the Project, is infeasible in that an additional 200 acres of land is not available in the
preserve that would be suitable for restoration. The EIR and RMP indicate that
there is only a total of approximately 1,300 acres of degraded habitat available in the'
preserve having the qualities needed to support successful restoration. Even if
additional acreage could be identified it would most likely be located in the Otay
River Valley and would, if used for restoration, preclude identification of up to 400
acres of active park land for the regional park as the Project requires. For these
reasons, the recommended additional mitigation measures for Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub have been determined to be infeasible.
. The Project is designed to preserve 98 percent of the maritime succulent scrub
onsite.
Rationale: With regard to maritime succulent scrub preservation, the Project already
preserves 80 percent of the habitat on site. The additional increment of 50 acres
required by this measure (FPEIR, Figure 3.3-8) would eliminate areas designated for
residential development on the Otay River parcel. Consequently, assuming a density
range of 6-10 dwelling units per acre, development potential on the Otay River
parcel could be reduced by 100-200 dwelling units. This reduction in development
Page 32
potential, particularly when coupled with the development potential reductions
associated with additional preservation of the coastal sage scrub as described above,
would adversely affect the village concept incorporated in the land use plan for the
Otay River parcel. The cumulative effect of the additional coastal sage scrub and
maritime succulent scrub mitigation measures relating to habitat preservation and
restoralion would also hamper implementation of the RMP as described previously.
Maritime succulent scrub is located within an area that will be affected by Orange
Avenue and Olay Valley Road. Those roadways have been determined to be
necessary to the Project and are needed to obtain adequate levels of service.
Although the Project, through the RMP, calls for sensitive design of these roadways,
maritime succulent scrub may potentially be impacted. For these reasons, the
recommended additional mitigation measures for maritime succulent scrub have been
determined to be infeasible.
. The Project is designed to preserve 98 percent of Alkali Meadow. The
restoration of disturbed alkali meadow habitat in the Proctor Valley parcel
shall be required to offset the remaining impact.
Ralionale: The Project already preserves 72 percent of the total Alkali Meadow
habitat present on the Otay Ranch property. While much of the Alkali Meadow is
present in narrow drainages on the Project site which are likely to be preserved, a
broad Alkali Meadow drainage in the Proctor Valley area and Jamul Rural planning
Area 16 creates a conflict bolh for the development of rural estates and, more
particularly, the construction of Proctor Valley Road. Any relocation of Proctor
Valley Road would encroach into developable areas, thus creating a need for more
clustered development in Jamul Planning Area 16. As this is a transition village
buffering the rural town of Jamul, any clustering in density in this village is deemed
infeasible from a planning perspective in that it would create incompatible land uses
adjacent to Jamul.
, The Project is designed to preserve 50 percent of Valley Needlegrass on site.
, For Valley Needlegrass, a mitigation program including a four-year
experimental phase and an eight-year maintenance and monitoring program
shall be required.
Rationale: The Project already preserves 25 percent of the Valley Needle Grassland,
with addilional habitat included in a special study area, that might, ultimately, be
preserved as well. If, after analysis, this special study area is preserved, the total
preserved area would be approximately 36 percent of the habitat. The preservation
of the additional acreage of Valley Needle Grassland contiguous to the K6 vernal
pool area would adversely affect the ability to develop a resort in the southern
portion of the Proctor Valley parcel as designated in the Project. The resort site
Page 33
designated by the Project has been determined to be the most appropriate site for
a resort on the Otay Ranch property due to its separation from other potentially
incompalible land uses, its localion near the Olympic Training Center, its panoramic
views of the Otay lakes and its topography (Le., a mesa top elevated above the lake).
Preservation of the Valley Needle Grass would result in a fragmented and
significantly constrained site for the resort village rendering it infeasible from a
planning perspective.
With regard to the mitigation measure requiring a four year experimental phase of
restoration and an eight year maintenance monitoring program, the RMP already
includes stringent criteria for demonstrating successful restoration of this habitat. It
simply does not require a certain number of years to measure that success.
Successful restoration may take a shorter or longer period than called for by this
mitigation measure, but must ultimately meet the success criteria regardless of the
time frame. As such, a mitigation measure requiring a set number of years is
rejected as infeasible.
. 129 and J31 vernal pool complexes on Otay Mesa shall be preserved. Project
redesign also is required to preserve all of the vernal pools in the J31 complex
along the western edge of the proposed industrial development.
M2 vernal pool complex south of Poggi Canyon in Village 2 shall be
preserved. A park with protected natural open space to preserve this vernal
pool complex shall be established.
,
R1 and R2 vernal pool complexes in Proctor Valley shall be preserved.
Proposed development shall be pulled back at southwestern edge of Village
14 to preserve the R1 vernal pool complex and provide an adequate buffer to
the R2 complex.
The following vernal pools shall be preserved in their entirety: J29, 131, RI,
R2, M2, K6, K8, and K12.
,
,
Vernal pool restoration/enhancement shall include a four-year experimental
phase and an eight-year maintenance and monitoring period.
,
The allowed 2 percent impact to any of the lower quality vernal pool
complexes shall be mitigated by restoration/enhancement of damaged vernal
pool habitat within disturbed areas of the preserved vernal pool complexes
such that no net loss of vernal pool habitat value or area occurs.
,
Impacts to vernal pools is designed to preserve 100 percent of large or high
value vernal pool complexes and preservation of 98 percent of all other vernal
pools.
Page 34
Rationale: With regard to vernal pool mitigations, the proposed mitigation measures
for the vernal pool complexes on the Otay Mesa are found to be infeasible as
follows. While the Project does not preserve 100 percent of high quality pools and
98 percent of all other pools, it ~ preserve 95 percent of each, an incremental
difference of 5 percent in the case of high quality pools and 3 percent in the case of
all others. Much of this incremental difference is explained by the fact that the
Project preserves the sensitive portions of Ihe high quality pools such as 129, but
impacts the non-sensitive portions. Preservation of the remaining 5 percent of the
pools is deemed infeasible because (1) the preservation of the southern extent of J29
and 131 on Otay Mesa would significantly impair development of industrial uses on
Otay Mesa as designated by the Project. Inclusion of industrial uses within the plan
in this location has been considered to be compalible with olher planned industrial
developmenl on Otay Mesa and desirable with respect to the overall job/housing
balance desired for the Otay Ranch plan. Preservation of the southern extent of 131
and J29 would significantly impair achievement of this project objective in its most
logical location (Le., adjacent to the City of San Diego's existing industrial zoning on
the Otay Mesa); (2) the preservation of the M2 complex near Poggi Canyon would
preclude construction of Paseo Ranchero in its assumed alignment. This north-south
circulation road is of critical importance to the overall circulation system for the
Project and the success of the village concept. As Paseo Ranchero impacts the M2
pool complex, preservation is infeasible; (3) the K6, K8 and K12 vernal pools have
already been identified and placed by the Project in a special study area to determine
what, if anything, can be planned in these areas. No development can occur in these
areas pending future studies, but the Project has not technically committed to
"preserve" them yet. Identifying these pools as being "preserved" at this stage would
prematurely assume the conclusions of the future studies and would defeat the
purpose of placing them in a special study area. In the event that future analysis
determines that these pools need to be entirely or partially preserved, preservation
will be assured at future SPA level of analysis; (4) the R1 and R2 vernal pools are
directly impacted by residential development and the construction of Proctor Valley
Road. The road and adjacent development have intentionally been localed in the
valley and the bench supporting R2 pools so as to follow the existing alignment of
Ihe road and minimize encroachment of development into steep slopes and more
extensive, environmentally constrained areas elsewhere on the Proctor Valley parcel.
The RMP includes stringent criteria to demonstrate successful vernal pool restoration
and enhancement. Accordingly, the mitigation measure requiring a certain number
of years for such a program is rejected as infeasible. Successful restoration may
require a longer or shorter period of time than called for by the mitigation measure
and success will be demonstrated by conformance with the criteria not by strict
compliance with a specified number of years.
With regard to the measure requiring restoration/enhancement of lower quality
vernal pools such that no net loss of vernal pool habitat occurs, the mitigation
Page 35
measure is hereby made a requirement of the Project with regard to the 5 percent
impact to lower quality vernal pools. The incremental difference between the
allowed 5 percent and the 2 percent cited in the mitigation measure is infeasible for
the reasons cited above.
. . .
Significant Effect: State-listed endangered plant species would be impacted.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-4 - 4.9.4-5]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen, however, not to a level below significance, the significant
environmental effects as identified in the Final Program EIR to the following species:
San Diego button-celery. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines there are no feasible miligation measures at this level of planning to
mitigate impacts below a level of significance for the remainder of the above listed
species. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of
specific overriding considerations. Impacts to thorn-mint, Otay tarplant, willowy
monardella are mitigated to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-14 through 4.9.4-17 and Table 4.2.4-9]
, Updated sensitive plant surveys shall be conducted to quantify acreage of
occupied habitat and plant densities or population sizes for each SPA.
. The project shall be designed to obtain the species-specific preservation
standards defined below.
. Indirect impacts to preserved populations of all sensitive plant species shall
be avoided or minimized by implemenling the following measures:
Buffers (Le., setbacks from developed, landscaped, or other use areas)
shall be provided around the occupied and/or critical habitat (e.g.,
watershed for vernal pools, floodplain or drainage for willowy
monardella) for all preserved populations. Buffers shall be of
adequate size and configuration to eliminate adverse effects of
trampling, vehicles, dumping, collecting, and adjacent construction, and,
in conjunction with the preserved habitat, shall include sufficient
resources to support appropriate pollinators. Buffer widlhs shall be a
minimum of 50 feet_ Buffer widths shall be determined on a species-
Page 36
specific basis and will be dependent on the sensitivity of the species,
the susceptibility/tolerance of the species and/or its habitat to
disturbance, and the adjacent land use.
For sensitive species occurring within seasonal streams, the water
runoff from surrounding development shall be diverted and controlled
to retain the same amount and seasonality of water input existing
before development. A study to determine existing hydrological
conditions and a hydrological analysis of the slreams within the
proposed development that contain sensitive plant species shall be
required at the SPA level of analysis. The results of these studies shall
be used to engineer the storm drain system to reflect pre-impact
hydrological conditions over the long term. Species occurring in
intermittent streams for which the above mitigation shall apply include
willowy monardella, Otay manzanita, Orcutt's brodiaea, summer-holly,
Tecate cypress, San Diego sagewort, Orcutt's bird-beak, San Diego
marsh-elder, spiny rush, Campo clarida, San Miguel savory, and
Engelmann oak.
A Fire Management Plan shall be developed in accordance with the
RMP to protect and appropriately manage populations of sensitive
plant species.
San Diego Thorn-mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia)
. The project is designed to preserve the largest San Diego thorn-mint
population and 95% of the overall species onsite, including watershed, any
associated critical habitat and a minimum of a 100-foot width buffer zone.
. A clay soil lens suitable for San Diego Ihorn-mint that is not presently
occupied by this species shall be used for the mitigation area. If no such area
is available as determined by a plant ecologist and a soil scientist during the
experimental phase of the mitigation program, acquisition and long-term
protection of an offsite population shall be required.
San Diego BUlton-celery (Eryf!(:ium aristulatum var. CJarishii)
, The project is designed to preserve 95 percent of species onsite and to
preserve 100 percent of species where occurring with other vernal pool
indicator species.
Vernal pools shall be restored and the species shall be re-introduced into
disturbed or historical vernal pools.
Page 37
Otay Taq>lant (Hemizonia coniu~ens)
The project is designed to preserve 80 percent of the species.
. The species shall be introduced in areas with appropriate soils, including seed
salvage and nursery propagation to increase seed sowing.
Willo\\l)' Monardella
. The project is designed to preserve 100 percent of the species on site.
Water input shall be regulated to prevent significant indirect impacts from
decreased or increased water flow from the development.
, The intact population shall be monitored by 5 years to assure that indirect
impacts (trampling, dumping and hydrological alterations) of the development
do not jeopardize the intact population. Remedial measures (restoration,
trash removal and fencing repair) must be implemented to assure preservation
of the intact population.
. . .
Significant Effect: Second, third, and fourth priority plant species would be impacted.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-4 through 4.9.4-5]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
Final Program EIR. With the exception of the San Diego Goldenstar and Munz's
sage, all impacts to second, third and fourth priority plant species are mitigated to
a level below significance. With regard to San Diego Goldenstar and Munz's sage,
implementation of the mitigation measures substantially lessen impacts, however, not
to a level below significance. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3) there are no other
feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As
described in the Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of certain overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-14 through 4.9.4-17 and Table 4.2.4-9]
, Sensitive plant surveys shall be conducted 10 quantify acreage of occupied
habitat and plant densities or population sizes for each SPA
Page 38
. The project is designed to achieve the following species-specific preservation
standards.
Indirect impacts shall be prevented through provision of buffers, manipulation
of hydrological conditions, and a fire management plan.
. Indirect impacts to preserved populations of all sensitive plant species shall
be avoided or minimized by implementing the following measures:
Buffers (i.e., setbacks from developed, landscaped, or other use areas)
shall be provided around the occupied and/or critical habitat (e.g.,
watershed for vernal pools, floodplain or drainage for willowy
monardella for all preserved populations. Buffers shall be of adequate
size and configuration to eliminate adverse effects of trampling,
vehicles, dumping, collecting, and adjacent construction, and, in
conjunction with the preserved habitat, shall include sufficient
resources to support appropriate pollinators. Buffer widths shall be a
minimum of 50 feet for second, and third priority species and 25 feet
for fourth priority species. Buffer widths shall be determined on a
species-specific basis and will be dependent on the sensitivity of the
species, the susceplibility /tolerance of the species and/or its habitat to
disturbance, and the adjacent land use.
For sensitive species occurring within seasonal streams, the water
runoff from surrounding development shall be diverted and controlled
to retain the same amount and seasonality of water input existing
before development. A study to determine existing hydrological
conditions and a hydrological analysis of the streams within the
proposed development that contain sensitive plant species shall be
required at the SPA level of analysis.
Species occurring in intermittent streams for which the above
mitigation would apply include willowy monardella, Otay manzanita,
Orcutt's brodiaea, summer-holly, Tecate cypress, San Diego sagewort,
Orcutt's bird-beak, San Diego marsh-elder, spiny rush, and Campo
clarida, San Miguel savory, and Engelmann oak.
A Fire Management Plan shall be developed in accordance with the
RMP to protect and appropriately manage populations of sensitive
plant species.
Page 39
Otay Manzanita (Arctostavhvlos otavensis)
, The project is designed to preserve at least 80 percent of the species onsite,
including populations in northern Jamul Mountains;
, Impacted planls shall be propagated and re-established to suitable slopes.
Orcutt's Brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii)
, The project is designed to preserve 75 percent of the species onsite.
, Water input shall be regulated to prevent significant indirect impacts from
increased or decreased water flow from development; the buffer requirements
and pre-impact hydrological studies and design of low-flow diversion system
described above shall be implemented.
. A five-year monitoring of intact population shall be required to:
Identify significant indirect impacts of development (e.g., trampling,
dumping, hydrological alterations); and
Implement remedial measures (e.g., restoration, trash removal, repair
fencing etc.).
Variegated Hasseanthus (Dudl~a varie.!{ata)
, The project is designed to preserve 75 percent of the species onsite, including
representative population(s) from each of the three parcels; and
Impacted plants shall be transplanted to appropriate habitat and clay soils
within same parcel.
San Diego Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens)
.
The project is designed to preserve 75 percent of the species onsite, including
representative populations from each of the three parcels; and
,
~mpacted plants shall be transplanted to appropriate habitat within same
parcel.
San Diego Goldenstar (Muilla clevelandii)
Page 40
, The project is designed to preserve 54 percent of known point occurrences for
the species onsite, including represenlative populations from each of the three
parcels; and
, Corms and soil shall be salvaged and species shall be introduced in
appropriate soils and habitat in protected open space within the same parcel.
San Diego Navarretia (Nava"etia fossalis)
, The project is designed to preserve 100 percent of the presently known
locations of the species and retaining all of the 129 pools complex with
Navarretia.
Snake Cholla (OtJuntia panyi var. sertJentina)
, The project is designed to preserve 80 percent of the species on site; and
Impacted plants shall be transplanted to restored coastal sage scrub in
protected open space.
Narrow-leaved Nightshade (Solanum tenuilobatum)
. The project is designed to preserve 75 percent of the species on site; and
, The species shall be re-established in disturbed areas with suitable soils or
introduced in suitable open space.
Delicate Clarkia (Clarida delicata)
, The project is designed to preserve 75 percent of the species on site and to
avoid all impacts to the population in the canyon in northeastern Jamul
Mountains.
Orcutt's Bird-beak (Cordvlanthus orcuttianus)
. The project is designed to preserve 75 percent of the species on site and to
avoid all impacts to population in the canyon south of the San Diego Air
Sport Center. To avoid indirect impacts in the canyon south of the San Diego
Air Sports Center all canyon slopes shall also be included in open space.
San Diego Marsh-elder ([va hqyesiana)
.
The project is designed to retain 75 percent of the species on site; and
Page 41
The species shall be revegetated at a 2:1 ratio in intermittent drainages that
have been disturbed;
. Container plants shall be propagated with seed collected from Ihe Project site;
, The species shall be included in restoration of alkali meadow habitat.
Munz's Sage (Salvia munzii)
The project is designed to preserve 46 percent of point occurrences on site for
the species.
Munz's sage-dominated coastal sage scrub shall be restored on the Project site
at a 2:1 ratio using seed and container plants.
Greene's Ground-cherry (Phvsalis l7eenei)
. Additional survey work shall be conducted to verify presence of this species;
and
, If present, the project shall be designed to preserve at least 50 percent of the
species; and
, The species shall be re-established or introduced into suitable habitat, using
seed salvage and nursery propagation to increase seed source.
San Diego County Stipa (Stipa die~oel1.'iis)
, The project is designed to preserve at least 75 percent of the species on site;
and
, The species shall be re-established in disturbed areas or introduced in suitable
open space; the re-establishment shall include seed salvage, propagation of
nursery plugs, and planting of plugs and seed.
San Diego Sunflower (Vi~J.dera ladniata)
The project is designed to retain at least 75 percent of the species on site; and
Viguiera-dominated coastal sage scrub shall be restored at a 2:1 ratio using
seed from the ranch.
Page 42
California Adder's-tongue Fern (ODhio~/ossum /usitanicum ssp. califomicum)
, The project is designed to preserve at least 50 percent of the species onsite.
Coulter's Malilija Popp,y (Romneya coulteri)
. The project is designed to preserve 50 percent of the species on site.
The following mitigation measures are found to be infeasible:
With regard to San Diego Thorn-mint, the species shall be introduced on
appropriate soils on the Project site; the creation of artificial populations shall
involve seed salvage of impacted population; nursery propagation to increase
seed; and sowing of seed; a mitigation including a 2-3 year experimental phase
and a 5-6 year maintenance and monitoring program.
Rationale: Successful restoration may require a longer or shorter period of time
than called for by the mitigation measure and success will be demonstrated by
conformance with the criteria not by simple compliance with a specific number of
years.
, With regard to San Diego Button-celery and Otay Tarplant, a mitigation plan
including a 2.3 year experimental phase and 5-8 year maintenance and
monitoring proposal shall be required.
Rationale: Successful restoration may require a longer or shorter period of time
than called for by the mitigation measure and success will be demonstrated by
conformance with the criteria not by simple compliance with a specific number of
years.
, With regard to San Diego Button-celery, preservation of 98 percent of species
onsite. Proposed industrial development on Otay Mesa shall be pulled back
to the south to preserve all vernal pools with this species.
Rationale: The Project requires preservation of 95 percent of the onsite population
of San Diego Button-celery including hundred of plants in the J23, 124 and 125
vernal pool areas. Achievement of the 98 percent to 100 percent standard outlined
in the FPEIR would require preservation of the four additional vernal pools scattered
about the southern extent of the 130 and 131 + vernal pool complexes on Otay Mesa.
These areas do not have intact mima mound topography. Since, as described
previously in these Findings, preservation of the southern extent of 130 and 131 +
would render infeasible industrial development on Otay Mesa, this mitigation
measure has been delermined to be infeasible.
Page 43
Preservation of 75 percent of Munz's sage.
Rationale: Munz's sage is common on the Proctor Valley parcel. The Project
requires preservation of 46% of onsite Munz's sage populations; this standard will
ensure the continued survival of the species on Ihe Ranch. Achievement of a 75
percent standard would require significant changes to the land use plan for central
Proctor Valley. The land use plan for central Proctor Valley calls for development
of a self-contained village that would be distinctly separate fro..l the estate
development in northern Proctor Valley and the resort village to the south.
Elimination of significant portions of the development in central Proctor Valley to
preserve Munz's sage would render development of a self-contained village in central
Proctor Valley infeasible. This mitigation measure has therefore been determined
to be infeasible.
. With regard to Greene's Ground Cherry, if present, preservation of75 percent
of the species on site.
Rationale: The Project will preserve 50 percent of the points of occurrence of this
species rather than 75 percent required by EIR mitigation measures. Impacts to this
species likely will occur due to the construction of Hunte Parkway, a proposed
circulation element road, required to serve the Project. Although it may be possible
to avoid impacts in the roadway alignment to Greene's ground-cherry, site specific
biological and engineering studies have not yet been completed for the roadway
alignment. Given the level of information available at this time, preservation of 75
percent of the onsite population of Greene's ground-cherry has been determined to
be infeasible.
In addition, it should be noted that Greene's ground-cherry (Physalis greenei) is no
longer recognized as a separate taxa and has been determined to be the same taxon
as Physalis crassifolia. Physalis crassifolia is widespread throughout Southern
California, Arizona and New Mexico. Loss of two of the four points of observation
for this species on Otay Ranch will not jeopardize the survival of this species.
, Seventy-five percent of San Diego Goldenslar shall be preserved.
Rationale: The Project will preserve 54 percent of the points of occurrence of San
Diego golden-star rather than the 75% required by EIR mitigation measures.
Impacts to this species will likely occur due to development within Central Proctor
Valley and south and east of the lakes on the San Ysidro parcel. Central Proctor
Valley has been planned as an integrated village as part of the Otay Ranch land use
plan and development south and east of the lakes has been determined by
decisionmakers to be desirable since it would provide high-end estate housing in the
South County area. While it may be possible to preserve additional points of
occurrence of San Diego golden-star within Central Proctor Valley and south and
Page 44
east of the lakes as part of detailed Project plans, given the need to provide a well
integrated land use plan for these areas, and the level of infonnation available at this
time, preservation of 75 percent of the onsile populalion of Muilla clevelandii has
been determined to be infeasible.
, For all stated listed endangered plant species, a mitigation plan including a
2-3 year experimental phase and 5-8 year maintenance and monitoring
program shall be required. With regard to second, third and fourth priority
plant species, restoration or transplantation shall include a 2 - 4 year
experimental phase and a 5-8 year maintenance and monitoring period as
appropriate for each species mitigation program.
Rationale: Of the seven state or federally listed plants on the Project site four are
being preserved in their entirety (100 percent of willowy monardella, slender-pod
caulanthus, Mexican flannel bush and Dunn's mariposa lily), two are achieving a 95
percent preservation standard with transplantation/reintroduction proposed (San
Diego button celery and San Diego thorn-mint) and one is achieving 80 percent
preservation standard with impacts considered to be mitigated to a level below
significance. For the plan species for which 100 percent preservation is being
achieved, no mitigation in the fonn of transplantation is necessary. For Otay
tarplant, since the 80 percent preservation standard has been determined to reduce
impacts 10 below a level of significance, it has been determined that a transplantation
program is not necessary. For San Diego thorn-mint, the mitigation measures listed
on page 34 that have been determined to be feasible are regarded as sufficient. For
San Diego button-celery, transplantation/restoration techniques will be developed as
part of the vernal pool management plan to be prepared for the Phase 2 RMP.
Given these factors, 7-11 year experimental and maintenance and monitoring
programs have been determined to be unnecessary.
. . .
Significant Effect: Impact to Least Bell's vireo, tricolored blackbird, and the
southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through 4.9.4-7]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-17 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.9.4-2]
Leasl Bells' Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
(Em Didonax (railli ex(imus)
Page 45
, One hundred percent (or approved Habitat Conservation Plan/San Diego
Multiple Species Conservation Program (HCP /MSCP) standards) of occupied
habitat for these species shall be preserved.
, Prior to the first SPA containing Least Bell's habitat, the Applicant shall
conduct a focused study of Least Bell's vireo distribution and abundance along
Otay River and Dulzura Creek adjacent to the San Ysidro parcel. Prior to
the first SPA containing Southwestern Willow Flycatcher's habitat, the
Applicant shall conduct a focused study of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher's
distribution and abundance along Otay River and Dulzura Creek adjacent to
the San Y sidro parcel. Direcl impacts from construction or expansion of the
following roads to both species shall be assessed:
Otay Valley Road in Otay River Valley
Heritage Road crossing of Otay River
La Media Road crossing of Otay River
SR-l25 crossing of Otay River
Otay Lakes Road at DuIzura Creek
Aha Road crossing of Otay River (County Final Plan, only)
Any additional roads that cross or run adjacent to Otay River or
Dulzura Creek that have the potential to significantly impact Least
Bell's vireo.
, A mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented for any direct impacts
from road construction. Measures in the plan shall include one or more of
the following as required to reduce the impact below a level of significance:
The project's roadways shall be designed to avoid all direct impacts to
occupied vireo habitat. Potential realignments may include:
. Otay Valley Parkway.
. La Media Road - Design to avoid occupied habitat.
. Otay Lakes Road.
Riparian habitat shall be restored or enhanced along the Otay River
Valley in exchange for impacting unoccupied potential vireo habitat.
Page 46
, Prior to approval of the first SPA containing Least Bell's Vireo, the Applicant
shall conduct a study of indirect impacts (see below) on this species from
proposed development and roads, effects of a village center and residential
housing on the Dulzura Creek Least Bell's vireo population, the effects of the
proposed Otay Valley Regional Park on the Otay River population, and the
effects of roads on both populations. Evaluation of impacts shall be based on
the baseline data in the Final Program EIR and from current distribution and
abundance data obWiled from surveys conducted at the SPA level. A partial
listing of potential indirect development and road impacts which shall be
considered are:
Human activity and disturbance.
Noise impacts from roads and adjacent development. A noise study
shall be conducted to determine noise impacts from roads adjacent to,
within, or near vireo habitat, and from development adjacent to vireo
habitat (e.g., at Dulzura Creek).
Introduced predators such as cats.
Increased potential for brown-headed cowbird parasitism.
Construction noise, dust, and disturbance.
Invasion of non-native vegetation (Le., Eucalyptus species, Arundo
species, etc.)
Artificial lighting from developed areas.
Recreation related impacts.
Habitat degradation and fragmentation.
Changes in existing water quality and quantity which could negatively
affect riparian habitat.
. Prior to approval of the first SPA containing Southwestern Willow Flycatcher,
the Applicant shall conduct a study of indirect impacts (see below) on this
species from proposed development and roads, effects of a village center and
residenlial housing on the Dulzura Creek Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
population, the effects of the proposed Otay Valley Regional Park on the
Otay River population, and the effects of roads on both populations.
Evaluation of impacts shall be based on the baseline data in the Final
Program EIR and from current distribution and abundance data obtained
Page 47
from surveys conducted at the SPA level. A partial listing of potential
indirect development and road impacts which shall be considered are:
Human activity and disturbance.
Noise impacts from roads and adjacent development. A noise study
shall be conducted to determine noise impacts from roads adjacenl to,
within, or near vireo habitat, and from development adjacent to vireo
habitat (e.g., at Dulzura Creek).
Introduced predators such as cats.
Increased potential for brown-headed cowbird parasitism.
Construction noise, dust, and disturbance.
Invasion of non-native vegetation (i.e., Eucalyptu.5 species, Arundo
species, etc.)
Artificial lighting from developed areas.
Recreation related impacts.
Habitat degradation and fragmentation.
Changes in existing water quality and quantity which could negatively
affect riparian habitat.
, If it is determined during the environmental review for SPA plans that
indirect impacts from development or roads are significant, a mitigation plan
shall be prepared and implemented at the SPA level. This mitigation shall
be incorporated into the general mitigation plan. Mitigation measures shall
be based on approved standards by the appropriate public agency(ies) in
effect at the time of the SPA development. Mitigation shall parallel with
recommendations in the Resource Management Plan (e.g., in regards to
lighting, plantings allowed in landscaping adjacent to occupied habitat, etc.).
At a minimum, the following measures shall be incorporated into the
mitigation plan:
Restrict human access to occupied habitat in the breeding season
(March 15 to August 31).
Page 48
Require a minimum of a 100 foot biological and an adjoining 100 foot
planting buffer along the edges of occupied, potential, and restored
habitats.
As necessary, increase open space easements to buffer noise impacts
pending recommendations of the noise study.
Implement an introduced predator management program.
Implement a brown-headed cowbird management program.
Employ measures to reduce construction impacts, including avoiding
construction adjacent to or within occupied habitat during the breeding
season (March 15 to August 31).
Limit landscaping adjacent to occupied habitat (within the buffer
zones) to native vegetation.
Restrict the use of invasive, introduced plantings in landscaping
adjacent to the buffer zones.
Restrict lighting close to occupied habitat.
Maintain and enhance where appropriate the existing water quality and
quantity in occupied, potential, and restored habitats for this species.
, Prior to approval of the first SPA, a management plan in conjunction with the
RMP shall be prepared and implemented for this species. The species
management plan shall include provisions for periodic monitoring of
populations within the preserve as well as any significant onsite populations
not included within the Management Preserve. The species management plan
shall include appropriate management techniques approved by the resource
agencies to mainlain and, where feasible, to enhance existing onsite
population(s).
Tricolored ~Jackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
The project is designed to provide one hundred percent (or approved
HCP /MSCP standards) of nesting habilat for this species.
,
At the SPA level, the applicant shall conduct focused breeding surveys for this
species in appropriale habitat.
Page 49
. Direct and indirect impacts shall be assessed to breeding habitat from
proposed development and roads. This includes assessing noise impacts from
any proposed road alignments adjacent to preserved habitat.
, Preserve in natural open space all occupied and restored breeding habitat,
and where feasible, potential breeding habitat.
. Include within the Ma._agement Preserve all preserved habitat.
. To mitigate for impacts to potential habitat, restore or enhance suitable
breeding marsh habitat along the Otay River.
. Avoid construction or roads and other development during the breeding
season (March 1 to August 31).
Preserve in open space buffer zones around occupied, potential, and restored
habitats. The minimum width of the buffer zone shall be determined at the
SPA Level in conjunction with, and upon the approval, of the resource
agencies.
, Mitigation for foraging habitat loss shall be done in conjunction with
mitigation for raptor grassland foraging habitat.
, Prepare and implement a management plan for Ihis species.
. . .
Significant Effect: Cactus Wren and California Gnalcalcher habitat would be
impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4.5 through 4.9.4-7]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final
Program EIR. Since the preservation standard for these species is 100 percent in
lieu of an approved HCP /MSCP, the impact remains significant and unmitigable
without major redesign. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines there are no other feasible measures which would mitigate the impact,
however as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council
has determined that Ihis impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-17 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.9.4-2].
Page 50
Cactus Wren (Campylorhvnchus bnmneicauillus)
The Project is designed to achieve the following standards:
No loss of viable Cactus wren populations;
Preserve adequate habitat within the Preserve to maintain no loss of
viable Cactus wren populations.
, At the SPA level, the Applicant shall reassess impacts to this species using
detailed development plans, baseline data from the Final Program EIR, and
updated distribution and abundance data from SPA level surveys.
The Applicant shall conduct focused surveys of appropriate habitat at
the SPA level to determine abundance and distribution of this species
prior to development. Territories shall be delineated for those
individuals/pairs which occur or could occur within or adjacent to
proposed development and roads.
The Applicant shall evaluate direct impacts to territories of individuals
and pairs from proposed development. Impacts to locations of
pairs/individuals for which habitat has been eliminated since the start
of the environmental documentation process shall also be evaluated.
Areas of CSS/MSS habitats that shall be enhanced or restored include:
. Agricultural lands on the mesa and in ravines bordering the
west side of Salt Creek Canyon.
. Agricultural lands, non-native grassland (NNG), and disturbed
CSS habitats along the north slope of the Otay River Valley
and as appropriate along Ihe bottom of the valley.
. Agricultural lands and NNG bordering and within Wolf Canyon,
bordering and within Poggi Canyon, and along the shallow
r.avine identified as a gnatcatcher and cactus wren corridor
linking the two canyons.
. NNG within and adjacent to Johnson Canyon.
Unavoidable impacts to occupied habitat shall be mitigated through
habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement of disturbed habitats.
Impacts to high quality potential habitat and to sighting locations for
which habitat has been eliminated since the start of the environmental
Page 51
documentation process for the Final Program EIR shall also be
mitigated through habitat creation, resloration, or enhancement.
Mitigation ratios for occupied and potential habitat shall be based on
accepted standards of the appropriate public agency at the time SPA
development occurs, and shall be set through consultation with, and
approval from, the resource agencies.
Creation, restoration, and enhancement 0: disturbed habitat as
mitigation for occupied habitat, shall occur prior to impacting the
occupied habitat. A focused study shall document occupancy and
breeding of the impacted species in the created, restored, or enhanced
habitat before the occupied habitat can be impacted.
Prepare and implement a long-term management plan for this species.
Direct impacts shall be assessed from proposed road construction at the SPA
level. Road alignments to be considered include:
Otay Valley Road along the northern slope of the Otay River Valley.
Hunte Parkway along the west side of Salt Creek Canyon.
Paseo Ranchero Road across Poggi Canyon.
East Orange Avenue through Poggi Canyon.
SR-125 alignment on the north slope of the Otay River Valley and
through Johnson Canyon.
Aha Road through Lower Salt Creek.
Palomar Street north of Poggi Canyon.
La Media Road at the north slope of the Otay River Valley.
Any other proposed roads with potential to impact occupied or
potential habitat.
, A miligation plan shall be prepared and implemented for significant direct
impacts to the species from road construction.
Alignments shall be redesigned to achieve Project standards. Potential
realignments may include:
Page 52
. Otay Valley Road
. Hunte Parkway
. Paseo Ranchero Road
. East Orange Avenue
All roads crossing gnatcatcher and cactus wren corridors shall conform
to the recommendations of the Otay Ranch Wildlife Corridor Study.
California Gnatcatcher (PolioDtila califomica)
The Project is designed 10 preserve 70 percent of occupied California
gnatcatcher habitat on site, to restore an additional 15 percent of California
gnatcatcher habitat and to preserve 52 percent of documented pairs and
individuals.
Impacts in the following areas shall be assessed and Project standards
achieved:
Olay Lakes Road through the Jarnul Mountains.
Proctor Valley Road through the disjunct L-shaped parcel.
. . .
The following mitigation measures were rejected as infeasible:
. The Applicant shall develop and implement a mitigation plan to avoid,
reduce, and otherwise mitigate direct impacts from proposed development to
a level below significance. This SPA level mitigation plan shall include at a
minimum the following measures:
Redesign to avoid development impacts to occupied habitat.
Unrnitigable coastal sage scrub/maritime succulent scrub (CSS/MSS)
areas for this species that shall be preserved as natural open space are:
. Salt Creek drainage - preserve entire drainage from rim to rim
and any adjacent or nearby areas with CSS/MSS.
. Poggi and Wolf Canyons - preserve both canyons from rim to
rim and any adjacent or nearby areas with CSS/MSS.
Page 53
. Existing CSS on Rock Mountain and all existing CSS/MSS on
the north slope of the Otay River Valley
, Preservation of all occupied CSS within Jamul Rural Planning Area 16.
, Preservation of all occupied CSS on the southwest slope of the Jamul
Mountains and south and east of Upper Otay Lake.
. Preservation of all CSS and any other occupied habitat south of Lower Otay
Lake and Dulzura Creek.
. Preservation of 100 percent of the occupied habitat of the California
gnatcatcher.
Rationale: The proposed mitigation measures require preservation of 100 percent
of the occupied habitat of the California gnatcatcher, including all occupied CSS
within Jamul Rural Planning Area 16, on the southwest slope of the Jamul mountains
and south and east of Upper Otay Lake, in the Salt Creek drainage area, Poggi and
Wolf Canyons, Rock Mountain, the north slope of the Otay River Valley and south
of the Lower Otay Lake and Dulzura Creek. This is infeasible for a number of
reasons.
First, it should be noted that the Project requires a minimum of 85 percent of
existing coastal sage scrub habilat to be preserved and restored. This means that
only 15 percent of the habitat is actually impacted. Even if all occupied coastal sage
were preserved, it would not result in preservation of 100 percent of the current
population. indeed, there are significant patches of coastal sage that, even if
preserved, would -- by virtue of surrounding development -- become isolated,
fragmented pockets of sage that would ultimately succumb to the intrusion of the
surrounding human environment, resulting in a loss of gnatcatcher population. What
Ihe Project does, instead, is to preserve comprehensive, integraled open space
systems in a maintained preserve, rather than isolated patches of habitat. If all
occupied habitat is preserved, densities would be reduced such that there would not
be a RMP; resulting in open space, but not managed open space with restoration,
enhancement and protection functions.
Preservation of all occupied habilat, including those areas specifically identified in
the mitigation measures, would result in significant, fundamental changes to the
overall land plan and the goals of that plan. The development south and east of the
lakes on the San Ysidro parcel would be eliminated. The record reflects that the
development of this community as a large lot, rural estate-type, "premium"
community is an important objective of the project. This particular location offers
a unique opportunity for such a community. The plan proposes pockets of
developable land interspersed among more sensitive habitat. The large estate lots
Page 54
will have panoramic views of the lake and will be surrounded by the open space of
the preserve, as well as by the extensive BLM property immediately adjacent to the
south. The decisionmakers have determined that a broad range of housing types is
beneficial to the Project and to the Southbay.
With regard to the occupied habitat on the southwest slope of the Jamul Mountains
and south and east of the Upper Otay Lake, this area, again, achieves one of the
principal objectives of the project - Le., the development of a resort village. This
property was determined to be uniquely situated to achieve this goal.
Topographically, it is located on an elevated mesa top looking out over the Otay
Lake. Geographically, it is sufficiently isolated from land uses that would be
incompatible with resort-oriented development, yet proximate enough to surrounding
uses such as the Olympic Training Center, the lakes and the eastern urban center,
thus creating synergism between the different land uses. Given this unique location
and features for the resort, it is infeasible in this area to preserve 100 percent of the
occupied habitat. Finally, preservation of all occupied gnatcatcher habitat would
have significant impacts on the ability to plan road systems (SR 125, Orange Avenue,
Paseo Ranchero, Otay Valley Road, La Media); the recreational uses in Poggi and
Wolf Canyons; the university and the overall densities and village concept.
Indeed, the proposed mitigation measures would require an additional 1,300 acres
wilhin the Otay Ranch for Diegan coastal sage scrub preservation and restoration
which would have two results: (1) possible elimination of areas designated for low
(L), low medium village (LMV) to medium high (MH) density development on the
Otay River parcel, and (2) elimination of areas set aside for pOlential active
recreation uses within the future Otay Valley Regional Park (FPEIR, Figure 3.3-8).
Assuming a density range of 2-4 dwelling units per acre and elimination of 1,100
acres of development on the Otay River parcel, development potential on the Otay
River parcel could be reduced by 2,200 up to 4,400 dwelling units. The area
available for active park uses in the Otay River Valley could be reduced by 200 acres
assuming 200 acres of additional Diegan coastal sage scrub restoration in the Otay
River Valley.
The reduction in development potential on the Otay River parcel associated with Ihe
additional preservation of Diegan coastal sage scrub would adversely affect the
village concept incorporated in the land use plan for this parcel. The village concept
has been determined to have significant benefits with respect to community design,
reduced trip generating and encourage of transit use. (See, Statement of Overriding
Considerations)
The reduction in potential area for active recreation uses in the Otay River Valley
may adversely affect future plans for Otay Valley Regional park. Specific effects
cannot be determined until plans for the park have progressed further.
Page 55
Finally, with regard to the area southeast of the lakes, The City Council determines
that there is a need to balance housing types in the South County. To this end, the
City Council is desirous of providing estate housing opportunities as reflected by the
Project. The City Council further believes that the provision of a broad range of
housing types help to attract business opportunities to a particular area. There is
currently a vast amount of industrially zoned land in the City of San Diego on the
Otay Mesa. Proximate housing opportunities will assist in achieving the jobs-housing
balance sought in the City's General Plan.
Preservation of 100 percent of the occupied habitat and points of occurrence
of the cactus wren.
Rationale: Preservation of 100 percent of the cactus wren occupied habitat is also
infeasible. While most of the significant concentrations of the cactus wren will b
preserved (e.g., Salt Creek) some of the habitat -- most notably in Poggi Canyon n
could be impacted by infrastructure necessary for the Project to work. Orange
Avenue, for example, is a circulation element road that is vital to the circulation
system for the Project. The extension of Orange Avenue as it is already constructed
offsite will take the road through Poggi Canyon and necessarily impact cactus wren
habitat. Additionally, the Project must comply with the mitigation measure requiring
no loss of viable cactus wren populations and requiring that adequate habitat be
included in the preserve to maintain no loss of viable cactus wren populations.
. . .
Significant Effect: Riverside fairy shrimp habitat would be impacted. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through 4.9.4-6]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-17 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.9.4-2]
Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Strevtocevhalus woottoni)
. One hundred percent (or approved HCP/MSCP standards) of occupied
habitat for this species shall be preserved.
. At the SPA level, the Applicant shall conduct a focused study of the
distribution and abundance of these species within vernal pool habitat on
Otay Ranch.
Page 56
. The Applicant shall assess direct and indirect impacts to occupied and
potential habitat (including vernal pools and associated watersheds) from
proposed development and roads. The following is a partial listing of impacts
which shall be considered:
Direct impacts to occupied and potential habitat (including vernal
pools and associated watersheds).
Modifications of the watershed from development or roads which could
change the water availability and water quality (e.g., pool chemistry)
in vernal pools. Any changes to the watershed or vernal pools
themselves could affect this species in an adverse way.
The introduction of harmful chemicals into vernal pools through runoff
from adjacent development, roads, and other land uses.
Habitat degradation and fragmentation from adjacent development and
roads.
The introduction and proliferation into potential or occupied habitat
of sensitive fairy shrimp, competitor species, such as Branchinecta
lindahli. Harmful competitors could be introduced through the habitat
restoration imd enhancement process or through improper fairy shrimp
reintroduction techniques.
Any adverse impacts from increased human activity and presence (e.g.,
off-road vehicle activity, trampling of pools, illegal dumping, etc.).
. A mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented for significant direct
and indirect impacts from proposed development or roads. The following
shall be incorporated into the mitigation plan:
Preserve vernal pool complexes and associated watersheds where this
species occurs or has the potential to occur. The project shall be
designed to avoid impacts to all occupied habitat. Additionally, the
projects is designed to avoid all impacts to the greatest extent feasible,
impacts to potential habitat.
Include within the Preserve all occupied, restored, vernal pool habitat
and associated watersheds.
Provide a 100 foot buffer around all preserved vernal pool complexes
and associated watersheds.
Page 57
Restore or enhance disturbed vernal pool habitat to mitigate for
unavoidable direct impacts to potential habitat or for indirect impacts
to occupied habitat. Mitigation ratios for potential vernal pool habitat
shall be based on accepted standards at the time that SPA
development occurs, and shall be established through consultation with,
and approval from, the resource agencies.
Restore or enhance al. eady disturbed habitat prior to impacting
potential vernal pool habitat.
As mitigation for impacts to potential habitat, conduct a study at the
SPA level concerning the feasibility of reintroducing this species into
restored or enhanced vernal pool habitat. If feasible, use approved
methodologies for introduction and monitoring of reintroduced
populations.
Maintain connectivity to the extent feasible within preserved vernal
pool complexes and between adjacent or nearby vernal pool groups.
Develop and implement a plan to eliminate harmful runoff from
development and roads while still maintaining sufficient water supply
for maintaining and where appropriate enhancing occupied, potential,
and restored vernal pool habitat.
. A management plan shall be prepared and implemented for these species.
The following mitigation measures are found to be infeasible:
. Include within the Preserve all potential vernal pool habitat.
. Maintain absolute connectivity between vernal pool complexes.
Rationale: Virtually all areas of the Project evidencing clay soils with a potential for
ponding water are "potential vernal pool habitat." Preservation of all such areas
would be infeasible as it would prohibit development of the entire industrial area of
Otay Mesa and other areas in the San Ysidro parcel. As previously noted, the
Project objectives require development in these areas. As for connectivity between
pool complexes, the Project preserves a variety of vernal pools in disparate locations
throughout the property. Connection of these complexes is infeasible
topographically. Any connection would require significant revision of the land plan
to eliminate development. Even connection of proximate pools (e.g., R6, R8 and
R12 may be physically infeasible and might eliminate resort and residential
development.
Page 58
. . .
Significant Effect: San Diego Vernal Pool Fairy shrimp habitat would be impacted
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through 4.9.4-6]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final
Program EIR. Pursuant to 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are
no other feasible measures which would mitigate this impact, however, as described
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that
this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-17 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.9.4-2]
San Diego Vernal Pool Fairy ShrimJ) (Branchinecta sandie~ensis)
. The Project is designed to preserve 95 percent of occupied habitat for the
species where co-occuring with vernal pool habitat.
At the SPA level, the Applicant shall conduct a focused study of the
distribution and abundance of these species within vernal pool habitat on
Otay Ranch.
. The Applicant shall assess direct and indirect impacts to occupied and
potential habitat (including vernal pools and associated watersheds) from
proposed development and roads. The following is a partial listing of impacts
which shall be considered:
Direct impacts to occupied and potential habitat (including vernal
pools and associated watersheds).
Modifications of the watershed from development or roads which could
change the water availability and water quality (e.g., pool chemistry)
in vernal pools. Any changes to the watershed or vernal pools
themselves could affect this species in an adverse way.
The introduction of harmful chemicals into vernal pools through runoff
from adjacent development, roads, and other land uses.
Habitat degradation and fragmentation from adjacent development and
roads.
Page 59
The introduction and proliferation into potential or occupied habitat
of sensitive fairy shrimp, competitor species, such as Branchinecta
lindahli. Harmful competitors could be introduced through the habitat
restoration and enhancement process or through improper fairy shrimp
reintroduction techniques.
Any adverse impacts from increased human activity and presence (e.g.,
off-road vehicle activity, trampling of pools, illegal dumping, f'C.).
. A mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented for significant direct
and indirect impacts from proposed development or roads. The following
shall be incorporated into the mitigation plan:
Provide a 100 foot buffer around all preserved vernal pool complexes
and associated watersheds.
Restore or enhance disturbed vernal pool habitat to nutIgate for
unavoidable direct impacts to potential habitat or for indirect impacts
to occupied habitat. Mitigation ratios for potential vernal pool habitat
shall be based on accepted standards at the time that SPA
development occurs, and shall be established through consultation with,
and approval from, the resource agencies.
Restore or enhance already disturbed habitat prior to impacting
potential vernal pool habitat.
As mitigation for impacts to potential habitat, conduct a study at the
SPA level concerning the feasibility of reintroducing this species into
restored or enhanced vernal pool habitat. If feasible, use approved
methodologies for introduction and monitoring of reintroduced
populations.
Maintain connectivity within vernal pool complexes and between
adjacent or nearby vernal pool groups.
Develop and implement a plan to eliminate harmful runoff from
development and roads while still maintaining sufficient water supply
for maintaining and where appropriate enhancing occupied, potential,
and restored vernal pool habitat.
. A management plan shall be prepared and implemented for these species.
The following mitigation measures are found to be infeasible:
Page 60
One hundred percent (or approved HCP/MSCP standards) of occupied
habitat for this species shall be preserved.
Include within the Preserve all potential vernal pool habitat.
. Preserve vernal pool complexes and associated watersheds where this species
occurs or has the potential to occur. The Project shall be designed to avoid
impacts to all occupied habitat. Additionally, the Project is designed to avoid
all impacts to the greatest extent feasible, impacts to potential habitat.
Include within the Preserve all occupied, restored, vernal pool habitat and
associated watersheds.
Rationale: San Diego fairy shrimp can occur any place where seasonal water may
pond or persist more than 1-2 weeks including road ruts, scrapes and other places
that do not support vernal pool indicator species or any other sensitive organisms.
Preservation of 100 percent of occupied habitat could result in elimination of
development anywhere on Otay Ranch that such ponded water occurs including non-
sensitive habitat areas such as road ruts and scrapes. Since it could adversely affect
the overall land use plan for Otay Ranch throughout the Ranch, achievement of the
100 percent standard has been determined to be infeasible.
Virtually all areas of the Project evidencing clay soils with a potential for ponding
water are "potential vernal pool habitat". Preservation of all such areas would be
infeasible as it would prohibit development of the entire industrial area of Otay Mesa
and other areas in the San Ysidro parcel. As previously noted, the Project objectives
require development in these areas.
. . .
Significant Effects: Harbison's dun skipper, Hermes copper, Thome's hairstreak, and
Quino checkerspot habitat would be impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through
4.9.4-6 and Table 4.9.4-2]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The follQwing mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made
binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-18
through 4.9.4-21]
Page 61
Harbison's Dun Skipper (Euvhves vestris harbisoni)
. One hundred percent (or based on approved HCP/MSCP standards) of
occupied habitat shall be preserved.
. The Applicant shall assess direct and indirect impacts from proposed
development and roads.
A mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented for significant impacts.
The following measures shall be incorporated into the mitigation plan:
The project is designed to avoid impacts to occupied habitat.
Preserve in natural open space all occupied habitat. Preserve in
natural open space; high quality potential habitat (including all
southern live oak riparian forest), and locations where the host plant,
San Diego sedge (Carex spissa) occurs.
Enhance as appropriate, unoccupied southern live oak riparian habitat
in preserve areas through the introduction of San Diego sedge.
Incorporate a minimum of 75 percent of preserved habitat for this
species into the Management Preserve.
Maintain, and enhance as appropriate, the existing water quality and
quantity in habitat preserved for this species.
. A management plan for this species shall be developed and implemented.
The following mitigation measures are found to be infeasible:
. The Applicant shall conduct focused surveys for this species in appropriate
habitat.
Rationale: Because the Project requires 100 percent preservation of the host plant
of the species (San Diego sedge) there is no need to conduct detailed studies
regarding the location of the species.
Hermes Copper (Lvcaena hermesi
.
One hundred percent (or approved HCP/MSCP standards) of occupied
habitat for this species shall be preserved.
Page 62
At the SPA Level, the Applicant shall conduct focused surveys for
this species in appropriate habitat.
The Applicant shall assess direct and indirect impacts from proposed
development and roads.
A mitigation plan for significant impacts shall be prepared and
implemented. The following measures shall be incorporated into the
mitigation plan:
. The project is designed to avoid impacts to occupied habitat.
. Where appropriate, implement mitigation for this species in
conjunction with mitigation for other species.
A management plan for this species shall be developed and
implemented.
Thorne's Hairstreak (Mitouri thomei)
. One hundred percent (or approved HCP/MSCP standards) of occupied
habitat shall be preserved.
At the SPA Level, the Applicant shall conduct focused surveys for this
species in appropriate habitat.
The Applicant shall assess direct and indirect impacts from proposed
development and roads.
A mitigation plan for significant impacts shall be prepared and
implemented. The following measures shall be incorporated into the
mitigation plan:
. The project is designed to avoid impacts to occupied habitat.
. Preserve in natural open space all occupied habitat and
potential habitat in Tecate cypress (Cupressus forbesii) stands.
A Fire Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented to
prevent catastrophic wildfire destruction of the larval host, Tecate
cypress. The fire control measures should include as a minimum, the
following measures:
Page 63
. Prohibition of recreational off-road vehicle activity in the San
Ysidro parcel.
. Restriction of camp fires to designated areas.
. Banning of gun shooting in the San Ysidro parcel.
. Development of a public wildfire edu-ltion and prevention
program.
. Development and implementation of a program for conducting
controlled burns.
A management plan for this species shall be developed and
implemented.
Ouino Checkerspot (Euphvdryas editha auino)
. One hundred percent (or approved HCP/MSCP standards) of occupied
habitat required for this species shall be preserved.
At the SPA level, the Applicant shall conduct focused surveys for this
species in appropriate habitat.
The Applicant shall assess direct and indirect impacts from proposed
development and roads.
A mitigation plan for significant impacts shall be prepared and
implemented. The following measures shall be incorporated into the
mitigation plan:
. The project is designed to avoid impacts to occupied habitat.
. Preserve in natural open space all occupied habitat.
. Preserve historical habitat in conjunction with mitigation for
other spe,cies (e.g., Streptocephalus woottoni).
. Introduce into vernal pools where appropriate, native Plantago
species, the larval hosts for Quino checkerspot.
. . .
Page 64
Significant Effect: California red-legged frog and southwestern pond turtle would be
impacted. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-6 and p. 4.9.4-7]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-18 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.9.4-2]
California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytoni) and Southwestern Pond Turtle
(Clemmvs marmorata vallida)
. One hundred percent (or approved HCP/MSCP standards) of occupied
habitat required for this species shall be preserved.
At the SPA level (affecting occupied habitat for these species), the
Applicant shall conduct focused surveys for this species in appropriate
habitat.
The Applicant shall assess direct and indirect impacts from proposed
development and roads.
A mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented for significant
impacts. The following measures shall be incorporated into the
mitigation plan:
. Preserve in natural open space all occupied habitat. Preserve
in open space as feasible, potential aquatic habitat.
. Enhance or restore as appropriate, disturbed wetlands adjacent
to occupied habitat and in the Otay River, to mitigate for
indirect impacts to occupied habitat and impacts to potential
habitat.
. Restore or enhance currently disturbed aquatic habitat prior to
impacting potential aquatic habitat.
. Preserve in open space, buffer zones around occupied,
potential, and restored habitats. The minimum width of the
buffer zone shall be determined at the SPA level in conjunction
with, and upon the approval of, the resource agencies. Retain
connectivity between upland habitats, identified as essential at
Page 65
the SPA level for this species, and adjacent occupied, potential,
and restored aquatic habitats.
. Preserve occupied and potential upland nesting habitat for
Southwestern Pond Turtles which is adjacent to occupied,
potential, or restored aquatic habitat.
A management plan shall be developed and implemented for these
species. Provisions shall be made for controlling introduced predators
of these species (e.g., bullfrog and large-mouthed bass).
The following mitigation measure is rejected as infeasible:
. The project is designed to avoid impacts to occupied habitat and to avoid
impacts to potential aquatic habitat.
Rationale: The mitigation measure requires preservation of 100 percent of occupied
habitat for the red-legged frog and pond turtle. Aquatic habitat has been mapped
in areas proposed for road alignments and development. With regard to road
alignments, at the SPA level, further mapping will be required; in determining road
alignments the decisionmakers may need to balance impact to aquatic habitat against
other potential environmental damage, Le., steep slopes. Consequently, these
decisions are more appropriately left for the SPA level of analysis.
The same analysis is true for development areas; where more precise plans are
available final decisions regarding location of development can be made taking into
consideration other environmental issues.
. . .
Significant Effect: Forty-nine (49) other sensitive wildlife species may be impacted.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through 4.9.4-7]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final Program EIR.
The supporting habitats for these invertebrate, reptile, amphibian, and small mammal
species on Otay Ranch have been identified and delineated. On Otay Ranch the
majority of these habitats are considered sensitive or are in rugged, steep, and
remote areas which are not suitable for development. The deduction was that
evaluation of primary habitats would give an assessment of potential impacts to these
species at the program level. This is a similar logic to that employed in the Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and Natural Communities Conservation
Program (NCCP) where representative species are evaluated target species, or
Page 66
umbrella species are evaluated. Typically, many of the species lacking in baseline
data are difficult to detect or identify without specialized surveys. For these reasons,
impact evaluations are often tied in with an assessment of umbrella habitats (e.g.,
aquatic habitats and southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) and two-
striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii); vernal pools and fairy shrimp species;
coastal sage scrub and San Diego homed lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei)
and orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus)). Due to the large area,
duration of the Project (estimated buiJdout over 30 to 50 years), and costs of surveys,
it was considered reasonable at the Program EIR level to evaluate impacts to hard-
to-detect animal species through impacts to primary habitats. More specific surveys
and studies are required at the SPA Plan level (see Tables 3.3-7,4.2.4-5,4.7.4-3, and
4.9.4-2) when there will also be more detailed project information (e.g., infrastructure
and road alignments). Focussed surveys shall be required for the orange throated
whip tail and San Diego horned lizard. Because buildout will occur over such a long
time period, focused surveys prior to each phase of development will more accurately
reflect the distribution, abundance and cumulative impacts of sensitive species at the
time of development.
Because habitat for invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals was fully
surveyed, focused surveys or special studies for invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians,
and small mammals were deemed to be redundant at the programmatic level. In
other words, this FPEIR has assumed the presence of certain species because of the
occurrence of their habitat. Biologists familiar with the study area made
determinations about which habitats and which species should be studied. Such
determinations are consistent with the County's Biological Survey Guidelines. Lack
of distribution and abundance information in a number of areas was initially
identified by the Otay Ranch Biological Subcommittee and subsequently presented
in data gap documents (see Otay Ranch Technical Reports, Volume IV, Biology).
Data gap documents were requested to provide information in addition to that
provided by baseline surveys for preparation of the Program EIR. Additional data
gaps will be filled in the Phase II Resource Management Plan and at the Specific
Plan EIR level (Tables 3.3-7, 4.2.4-5, and 4.9.4-2) as part of required ongoing studies,
The Otay Ranch Biology Subcommittee had over 40 meetings between 1989 and 1991
in which biological resource issues were discussed (see Section 3.3.1.1 of the Draft
Program EIR). Representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), San Diego County,
other local agencies, and consulting firms associated with the Otay Ranch Project
attended these meetings on a regular basis. The subcommittee determined that
existing baseline data were sufficient to proceed with a program level EIR.
Another factor adding to the difficulty of obtaining baseline information on wildlife
is that the list of sensitive animals species is in a continual state of flux. Since the
first draft of the Program EIR was produced in August 1991, there have been over
37 state or federal changes or proposed changes in sensitivity status for animals
Page 67
which could occur in the Otay Ranch Project area. Twenty-eight species gained
USFWS Candidacy or CDFG Species of Special Concern status during this period.
Of these 28 species, 22 had no prior state or federal sensitivity status and had to be
incorporated into the Draft Program EIR late in the process. The USFWS
emphasizes the monitoring of species for which available scientific information
indicates imminent threat. The Otay Ranch Biological Subcommittee identified such
species during its review of the data base and required that these data gaps be filled.
In additL1, the USFWS has listed a large number of candidate species (Category 2).
These species are described as follows (Fed. Reg. 56(225):5880): 'The Service
emphasizes that these taxa are not being proposed for listing by this notice, and that
there are no current plans for such proposals unless additional supporting
information becomes available. Further biological research and field study usually
will be necessary to ascertain the status of taxa in this category. It is likely that many
will be found not to warrant listing, either because they are not threatened or
endangered or because they do not qualify as species under the definitions in the
Act. The Service hopes that this notice will encourage necessary research on
vulnerability, taxonomy, and/or threats for these taxao" The Draft Program EIR
requires focused surveys for these species at the SPA Plan Level as the buildout of
Otay Ranch proceeds. Additionally, the EIR imposes mitigation requiring the
preservation of certain percentages of habitats and species. Accelerated field studies
could be required if the status of any of these species changes. The proliferation of
sensitive species in the Otay Ranch Project area undoubtedly will continue over the
30- to 50-year buildout. Surveys prior to each SPA Plan development will more
accurately target those species which are considered sensitive at that point in time,
thus allowing for the formulation of mitigation in addition to that mitigation required
by this EIR.
Another consideration is that it is not reasonable or financially feasible to require
detailed surveys for the program level EIR which need to be repeated at the SPA
Plan level. The general nature of the development plan, with a lack of specific
planning detail and large scale mapping at the program level, requires further, more
detailed evaluation of impacts at the SPA Plan level when site specific plans are
available. At the program level, issues and potential impacts to sensitive animals
were identified and recommended for further study at the SPA level. (Tables 3.3-7,
4.2.4-5, and 4.9.4-2). (See also Table 6 above.) If major project redesign were
required to reduce or avoid impacts but was not feasible or did not meet the goals
of the development plan, then the impact was considered unrnitigable for that species
(see Sections 3.3.4, 4.2.4.3, 4.3.4.3, 4.4.4.3, 4.5.4.3, 4.6.4.3, 4.7.4.3, and 4.9.4.3). This
type of evaluation will also be conducted at the SPA Plan level.
Table 6 provides information for each sensitive animal species which could occur in
the Otay Ranch Project area. The table presents habitat affinities, recommended
measures to reduce impacts at the program level, requirements for ongoing study
and reduction of impacts at the SPA Plan level, minimum preservation standards, and
Page 68
umbrella habitats associated with each sensitive species. Abundance and distribution
information was used in the Draft Program EIR (Tables 3.3-7, 4.2.4-5, and 4.9.4-2)
for those species for which it was available. This information was used in
quantitatively assessing impacts and recommending mitigation to avoid or reduce
impacts. An overall categorization of impacts to habitats supporting sensitive animal
species is also presented in the Draft Program EIR (Tables 3.3-7, 4.2.4-5, and 4.9.4-
2). This evaluation was based on habitat affinities (presented in Table 6) and
delineated impacts to habitats (Tables 3.3-5, 4.2.4-1, 4.7.4-1, and 4.9.4-1).
Regional and local records were used in evaluating the potential for various sensitive
species to occur within the Otay Ranch Project area. For some species, evaluation
of habitat impacts is the basis for determining potential impacts at the program level.
Conversely, the preservation of sensitive umbrella habitats recommended by the
Draft Program EIR (see Sections 3.3.3, 4.2.4.2, 4.3.4.2, 4.4.4.2, 4.5.4.2, 4.6.4.2, 4.7.4.2,
and 4.9.4.2) and retention of non-sensitive, undevelopable habitats in open space
forms the basis for preservation of each of these species at this level of analysis,
Minimum standards for preservation are based on preserving occupied habitat and
in some cases on preserving individual animals. These standards are primarily based
on the same rationale used to determine the significance of impacts in the Draft
Program EIR (See Section 3.3.2.4). Requirements for ongoing studies, further
assessment of impacts, and preparation of mitigation at the SPA level are given in
Table 6 and are also based on recommendations in the Draft Program EIR (Tables
3.3-7, 4.2.4-5, 4.7.4-3, and 4.9.4-2).
The use of a designation like "potentially significant" reflects the extent of available
data, the feasibility of the implementation of the mitigation measures, and the level
of detail of the project data (e.g., 1" = 1000' scale mapping). The significance of
impacts to biological resources from eacb development plan reflects a worst-case
approach in the Final Program EIR. Analysis of Significance sections (3.3.4, 4.2.4.3,
4.3.4.3, 4.5.4.3, 4.6.4.3, and 4.9.4.3) have been revised in the Final Program EIR for
potentially significant wildlife species to reflect this worst -case approach in terrns of
determining significance and mitigability of impacts. Detailed studies are required
at the SPA Plan level to finally determine the significance of potential impacts to
define specific mitigation measures. Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures at this level of planning to
mitigate potential impacts below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined
that this potentially significant impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, Section 3.3.3]
Page 69
. Detailed studies shall be required at the SPA level to determine distribution
and abundance. Assessment of impacts, preparation and implementation of
mitigation for significant impacts shall also be required for those species
found to occur onsite.
Preserve habitat in open space (see page 3.3-108).
Incorporate open space into the I\~lllagement Preserve (see page 3.3-
108).
Restore/enhance disturbed habitat (see page 3.3-108).
. See Table 6 (from FPEIR), which follows. It should be noted that the
reference to the MSCP /HCP in the minimum preservation also includes other
appropriate regional standards.
. . .
Page 70
"
.;! b
~5
~O
" ~
H
E ~
"''''
U
~5
~ g
o .s
g
o
" "
g]
0:
"
~
:0
"
'" 0
~ ~ .g
~ H
.
o
.
~
"
t
.
.
..
~
.
~
o
~
.
t
"
~
o
"
~
!
"
~
o
"
oJ;
o
.
~
.
t
.
.
II:
~ :)
I!. u
~k
q
h
P
:<
~~
.t.h
; .Ji ij
.~5h
~ h'"
i ~elj
.5 e ~ ~
~ a ~
i '!
"
s
E
.
.
~
:<
~
.
.;
..
~ .
{ ~
~ 3
B i
:0 :I:
.a
~
'i
It
.
~
i "
~ H
:0 J!
"
..
.~
~
'"
,;
. .
: :a] ~
',:Il! . U.J
~ .0 . :E
g Oil tIO -_ 6
d.5 ~ ~
~ c ~ H"
0" _.5 t
~ :; 13 ."Q
" ~.g 1i ~
:3 ~ ; :3 ';
:! u .. 2 :a
.~nu
::J - &-.~ !
~ H~5
~ Ulfi
o:~.fii
.
. ~
.!JI!:U
~"'~
. ~
'"
ij 11 ,;
<'J . J! it
~ 5 ~ " .9
9 :'2 '1'1 ..!!
a 0 ii .a
rq;j
:is] ; ~ ~
.2 11;;; ;, ~
~ s.l ;.E
go: y e-l
~ H . t. 0
~] ~ i-1
~] ~d
.
a6~951111
~ljo-~.
_ o!f u
~..:E it
1I~,;'d9
" :1!E ~o ;Jj S
I:: .- oS . S
.]. "Ii
~~g ~h
s 1~:E=
!l'3~~~~3
IJ .- ~.-
J! ~ .su ~g ~
11 g ~ i! ~
E._..a-~E..
.. "",;' t .,;' e it
.:!h~Ed
" . 0 ij "
~51..-'"
Hoq.Ji]..~
~.s~8 ~.G1i.g!i
g.8. ~1!ii-~
l\,~i~O.;j~.
':(j9~H]1:
i.qP~d.i
58 .~E'.sq'E
H ~ ~hJP
l~htAi]J~
-s ~ .31 & >. .
].UU~~ i
u
c.J
13
-~
it'
~f
It
~~
,;
~ .
'0 ~ G .J
C " .. 6
"'-11" ~
H:I-
- .. 2 u
] liS ~
~. 0 ~ .g
'2.5:s u
~!i A ~
i~l~
- " Ii' 3
3H~
8~"jj
oJ!.
~lH
~ 'C ~ :s
I!:
'"
- 11 ,;
H " .
:.a u t: D.
~ 5 ~ " .9
s ~ i .
Q -0 1i
;;- ~ _ ;j
:s ~ ; ~ ~
A 11 'ii] ~
~ it. .s
~9.!!!
It ij 11 [~
.. :a ;; d'~
~.5 S :d :0
3 " . ~.O
'" . !dE
o
a 6,g 9 1: Oil
"ljo_*.
a- D...g .~ S ~
50"~~~
" .~.,;'.2 .9
.a ..!! .~ u 9
e :2 -5 S . S
.a.~"..
ng.J~
g:O 1 ~:1! =
t.~~~1~.~
~ ~su ~ H
d~ ~ ~ e 11
g. g-.~ t.~ ~ go
.:!~.~~E'~
Ii
H~
- 11..
.- f
P5
~h
n)
J! . .
i]~
> lo
[j
'B
~..
j .~
HI
; 1"
~ ~ ~
u U l
,;
] If 15.
.2 OII;E
]5~ "
- ,Ii 3 5
g . ~ .
'lo!
1 jJ; "8 ~
" :I,'!
HH
HH
~ [..
3 . 5.S
o it ~
~ .5 . "
i!~" e-
o:.:! i ~
~
- 11 ,;
H " u
<'J .Ji. .it
. ." 9
g g:5! a ..2
iI lib 0 U .0
J'- ;: 5 :9
. ]I 9 - .
:E !! " ~ ""
A,;;;;" ~
oS 1J .. :a ..
.!" itA ."
.~ y tl
.~ ~ ,5
~~ 1:1 0
~ .5 ~ ~
~] .~:~
9 . - -
a 0 ~ s fi ....
tGo-~..
_ o:J u
a. ".:1 .- ..
. o"~~~
".~.,;' A9
.a ~ .~ U 9
~ .- 5 ~ . :s
~!'i~~'&.
1G.~:S1~
g:Olj:i!=
.t.~~ ~.g.~
~ ~gU ~ H
~11.~~e11
It g..~ t.;a ~ ~
"~E~E.g
i~ -
5-U]
~!ih
HI"j
~~~j.~
',d 5i.;
~jj '.5-
oAi5J
~ ~p.
.5 ~ it] a
HfiJ
~
~~
~ ::-
-"
h
o
-..
n
Page 71
.5 ~ ~
.5 ; u
~ .:0 oJ
'" 2 .g 5
. 0 E
"~ go
~ ij 5 "
] 6:0 ~
.0 ,~ ... 5
U~';
I\,~q
. !. . .~
H~ 3
8 ij:as
o ~H
h-e-
0: 0 ] ~
I!:
'"
ij 11 ,;
<'J 0 J! it
~ 5 . " .9
g"a i:! OJ
!i"o u :s
oJ'- ri 6 :9
. " 9 - ..
:s i u ~ :-
A ;j;;;;' ~
.~ d ~!!
[:Hl
~ H n t. g
~~ ~ :; ';
~ .5 .s ~ ._
311 . ~.O
en . 1ib.5 E
9 . - -
a o.a s 5 110
tljo-E.
Q..g .~ !j :!
. 9" ~~ ..
...;a 1! .5
~ ,,~ ~ . 9
. '" 5 ~ . -
.a.-~"~
~. . "-
~~.~5!~
9 ~j~=
,.J"e:: .a .J
~H~ ~~
~ ~sg ~ H
11 g. ~ 1i
E..... .. !,-
&::1.;' 13";:1 !f
.:! h~~d
n
,;~j
, " 0
- .8
~]g .
liH
u.s i.5
1"-]
~H I.
~- :;
!'.~1
. a "
~ 0
HU
[j
f
~
~
.8 .~
~ .~
H
,;
~ !i
52_
..,j 8".E
1i . .!!
'ij 2'~
· Ii-
] 0 ~
_.5 1:1
~~ '"
0.5
." ~
] :!
HiE
· J! ~ E
U i . a.
h~1
d: 'I: e -0
~
_ 8 .
~ ::I :a
:6""'E a.
~ '" . " .9
9 "a i:: ...
lib -0 u :0
oJ'- i'o 6 :9.
:J ~ 9 -s.'o
.- e :>
A !!':E :0 ~
l i] ~ ~
09 ;; ~" !
.....:1 (J.
8: H n g
:':6 to :1.;:
~ .5 ~ a.:ff'
'" ] Q.9 E
s ..... ..
ti 6..E 9 fi 110
..] a. q
.5 .~:~~ ~ ~
~"E .L
" '" 5 ~ ..
~j-iE~.&
:s fI: s a go fI
;>0 ;:; "::; 8.!:I g
g:og~:i!=
... .a
!l'H-.U
lJ :0 I: wi ~ s:: :g
~l!.c.~~.gl!
u 'i .g 8.. 9 e 'i
"-"."~.-
~ (J. 1>11 ... tIO (J.
g-='.;;I ....;;1 ::J
"'~~~.~.~
.:J
.~ !!
~n
.- .:J
]h
]g i
~L.
~ e.s
tj[
]J
l~" Ii
dt~
u
,!J
n
11 ~
q
.2 ..
~~
.s ..
~1
"''''
o
~
:0
.
'"
~
"E
~
E
;0
.
.
.
~
.
~
~
..
11
~
.
~
.
.
"
~
~
'"
11
i
~
~
.
.
~
.
~
.:;
E
.
E
-E
j;
:f
i
.!i
:
~
..
.
.
a
.
~
~
~
-;
~
..
:f
~
"E
~
:;
:0
Ii!
"
~ .
~5
:1!o
. ~
= .
H
;o~
U
E
~ .~
~ .
. -"
q
;1",
i]
"
.
~ ,g
U
.
a:
o
5 :!I
o 0
1<.
~!
H
g",
g.~
" 0
- 3
I
:>:
~a
~f~
~h
l~~
,,~~
~."
d
:>:
.
"
~
;;
:0
:1!
:!!
:i
1<
o
>
~
'!
~
'"
.
:;;
.
..
..
.~ ~
~~
~
~
~
: ~ .:I .::
... ~ WI ,3.u
IE 2 0 .. ..
... "'C 1;1 l' t.
."~;~~.g.:l
"'ij ] ,t::. ~ ,~
:> I.;:: 5 t-< r:r s:J
~ "'C -d "8 t: ;: 1!
!; 5 ~":/ ~ ij <>II
H~l.~]h
" .. j ... 0:: 0 H
@ ': It n c
~] ,g.5~5~
Otlg1ll5'0
.~3:o-c;J~ _!:-~~
LI u t; 1=.. 0 U
.. i':. a.:: 2 ~ ::1.0
:I:C>-8'~~-g3
" " . JiE 8 8
.
h~~
. .
~
y "tI '2.
~ -- u .!:I
-a~.a5-~
~ 9 ~ <<II <>II 0
5" "
J~ 6~ ~ "
!! 1111. ~ II is
.. 1!5 <! 6"
1! . "0 .5 ~ ";;I
. a . - .!! .~
H~~H
5." go a.1!"
p.. ~ 15.. ~ <</I 5
:.~ :1 ,g g. 15
" .5 :id :. -;:; .....
~ -g g.:g Ii ~
V1 II.!::I t:: Q ('J.,
~
6. :2.:1 a ~
8.., g~_;!,g._~~
g i ... -5 ;c s:J ~ .., "S; LI
o ij r: II 1! 51' K. ~"'tI
il~'iil]1]~
5 C $ fi a ::I C -c;J u b
~.!:I..~'O.!!I5.s.S
]U:'SIlO~tta.-.k
~ -$ 6 ij>c 6 :g ~
· ~ c J "-11 Ii - -
~ H ;nhH
.~ Sog 5""
~l~gE.~dA
gJOa"!!6,;ui:l
5o'~ a .. 3 t: :iii ,~ ~ ~ e:
o~a.."._~~~'J
a.:: 1! i.5 is;:;: ~ 1! en <.:< or>
g '0 ~ ~ a
~ ~ ~Hn
'- ~"C :s:J ~
; ~ i >. ~e,
~~HH
S~=!i~1
~Sll.;3~
.Ofi:g-~.:S8
h !5.... '" 1! 0
i . ';i:!i;";;
. -!i-o"o
Iha!.
1i4 ~~.H
0., &.'~ I:( 8 'a .S
~
..
iJ
<.J
tJ
~
ot
L
~ .
8. ~
P
~ t
~tJ
..
] !
~ n S .J
· ~ . !i
~ ~ ~ [
.D.?;1f~
~ pI~
~ ii' 2 15
II y .5' .....
- ~ ~ ~
3 [:s _~
8 . 2 ~
oE] "
i~ u
.!:~';:)j
g
~
.. ~ ..;
~ ' J
<! 011 it
~ " ~ . if
9::!'E2
Q <:I " .D
..1'- ~ 6:9
!! 13 - 'c)
_ ~ . E- >
.D f:! '" !:i ,
.a 1f::9 :., 9
~ It] $ ~
0-5!i-~~
.. - ..
.. ~ 0 c
.. ,!::I .L 0
t''O to: :/";:1
" . . :.
. ~ 0 ..-"
~;~.5'E
9 .... ..
a 6.2 9 fi '"
It -_Ln ~i
55.~j
.~.a
~ t -e ~ 's
.'.5.'~
SA'ie~_'e.
iG.g~.[~
;;i ~j ~ =
.. .a
~nd~
~~~HH
~ . I< · ~
}_.-""'S.
- ... '. r
a .~ t .~ l:
g'~~'gs
a.
H]
~i1
C .. 0
t.:
jj l ~
r:: .s u
. I< -. ,
~~.g~
-- ;i-
n",~
UH
<J
~~
!!.~
11 .
H
. >
~!!.
~ ~
~d
] t
o ~
. ~
::j:ti:o ..J
ar l
:a 1 g .
1';:11]
~.. :8 IS
:t 8 2 ~
- B- 5-
~ l~ ~
u . 11 i!
'" .5 ~ 3
g~ ~-~
~ ~ 1 )j
..
~~
~
" ~ ,;
] ~ 11 3.
~s~._5
~ " 0
Q"S 5 :0
oJ ,- ~ 5.a
. n _-_
._ -a 9 ~ ~
A ~ ~:., ~
; i. a · ~
.. 5:: ~ i
~d ~~
II .!::I !f 0
rOd.
31! .. Do ";:I
~ . I>. _5E
.
a6.s'~M
. 6 c _" E5
E-_ . . H .
5 ~... j ..
i _~2 _5
:n I ·
.- .s ...
dl ,- o_g
~. 3. 0.
lr"~H
.P :;; =
tH~P~
11:aq~H
g]~~;U
i:-"~~~~!!"
~~5'5~g
c.a !i
.," .
'~H
a] . $
1 _ 6 ~
-' ~ go]
l;ii
~d]
o .
jjg~>.!
R 1" ·
:.~H
.! '!
~ ~ ",g i'
. " 6"
c<"
<J
<.J
13
] j
] ~
o ! '.
,!!, i 1
~ ;~
~.."
Page 72
,;
.
:s ..
2 If..
]~'"
]d
. ~ ~
]h
~ ~ !i
~ ~ ~
:fo~=
eI It 2
H~J
<) .0 ~
~Eh.
8"3 ~ u
d:: ~.s ~
~
- ~ ,;
~ .. ~
-" o. ..
~ -5 ~ " .S
~ . " I'"
~ Q 0 .D
oJ'- i: .a
. 0 . "E.'o
:.s ~ ... .5 :>
. - .
..c 1i:9 "'0 :I
~ II U : .s
.. E-~ .
.~ hi
I< ~ ~ It c
:.~ c; ~.g
~ .5 S ~ ~
. 11 0 ..-"
~ . :. _5 -E
. - -
a ~ ..
. .Ii c
po Do.g
.5 I=: ..
!of .::I..~
· "'5
1~.s
~ .! 'j
" II g
Q ~';:I
; 1
Ii J C
'0] 8 .
p~~
d3 ~
.- Do" '"
B-.~~
cr: I.( E 0
'5 ~ ~ ~
- ~ 0..
~" e
~ · c "
. ~ .!:! g
;; .. ~ ...
"! . ~
~ M-E_"
JIB
~ ~.
. ~ 11 0 c
G"~ . :.s-
'! ~ f-.
.J! nr
~)5 ~
L1H
~
'.
'"
-e l
~j
~j
H
~"
o
.~ u ..
i ~ ~ oJ
. -
~ u ['" ~
2] 0 i ..
~ .S ~
r ~'3' ~
ai~~.s
st,; 2~
'Ii';: ~.s .f!
Ii ':j 2 0 ~
; 0 '0 .~ 3
~.~3~.S
~iH~
Hut
~
Ii ~ ,;
:6 ., i !.
~ " ~ . .5
9:g'a.s
Q. 0 (j .D
J'- i; Ii :9
!! Ii Q Q. 0
- .. - E >
i ~ .s .- ,
~ - ~" s
s if .;;:; a 15
.~ a..!! e ....
~~~1:.i
I< ~ ~ a. C
:.~ ;! !i'~
& ~ iI B..!f
~ .I>.n
9 _.. _
a6"'IM
.]g" -5
~ Do';1'~ ~
.5_~ 2 ~ ,~
!! ..!11 '~ ... JI 9
1! '" 5 ~ , .
..=._~~.g
o J:! ~ l ti.
11~~H
. Ij:o=
-' c .a ..J
-~.8 ,--!i.
n:.a '" ~ c:.s
11 2~~ ~H
'" . H g 11
.g .2 'i1 e- ~ c; .-
g.~.~t.~e~
~ ~5 ii5 ~ ~
~ ,;,
~ E .~ ~
~lc~~
[,d ~ _tJ.2
02.~~~
4......
Iii ., a '0 15
~.!3~.Q
jj, a- ~
.~2f~
.. H
'-"".s ==
j =,'i.it 'if
~i q-
~ .~e
Ii B ~ B-
> ~ go II ac
<J
<.J
13
I
1! 0_'
:a~"
.a -9
~H
~ ~ ~ u
. ]r :;;
:s~ 1 ~ .
"
;!o J " is ] '~ .~
.~ ~ ~1!J!
= .
H ] ] 1 ~l .!:i :s .9
> .~ .~ Oi ~
"'" <!! d~ " ~lf
H ~ ~ ] 1~H 1~~ j
u i &
l~ :;;
. t t u ~ .
~ .- 5 DIII_ . U
~ . fiftH = lit' P- ...
. .0 .
p " ~ ~ ~~~.2 hU g
ji . u !i1: .:E.. o 0 ~ go ...
:z > > ~.5'. 11
u i UP u
" ;! j iH~ i
. <t . .8 ~
:0 <t d:~2.a <t
.
'" r .
~ 1'1 ~~~ - ~~~ ~5" -
j ~~11. ~~"'-
~ .!I -~~ -~~ -~~
E B - ~ - ~
" '"
~
.
.
. Ii
'" ij ~ ,;- - ~ ..
t "' R:a G R -.:;I - i:g fi ~ ij ~ - ....
. = .- 5 <J u] q~ ~ i :i~15~
. !S . H .6 ~ ~ .. e Ii '0 ~ .. a Ii "! 'a ~ IJ. g 6 .-
. H r' a f'~'s.g ~~:s..5c"',,~
.. s .. a. <>0 9'" a. CIII !HHi g~ fi U pi ~ ~-U8U
~ .~ ~.~ ~ h. ~s ~ !:i.'iS :E ~'o Ii :E ~
U oJ'- ;; Ii.a ~ Jii ~HJ! ~
~ 5 U
. 3'~,,~. 3' ~ " ij - '~"ij- :! U go..'o ..
~ s ~ .!! 9t:1.o.u.
:z 5 I :z .5 <J f" .-] 5>-- ~~~S~iin~
~;jHL ..0 .. ~ 6 .-
l~ J! ;j;'.5 Ii .a. 5 ~ J! .;g;, 6 "
. " a ]~ _~
t " . ~ - .- g!. 0 - .- "aB'~-~ ~iB]~h,,-
.. P H$j.~~ ~s $j H 1t$~H Hi p~~ ~si~HP~
~ . ~~
. !1:H~:;]:g 8: ij ~:;]:g p :;]:g 8: - "1 " 8: - ..~ ~ 1:g
- p", -;s ij ~ c 5' ..'
~ :.~ tf.g g.15 ;,.~ rl.3 go 15 .~ rl.g go!s .. ~ ~ :f.g D...
~ ...~ :i ~1i.... t-] :. ~iJ.... ~:s~n':.f.2 ~ 50 !!:o j.c~.E:
- '" ... 5 t) .. - .... ~HhH
1 hUh ~HU! hnH h id ~ H
.
liS
.
. 11 11 ~ ~
'" .51i
- ~ I .~
~ aa n 8 3 g... .~ 5 .~
8 - :s .s g ..
Hi 9 S. " 9 [" J! "j! 8 ti 6 q11
E " t. it ~h i ~ ~ ~8
;; p~- p:~ . ] ~ r
~h. . ~ps .. > 5 ]..!! 1 ~ . & ~
1! .5 . . .; ii . ~
jj ~ 8 -I "'f .d"~ ~ b ~ .~
1"- .~ ~ .. i. ~ j ~q ~ - ~ h
,; . .9 ~ ~'r o u - 0
i:; ,g ~ ...
i. ..~~ s -: 5...,9 9 5. fi~ i 9 ".0 ~ g ~ " ~ '1
.~ ~ ~ . -
oS !-.. 1\ U e I- f1:o ': 0 51 ,- 0 "a
~ -~ .~ 'n A ~ e ii
U ~ H. ~ :~ ~. j '5 J! 's oS
" ... HI' ]~~>':"
. '" .. C( -g 0 s U ~ ~ .!:!. 0 i
11 - 9
l1 [j] · " 3 i 3 ~ ,g Do '::1 g r ~g ·
.. . ~ -
~ p- [:0 .. 15- "ii.'~ g. b ..
E ..J! J! ~:2A <t oJ! ~ 01 9 .5 .. ~g'a!]
.
5
:E ~
~ '!i ~ ~ B
. ~
..
'" q I !if
,;; .
. .~
'" ~ h ]j
1!
~ 3 Ii " i.
.. ~ ~ . J
:0 f1 1q 9 2 ..
O! a~j
.. 1. 1. !l~ bI,;
= jiJ
..
~ J e U~ ~H
. ",t-
. > <..'"
'"
i ..
U ~~ } .. t t
'" ~ t 8:
'"
. ~'" d d d
:0
-
..
..
" .. ~ ~j
~ H u l~
It lq ,~ ; ,n U
'" ~ II- .. - :d
..~ ~J H -" I -" .
Ii . " ~ ~~ L.. n
,~ h . . ~~
..... "'.. =...
Page 73
"
~ .
~~
Xo
. ~
H
E :!.
,,~
U
lS
~ 5
00
g 9
. '"
3 1!
3 "=
:0
.
"
~
A
E
::
o
=
,g !i
t 0:
.
t
..
11
~
=
~
.
,
'"
~
=
.
"
11
i
.
0;
=
.
o
.
t
.
t
..
E
.
E
'.
51
"
i
!
~t!
J: g. 8
. "" B
~~],
~L
g.g~
t:J:$.9
~~~
td
i ~
'"
g
E
.
;
:"-
~
t
';
~
O! 0
:f "::J
'i! ~
~ .
:! ~
:0 X
.;!
~
:i
~
.
.
o
! ~
{I) :~ 11
~ I! ~
:0 JI
.
..
r ,
o
i
~
=
~ -~
H
.
II
.d
~i
.!!A
:d
. u
~ i
,,-
" ~
. .
- .
~ 5 j
"=11
~..;;;~
i!8!!!
Ii - ~
~
.
'5
. "
It'
~ ~
~~
. g
H
'" u
i ~
'*
" " u ~
~ -0 :> ..
,.- ~- '..
ijO . ""'o,..sJ::'-
~~.aii5sii!.~
g . :!. ~ ~ .5 0 ~ .
lib .S g t;;!S.. :'I
or"n j.. u,g a- ~
. " ~ , ii ii .. " .
.s<5~;;:a'.ii'"
;!. .5 U it J! u r= ~
. t! 1! . !i - _ " .0
"s. .8o.:lo'-Q.~
~5~~~~5]5~
~,~ ~ ~~ I ~.P Jj
>,"g :f'~ ~ oS II: f 5'
U.5~<OII.."35.u~
~]o.p:.s6' ->5
~ .,5 ElI.i! &c!io.
~
r-
d.
; ~ t!
* . .t
if. _
H~
. - 5
9 1S'.9
Pf
- ~ g
in
cr:~.a
~
~
t
u
~
.
j
!.
d
.. ~
&&
- .
~]
>..
'"
:1:
D
1
-.:!
h
H
&~
~ u "B
" ;' '3 ..
i! '3 .13 ; :!!
'5 .. :g .s ~ ill
~ ~ ~q ~
]1!gH,;'
.] ~ H!
H ~ I!.~~ ~
thi Ib
H1]Hi
3....:!W.~~R
-0..0 t: g -g ~
~ g" . 11 '-
"= ,5 . .Ii. 11
~
I!)u
~~
~
~ ~ ,;
~<!LH
~~~~~oo
,,- : H ~
:I n S Q. 0 .
._.g E >
:n"'-n
Stli~ t.~
i :!.J! ." - It
05 po!L
~,~o[~H
t-1! Ii ""I.!!
hH,;' Jj
'" . ~.[ e c.
; ~] n. tu
o >. Ii . 'i 51 U ~
! "; ]- _ -;a.c t :ij .~ :s
~01!~~1i'i] 'i~
i h]l.d 0.] ]! -~
~5~'.!!Jh~o!~
-0 iJ .0 0 .5. :t
__.~1! .~~.l-c
0' tC ;;I ";g ; -of 5 JJ .D I:
~ ~ ! 1! jI . ~ 'ii~ ~ ~ 1f
~"j" d .~ ~ ":-~
id h~~~ ~~r~
11l1e-"=~"R~.!1s]
~]6~P-i';1~]~ii
~ !t r .it 8 ~ :3 cJ ':; ~.> 8-
'" ~J!",~<]. g,,,,~.
~,~ ... ~
'ii 1! 5" 0
. 'ii " jj H
~s!~j!~
>.:10 . g.~
-.c -=>.. ~
!~ !P1
i~1d~
s~'.~l'
5H~! j
l~ f - ] ,S 11
- i"iq]
~ . "p'
og~ &".5
~
! J.
j
Ii
it
iO.:!
hi!
.55
~. ~
~ ...9
- ~ u
a =~
~ E ~
..~
~ 8 u
ii e.~
,!If:!
L~
.~.s IS
1!.S ~
iJd
. '" <J
U . e-
d~
.A~
d;1I ii
..
~~
o
~ ~ ,;
~ 5 11 it
~g.~.,5
~ . U
Ii. 5 g"
~.- ~ ij :9
.Og-o
.- "Q E' :>>
~ . "'- .
..c: ..&J -c:J 9
. t! '. !i 5
~ :t.! e <0:0
o~ B H,
h 0 ~ 5
~ . "'.
~.5 !I !l :.
3'0 .. a. ";;1
~ :; 1ib.5 Os
g
ill.!; g iJ ~
11 5 . 5a
...,,- 8 it
.~,;' A ~5
!! J! .~ u J3
11 ~ ~ ~ . ~
!S II .- t:! a "Ii.
... it ""..
~~50~'
f ":2 8.5 a
. g J '" 8
s ii!., .0 ==
~n ~~;j
U 15 I: '" ~ (; :0
11 1I-~ ~g 11
g]~~~S'!!
g. go.~ t.;' ~ go
"'~'E~e6~
~ g ~~.!!
~]I'~!~
; .5.-, a
~j IiI
~ ~ 0 "l
~nEi
~~~h,
]Uq~
P~Hs
dp~iI..
ihHU
lJ
rJ
tJ
i
,R
~ E
~~
i]
H
~
u
Page 74
" "
.::1 '" ~ -5
! '5 1S:S:.2
<J '0 ~ a l!.t
Pi! M~'
if'!! ,5 F g.~
] 'ii. .11
.~g~1!"!'
11_ . ij. ,S
- ~ "''0
~ U":] Q
dl:!.n"
i -< ~.s r:: -5!!
~~1!~1'1
U ~ 11 ~;: ~ 11
3~~e],;'~
1t~~~]8]
~BQ.
-~~
.~ :9 5 !i
'0 t .. a Ii .-
iI g " :!. ~ ~
~~I~ n
.!! U -c. ~ .. ~
li e.5 :6 6;:
11 '" = B ,-
. ~ .~ -~
.. c. e ... 0.. !t
l.5 .. j.5 ..,
i: ii ~~] ~
>.:6 !f ,g 8' 5
~~~:go~i
VI .. ._ E ~ 0.
]. ~ ~~~
hn "i~
;_~'U:E;~5.JJ
..g,-~s"
a..~] -5] .. "; ~
.50.c1l1.'
~g...g.D,o,~..Q
~rJ.~E!:)u~i
. ~n n s.~
· g.~!i-!l~
'~j'6ao."5
IJ ] ~ ~ 6 ~ "..;
11 .:! G5 B - '"
g;j.~.~~-
i~hHH
tfd
n~]1! I
; I ~ .. -8 E
. ... ~ .s
S H~ i
~.5.~~.SE
~ ]a .~ 8
"'1S.0IIiJ: E!....
HUH
!~~~=g
.nn:;~
Ie
..
U
rJ
tJ
~
o
~ .~
:a~
"'"
~ ~-
n
.. ~
i!"
,; . .!i. s ~ ~
3 .~ f.!! ,;
~~ ..
:o~ p~1 :s .5. ~
;!O H J! 11 ~. ~ .J
.~ U ~ II J
" 0 '0
~ i~! - ! ~
H ~,
3~ ,- ~ ..
~~ Ar ] :2 fs.8
~! ~ 1l! - i i
:2J! t A:s :2 ~
l~ ! u ~ be':;
.. . J . J~ _ Iiolq
~ 0 .~ DO ~ . . "I
n . ,- 1
iHH hl[ p~
'0
.0: ii:a ,s
p .. 0 0 '.
w .5 '.1) . um-U
. ;! j!1.8 iH.8 j hit
.
:;; C!t'.: e ~ "'.:! e .1;
.
'" ~ 8 .
.. .
1: Jj 1~ ~ ~ ~
~
E
:: ~
0
c
0 Ii
" ] ~ ,; ]:dl- ]!ji.J iI ~ ,;
. 0:
t t- <J!j 1! !
. It!.! ;: iii "'!::I
t I~~~ H I S ~ ' I S ~ ..
.. ~J
~ 1i.1p
. r ~ I ~ _ph
~ ~i r ~ ~
c ~ S - 0 1h~~:! -~ni :! s - 0
~ ~ .!!~ ~ ,- uj>
h ... ] J!. '0 1 ~ :2 '''1 :2 ;!;o 1 ~
0 ~ p. ~ ~ a a ~
~ ! iA i.1; ,- ,. 8'11 itA i~
0: ....r ~,t~ p
~ P liy J! 0.5 "s 1 "".9
. ~!siQI~ u! .. ~d ~
. ~] a g
'" .] ~ 8 . <! ~ rg
"E rdfi P i- ip f ~i to.s :.
. ::;
1 ~] Ue ~ ]!j~!j ~ ~ ]lJ.h &] ~o
. ~ ,e
0;
.
. Sr 11 SrI S _ _ 1
"
. a oS S I. '.. a 02 9 I0Il a p S .
~ [a 8 - ,Ii ~ 8 - ,Ii
trd ! trd ! ,t~!~ I
~j~ r.1.'J!J S r.JrJ!j rJrJ!J!j
E :Jie I S - :Ji 'e I S lei S
. ~
E ,- <I '~ ,~ ,- <I ~ ,- <I '~
.. "h d. i" d '. J'" ~ a ,- - '..
~ }si lp\!~ ~ 1,~\~ 1 j; ~h
'0
,; ~
i I ~;g S lJ ~" S S lJ~" S Ih=
.!! 3 tH 1~~ Ii. Ii.J ft ~ ~,~ t~ ftd,3
. 1! :a~d ~ ,8 :a ~ f ~q 8:2 1!:a~d p~
~
11 ::; r~i~!I] j]:~~il] n'i~!I]
0: l~
s ro ~o g. reh~r I!~hr
E ee ~ ~ 0::2
.
a ~
::; ~f -1.1; II '..
~ ~ i ~
t ~H ~h
i 1j 11}
. 11 5
0: " n In
'" ~
,II KI III
..
!! . 1d:~ ifi ~~
i ~ l~ Hj
:0 Hi
,g .u :2 ~ o ~ ih
,; . .
;; -.IS P n] SF
it hf H! lH
. LJ
,a
i i> (J
JI :~ i (J (J
'" <J <J (J M
. J~ !3 !3
:;;
.:
~ .
. . t 1]
p ! :
1 '. f i
H
~ " ,~ l:i
jj ~ o u 1i jH
3.1 1ft" !f
~.. la!
u'" f...
Page 75
~ ~ "5 " ~
u 8 .5 ..!:! 6 ~
" :a !! " :a
" . ~q ~~ ~ ii · .- .. ~ ij .
-~ b I u~~ 51 HHg
~-5 . . U ill..!:! DO
:!!o 1 j g 111i~1 H u
.~ ~ s.' q
= 0
H ..
~ ~u b~g!" .jfi.
. 0:
"'" . . " I i"5!
U .1! 1P .C ~ O! ~
a p~ 1 ~ f..
u ~ g.t'
l' :0
" a~s-g ~"C: 13~.w"if i.!!o~-g
~ g .~
01 "0] 1 HP011 ]~"[]l
g " ~n
, " ~~LI~
. 0: . ~.o:~i u
H ~ :a · .- ~ u
" '" :!! i ~ "~ H~hH H H~ j'~
. d:1j~
:;; ",~~d", d:oteArn-5
. .
'" H
~ ~ ... 00 c ~ lOG Co. 0. ~.. IHi.o.
Hg ~fg~ ~~ o 5 a !I U
j n"]'.f"~
~ -",h~",L _ ",:!! j t':!! ~
E ~
E '" 0. 0. "
0
.
. .
=
. '" i J
t u J
. i"
t
0. . . .
~ ",} ~ ~ ~
-II ~j
. . . .
~ ii In In
0 l~ ij Ii
~ n fi n
"
~ p
. ~~ ~~ H
.
"
~ j'.1! ]'.2 j.2
. " u h ~ .
1! . .
. ,!I... ,!I...
'"
.
0
"
. ![I 11. s,. u.
t ~" ~ ~ .~ ~ ~
. ._ .S ..
.~ o. 5 d !in un B~ ~ 'u
t p~ ~ 0 1!Hu B ~
0.
. '" g 11::] c::E 'ig . ~] i 19 5~i "g ~ c
. H H ij,-
. 'h D. 1 i . ~ ~ lID 1 . ~ j " . ~
c ~Bi flU Cohi
5'i 1- g~ g~ u g~ g~
! . s ~ " ~ e c ~ ~ B'O "~ ~.d.s "~ "~
B.O b~""'''''' ~jL ~.~ u 0 u 0
C(~~ . o. it 0 it 0
. ] n ~ g. i ~r
Co ~..", .' hJH 5 :e . ..
! d t'f;'::I d d ..!:! li' :19 "8 ~ ..~
. d ..!:!.... "e t ~~ Co a ~
. ., ! II s. ., ., :a Us.!; . . ..
. " . . :. ~ :0 u S.5 . . . .
11 .;1.2 ~ H ~ n ~ i ~ n .0 ~hn .0 .:1.2
.. - .. - ., -
0: .s 9 .s 9 .s 9 "E .9 .s 9
9 ~.ij cs 15.:0:.0:8 ~.ij :laH ~~ cs 15.:S:D:a . M ~.g
E Z 911 11 .S Z 9 11 l'! .5 z~
.
a ;; ::I~ ~
" ~ Ii 5 :a . . di ~ ~
~ ,,::3 . ~l j
t :a
~ " r ~ J! 0
.. H .~ I ~. !f;! ]
~ .. l ]
;c '" ~
0 J!
" .~ ] . ] ~ C 1 ~ H-~ B ]
.
" !i! ~I i 1 . . j ~1 .~ B
..
~ 3 ] P .. i .5 ] .~
] .9 i . <o~
3 ii ~1! Ii J! .1 . ~;' . 5 ]~
A '" H :D !
~,,"1 ~ -"
. sJ . .- ~ .:!
.. 19 ."
.!!J! ~n~ G, G,~
~. . .. j H d Hi .5 5 .5 5 ~
:i g.di
ii ~> -I H II jj U
. 0] L .U=' ~ :I ~ ..
. 0:<1! .. . :z: 2 Is u ..
"
! ~ EJ
'" ~~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~
,; u
. J'" tJ
:;;
.
..
g a ~ C ~ ~ iI
It J! J! ~ . . ~
.~ ]~ 1 f .! .. ~I i
'" :i! ~.. ~ .~
. . ~ . ~ "a ~ o u "8 "
t-~ t~ j" l~ fi .
it j 2 .9 . .!! <:>
U.~ H :si!l Ii" .0 u
u .i! o ~ ,,~ J:~
z'-' "'~ 0<
Page 76
~ s ~ ~
. oS ~ a .E:
:o~ . ~ " Iii ~:2
~ .25.-8
';!o J '. ~ 6 .
. ~ H~ ,~ U !j B
= 0 . t- O. M
l! s ~ '" ~ . an
E Ii. ~~ ~ u f-o :; g
,,~ .sp
U .E q ~ ~ ,;
u g g C.a fi- g "
~s :E :E ~ .. ~Jj"'~ ~
~ 5 " 11 ~ q1.1i ~
'~ "0 >':a ~
0' . ]j . ~ · '" ~ i .
q " r- . ~ >.~ 1 1
, " ~ ~ s. 0.5 ~ Is.
. '"
~ ~ " M U . "I:" 6 '0
:E u ij ~ u > 'g J! u u
. . ,;! i = " j i
. '" H~ =:! :g
~ .- ~ .
;; '" 8 ~ ~ '"
.
'" 0 ~
~ ~ ,g .. ~U
~u ~ ~
~ Ii _:1
E !j S
" ~
~
0
0 Jj Jj
c .
" ~ ~
. 0: ii :2 .~ .~
~ U ! ij
~ S .!I ij '" 0 '0 ~
t ~.u'i .!':::I
.. '*! M M 19...1;100"8
11 i i " ~ ,!r:' !! 6.
~ ~ 11 J- -~5ij~
0 . . "~o.~!'t.
~ H ij ij :0 .5:5 ~.-5
c ij ij ~ ti].~ -a.:~"5.2
t 0. 0. Hr5<;~Jj
'" p ,5 U ,5 tJ c:: u .- .2 c.
~ . .!I 2i ~ u .. S
0 q '2- a:" C.'-ct5'_
. ~J ~ gH'ijQIj::!
~ s- o !f ':;] .... , 0
11 ..:)1 i~ ns.~~Hi~
i :;
~ ~J! <!iJ! ~ .HL ~
~
0
0 ] " ~
" 0 0
. 0 0 r~
t ~a ,; ,; " " ,~ .
~ '~ ~ '~ M M ~ ~
" " ", d L $'
.J:,h ,~ '~ ~~
E 1~ 1~ j~ j~ 111 '1 =,~ L
. 5 ij
E " ~ ." ~ U ]j "j ~cijH . .
'. sh ,utn ~-
S1 la~ g~ 1i:)1 ~ ,~ ~ ~!! . !~ " i.- ; ~
:f .~ " ~ ~ ,- a ~ -n t o _
i ~~~ S.II S.II u ~ ~ u j ~ li s IS. 0 pi
5 '. 5 '. l- u i - u "f~1 s,!!
oS ~ .. .. d d .~ .~ .~ .~
y- ".Ii ,- ~~ ,- s ~ ~
u u.S .,g 'C ad ad o 0 ~ q5 ~ M
u . . ':.~
. :; . . 0"
11 :'0 M 0 " U . " u . .,g "s
,- '. - '.
'" ~ a '~ a - i <; - j <; '~ a l"~f ~:s!
. 0 .!i 0 j"6 .f:;
s i!~ i!~ Jltl! i!~ H
E ~ J;! 0I:.a 9 S-
.
! .~
" ~ ~
~ t ":2 . . if i
t
.. 11 ~~ U S, . .
~ ~ i It
Oi n . ~ ~
. 0. L. ",11
If :~ i U .dl H
" ~ ~. .
." n Ii H:i
~ a ~-5
g ~ "a H h 1 o - ~
g i = Go H to Co._
. '" '0 jP
;; '" ;,1j r . ~ H ,s
i:! s;)1 f~ 1~ a tit
~'" ~
,; . - -] ji .g
~ 5 ~i
;; !~ ~ iL
~ ]~ - . , ~ 11 jj ~
.a::s h =
. ii
> 1"11 0 '"- o .
" U
! " [j [j
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [j
" u u IJ! [j
u ji! EJ EJ
;;
.
f-o
j ,9
~ .d ~ 11
,9 ! ij .!It
~ ~ ,.
1 j i q -" ~ b . 1 h
~ ," Ijj
~ ~ .~ ] M ~ ~ )1
..~ '~ . ij ~ .j!
~~ h
g} .n ~ t H ~~
:;" ..~ ~~~ ~.:;
Page 77
.
.
:0
.
"
~
-
~
e
"
~
.
C
.
"
E
.
i:
11
~
C
~
.
~
"
~
C
.
"
~ ~
~5
~O
n
,,~
H
ls
- "
'0
q
Ii"
~ ~
.!:
~ ,g
U
.
0:
o
"
~~
~!
~ g
H
'" "
~ .s
.
o
"
i
i
in
C
.
"
.
t
.
~
0.
E
.
e
..
51
:f
"
I.
!
~ a
~ i!. 8
..!iB
~h
] "'.-
~.~
"'~~
~"",
. .s
"
"
u
11
"
.
"
-
=
.
:.!
~
~
-;
~
"
"
If
"
1!
~
3
:0
=
u
'0
5
~
3
~
:1!
'ii
~
"
-
"
i
.
~
'"
.
:;;
.
...
""
:~ ~
~JI
u
1
~
'.' "
ii J:i~
e .E ~
~ 5"36",",-
HIi ~~~
:s .. H .~ ~ ::
..... 6 ~~ " "'CI
~~~:!~~
S a -;:r ,_ <"I
'~g~S~~
~~na~
dp~~
~ b!! ~2i
d: ~ a. co:: ,..;..,:
i~~~
B - . .
~
!1iJ~ ~ _
eEia..:=~ij
j Ii CC . ~ 5
!3 o.g8S.51>O
S u.~C).,!I~
.o~>'~~."u
o <J U l! 0 a.
9 a. ~ ] _5 ..
u.5Sti,!;'CS-;ii
.s~td~n~
~~]I:2.A8..~~
" . C "M 5 ~ -g.
~.{!J-lo:;g.go":S
!: u u -c:I ..... Do
&3 q p~Ji
~]dLU~
u
> C !s
o ~ ~ 'i 3
:d 5"~ :i5
j V P."::J fi :g,;!
:t511i~ ~.~
-5 p:g 0 "Ii :::I -< ;j U
1ijj~ "1j.;!J8g
13 <( .9"'C1 -8 C';!.5 ~
Plt'~,g~ioHH
::. u~,S ._~~
o 11.!! 0 Ii ~~ J!
E~iiah.~H6
5&5-1. '_~:fc",E
; u g,.s~:2 ~'g'3.s-i
tHH1~.~IH
.s u,,;;: 1i;:;B S 8 o:! Ii
1
I
i
~
~
'"
~
[f
u
(3
1 ~
e1;;
· .1
11"'~
,d..
e
..!! ~
~ . 'g ]
... tI:t.
~ .. 5 u '(
; o' :>....
. i 1" '"'
~..~~~
]""-~
~ n~"
~ ~ij '" ~
u ... lii'tl .-1
""II" a.'"
.!<~.si
;!i.E-;~
o see I-
<.I :0 .g ~ 5
P6n.~
~ ~ ~~ ~:
~5~
-::~
.
-~1iJ~ ~..
e6a..:~]6
,g E cC . ~ 5
5 g-g8S.511t1
!! u"!! 1:10 tfJ ~
.a !I > .~ ti = D
9 a. .g -e Iii ,g It
".ii:.1i~:
t j .~ g :: ...~ 6
..J ~"~j.g]~
:: 'C Q.:a &. 1:10 iJ
~ Ii.. _'. Q-
- . c' M ~ " ~ .
~~Pg.-g q
~,g~~~j~f.2
:j3~]-<=]~t
u
> . "
I~".!l ~
-aU ~~~J!
5a..~o =<~1Il
';ili~a~~~g....
.<s~~ c'_j
:;'3Qes.g':2iO~' 5
~6'-E~S 11"
H ~ ,g " Ii-~ j
l~~!!h.r~G6
dd~~j inl
,5... ~ .~i>
u ct.!::I" -ob Qo . U
It 1.1- &.~. s!::: 'C
.s~~~]5 'g~~]
i
I
]
~ Ii
::. .
. ..
-~
j~
'"
..
[f
u
(3
H
9S
~i
.~ ~
~j
u~
~
"
o
.
u
"Ei.
pg i
;]f ]
:!i ~ "5" .......
:! !!! '2 .2 0
j ! g.~ a
':2 it'.a .!.
-g 8 .. 1!
!! u .. IItI .~
UH .~
"H 0 ~
jnt ~
~
1
.
~
~
L
~g
d
.3Jj
.
s.J!
" .
.2 :0
.g :~
.~~
~ ~
i!
6 .
g.~
~~
H
a'i{
1 D..
.5 .
. "i f
] ,.
- "
b
o.a~
[J
" ~
'.! .~
<I~
1ii
h
,n
Page 78
'i'''''
SUU
-~~
.. . If
~ 1i J 5. ~ .
e6o...:!_G
E ~ c C ... 1:10 J::
.., ~ .o.~ G 5 U
.:::1 <I:; _ ii !! c.- IItI
. "~~..~
.a !I >.;;: C U
9 B. -8 -E .g a.
-c.6-."'.:
U.!::I .....~-6
.s~H~~i]~
~~HJ!J 8.H
~~H~H]J:
~~;:n~5'P
o g ~ c. - !3 '8 > 1i
a:: _ :3 ~.5 -<= ... Q 0..
~
0: . "
~ ~ c .i ~
~~".J~ :i5
. n ~ ]" J!
u. S c. '"' S! "C
z:g~o,,::::<"t
J!~a~]~g~M
5g'C-85g:B.5~
';;f.~80'OiJ!1IO
~.- <I:; 'B] II
goOdg..L
i!-!!~_."'"6
9l..5.~..~'Ci:j1l
~t~~~tiE~~~
!I t!: S:s .c b tI ~ . >
.'-5~j:!. ._"
is.. :::I 016,::1 e ::I "C
.s!ii~ '9~i5
3
l
'C
~
"
.
.5
.it
]
s
.H
n
'" .
If
oS
~
l
s '"
E ~
> "
-"'::;1
~i
5 2
j~
3 :
:.s~ t.
~ ~ f
H'3
"'" ~
. u ~
:g 0' "i;:;
a - .
~.I::I B'-
'd~j
g 6 ",~5
";:I ij !J
. '" .
~ j] ~i
:0 '"
~ c.
~ ~.g ~
~ H P
.
.
.
:
.
t
.
.
..
11
~
.
~
.
.
'"
~
.
.
"
11
i
.
;;
.
.
:
~
t.
",}
~i
l~
'"~
I
'"
[a
. I!.
. "'.!i 8
. Jj j ~
~. 'd
i Is;;;
i ,"fij~
~ If'
i '"
'"
s
E
.
i
'"
~
.
..
~
.:! D
: :~
'i '!!
~ !
3 ~
:0
;!
!1!
'j
Ii
.
.
:
! ..
~ H
:0 J!
.
..
g
It
'"
5
0:
" ~ .
~H]
~ ~,~~
3'P=
~ .q
~ i ~~
~"ilj
~UL
r'~:~,t
'" H..
!J a .
,~ tR
] j. ~. fio
i'.!i~~~.~~
U Ii'- ::;;: .- 011 0
t~ ~HH
i ~ ~p'h
;d~~f~
tHI~i~I
i~t d 1
'" A..... g
]'
1
U
ii
sf
II
~
~
~~
. ,~
~i
"'<:>
:i
.
:0
11
.
Ii
.~
G
D
'"
~
.... ~ .
.~ .'; fi u
~ ;; ij J;
...s1t"C
S 5," ~
3"fj] ~
~~q
. a Ii'.
. I!. .."
"Eo 5 !I c:
e .... :. -[
!t H c. <:
. :a .5 .g ~
~.5 g ,~ It
~ H~"
:i '
~ it .g
,- . 8
. :a ,. ~ ,. fio
..0:: .!! ~ S b
it .3 ~ (5 oJ.~ oS
aa.'-='~Cllllo
:.t'r: g ~ :a:-:! Is
.5 e ~ c: "C : ';;;
"C S .. .g .1:1 6.g
~~ol!~6:'
..D~8_'"
'So.~ oc.'s
8" .,"
5,J ,. ~ ,Jj ':a
'[j ~ !:1!.
~ J -"
] .! ..!";:I
~:1!;' s i ~
if- '. . '"
~ j 9 -& '8
]'
1
. '
31
H
H
s!
11 ~
,~ 5.
! "s
u
13
~
1 ~
...
, .
~ .9
: .
. "
"'-
~ ~
5.!!
J1
q,e
:on
~ f1! "6
~ r ~ ~
. .-
:I '!J t
h:q
'"' o1! u
ia~
",.:!1'J~
..
~~
.
~E'
~ "0 b
t . ~
~.g ::I
. . ~
. S L1.
I],.
'g 1
~ ~ ~
~ . ~
1S:a.o
i~~8
= .! _ ";:J
. . ~ .
.. .
';:1';:1 ";:I
;;i..
~~]
hf
ju
]"'''
'. ~
Ih~
-=f~
ji!h
[j
~ i l
:=]1
"~j
j~!
]Jj
11 :~.
. . .
:I~.!::I...I
:E ~ "5 5
~rf1!~ ]
~~:I'; ]'
u ~j 2 ~ 1!
i~';~ ~
- a-:I I> ~
~ . ,- :0 ';
o ~].~ .g-
~n ~
d ~B
d:~.ga
H
H
~ ~~c.
~ -d
.
~j
. ~
. . "
. 8 ~
11; ~
. S L1.
I],.
,. D ~
h~
a : 5
~5
8~h
.~ ~ -";I
l>lloa!lOlQ
:." . '"
;n Be
.
. !i
r
. ~
rl,
. ~
~, j
hI
B s ~
g@ ]
ht
[j
i~
::.. .3
~}
~t
Page 79
11.1
a e n.
a e - '0
],g~ ~
" a] ~
,~ I!. . t
:a~ i!-<1 II
8.fllo.
.;:a . Q, ii
11 .S 8 S F;
1; -g .~ 'i 2-
~. .
... U ";:I ~
~ ~ n ~
~
Ii . i :8
I>II~ b ..._
1:;:1 IE! !! ... u
.-.., '3 ...--.t
"8. A "0 !!.D _
~ go 3 "'S! "3 :0 ;! :s ..
".'-0.11.11.
9 '" 11..0 C -:.i ::I <10...
o C -.;:I 0.. .., 0
aJ~~'a.g.s..~'~c
1!.].S~ns~
5~<:~e'-!'~
:g St::Oll :..<::
o . ,0 ] ~",9 ':;I.
> I>II::J !II .. "::1 D
;:"~"~...2.'-'
~~~jj"H!~
';;.8 ':.~:s~
i!:iS 11 Is;g g Q
c.:: .2 e 'a.~ it.8:.;;
f]
. B
H~
.5] ~
p]
. & .
- go;!
~'3
..q
,. .
:2J!4
~]~
[j
g!
11
:g~
,,~
H
8 -
i5~
]
.~ b : 1 ff 1
~6 ~ ,,~.
~ 'a ~ ~ 1! ~
U ~~ fH
> e ,g .0 2- ~ "
.~8" ~ ~...~
j.5 !! II ~:iI !S
~.~.~ =-.f;;
e~" ;'.o:!i
'''' ~ 8h~
H] ~ ..~.
3 Ii: i.;1 ~.;!
:;; ,d~:a
"
'"
c .
~ ~.g ~
~ H j
.
c
~ 5
t 0;
~ ~ S
~ I!. it
~ "']
1 ~~
IH
! P
i >!
"
111
c
.
"
"
t
~
~
..
E
.
E
"
;j
Iff
i
!
.
o
i
'"
s
t
.
!
:>:
~
~
1-
.:< .
~ ~
~ .
3 ~
:;; '"
O!
~a
~ ]: ~
di
~L
"8' S Q)
"'~~
~"",
. .
. -'
>!
!!
;;
~
.
.
"
! ".
~ :~}
~ jQ)
"
..
u
It
~
~..p
- ",;!
~ ~ "I
<1- -
a9~l i~
h ~~ .-
J.-" 4! - ~
.~~.~~~
:a ;jn] ~
.~.[~g-5
e." . C " "-
e......_..
~~~~.,;fi.-
"<In. ~~
r'u~ita'
~]<I iU n
~ ! u =
~'~f~.
:3p:>d
9. 1i ~ 80 ~
!n .;~"
h~j ~J
tS;5U
9~.IJ~.
BUih
Po j~.
PH2:R
=11 ~.. 5
j~pn
J! i . ~ - ~
]"'hJ"
i~HiJ
.... · i: >-
!i~:'l.P
HLd
!J
<.J
tJ
:3
l~
;j4
-~
JH
'" ~
,h
h .s
8 2- ..
11 If -a ~
5 .. 5 .~
Ii e .; ~
a.'S !g
"J:.5 U .!!
.D t! .,;.~
E '" I!.~
~ e J!
0'''.
ij ~ ~
- J! ~ J!
hq~
o . ~.- [
G i> 1! I"
. = 0
,I;] E ~
~-
.. ~a .~
80'" ..c
- ~;!
- "I
~ :g i! ,,=
HhP
J- 4! - ~
. ,,- ~
.;! "C :; 0 J:: .;:
.0 I:! > .~ ~
J!;jn1i~
.~.[!8'5
e." . C " "-
e......_..
~ Ii ~ ~.,; fi.-
.~.~.3~i~
nUHI
. ~ .
o .. tJ ..
~9.~J!;;:
.iP~H
9n ~ 8.~
2nd"
i!fdU
HUB
-u~~.~
is 80s] ~ ~
fu u 1. d
:is d .:t~ d
]2~1]..ae
J!].. . 'a ~,!;
OJ! Ii 1 ~t
~l~h h
:qile~f~8
!! .~ 1.:>: oS:2
i]~l]g~'i
> h:a~gL
!J
<.J
tJ
j
1!'<I
~6
.!!f' ~
~ ~
1 i
. ~
~~
].
'0 8 .2
~ 2- ~
~ n~
l~g~
.C.S u !I
t! i~
u ~ .. -;
I>O.!! >. ~
~ .- i! .
- :a e Ii'
; 1 if~ "
L 9~ i
. iI . .- t
H i> 1!" 9 ~
dd~
~-
~..H
- ~;!
] ~ i B"
dtH'g
J5.!!]5:a.!i~
IS ._ Do
.~1! ~.q
liUH
O.S:i]!DoS
~HLh
HUHI
~ ! =
h~~ ~:
H]~H
9n~ 8.~
2 n .;~"
.~ .6 P
:!!!fa ~ 9 ~
HUB
hHHi
1i
1 u
/t. 8 ~
~bi
ii~ g ~
.90 S :u ~
1h]
. e J!
~"-
;.-~Ii
-H!
hlf..jj
u - ~.D 8.
~ ~ ~i ~
HEn
~..p
- ",;!
- "B
HtH]
J- 4! - ~
j~1.~.~~
J!;j n] ~
.~ a. [~ go'i
e. c . c " "-
e......._.
~ii!.~6~.~
:.~.5.S;;!Q
~..u~it~.
~1<1u~~
~ i =
a .!f! ~ =
ns-]:;o
HHlf
end"
J .6 U
=2.i.Bls~
~.HP~
:> ~.. ~ ~ ~
hHHi
1! .0 b 1 .
~~i~] 1>-1 .j. 0"
j1~~II;il ~lfJ1 ~i~
Ifill;JI~ IIIJ;I'jl
'a ..&'Iiii 'i.~ !.g1h~!i]~
fjti!iijl,sl!1 li~jjl!~:1~
.5 .fi~] ....>0 .sl'Si5JjOtl:!
J till is; J~J~I~)11
~
i
t
:q
~i
Page 80
!J
<.J
tJ
~
-.!s
J! .~
11
" ~
.~ ~
~~
,; ,; 11 "
. 6
3 " . ![
. .. ;; ~ I t ~
:s~ !. A t :.s .5 ~
;!o q ~1!..-'. 5.' .s~
" ~ lJl ~H 1 ~~
" 0 . " ~~
e ~ 6.~ 8 r. ~ Hi
'6 ~ ~5 .5..... !:I 1!~~ e ~
:>'" " 0 ~ . 0 .11~
H H" . "5
~1 . g 15 " H~
:a"ila:: ~
lS A H ~ ~ ~ "~ e"
. . :.a:::B .r
~ g E 1 ~:i ~6 ~ ,; ~ ~ .
0"0 ~ I!. :I 1i
P - . ;; - · i hA
" ; ~~" ~p it .- .J
. " "8 :I ~ 3256
Hi .;1 8 o 0 A
~ ~ > iH .1! 8- .0 i
~ i . O! . "5
" .!: 8h i:; p ]3 u
"
.. .!: d~ .!:.:!5 .!: r. ~ ~5
.
= g .g .
.!! j~ ~ . ~
1! H ~ ~ ~
~
5 jj
:: '"
0
c
0 .
=
E 0: ij "'C :: u y ~ : ~ - "~ ]~ p
u .!::I'S 6 ~ :6 .~ ij . ~ ~ ij.
. !5 .
t ~ u i p~ P!] ~s!] p-]
..
~ d d':;; lI.go ~ !logo ~ llgo~
.
~ ~ ~ "- .a
c 3 n"5's 3~5O 3"po q50
.
~ "- 11 > "- > "- >
H :2 .H :2 .n ~ad :2an
0 lU" "~ i to!!
. "~ th l t ~~
'" p ~. ,; j ~" ,; j
~ o. ,; j " ..!!
c It - · ~ Ul!.::- Up ItH::-
" . ~ c
" :'~.s.g a " <I .g i . :6. .g . :.:6 .5.g .
t ~ " " [.5 tS.~ 1 ~.!~i
" " u .8 U ~ ~. P'
1 ~5Hl '" 5 E '" HEs '" 5. E"S
"
'"
c
. 9 ii - 9 ii " 9 _ " 9 _" ]
=
" ~ ~ a br a ssl~ a]ssl~ a]ss ~
~ ~a ]~ ".h -!i " ! c - "!i (;.. ,3 c'" .!j
. 0 . If ~"o"~ a. ~ ~g~ . i ~g~ l!. tgoH a.
~f~ . g ~ ~q2l. ". q~ f~~ 2l. ~..;' A.
s ~; H ~ ... :~s
. ~p. "'C ~'E ~ s 11 .. ,s I .. ~.~ ~ 9: "0 ~.~ i 9:
s 5h- e. ,s i . . - ,s i . · e "- ,s ..
". ~ .5 . fi"- ""Ii d. ili . B- ""Ii is B- 'Ii
o ...:t it ~. . lji ish
~ ls~ · fi ~ iG.g~.s~ ~ p. i 1 ~g is. i
:r ~ l-
i a::~~ " - ":OlJ" · s qj ~ = s lj:;; .
hg 9 ~ = s ij" = " .a =
If' oJ c ~ .J .t.~'B 1.g.~ " .a
.!i .~:! 8 'o.g:! "~"~ ~d.~ ~~ ~d~
. n .- '"'.-
u s~h ]pn~H ] 2~n ~g :2 ]2511 p:2 ]2~1I iH
. " l]Hq] l]!~~P
1 iI ; - 'iI r.~!i] r. ~~ i]
'" ~ ~ I ~ !t.~ t.~ go i;'~;' i
9 ~:~ :~ i;' ~o i ioF i
E ",~"~-S"~.~ ". "~. .. ... '" ". "..
.
5 d ~ Ihj "~
" 5 i ]- - rH
~ . .:n
t
"; ...p ~. nj~i Lj~!j
~ g - IS ]1 tHo
.:i fi
i :~ ~U "~ u ~ hi s ~Hl pHi
.. ~ ~ll .of. H{-d Ip]j . 1! ;I ~
~ 3 ~~ ; Iij i
;; ~ g . 'S b.. ~5 jl .a ~ .
.. .. s
;;; .p ~! 1 e 1. .,DjU
= ~ S "ij ps e~
~.i U~
~ d'S l.H 1l!.~ Ii
;; "( 5 r~ .!it,; .
it Hi .- .. j~ l~ 1 r.!~! HH~
~ .
. ~ ~
,s .. I A
i ..
J! > } (1
'" ]", (1 u (1 (1 (1
. rJ
;;
r.
"S 1 I
1 0 g
] ~ "~
is t I
"~ ~ g . i ~ I ~
i ~
~ ~ "~ . "!
" ili
'" ~ ~ ,'i 1 311-
1f:E1! ~~!i ill
._ .CI ... .1 j & ~
o .s g zH i~!
~!!,~ c!:: E ~
Page 81
~
, ~ ~ t 1 'j
, .
- ~ . p~
it } h~- (~. t
~~.d .5' e;2
e > ~.5.go oS ~cii ~ 0
".. ~
.! ~ a e . ;1 ~q
,~ .... l;n
].5 j .~ rh
. ~
s .~ rs~.!!
"61 I ~ f'
s " H ~~ ~ 1 r~ ~
"11 CIi: ~ g '" It ~
8] :E u ..a
qn ~V~-!3
, '" :i! ~ i~ j-
.
:a '" .n ~d ~
:i! ~ g
~ J] j~ ~...p
~
e c - ",:i!
,
:: ..
.
0 g
. ~
-= t~ 'dl .!
. 0; jlB
i u
t I' ~,,] ~ ij ."
.. ..} ~ g-. E-. g~:. Ii
11 rd'~ 2- r' ~
~ ~~ g-. -a-
5 q~~ 11'1 .p~~~
~ h ~;jn ~ .8 n~ ~
~ h~Jj j~~IB!i
'" P
~ .. 'B ~",L."&I
5 8:" u 1:1.
ij I!. 0 -.... H c
~ :. ".3 t! ~i.:~..8:t1lll
1!
. '" ~so ~ 1 ,_s ~H ~~
"2 ..Ls. ..J!~hH g
.
1;5
0
. 9 .... ..
-= ~ ~ u ;
. !a BJ<!95.
c ~ O"~!i g '"
x l:I.,g.~ :i .g .G ~IH~~
t ~j5 .'~ r a . a a
.. f'go.a. "8~
. ~.~ I 9 n~ 'n ],~ ],~ ~. Hil
.
. .- -5 . ~ i';; .!fg
.. sh ~ B- '6, '. s ..
~. . 8- 8': ij 0
:E i9~ 1G.~~. ~ . j ~ . a~ c .. ~n"i"
:f 11 ~ sa P i~
i ClCrn~ g:qj;! -= 11 . 0 H .~ . j !
- ~.n . >
Jr . -a ~,~'ij s-=
.!i ~H-.U h~1t iI] iI]
I ~s~ iq ,,~ "6 "6 LH q~
. .3 0
. 8'0 rI ~ "!j 01
. rH;i] .~~ .~ IT'. >>
11 19~1! .0 l Hru
" [go,!jgo ~ Ul .s 9 .s 9 .s 9
S ;!~ ~.g ~~
E .Eo.E~~
.
i iH. ;; : .5f tis-if
:s; r' 1J]
~ a I j J In:fn;
t 11~j~~ Ii
..
.. -p .S J > ~
O! 8 ~1 ~ . bll~'Svo
:i ~ i1.f~~j ~1'!! 1 t l 1 ~.~i5!f'>
.. S . ~g~l~A~
-= ~B:E IX
.. II .dl "~l
~ ~ hi~i1 ~.;g .S
:; i .]1 ~ ~ 0 Jrl~1!U
= 5 i p~ .- bg
:a i ~ ~f r .q J f~~]~J!.q
:i! ..'" ~.q
!1! 118'~ i1 ii f.!l1J 5SjJ!IH
:;; jD-1 ''''1 ~
~ ~hH1J ~!:. .1 Ul h:dhu
,& o I iO o . .
i '"
<J! :~ i ~ ~ If If [j
.. [j iJ! iJ! ~
. ~..
:a
,:
03 j II
I
g j .~ !I. i ~ H
It ~ 1 ' ..
.. ]- ] ~ Jt n
0 ia
"',2 e ;; r. p
Q . H 'iI~ ~ ~d
~ ~ ~ L .""
Page 82
~
. t ~ ii .8
. Hhi
.-~ "
~ .. 8 a. .!!
O!o
- ~ j'.1i u = ~ [-a ~
= 0 [ .-
H -d 1 ~'.1 t ;. 0..; ~
'S!E ::I
o~ hd~o f.t:.s :.u ~
H ~ =1 a.q . ~ ..
.Q R.:E
dO: oj!
l~ "1: &'h 'J:! :to 3;' ]
.~ a :fo 0 ......
~ 0 :I.S ~.!! o~:S1
o '" i - 2 1"
H oiru~ a5f~.
- '" ij. h~ . il- :c ~ .;;
85 .
~ >. v :i ~ :! ~r1ip ~
" ::c II B.!! :!
d: '" ,- .1; ,- ~ th:: v
~ 8~A~:a c 5 t .8
:;; ~ 2.-a
~ c .
~ ~.. ..
.! ~ ,g ~..~ ] :c
~ Ii d..p .2 -~
~ 3- ",O! - jO! 11 ~
E a .a ,a ,;
0 ~ " .
~ 11! H
0
c ~ ~ !i
. .
= . i~
. 0: -g. ~:! ~ . ,- ~: I ~ . ~
6 5 :!J ,jj '; ~ ' ,. IS :s tI '0 6. :; 6 . ~ .
E ~:=1~ 5~~ "; := ~ ;:; ij. "'r! . ~ o ..
u u l!
.. It- >.. _' u
~] ...,g s:~ul'_ to" · t.!! i- 13 ";;;
~ ~-~..5" ~ ~- ~.. ~ ~ c Ii
~ H 8- 11 - 61' 8-' 11.!! 61' .. c
c i'f ~ .p~g:1! f~ .p~g:1! 8 3 . N Ii
~ jj~ - ~
~ ':; ~1: Ii n'!l. ~hq'!l.8 ] ~ ~ H
! o c ~ IS "" j ;, 0 a.~.a.2']
.:: if':: .. .. 0 t "" g. 2 ~ H. ~6
~ ~] --
~ p ... - . Ji u p. :1!"]5'c.~ '9
c jj,"o-"~~e '", ' ".. ~ - ~~ ~ ~
- .. - <W iI a. c ~ -: g !. ~ fi ~
" a~'~:a5O'5 .8 rd 50 . 6 ~ L
1! o 13 .";;1 ~ DIll 1 H!q,{" . " >
- :'. ]E_'!:'~~" . . "~
~ .. ~
... ~j~'!I h '~ CIJ] ~]. :~.5 .~ "' -- ,- ]!
. H :2~
;; ~
c i e
.. .
· ~ 3 = = ~ ' ..
; ~ - - ~
~ ~~
~ ~" E ~ = :: . ~~ - -
0 ~ .i'f ~ ~ = E 6 "
~ .~~ ~ = " .0 o . .
o _ '" - . >
~ ,g i ~ 'iP]j .~ ~ 9 H " '"
E 'i"JQ8 n
. ~, aq fg 1 -..!i ~" 11 . -
E 'h. . ]0 8.8 ~1!] - '!I i -.
.. . - . .
a' -a 9 !!I "'fi L
~ 1 "'- ~n.q ~O.U 53 II; a -g5
. ~ ~l~ '!I ~
" 'go.9 ~ 8" hj
i '" i'! 0 5 . j Ii .. !i ".' '6 j .:: oS _.! .5
r" "9.s'a .9-= '!Iii] n e It H
.!i -'" ~ ~
G ~e~69:g ~ :f .. '5 9 "g fi ~ -g ~ rn . -
- a. . .. 15 "Q . " e.' ;;; %i'O ".
u ft.J 9~.6~-: .-d-i
. o e ,. J1 n -€.~
~ :'. .. ~. ~ ~ Q i · ~ If_ g ~ Q.S
.:: o~ ~ ~" ~ ""- ~~~~.,; ~.!:! e ! 5"u Ii.
9 ii'ij E .. .13 rI . ~ It 8. · "
~l8..dL n: '" !d ~ ~ 0 ] ~ ~ .- .,; ~!I rn s ~ .;!
E U .2:'= Q. ~ a .: ~ "au A
.. o.:1Ei
~ '. ~ r! ~;: q~
. 0 ~ Eh~ ~ ~~.!!I ]
:i1 << g ~ ~ :a.... 0
.. ~ ~ HHj . i5 .. ii j-'iJ
~ .8- .]] 0 -:;=
. iH ~ Hi - ~ ~ ~ ]!qH .~ '!Ie,""! ...:.2 it-
... ! HJH - .. Ii it- .g
~ ~ ~ 0 ,~ It:c 8. . ..
.:: . ~~H !ol:\l1~ .c",1!Q ..o:~
:f '" ~pLi!! .:! i i." ~n
= ~ a,q~ jE ":i1 ~h'8 ~ j '8 '" ~ -II 0
.. jd P ~~ ] P.!i.<3 g.i~:\I .g ~ ~
~ 3 r U_Jj ~}. Ii- ~Hi~d ~dUI1H ~ '0 c:J ~za-
:; IJ fe"E
~ ~ ~.".~.g .. ~~I '0 :; IS ~ 1!J &
:;; '" ic.:u-a~"'~ j.... ,.; i ] ~i' ~ F " ~n!1!1! IS "8.:1 ~ ~ 0
~ .. ~1 ~ H B ~u~ ~:ala Ii filiH:i~ IIh -g~
~ p ~. 'S:a 0 11 . .; 5 11 ~!
'i -S''' · i.!! If ~ ' If ar~g ~ H :~~Ht
d S'- Ii jq~H ~~n h~
i ~ ~ ~ ~i5 . ~ "
. e... >.!:i 5 ~ c fi! ~ ... h. , ---118.,"" -5;.::3] ~ '" .
0.5.5>....... I/) S iI ~i
= irg~""qn 8 ~ ~
! a- ';:'28: a. 0-
[j ~~"iaa' 00 g:.. "-5 c ~
~ :~ } ~ ~ . . a '6:\1:\1 iH~ 6 0 ~
'" U UUnu.~~c;UU ..n
. ~~ t]
:0 n . U ~ ~ 1,1) W II . 11 ~ a ~
- (j[jt] !C&:i:J1;; as. ~ ~~i
..
.! n 5 3~~
u n- ' n 0
. -51to . . ~
" ~ ~ It ~ ,-
! ~ ~ 11 ~,~ a-It H!!.
n H a ;0.. It.c rn
.~ I/) ~.~ g~~
~ .. .1 J: a- e - , f
= ~ . ~ '8 ~ ~
~ q ~ t a- ep .!! . '
'. h 1! ~,
~ 2 ~ ,~ 8 0 :a q~
1.. <t:I .! ~ f~ld cS ~
!J ~~ .~ !t. ~ .
'"'" . :
Page 83
Significant Effect: Regional raptor-foraging areas would be impacted, [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p, 3,3-48 through 3.3-51]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final
Program EIR. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
there are no feasible measures at this level of planning to mitigate impacts below a
level of significance for impacts to non-native grasslands which are raptor-foraging
areas. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures; The following mItIgation measures are feasible and are
required either as a condition of approval or are made binding on the Applicant
through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, Table 3.3-7, mitigation measures 32
through 36]
Key raptor resource areas in proposed open space shall be preserved in
accordance with the Otay Ranch Raptor Management Study (Ogden 1992a).
The restoration/enhancement of nesting and foraging habitat shall be
required. Standards for preservation are defined in Table 3.3-7 of the FPEIR
and are as follows:
Page 84
t
;;;
!
.II
]
.
s
i
oc !
0.,
100;.
-
",..
t.. s
..z I
;]=
-.... ::E
.," I
"'....
....
=~
:I.,
0::E
..z }
0
i ",oc
:1-
~ i&
G
"i ".,
'" ~= n
- ..
.. =oc
.; :I"
... 5~
. 0''' ...'!,
Ai :I",
. I JI
.. ~e
.... :i
",!J! >- )}
tr: i
..- ..
!1~
-=
Ioo~ J II
0..
>;.
oc- j'
..I:
::E'" ::
::E~ I Il
..'"
",
I 11
! )}
g
,!I
.5
5
'i
~
."
~
1
.~
i
Ii
.
0
~:!'
';
]]
i;
!.-
s5-
1. Ii
." -
'@ ~
1 :j
."
. ..
!I
tl
I!i I!i I!i I!i ~~l ~
; i i i i
!
.II .II .II .II - J!
...
~ I ~ ~ I
.. .. ..
.. ", .. ..
... ... ... ",
... ....
= ::
-
c;
:: ::
- ~
:::
= .... :: ::
I I
11 !i 'S '0 .5
~~ ~ ~ I- 1
u ~ E 1
f~ ~ i j B f ~~ ]
_~ E I ~ J I ~j 1
:n ,!I .:: ~ I/' - -;,,!! 0
....: s . ~! ,!I .51 :3
11 ! ~ 6 1 ~ :o~ ~ -
[1 i 1 i'f i -~! ;1
i" i ! ,; i:! ! :S!b ~ :;:
it i ! ~ f I ~ gJ~ 1 ~
.rt t t I ;t it .!Ih! 1 i
Ii: _ ~ 1 .~.. j-a i ~ ~ D 0 ~ -II '"
H i is ~ :11 I!~ .. H~H ~ ~
J= e _~_6 1ai 1~5-s1B & i
..J! 'i .Is ~ I/' ~JO ",~1'O,!I1I8 J :;.
.is s ... dd :ui i!~t'I'O~1. 1 ~
Ii i 'i P i (iii 11!~in~~";,' ~
'0 j 1 ..I' oc !;:1- ~.t i oil.l>o r s
I~.... l~U ! "U~b1~ 1I.U~~!1
1!!J]Ef~g g IgE3~1!!!J!!~i~]
1Ii.D Ii'd -I ~",d:d'du....:..,,;....:....:........:ecic
N '"
... '"
~'OfH~'OIS'!-i~
:z: -
.
..
z ..
:z: =
I -
s
:z: =
~
:z: =
s i
'"
I i i. i ]
:z: ~ 1 I I !
.I i
i 1
1 J ! ki t I ! I I
",.!I .!II ~
3.3- 109 Page 85
~
.
.:
c
~
'"
0",
"'>
"';:
...<
"'z
<",
0..",
::0...
- '
~<
"'""
::><
Q...
"'z
"''''
0::;:
...z
o
"''''
"'-
",>
::>z
",,,,
<",
~=
...
ffice
",'"
-Q
::>z
0'::>
'"
",'"
'"
Qu
z'"
<0..
'"
'"
!:if::
<""
0..-
-Q
"'-""
;;:~
0",
>>
"';:
<-
-'"
"'-Z
::;:'"
::>'"
'"
~
'"
..;
.
:;;
.
...
..:.1<
'fc ;
i:;') .~
ON
] H
0.. 0..-
o
:!!
~ II
'~1
. "-
~.5
u
"
"
..
~
'"
o
j )}
1i
.f
b
.
~
~
.s
ON
'i! ~
H
..-
I}
.
Ii
~
.~
in
.
o
U
'"
-U~ Co! ;~U~;~
O~~ ~ ~=823=
!]~ e ~~~H-~
Egg ~ ~~;;~i
~iu 1 ~ ~f~J!~
jj~ : ~ 5~J-ii
~<_ ~ ~ ~_.c~_
-5.~~ -8 ~ Ii g~ 5-;~ ~
"Bu'= ::J.. 1 I::CIO~fi-CIII
>-5_" ] ~~ "~E-.
R.~ ...8 i _i~uSi
~ "8; U > .!., u ~ ::E.~ :'"i E
..'c ." ~'i i !.!if.H~
~~R ~ ~~ u ~._e&~R
~~~ '~~g'~ ~ i;l~l!i
Ii::e eSi1....~ ~ a.a .:g8..
.!i"3~ 015.._ _15 E",jj-5~F'.!i
Q. 0 - -1I.,s = u 0 >". c - i'
::~ ~5~~ ~ .~~.s5E~~~.
~"1 o' - .. g.. ~ ~- 50 ~
~~ ~~:~ ~ ~~i~~~O-t
!.!~ ..",!to... = -5~e_2o~~~
~ Cu=o.. .... o. -Wu
-: ~~g-~ >t6ti~~e~~~~
0';: ... ji ~ ~ .. ~_ ~ _ >..= i' 0 ~ c'S '58
1~5.~:].~ ~~~~~~il~~i
E.I~Ji~;i~~~5]~~lttgf~
..'''S!- < fI':IC~<.._" -o,!!jI.!i!
~cB8~~~ic>..-~uoe u~.Ep-
'~5>..~u~iu~oncu-u~"'8__
~'".c::;:~ EOb~I]..~S-o~
':.2i~~~'a:;gt~ ~ .c~o:.~=,;
u....-~o--~.~~ -~~~~ ~6a
:E.!!'-6! '-o$jco$.~.s.!!g:;-~"ii...c
it .. it: IS .. g .. j1 w '- ~ W Q,:: Q. e;I jS,.'- ~ .
= :1..2 110 ~ o.~ ~ ;; 0 -5 ;; ~ it..! i : IS IS 8- i:S
i~~~;~!,!!!~<11~~iit~~
.5-' . ~ ..J'-~~~
!.~ 'S i z .. u..!-. !.:; Ii ~ ~ -="i ..
<!i'i.~",,, ,,; " .t~oh.isi
. ~ ti
~ ~ '"
~
'"
..
::;:
::
s
::
~
;;,
.;
~
~
.
~
~
<f
;;;
~
."
~
~
N
~
~
ii
.
~
S
'"
~..
..'"
~;
'"
Z
'"
'"
Z
::;:
::;:
~
::
~
"
.;
~
N
~
i
B
s
'"
'Oli ::Oi Q.,
~ ~~1H~t~ ~~
_cc- ~-
'"
Z
'"
Z
'"
Z
'"
Z
.
.
j
.
s
~
!
~
'"
s
i
~
::;:
1!
.;
"
.
'"
"$j
j
=
=
'"
a
>e
~
::;:
=
::;:
::
::
=
=
:0
::
=
::;:
s
:::i
=
=
~
~
~
-
=
=
'"
on
=
=
=
= ::
-
-
:!.
~
~
~
-
$
~ .:1 .. f
.. . . ..
z I .J! .c . b
.. I .J! .
- ) ~ .
. . i i 0.
1 ~ .J! -!
'" j ! ~ .. ~ . ~
~ & ~ !
'B .
iii '" '" c ::;:
Page 86
""
'"
.
.
..:
;;
o
~
..
0",
10.>
"';:
....<
Uz
<..
..",
::1....
-...
",<
u...
;;><
Q....
"'z
..",
0::1
....z
o
"'..
"'-
..>
;;>z
",,,,
~~
--
",-
....
~:.:
..'"
-Q
;;>z
0';;>
'"
::z:~
Qu
z",
<..
'"
'"
~'"
~~
<-
.....
~~
Io.:t
0",
>0>
"';:
<-
::1~
::1'"
;:0'"
'"
...
..;
..;
.
:c
.
....
~
<.!:!
'2
~
;;;
.
o
U
'"
u
.5
.
S
i1
.
0.
..5
~
'"
S
tf01a
G;;.!I!
OJ
~
o
-a
;:
.
'"
~~
~ u
S .
<; ~
0.-
)~
~
0.
.5
0-
'E ]j
" 0.
;; E
0. -
OJ
u
.
0.
'"
"
~
~ n
! !!
"8
l
b
.
"'
'"
5
ON
'a ~
u 0.
'5 E
0. -
n
!!
..
.:!.
"
.~
i
::1
]
'0
if
..
u g 3 oS
a ~ c c
~ !. ~ :s
e .s ~ 'i
eo u .g
.. .5 ~ ..: :
~ ~ ] .~ .~ .~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ eo ~.2
.~..;~ .~ ..; :s "i 15
8" i.. ~ u ~-!
I!:... u ;e i oS 0._
. ;; ~ ... it 3 '~'e
~~.5 ~ ,. ~ 9~
.~ ~= tI . ..c:: .D ill
~u ~ -; 3 ] ~.~
.~~5. ~ ~ .u ';I;~
05-0.;; . .c: u ~.a.
3]3..3 13 ~ 3.
':&.-.!~ 'a, ..... "Sy
.... 0 ; Q,..c:: ~ 0 .- 5
~ 1;.0. g 13 is ;; a'. .-.
'.0'-';;' - " ~.-.
"'~oiiB .. ~ ~~
"'3.c'i'~g u It ].~"'O .
i3 ~ .;o'e Q ~ on 0 'e ; ~
o Q.'- u'" __ I"" =a...-"O
'::.se-s~ e '0 tI~-Z;
U _Q. Q. _=(0"1-
-6'S'C.'Sg. 0 eu~.!!';,~
c .~ u .~ _. :J i: Z Q,,,g ""
..;o..,,~ o~-e"
f"'Il,I..Ei[J,g:9.~!:I .!:Iu8.--9
'9u~c.~ ~.:.. .=d:-J!~j;;
.>iee-.~C:: e_2~..f"'I
N.::! u:;; RS"'.e .~1o\5!i'"
':<1:!5i!5~;;u .uD.-~~
~ ~ '8 " _.8 'oji b 3 '" ;'~ ~ e" '"'
'.:. -S".:;;3.... ~
~ -= = e-~" &.i].5 ~ ~:J ! e
=< <a:-5 a
~....;u ' "~
~ H
~ '"
11
i
30.
..U
8'"
_::1
'"
z
'"
z
::1
z
:::
:::
...
=
;:;
~
z
.
"
1
'"
.
"
] ..
13 ::.
~ -;
! j
3.3-111
..
~
'"
0.
=
z
z
.
~
~
'"
.
.,;
"
~
~
Ji
..
~
~
"
~
.
"
e
.5
~
!
o
o
;
. .
3.!!
:,QH
~a-
"'.
H
.S
; .
~~
00.
;.5
.= c
:! ~
~s
~;.
'C.;
.J!
8.; r-
':';'~ ~
b~
~ 8 ~
.t. e
,.; H
~ '"
.. ..
o 0
~ ~
'"
z
'" '"
0. 0.
...
= ...
:E
= :::
:::
=
"i
I
.s
!
~ ]
1 l
~ '"
.:i ;:!
::i
:::
~
-
-
~ ~
] ~
j ~
Page 87
'"
]
on
..
,.;
'"'
..;
oS
.
"
~
~
~
..
o
~
'"
0.
z
z
=
'"
'"
.
on
..
,.;
'"'
",'
oS
a
~
H
'"
..
o
~
'"
0.
z
z
=
-
i!!
~
~
) 1
. '"
.51 ~
~ =
:s
..
"
.~
~
~
J!
.
..
.~
'5
'"
'5
o
.
i
"
i
.
]
'ii
U
"
;;
~
'"
'"
-I
'"
oS
~
.
0.
.5
i
u
'"
:~
J!
.
.~
5
'"
~
.
o
.
."
.
OJ
'"
]
.
;;
~
! :
. 9
~ i
3 'Q
e
'0 .~
.~ ~
:; ~
5 'it
Eo ..5
l"i ~
..
~
30.
..'"
o:E
~
'"
0.
...
;;;
=
~
=
~
'"
0.
=
'"
'"
:::
'!:
~
=
~
.
.~ .
~l
11
",G
..
~
,.;
~
~
.
"
e
H
'"
!i
~
H
'"
..
o
~
30.
..~
~:E
'"
0.
<II
0.
=
...
'"
'"
=
=
'"
..
~
~
:::
:r:
~
..
~
.
Ii
if
"
if
~
~
!
e
<:>
.
OJ
'"
. . .
Significant Effect: Regional and local wildlife corridors would be impacted. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-8 through 4,9.4-9]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen significant environmental eff( ts as identified in the Final
Program EIR. Pursuant to 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines there are
no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts to Corridor 5 to below a level of
significance, As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City
Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-22 through 4.9.4-24]
The project is designed to maintain connectivity of the parcels and adjacent
blocks of offsite open space.
. Specific mitigation for all corridors shall follow detailed recommendations
from the Otay Ranch Wildlife Corridor Study (Ogden 1992b), The following
general recommendations apply to all regional and important local wildlife
corridors.
Preserved wildlife corridors shall be retained as natural open space,
contain native vegetation, and be used for only passive recreation,
All road underpasses and bridges crossing wildlife corridors shall have
natural vegetation underneath and be sufficiently wide to encourage
wildlife use.
Wildlife corridors through development shall be sufficiently wide to
encompass the natural rim to rim topography and allow undisturbed
wildlife movement.
Incompatible land uses (e.g. high density residential development and
roads) shall not be sited adjacent to wildlife corridors, not including
the buffer (development within the buffer shall not be allowed).
.
The following measures shall be implemented for the Otay River parcel:
Page 88
Impacts from road construction to the four regional corridors in the
Otay River parcel shall be mitigated by road design and realignment
following the Wildlife Corridor Study recommendations.
Poggi to Wolf Canyon - The potential California gnatcatcher and
cactus wren corridor between Poggi and Wolf Canyons shall be
restored to native coastal sage scrub vegetation. A natural open space
easement through the northeastern corner of the landfill shall be
secured. This easement would need to encompass the offsite portion
of the corridor and any buffer zones recommended in the corridor
study. The Paseo Ranchero Road crossing of this corridor shall be
designed according to the Wildlife Corridor Study recommendations.
Wolf Canyon to Salt Creek - Otay Valley Road shall be fitted with a
12 foot drainage culvert at Wolf Canyon to allow bobcats to pass
underneath. The Rock Mountain Road crossing of the Wolf Canyon
to Salt Creek (1) gnatcatcher and wren corridor near the northwest
end of the quarry shall follow recommendations of the corridor study.
Heritage Road, La Media Road, SR-125, and Alta Road crossings of
this corridor along the north slope of the Otay River Valley shall
follow the recommendations of the Wildlife Corridor Study.
Otay Valley - Heritage Road, La Media Road, SR-125, and Alta
Road shall be elevated at Otay River Valley crossings of the Otay
River Valley in accordance with the Wildlife Corridor Study
recommendations, Major ravines and drainages shall also be bridged
to allow for movement of wildlife along the Otay River Valley,
O'Neal Canyon - The new Alta Road alignment crossing of Salt
Creek shall be bridged to retain a corridor to the Otay River Valley.
This alignment shall be shifted west out of O'Neal Canyon and west
of the mouth of Salt Creek. If the existing Alta Road crossing of
O'Neal Canyon is widened, it shall be fitted with a large underpass and
bridges over major ravines to allow movement into the Otay River
Valley.
The following measures shall be implemented in the Proctor Valley parcel:
Corridor Rl - (see Figure 3.3.-7 in the FPEIR) - In the disjunct L-
shaped parcel, low density development shall be pulled west out of the
ravine and well back on the ridge so that animals may access the
ravine, which leads them northwest over the saddle and into the
Sweetwater Reservoir. The corridor shall be 1600 feet wide at the
Page 89
mouth of this ravine, with at least 500 feet of open space along the
southwest side of the mouth of this ravine.
In Proctor Valley, the corridor shall widen from 1300 feet at the
northwest end to 2200 feet at the southeast end. Development east of
Proctor Valley Road shall be pulled back on the south side of the
corridor. The K through 6 elementary school may be within the buffer
if the playing fields are adjacent to the corridor, there is no lighting ~r
activity at night, and appropriate fencing is maintained. Low density
development west of Proctor Valley Road shall be moved north out of
the corridor. Revegetation and screening from development shall be
required in the Proctor Valley portion of the corridor. The Proctor
Valley Road crossing shall be bridged (See Wildlife Corridor Study).
The corridor follows the deep canyon east of Proctor Valley and shall
include rim to rim topography. It is approximately 1600 feet wide.
Low density development extending into the canyon on the north side
of the corridor shall be pulled back onto the ridgetops. Where
delineation of rim to rim topography is not obvious, there shall be
800 feet of width in open space extending up each side of the ravine.
Local Corridor 4 - To eliminate impacts by Proctor Valley Road to
local Corridor 4, Proctor Valley Road shall be elevated across ravines
along its alignment to allow for wildlife movement underneath and into
the alternate corridor in the creekbed to the north of Proctor Valley
Road.
Corridor R2 - Low density and LMV development along the western
site of this corridor shall be pulled back to retain rim to rim
topography in open space. The corridor is approximately 1600 feet
wide throughout the canyon. Low density development on a knoll on
the east side of the corridor shall be eliminated as it encroaches into
the corridor. At the south end of Corridor R2 near Otay Lakes Road,
LMV and MH development shall be pulled back to the east and west
respectively, to maintain a minimum width of 1600 feet. At the Otay
Lakes Road crossing the corridor may narrow following Wildlife
Corridor study recommendation. The proposed park at the south end
of the corridor shall be designed at the SPA level so as not to impact
the corridor. It shall be sited within the buffer zone (moved east or
west) and not relocated within the ravine. The two Otay Lake Road
crossings of this corridor shall be bridged as recommended in the Otay
Ranch Wildlife Corridor Study.
Page 90
The following measures shall be implemented in the San Ysidro parcel:
Local Corridor 8 - At the north end of Corridor 8 in the San Ysidro
parcel, development shall be eliminated from the canyon southeast of
the San Diego Air Sports Center to retain this major local wildlife
corridor.
Corridor 11 - Development along th, western portion of Little Cedar
Canyon shall be pulled back to avoid constraining wildlife movement
in Corridor 11. Expansion of Otay Lakes Road shall require a bridge
at the Corridor 11 road crossing. Such bridge shall meet the design
recommendations of the Wildlife Corridor Study.
Corridor 10 - Very low density development along the northern edge
of Cedar Canyon in Corridor 10 shall be restricted to the ridgetop.
The following mitigation measure is found to be infeasible:
Regional Corridor 5 - At the SPA level there shall be no new road
alignments or development in natural open space and Special
Resource Study Areas within Corridor 5.
Regional Corridor 6 - At the north end of Regional Corridor 6, the
entire rim-to-rim topography should be included in the corridor and it
should be no narrower than 800 feet.
Local Corridor 9 should include rim-to-rim topography through
development areas. Development should be screened from the view
of animals within these corridors.
Within the San Ysidro parcel, development should be pulled back from
Dulzura Creek at the Otay Lakes Road Crossing and away from the
east end of Lower Otay lakes to allow wildlife movement along
Dulzura Creek to Otay lake via Corridor 5.
Rationale: With regard to the wildlife corridor, the City Council, in approving
development in the area known as "South and East of the Lakes," determined that
the South County unlike the North County, lacks estate housing opportunities, The
area identified for estate housing includes panoramic views, including views of the
Otay lakes, The project would impact two of the nine point occurrences in order to
allow the development of 518 dwelling units on 783 acres.
D, CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 91
Significant Effect: Disturbance of significant prehistoric and historic resources.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.5-8 through 4.9.5-9]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
there are no feasible measures at this level of planning to mitigate impacts below a
level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable
because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.5-9 through 4,9.5-10]
Prehistoric Resources - A programmatic mitigation plan for prehistoric resources
shall be prepared. The following plan is a synopsis of a more detailed program
presented in the Resource Management Plan (RMP).
Stage 1 - In conjunction with the first SPA application within each parcel
(Otay Valley, Proctor Valley and San Ysidro) a comprehensive cultural
resources study to assess cultural resources throughout that parcel shall be
performed. This report shall be a means of gaining comparative information
to develop a specific program for mitigation and resource management. This
would include a report to be prepared by a qualified consultant to be
reviewed and approved by the county, on both the survey and testing
programs,
Stage 2 requires site importance and boundary testing for each resource
identified within the first SPA Plan based on a research design approved by
the appropriate jurisdiction, and for a sample of site types within the overall
Project. Site testing is required to adequately assess the sites for their
importance under CEQA and local guidelines. A sample of site types beyond
the SPA Plan area shall be tested as a means of gaining comparative
information and to develop a specific program for mitigation and resource
management. This requires a report to be prepared by a qualified consultant
to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate jurisdiction on both the
survey and testing programs.
. Stage 3 Following completion of site importance evaluation, those sites that
are found to be non-unique, non-significant, and without demonstrated
importance will require no further analysis or assessment. As mandated by
CEQA, mitigation will have been achieved by recordation, testing, and
Page 92
submittal of the testing report. For those sites that are determined to be
important resources, alternate means of achieving mitigation can be pursued,
In general, these forms of mitigation include:
Site Avoidance. For prehistoric resources, sites with human burials,
areas that contain rock art (petroglyphs and pictographs), rock shrines,
and other rock or stone architectural features shall be preserved and
protected. Any impact to these resources shall be avoidd,
Additionally, sites that may contain particular religious or sacred
importance to Native American people will require avoidance and
protection measures to ensure that the sites are not destroyed or
degraded. For historic resources, intact standing structures and
buildings that are found to be significant as determined by the
appropriate jurisdiction shall be preserved in place, and to the extent
possible, subjected to minor alterations in the immediate setting and
character. In some cases (as determined by the appropriate
jurisdiction) architectural features such as walls, flumes, or other
permanent elements of the built and altered environment may require
in place preservation and protection.
For resources requiring avoidance it must be clearly demonstrated that
a site will, in fact, be avoided by all Project activities such that no
possible adverse impacts, direct or indirect, could occur. The
determination as to adequacy is made by the lead agency as part of the
environmental review performed on each SPA plan. Specific
avoidance measures may include either the location of sites in
currently proposed open space areas, or in particular instances, even
more specific Project design to avoid the resource by maintaining it in
a dedicated open space.
Site Avoidance/Preservation. Design measures can include capping of
sites with sterile fill soil and/or placing restrictions on access and usage
of individual parcels as well as public parks and public open spaces,
A preservation plan must be prepared for those sites that are
determined to be significant as defined in Appendix K of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Data Recovery. For those sites that are found to be important
resources and for which avoidance and preservation is not feasible or
appropriate, a data recovery plan shall be prepared. The plan, while
it may be part of a much larger program for several sites under study,
shall be site specific. The plan shall, at a minimum, include the
following:
Page 93
. A statement of why data recovery is appropriate as a mitigating
measure.
. A research plan that explicitly provides the research questions
that can reasonably be expected to be addressed by excavation
and analysis of the site. The research plan may deviate from
the suggested research questions provided by the County of San
Diego but if this is the case, the rational for rejecting certain
research questions should be provided and more relevant
questions posed.
. A statement of the types and kinds of data that can reasonably
be expected to exist at the site (based on the Phase 1 testing)
and how these data will be used to answer important research
questions.
. A step-by-step discussion of field and laboratory methods to be
employed. This will include the sampling strategy, methods of
excavation and recovery of materials for special studies, and
laboratory techniques for the analysis and interpretation of the
materials.
. All artifacts shall become public property. Provisions for
curation and storage of the artifacts, notes, and photographs in
the interpretative center shall be stated. A memorandum of
agreement shall be prepared to formalize the curation policy.
. Additionally, for the onsite presentation and interpretation of the results of
the archaeological studies at an interpretive center or museum shall be
required. This shall be accomplished through adaptive reuse of one of the
historic structures within the Project or through construction of a building
within one of the parks or community centers.
Historic Resources - Mitigation measures for historic resources are essentially the
same as for prehistoric resources as described above. The same steps and stages
should be followed although, as described in the RMP, archival research and
historical documentation shall be used to augment field testing programs. Mitigation
of impacts to historic resources through preservation may be more feasible for
historic sites than for prehistoric sites because they generally comprise a smaller area
and can often be synthesized into a development plan. Adaptive reuse of standing
historic structures shall be required where feasible, and preservation plans to ensure
long term viability of the structures shall be required.
Page 94
If in situ preservation is not possible, recovery of all possible information, both
surface and subsurface, is the only other acceptable alternative. The data recovery
program will be integrated with a corresponding archival research program to fully
assess the significance of the material found on the sites. By creating a
complementary research program that fully incorporates the archival material with
the field results, many important research questions can be addressed.
Prehistoric/Historic Resources - Mitigation measures for prehistoric/historic
resources are essentially the same as for prehistoric and historic resources as
described above. The same steps and stages should be followed although, as
described in the RMP, archival research and historical documentation may be used
to augment field testing programs.
If in situ preservation is not possible, recovery of a representative amount or sample
of information, both surface and subsurface, is the only other acceptable alternative.
For historic components, the data recovery program shall be integrated with a
corresponding archival research program to fully assess the significance of the
material found on the sites. By creating a complementary research program that
fully incorporates the archival material with the field results, many important
research questions can be addressed.
The following mitigation measure is found to be infeasible:
Stage 1 of the comprehensive mitigation plan will be to complete the
intensive, systematic survey of the remaining 17,000 acres in compliance with
the county's requirements. The Lead Agency shall direct a survey of the
remaining portion of the Otay Ranch that shall be prepared as soon as
feasible with the first SPA being completed no later than filing of the first
SPA Plan application.
Rationale: Surveying the entire parcel is an extremely expensive process,
Additionally, such surveys may have short "shelf lives" if state of the art techniques
are developed. For example, if surveys of the San Ysidro parcel are required at the
time development begins on the Otay River parcel, years could pass before
development actually begins on the San Ysidro parcel. By the time development
began, additional surveys and/or techniques could be required, rendering the earlier
studies irrelevant. It is more logical to require incremental surveys linked to the
development of the first SPA within each parcel, than to require a survey of the
whole project site.
E, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Page 95
Significant Effect: Geology impacts include slope instability, development proposed
on metavolcanic bedrock, and seismic hazards. Soils impacts include expansive soils,
erosion, and liquefaction. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.6-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The potential
geologic and soils impacts identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level
of significance with the incorporation of the following site-specific mitigation
measures into the design and construction of the Project.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings.
. At the tentative map level, site-specific geotechnical studies based on
proposed development plans shall be conducted prior to construction to
specifically evaluate soil conditions and characteristics, areas of potential slope
instability, landslides, faults, liquefaction, and rippability characteristics, The
studies shall be conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer for the Project
Applicant and shall meet the engineering standards of the appropriate
jurisdiction. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.6-1]
Impacts related to slope instability shall be mitigated by site-specific
geotechnical static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses conducted
prior to submittal of tentative maps that will provide input relative to
appropriate slope design alternatives. These mitigation measures shall
include benching, adjusting heights and inclinations of proposed cut
and fill slopes, retaining walls, slope protection, and/or erosion control
devices.
Significant impacts due to ground rupture shall be avoided by not
building directly over the fault trace. A site-specific geotechnical study
would be necessary at the tentative map level to identify specific fault
locations and delineate fault setback zones (as necessary) in
accordance with city and county guidelines.
Potential damage from seismic ground shaking shall be mitigated by
adhering to the Uniform Building Code, state-of-the-art seismic design
parameters of the Structural Engineering Association of California
(SEAOC), and applicable local building codes. Such seismic design
suggests assuming a design ground acceleration that is equal to
two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration. The
design acceleration for the Otay Ranch area is 0.18g. The seismic
design parameters, provided as a result of a site-specific geotechnical
Page 96
study, shall be utilized by a qualified structural engineer in the design
and construction of the Project.
A qualified geotechnical engineering consultant shall perform an
investigation of the site to evaluate the liquefaction potential upon
submittal of tentative maps. Where potential for liquefaction is
determined to be moderate to high (such as in major tributary canyon
bottoms), mitigation measures shall include removal and recompaction
of loose, unconsolidated soils, vibrofloatation, or dynamic compaction
techniques.
Landslide impacts shall be mitigated based upon site-specific
geotechnical studies on all tentative maps submitted for the Project to
delineate the limits of slides (Le., head and toe). Landslides which
may potentially impact developed areas shall be completely removed
or buttressed during site grading. However, basal erosion of the slopes
shall be avoided. Oversaturation and subsequent loading of the soils
and sediments (from lawns, etc.) shall be avoided.
. At the tentative map level, onsite soils shall be investigated by a qualified
geotechnical consultant to evaluate the potential for significant impacts due
to erosion and expansion. Appropriate mitigation measures, such as those
provided below, shall be incorporated into the Project design.
Erosion - Erosion shall be minimized through erosion control
measures. During the construction phase, interim measures such as
covering exposed graded slopes with visqueen and sandbagging at slope
toes shall be implemented. During the operational phase, measures
including maintenance of drought tolerant vegetative cover and
vegetated buffer zones and appropriate drainage control devices shall
be employed.
Expansive Soils - Problems related to expansive (shrink-swell) soils
shall be mitigated by selective grading and specially designed
foundations in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
F, PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect: Disturbance of paleontological resources. [FPEIR, Volume 2,
p.4.9.7-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid any
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Page 97
Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below
a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these findings. As indicated in the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Polices,
all mitigation work shall be done by a qualified professional paleontologist with a
working knowledge of the Chula Vista/Otay Mesa area. [FPEIR, V"lume 2, p,
4.9.7-1]
Prior to issuance of development permits, the Applicant shall confirm to the
City of Chula Vista or the County of San Diego that a qualified paleontologist
has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. (A
qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a M,S. or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and
techniques.) A pre-grade meeting shall be held amongst the paleontologist
and the grading and excavation contractors.
A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic
formations (Le., San Diego, Otay, and Sweetwater formations) to inspect cuts
for contained fossils. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual
who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials,) The
paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist. The monitor shall be onsite on at least a half-time basis
during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of moderately
sensitive geologic formations (Le., unnamed river terrace deposits and the
Mission Valley Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
The monitor shall be onsite on at least a quarter-time basis during the
original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of low sensitivity geologic
formations (Le., Lindavista Formation and Santiago Peak Volcanics
[metasedimentary portion only]) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. He or
she shall periodically (every several weeks) inspect original cuts in deposits
with an unknown resource sensitivity (Le., Quaternary alluvium),
In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low, or moderately
sensitive formations, the Planning Department of the appropriate jurisdiction
shall increase the per-day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not
discovered, the monitoring, at the discretion of the Planning Department, shall
be reduced. A paleontological monitor is not needed during grading of rocks
with no resource sensitivity (Le., Santiago Peak Volcanics, metavolcanic
portion).
Page 98
When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor)
shall recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a
short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete
whale skeleton) may require an extended salvage time. In these instances, the
paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily
direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely
manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains
such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances and
at the discretion of the Planning Department of the appropriate jurisdiction
to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
. Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and
maps shall be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological
collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary
report shall be completed which outlines the results of the mitigation
program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used,
stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
. Impacts to areas not planned for mass excavation operations (Le., open space
and parklands) shall be mitigated by setting aside certain portions of these
areas as paleontological/geological preserves. Such areas might include the
small north-south canyon just east of Rock Mountain on the north side of
the Otay River Valley, the mesa surface between Johnson and O'Neal canyons
on the south side of the Otay River Valley, the small canyon just west of
where the ranch road crosses Poggi Canyon, and the ridge top northeast of
the mouth of Little Cedar Canyon. These areas shall serve as both
educational and scientific resources for future generations.
G. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect: Conversion of prime farmlands and elimination of existing crop
production. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.8-1 through p. 4.9.8-2]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final
EIR. However, the impacts are significant and unrnitigable. Pursuant to Section
15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that
would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined
that this significant impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Page 99
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings.
In the Otay River parcel near the proposed composting facilities and Bird
Ranch where prime soils are located, a demonstration agricultural area shall
be set aside. Schools proposed within the Otay Ranch property shall be
allowed to promote educational activities in regard to agriculture through the
use of the demonstration agricultural area. A possible location for the
demonstration area would be in the southwest portion of the Otay River
parcel. This area is considered suitable since it contains prime agricultural
soils and is designated as a regional park in the Project. Development of this
area shall be within the proposed park. The size and exact location of the
demonstration agricultural area shall be determined at the SPA level. The
criteria to establish the demonstration agricultural activities shall include the
following: 1) the demonstration area must be located within an area of the
park containing prime farmland soils, and 2) its location shall not conflict with
sensitive biological or cultural resources.
. Agricultural activity and the keeping of animals shall be allowed within the
large, low density lots planned along the northern edge of the Proctor Valley
parcel, as allowed within the Jamul-Dulzura Subregional Plan. Development
plans for this area shall contain landscaping and buffering requirements
designed to prevent nuisance impacts related to noise and odor, from
occurring between adjacent internal residential uses.
. . .
Significant Effect: Inconsistency with existing County of San Diego and City of Chula
Vista plans and policies and State policies. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9,8-3]
Finding: According to state, county, and City of Chula Vista policies and goals, the
loss of an agricultural resource for the potential production of coastal dependent
crops and the loss of prime agricultural soils is considered to be a significant,
unmitigable impact. Pursuant to section 15091 (a) (I) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, changes, or alterations are required in or incorporated into, the Project
which will substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as identified in
the Final EIR. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of
significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however,
the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of
specific overriding benefits.
Page 100
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible
and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant
through these Findings.
. An Agricultural Plan shall be prepared by the Project Applicant prior to
approval of any SPA Plans affecting onsite agricultural resources and shall be
required for each subsequent development proposal (Le., villages, Town
Center, the Eastern Town Center, and the Rural Estate Planned Community),
The Plan shall indicate the type of agricultural activity allowed as an interim
use. Specifications shall include buffering guidelines designed to prevent
potential land use interface impacts related to noise, odors, dust, insects,
rodents, and chemicals that may accompany agricultural activities and
operations. Adequate buffering shall be provided between the proposed
development area and the interim agricultural use. Buffering measures shall
include: 1) a 200-foot distance between property boundaries and agricultural
operations; 2) if permitted interim agricultural uses require the use of
pesticide, then limits shall be set as to the time of day and the type of
pesticide application that may occur; 3) use of vegetation along the field edges
adjacent to development that can be used for shielding (Le., corn); and
4) notification of adjacent property owners of potential pesticide applications
and use of fencing. The plan shall be reviewed by the city or county planning
department that has jurisdiction over these areas to verify that the proposed
plan is adequate to prevent significant interface impacts from occurring.
. . .
Significant Effect: Land use interface impacts associated with agricultural activities
and urban uses. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.8-2]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The
mitigation measures described below will reduce impacts to below a level of
significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible
and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant
through these Findings.
Landscaping and buffering guidelines shall be included in the development
plans at the SPA plan level for the areas planned adjacent to existing
agricultural uses. These areas include the eastern edges of the Proctor Valley
parcel and the northern edges of the San Y sidro parcel where estate
residential uses would be developed near the Daley Ranch agricultural
Page 101
activities (Le., crop cultivation and cattle ranging). [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
4.9.8-4]
H. MINERAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect: Potential. loss of mineral resources of economic value due to
development or land use conflict. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.9-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR. The phasing of development on Rock Mountain and on the San
Ysidro and Proctor Valley parcels to allow for the extraction of mineral resources
before construction would effectively mitigate impacts to mineral resources.
However, it is not possible to evaluate the feasibility of this measure at this time,
rather evaluation of the feasibility must occur at the time the area is proposed for
a SPA plan. Should these measures not be feasible pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3)
of the State Guidelines, the impact to mineral resources would be significant and
unmitigable. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however,
the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of
specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible
and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding of the Applicant
through these findings.
. Compatible land uses shall be developed near the locations of future mineral
extraction activities. If feasible, Project phasing shall allow for the extraction
of mineral resources at Rock Mountain, the Nelson and Sloan quarry and the
Daley quarry before conflicting development occurs,
The following mitigation measures are found to be infeasible:
. Rock Mountain shall be placed in a mineral extractive overlay designation or
an RCA in accordance with the policies of the Mineral Resources
Management Plan and mineral extraction shall be designated as the primary
use.
. Development of the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro parcels shall be phased
to allow for mineral extraction if the County's Mineral Resources Element
determines that significant mineral resources are present on these parcels and
if such phasing is feasible. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.9-1]
Page 102
Rationale: The County never adopted a Mineral Resource Management Plan or a
Mineral Resources Element; consequently, there is no plan or element to comply
with.
I. WATER RESOURCES AND WATER OUALITY
Significant Effect: Increases in surface water runoff due to an increase in impervious
surfaces could increase potential for downstream flooding, cause potential safety
impacts, and increase erosion and siltation. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.10-1]
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Ground-water and
surface water impacts would be mitigated to a level below significance with
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures at the SPA and Project design
levels of review.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.10-1]
. The Applicant for the first SPA shall prepare a comprehensive drainage
infrastructure plan for the drainage basin as defined by the appropriate
jurisdiction. The master drainage plans for each drainage basin shall be
developed with the first SPA within each drainage basin. The specific master
drainage plans shall include drainage infrastructure, staging/development
detail, timing, financing, and responsibility for drainage impacts. The master
drainage plans shall comply with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations in
regard to development on floodplains. In addition, the master drainage plans
shall comply with County of San Diego protection ordinances regarding the
floodway and floodplain fringe wetlands or with Chula Vista ordinances. Any
channel improvements on a watershed greater than one (1) square mile shall
comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The impacts associated with inundation shall be quantified by hydrologic and
hydraulic studies by a qualified hydrologist for the Project Applicant at the
SPA Plan level when a detailed development plan is available. The hydraulic
studies shall demonstrate that the Project design meets Title 44 of Federal
Regulations and the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista floodplain
encroachment and engineering standards contained in the appropriate
ordinances of each jurisdiction. The recommendations of these studies shall
be implemented in order to mitigate impacts. The studies shall include:
Page 103
A detailed site-specific floodplain/floodway width study shall be
completed at the tentative map stage to ensure that encroachment of
the floodway is avoided. The floodplain fringe may be developed in
certain areas if a retaining structure (e.g., dike, etc.) is built at the
floodway boundary. Under the supervision of the Public Works
Department of the appropriate agency, the Applicant shall conduct a
detailed design study for each bridge and culvert. All proposed bridges
and culverts shall :Je designed and constructed for the 100-year flood
without causing backwater effects or hydraulic conditions that would
lead to significant scouring or erosion of embankments.
. The Otay Ranch development shall not increase existing 100-year flood flows
above natural conditions unless downstream structures can accommodate the
increase in total discharge, peak discharge, and increased velocities, or the
Applicant constructs required detention basins to prevent adverse impacts.
At the SPA plan level, the impacts associated with change in water velocities
shall be addressed by detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies prepared by
a qualified hydrologist. These studies shall discuss erosion and sedimentation
of the Project development and specifically how these impacts shall be
avoided through design features in accordance with Title 44 Federal
Regulations and City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego erosion
control standards. The recommendations of these studies shall be
implemented.
The Applicant shall protect all embankments and slopes within the
floodplain to prevent erosion.
Energy dissipation devices shall be necessary at the confluences of the
storm drainage system and the natural channels to prevent erosion.
Siltation basins shall be necessary at locations where the runoff velocity
drastically decreases.
Potential water quality problems shall be mitigated by implementing the plans
provided in the Urban Runoff/Reservoir Study. These plans include a dry
weather system to collect all dry weather urban runoff, spills, and
approximately 25 percent of rain runoff (the first flush). The first flush would
contain a large majority of the urban pollutants. The Project plans shall also
include a water monitoring program to check the effectiveness of the system.
As indicated in Table 3.9-5 of the Final Program EIR, the salt modeling by
Wilson Engineering shows that this procedure would be effective in reducing
urban pollution to a level similar to existing conditions prior to urbanization.
This level shall meet the Primary Drinking Water standards, which would in
Page 104
turn maintain quality for the beneficial uses of the lake, including recreation
and fisheries. All systems shall be designed so that in the case of pipe failure
the effluent is adequately captured. The Applicant shall create buffer zones
around the lakes. The buffer zones shall take into account the predicted
volume of runoff, predicted pollutant concentrations, and appropriate
vegetation type.
The Applicant must comply with all applicable regulations established by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for
urban runoff and stormwater discharge and any regulations adopted by the
City of Chula Vista or County of San Diego pursuant thereto, The City of
Chula Vista and County of San Diego have a Municipal Permit from the State
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCQB) for stormwater discharge.
In order to be covered under a Municipal Permit, Order No. 90-42, NPDES
No. CA0108758, the developed area shall be required to mitigate impacts to
stormwater quality. Further measures that are more strict than the permit
standards, however, shall be imposed if necessary to reduce the impact below
a level of significance after appropriate site specific studies at the SPA level.
In addition, RWQCB has issued one general permit that applies to
construction activity. In order to be covered under the Construction General
Permit, a Notice of Intent (NO!) must be filed with the RWQCB.
Compliance with the Permit requires that a stormwater pollution prevention
plan be prepared and implemented for the Project.
Best management practices, design, treatment, and monitoring for stormwater
quality must be addressed with respect to Municipal and Construction
Permits.
Detailed stormwater quality studies shall be conducted by a qualified
hydrologic engineer at the SPA Plan level to develop appropriate mitigations
that protect the quality of both the Otay Reservoirs and the remaining
waterways. The stormwater quality studies shall demonstrate that no
degradation of water quality will occur.
Potential significant decreases in recharge to the aquifer system shall be
mitigated by utilizing unlined natural channels and unlined siltation basins.
Prior to SPA plan approval, a study shall be prepared by a qualified
hydrogeologic engineer. Such study shall address the issues of manmade
recharge systems. The study shall identify the appropriate recommendations
to be implemented during Project buildout in order to mitigate possible
aquifer recharge impacts. The study shall demonstrate that the City of Chula
Vista or County of San Diego standards on aquifer recharge shall be achieved,
Page 105
. . .
Significant Effect: Development may encroach into the 100-year floodplain.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.10-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The
following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance,
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible
and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant
through these findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.10-1]
The development of permanent structures for human habitation or as a place
of work shall not be permitted in a floodway. Use permitted in a floodway
shall be limited to agricultural, recreational, and other such low-intensity uses
provided, however, that no use shall be permitted which will substantially
harm the environmental values of a particular floodway area. Mineral
resources extraction shall be permitted subject to any necessary approvals,
provided that mitigation measures are required which produce any net gain
in the functional wetlands and Riparian habitat.
. Modifications to the floodway shall meet all of the following criteria:
a. Concrete or rip-rap flood control channels are allowed only where
findings are made that completion of the channel is necessary to
protect existing buildings from a current flooding problem. Buildings
constructed after the enactment of the Resource Protection Ordinance
shall not be the basis for permitting such channels.
b. Modification will not unduly accelerate the velocity of water so as to
create a condition which would increase erosion (and related
downstream sedimentation) or would be detrimental to the health and
safety of persons or property or adversely affect wetlands or riparian
habitat.
c. In high velocity streams where it is necessary to protect existing
housing and other structures to minimize stream scour or avoid an
increase in the transport of stream sediment to downstream wetlands
and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas, grade control
structures and other erosion control techniques, including the use of
rip-rap, that are designed to be compatible with the environmental
Page 106
setting of the river, may be permitted. The use of rip-rap shall be
allowed only when there is no other less environmentally damaging
alternative feasible.
All uses permitted by zoning and those that are allowable in the floodway
area allowable in the floodplain fringe, when the following criteria are met:
a. Fill shall be limit",] to that necessary to elevate the structure above the
elevation of the floodway and to permit minimal functional use of the
structure (e.g., fill for access ramps and drainage). If fill is placed in
the floodplain fringe, the new bank of the stream shall be landscaped
to blend with the natural vegetation of the stream and enhance the
natural edge of the stream.
b. Any development below the elevation of the 100-year flood shall be
capable of withstanding periodic flooding.
c. The design of the development shall incorporate the findings and
recommendation of a site-specific hydrologic study to assure that the
development: (1) will not cause significant adverse water resource
impacts related to quality or quantity of flow or increase in peak flow
to downstream wetlands, lagoons and other sensitive habitat lands; and
(2) neither significantly increases nor contributes to downstream bank
erosion and sedimentation of wetlands, lagoons or other sensitive
habitat lands.
d. Lot configuration shall be designed in such a manner as to minimize
encroachment into the floodplain. The proposed development shall be
set back from the floodway boundary a distance equal to 15 percent of
the floodway width (but not to exceed one hundred feet), in order to
leave an appropriate buffer area adjacent to the floodway, The
setback may be greater if required by paragraph f.
Following review of a site specific flood analysis, the floodplain setback
required by this paragraph may be reduced by the Director of Planning
of the appropriate jurisdiction or the applicable hearing body, upon
making all of the following findings:
1. Practical difficulties, unnecessary hardship, or results
inconsistent with the general purposes of this ordinance would
result from application of the setback; and
2. The reduction in setback will not increase flood-flows siltation
and/or erosion, or reduce long-term protection of the floodway,
Page 107
to a greater extent than if the required setback were
maintained; and
3. The reduction in setback will not have the effect of granting a
special privilege not shared by other property in the same
vicinity; and
4. The reduction in setback will not be materially detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property
or improvement in the vicinity in which the property is located;
and
5. The reduction in setback will not be incompatible with the
General Plan of the appropriate jurisdiction.
e. Where appropriate, flowage and/or open space easements shall be
used to ensure future development will not occur in the floodplain.
f. In areas where the Director of Public Works has determined that the
potential for erosion or sedimentation in the floodplain is significant,
all proposed development shall be set back from the floodway so that
it is outside the Erosion/Sedimentation Hazard Area shown on
County/City Floodplain Maps. Development will only be allowed in
the Erosion/Sedimentation Hazard Area when the Director of Public
Works of the appropriate jurisdiction approves a special study
demonstrating that adequate protection can be achieved in a manner
that is compatible with the natural characteristics of the floodplain.
g. If the subject floodplain fringe land also constitutes wetlands, wetland
buffer areas, steep slope lands, sensitive habitat lands or significant
prehistoric or historic site lands, the use restrictions herein applicable
to such areas shall also apply.
. . .
Significant Effect: Potential increase in contaminant concentrations in Lower Otay
Lake due to conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
4.9.10-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
The following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of
significance.
Page 108
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings, [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.10-1]
. An Urban Runoff Master Plan shall be prepared for Otay Lakes by a
qualified hydrologic engineer for the Project prior to or concurrent with the
first SPA Plan in a drainage basin affecting Otay Lake. The Master Plan shall
determine that the existing water quality at the outflow of the water filtration
plant will, at a minimum, be maintained.
The Master Plan shall address and/or include analysis of the following issues:
Existing Water Quality
. Water in Lower Otay Lake
. Outflow from Lower Otay Lake
. Inflow to Lower Otay Lake
Drainage Basin Characteristics (Otay Ranch)
. Existing
. Proposed
Water Quality/Quantity
. Establishment of water quality needs for potable supply,
fisheries, and recreation
. Runoff quality goals
. Runoff quantity goals
. Mitigation of runoff quality and quantity
Evaluation of Alternative Urban Runoff System
. Alternative systems
. Recommended system
Page 109
. Phasing of recommended system
. Non-structural controls and watershed protection programs
. Spill Management (Spill Management is to include the location
of all sewer mains, sewer force mains, and sewer pump stations
ungradient of the urban runoff interceptor trenches.)
Capital Financing Plan .
. Estimated cost by phase
. Financing methods
. Recommended financing mechanism
. Agreement and financing plans for operations and maintenance
of water management program
The Master Plan may allow for development of sub-plans within each basin
if the following conditions are met:
The basins are identified in the Master Plan.
All sub-plans conform to the Master Plan and are prepared and
adopted concurrently with the first SPA Plan in any given basin.
In addition, urban runoff and surface water quality shall be specifically
addressed in each SPA Plan. At the SPA Plan level, detailed water quality
analysis shall be performed and appropriate mitigation measures developed.
Amounts of urban runoff loading shall be estimated for metals, herbicides,
pesticides, fuels, and surfacants.
Best management practices (BMPs) shall be designated and implemented at
the SPA Plan level in order to reduce the quantity and improve the potential
quality of surface water runoff. EIRs at the SPA level shall include analysis
of specific BMPs in the categories of reduced pollutant generation, reduced
pollutant transport, and treatment of polluted runoff. Specific BMPs that
shall be considered at the SPA level include:
Mitigations to reduce impervious surfaces such as grassed swales, filter
strips, constructed wetlands, detention ponds, infiltration
trenches/basins, replacement of concrete with permeable surface, and
use of natural channels where possible.
Page 110
Mitigations to reduce or prevent pesticide contamination impacts such
as Integrated Pest Management, non-use of pesticides along roadways,
use of only EP A-approved chemicals and plan of pesticide use around
upcoming precipitation events.
. With the first SPA plan in any given basin, a Watershed Impact and
Protection Report shall be developed and implemented for each drainage
basin.
The impact of 25 percent of the runoff being diverted from the Otay Lakes
will be avoided because increased runoff due to impermeable surfaces will
substantially offset the lost surface water.
The following mitigation measure is rejected as infeasible:
. If more water is needed to offset surface water losses, routing of more water
from the County Water Authority shall be required.
Rationale: The decision to route more water from the County Water Authority is
not a decision within the jurisdiction of either the City or the County. Additionally,
the adoption of other mitigation measures (set forth above) will assure that the
identified impact is reduced to below a level below significance.
J. TRANSPORTATION. CIRCULATION. AND ACCESS
Significant Effects: Impacts to the road network in the South Bay, including
proposed SR-125. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.11-1, p. 4.9.11-4 and 4.9.11-13]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid significant project generated environmental effects as identified in the Final
Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings.
At the SPA level, a traffic analysis shall be conducted within the study area
of the proposed SPA to identify additional transportation mitigation measures
for the construction of new roads, bridges and roadway improvements, and
shall implement transportation demand/system management programs and/ or
facilities or other measures necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on circulation
element roads. The standard to be achieved requires that the Project avoid
reduction in the existing level of service below "C' with the exception that
Page 111
LOS "D" may occur on signalized arterial segments for a period not to exceed
a total of two hours per day. If the existing level of service is below "C",
mitigation measures to achieve level of service "C" (with the exception that
level of service "D" will be allowed on signalized arterial segments for a
period not to exceed a total of two hours per day) must be imposed as
conditions of approval for the SPA. Internal village streets/roads are not
expected tomeet these standards. The Applicant shall adhere to the following
guidelines:
Arterial segment LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday
peak hours, excluding seasonal and special circumstance variations.
Urban and suburban arterials are defined as surface highways having
signal spacing of less than two miles with average weekday traffic
volumes greater than 10,000 vehicles per day.
Arterial segments are stratified into three classifications:
. Class I arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds
range between 35 mph and 45 mph and the number of
signalized intersections per mile is less than four (4). There is
no parking and there is generally no access to abutting property.
. Class II arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds
range between 30 mph and 35 mph, the number of signalized
intersections per mile range between four (4) and eight (8).
There is some parking and access to abutting properties which
is limited.
. Class III arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds
range between 25 mph and 35 mph, and the number of
signalized intersections per mile are closely spaced, There is
substantial parking and access to abutting property which is
unrestricted.
The LOS measurement of arterial segments and freeway ramps shall
be a growth management consideration in situations where proposed
developments have significant impact at interchanges.
Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated
deterioration of LOS below established standards.
The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining arterial lengths
and classifications shall follow the procedures detailed in Chapter 11
Page 112
of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confirmed
by the City or County Traffic Engineer, as appropriate,
During the preparation of future Traffic Monitoring Program field
surveys, intersections experiencing significant delays will be identified.
The information generated by the field surveys will be used to
determine possible signal timing changes, geometric and/or traffic
operational improvements for the purpose of reducing intersection
delay,
Level of Service values for arterial segments shall be based on the
following table:
Table I
Level of Service
Average Travel Speed (mph)
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
A 2.35 2.30 2.25
B 2.28 2.24 2.19
C 2.22 2.18 2.13
D 2.17 2.14 2.9
E 2.13 2.10 2.7
F <13 <10 < 7
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1985.
To the extent that Otay Ranch contributes to the need for a facility outside
of its boundaries, the Project shall contribute (at the level at which it impacts
the facility) to the mitigation of the impact by participating in impact fee
programs or other means identified at the SPA or tentative map level.
. Applicants on the Otay Valley Parcel shall contribute their "fair share" to the
capital and operating costs associated with the new transit system. This shall
be done through provisions in facility financing plans at the SPA level.
Further, benefit assessment districts shall be established to fund new transit
routes under MTDB Board policy No. 40 Non-Transit Funding of Transit
Services. (This final requirement cannot be mandated because the Lead
Agency cannot mandate MTDB to take this action; because this finding is not
within the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency it should interpreted as a mandate
for the Applicant to work with MTDB.)
Page 113
. . .
Significant Effects: Impacts to road segments and intersections due to increase in
traffic associated with Otay Ranch. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.11-1 through p.
4.9.11-49.11-27]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated intL, the Project which will avoid
significant environmental effects as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible
and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant
through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.11-13 through 4.9.11-22 and Phase
II Progress Plan with Village Design and TDM Assumptions Technical Analysis
prepared by JHK and Associates, February, 1993]
General Mitigation Measures
The Applicant shall participate in fair share funding and implementation of
the following general mitigation measures:
Prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Mitigation
Strategies (See Attachment A: SANDAG Report ''Trip Making in
Traditional San Diego Communities", February, 1993)
Prepare Transportation Phasing Plans
Provide Parallel Arterial System
Improve Mode Split
Increase Local/Regional Trip Capture
Update General Plans
Re\:ional Freeway System Miti\:ation
Increase Freeway Capacities
Arterial Segment Mitigation
Increase Segment Capacities
Arterial Intersection Mitigation
Page 114
Increase Intersection Capacities
Other Mitigation Strategies
Implement Transportation System Management Strategies
Implement Traffic Control Strategies
. For each SPA, the Applicant shall prepare a detailed analysis of peak hour
turning movement volumes and intersection capacity for all major affected
intersections as determined by the traffic engineer representing the reviewing
jurisdiction or agency. (At a minimum these study area intersections include
all intersections with entering volumes in excess of 65,000 vehicles per day
under the proposed land use plan.) This analysis will define the mitigation
measures necessary to achieve levels of service described above, If the
proposed land use plan has not been evaluated by the SANDAG model, or,
if the SANDAG model has been substantially modified, (Le., updated land use
and/or network assumptions), then updated modeling of the SPA project shall
be required to allow the completion of detailed peak hour analyses.
The Applicant shall construct as a condition of approval to the SPA, new
roads, bridges and roadway improvements, and shall implement transportation
demand/system management programs and/or facilities, or other measures
necessary to fully mitigate traffic impacts (related to traffic impacts of the
Project) on circulation element roads, to avoid reduction in the existing Level
of Service below "C", with the exception that LOS "D" may occur on signalized
arterials for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day.
No more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 million square feet of
commercial may be constructed within the Project until funding and
construction for LRT is assured. As described earlier, Applicants in the Otay
River parcel shall contribute their "fair share" to the funding of these facilities
and operating costs.
Project-specific Mitigation Measures
The following Project-specific measures have been required for individual onsite and
offsite segments and intersections to mitigate significant impacts associated with the
Project. For the onsite and offsite segments and intersections which were identified
as required mitigation in the FPEIR, a subsequent analysis of buildout traffic
conditions under village design and Transportation Demand Management (roM)
assumptions was conducted (JHK and Associates, February, 1993). The purpose of
this subsequent analysis was to estimate the potential benefits of the village design
and roM conditions on the proposed Phase II Progress Plan circulation network and
Page 115
define appropriate reductions in required mItigation. Thus, individual segment
mitigation measures as recommended in the FPEIR were eliminated (because they
were no longer necessary), and/or, replacement mitigation to increase intersection
capacity at the major signalized intersections along these impacted segments was
developed. For a segment mitigation measure to be eliminated, the segment ADT
volume under village design and TDM assumptions reduced the impact to conform
with the LOS C threshold criteria. Consequently, acceptable peak hour intersection
and segment levels of service will result and conformance with Traffic ThreshoL'
Standards will be achieved. However, if at the SPA level review, forecasted
reductions in traffic activity resulting from village design and TDM assumptions are
not expected to occur, the initially recommended mitigation may be necessary.
Onsite Network
Upgrade EastLake Parkway between Orange Avenue and EUC North from
4-lane major to 6-lane major and provide special at-grade intersection design 2
or grade separated intersection design.
Upgrade Village 2 Local between EUC North (La Media Road) and EUC
North (Village 2 Loop Road) from 2-lane local collector to 4-lane collector.
Upgrade Village 3 Local between Village 3 Local (Village 3 Loop Road) and
Paseo Ranchero from 2-lane local collector to 3-lane collector.
. Upgrade Village 3 Local (Village 3 Loop Road) from 2-lane local collector
to 3-lane collector.
. Upgrade Village 6 Local between EUC Major and Village 6 Collector from
2-lane local collector to 4-lane collector.
. Upgrade Village 7 Local between Village 7 Collector and Village 7 Major
from 2-lane local collector to 3-lane collector.
Upgrade Village 7 Local between Village 7 Major and Village 7 Collector
from 2-lane local collector to 3-lane collector.
Offsite Network
2For major intersections, mitigation may require enhanced at-grade intersection dcsign treatments
including double left.turn lanes, exclusive unrestricted free right-turn lanes and/or additional through lanes where
appropriate (for actual intersection improvement recommendations, see Phase II Progress Plan with Village
Design and TOM Assumptions Technical Analysis prepared by JHK and Associates, February, 1993).
Page 116
The Applicant shall participate in fair share funding and implementation of the
following:
. Upgrade Bonita Road between 1-805 and Plaza Bonita Road by providing at-
grade intersection design (see. footnote 1 above).
Upgrade Bonita Road between Plaza Bonita Road and Willow Street by
providing special at-grade intersection design (See, footnote 1 above).
Upgrade Bonita Road between Willow Street and Otay Lakes Road by
providing special at-grade intersection design (see footnote 1 above).
. Upgrade Bonita Road between Otay Lakes Road and Central Avenue by
providing special at-grade intersection design (see footnote 1 above).
Upgrade Bonita Road between Central Avenue and San Miguel Road from
4-lane collector to 4-lane major3
. Upgrade Camino Macquiladora between Otay Mesa Road and Heritage Road
from a 2-lane collector to a 4-lane collector.
. Upgrade Camoustie Road between Harvest Road and Domoch Court from
a 2-lane collector to a 3-lane collector.
. Upgrade Del Sol Road west of Paseo Ranchero from a 2-lane collector to a
3-lane collector.
. Upgrade East H Street between 1-805 and Terra Nova Road from a 6-lane
prime to an 8-lane prime.
Upgrade EastLake Parkway between Palomar Street and Orange Avenue
from 4-lane major to 6-lane prime and provide special at-grade intersection
design (see footnote 1 above).
Upgrade EastLake Greens between Hunte Parkway and Hunte Parkway from
a 2-lane collector to a 3-lane collector. (loop road)
Upgrade EastLake Local between EastLake Parkway and EastLake Greens
from 2-lane collector to a 4-1ane collector.
3City of Chula Vista General Plan classification upgrade only, to be consistent with current County General
Plan classification.
Page 117
Upgrade EastLake Trails between Hunte Parkway and Hunte Parkway from
a 2-lane collector to a 3-lane collector. (loop road)
Upgrade Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and EastLake Greens
from a 4-lane major to a 6-lane major.
. Upgrade La Media Road between Otay Mesa Road and SR-905 from a 4-lane
major to a 6-lane prime.
Upgrade Oleander Avenue between Telegraph Canyon Road and Naples
Avenue from a 2-lane collector to a 4-lane collector,
. Upgrade Otay Lakes Road between East H Street and Telegraph Canyon
Road by providing special at grade design (see footnote 1 above) or grade
separated intersection design.
. Upgrade Otay Lakes Road between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway from a 6-
lane prime to an 8-lane prime and by providing special at-grade intersection
design (see footnote 1 above) or grade separated intersections.
Upgrade Paseo Del Rey between East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road
from a 2-lane collector to a 4-lane collector.
. Upgrade Paseo Ranchero between East J Street and Telegraph Canyon Road
from a 4-1ane collector to a 4-lane major.
. Upgrade Sweetwater Road between Bonita Mesa Road and Willow Street
from 4-lane collector to 6-lane major. (see footnote 2 above),
. Upgrade Sweetwater Road between Bonita Road and SR-54 from 4-lane
collector to 4-lane major. (see footnote 2 above).
Upgrade Willow Street between Sweetwater Road and Bonita Road from
4-lane collector to 6-lane major.
If forecasted reductions in traffic activity resulting from village design and TDM
analysis do not occur, additional mitigation, as identified in the FPEIR, would be
required on the following se~ments:
Upgrade EUC North between Village 2 Local and La Media Road by
providing special at-grade intersection design (see footnote 1 above) or grade
separated intersection design.
Page 118
Upgrade Village 5 Local between Village 5 Collector and Palomar Street
from 2-lane local collector to 3-lane collector.
Upgrade Village 6 Local between Village 6 Collector and EUC Major from
2-lane local collector to 3-lane collector.
. Upgrade Central Avenue between Bonita Road and Carrol Canyon Road
from a 2-lane collector to a 4-lane collector.
Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and EastLake Greens from a 4-
lane major to a 6-lane major and by providing special at-grade intersection
design (see footnote 1 above).
. Upgrade La Media Road between Otay Mesa Road and SR-905 from a 4-lane
major to a 6-lane major by providing special at-grade intersection design (see
footnote 1 above).
Upgrade Brittania Boulevard between SR-905 and Airway Road from a 4-lane
major to a 6-lane major.
. Upgrade Millar Ranch Road between SR-94 and Proctor Valley Road from
a 4-lane collector to a 4-lane major.
. Upgrade Orange Avenue between Hunte Parkway and EastLake Vista from
a 4-lane major to a 6-lane major by providing special at-grade intersection
design (see footnote 1 above).
. Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road and East H Street by providing
special at-grade intersection design (see footnote 1 above),
Upgrade Paseo Ranchero between Otay Valley Road and Del Sol Road by
providing special at-grade intersection design (see footnote 1 above).
. Upgrade Wueste Road between Otay Lakes Road and Orange Avenue from
a 2-lane collector to a 3-lane collector.
If forecasted reductions in traffic resulting from village design and TDM analysis do
not occur, additional segment mitigation, beyond special at-grade intersection
upgrades as identified previously in these Findings, would be required:
. Bonita Road between 1-805 and Plaza Bonita Road from 4-lane major to 6-
lane prime.
Page 119
Bonita Road between Plaza Bonita Road and Willow Street from 4-lane
major to 6-lane major.
. Bonita Road between Willow Street and Otay Lakes Road from 4-lane major
to 6-lane prime.
Bonita Road between Otay Lakes Road and Central Avenue from 4-lane
majL_ to 6-lane major.
Bonita Road between Central Avenue and San Miguel Road from a 4-lane
collector to a 4-lane major.
. . .
Significant Effect: Potential secondary impacts related to offsite roadway
improvements. [FPEIR, p, 4.9.11-24 and Table 3,10-9]
Finding: As discussed in the FPEIR and at public hearings on the Project certain
secondary impacts related to offsite improvements may occur (Le.: impacts to
biological resources, cultural resources, land use and aesthetics). However, at this
time it is speculative to forecast mitigation because such off site improvements may
not be required for 10 - 20 years or more. Additionally, such offsite improvements
will be subject to environmental review at the time that such discretionary action is
proposed. For these reasons, the Council determines that there are no feasible
mitigation measures that could be adopted by the Council without the Council
engaging in sheer speculation. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3) there are no feasible
measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance at this time.
As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
K. AIR OUALITY
Significant Effect: Air quality impacts would exceed the current State
Implementation Plan (SIP) air quality attainment regulations which were based on
SANDAG Series 7 growth projections. Also, Project emissions of NOx, reactive
organic gases (ROG), CO, and PM-lO from vehicular and stationary sources would
add to existing violations of federal and state ozone standards. [FPE~R, Volume 2,
p. 4.9.12-1] .
Finding: San Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards.
Additionally, population growth in the county is expected to continue (and may even
exceed current Series 7 projections); therefore, the mitigation measures described
below will not reduce emissions to a point where there is no net increase in the
Page 120
regional pollution background. Pursuant to section 15091 (a) (1), the mitigation
measures required below would substantially lessen the impacts on air quality, but
the impacts would still remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the
State CEQA Guidelines, there are no other feasible mitigation measures that would
mitigate the impacts below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these
significant impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible
and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant
through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.12-1]
The Applicant shall incorporate into the SPA plans all feasible measures
developed by the County of San Diego in the Regional Air Quality Strategy
(RAQS) in response to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA).
. The Applicant shall incorporate into the SPA plans the following measures:
Land Use
Neighborhood shopping and personal services adjacent to residential
areas to minimize auto trips and reduce mileage traveled to service
areas.
Open space and recreational facilities within or adjacent to the
residential areas.
Employee services within walking distance (Le., banking, child care,
restaurants, etc.).
A balanced mix of housing and employment possibilities to reduce trips
and vehicle miles traveled,
Siting/Design
The avoidance of potentially incompatible projects (for example, a
residential development near one of the quarries or the landfill).
Dedicated bike lanes to encourage use of bicycles.
Bicycle storage facilities at employment and retail centers.
Shower and locker facilities at offices to encourage bicycle use,
Page 121
Sidewalks and curbs to ensure safe pedestrian travel within residential
areas and to commercial centers.
Street designs that promote pedestrian safety (Le., safe islands in
center of major arterials, "Walk" signals, night lighting, etc.).
Shopping centers oriented to promote use by mass transit (Le., provide
bus turnouts, pedestrians, a..d bicyclists).
Parking lots designed to promote use of mass transit and car pools.
The installation of heat transfer modules on gas-fired furnaces to
control emissions of NOx.
Solar heating to heat water for domestic use and for swimming pools,
Advances in solar technology in the future may make other
applications appropriate.
Low-NOx residential and commercial water heaters,
Enhanced energy efficiency in building designs and landscaping plans,
Identify an environmental coordinator to be responsible for education
and disseminating information on ridesharing and/or mass transit
opportunities, recycling, energy conservation programs, etc.
Transportation-related Management Actions
Land for transit support facilities such as bus stops, park-and-ride lots,
etc. shall be provided. A determination to dedicate land shall be made
in consultation with the Metropolitan Transportation Development
Board (MTDB).
Amenities to increase convenience and attractiveness of transit stops
(Le., passenger staging areas, waiting shelters, etc.) shall be provided.
Demand-responsive traffic signals shall be negotiated.
An agreement with the transit agency to institute new routes or express
bus service, or to expand existing service, related to the demand caused
by the Project shall be negotiated.
Fair share participation for transit facilities and operation shall be
required.
Page 122
Compliance with APCD Indirect Source Control Program, if adopted,
Major employers shall provide ridesharing or mass transit incentives.
. . .
. No more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 million square feet of
cOmIl,ercial may be constructed until funding and construction for LRT is
assured.
Significant Effect: Short-term emissions would occur during Project construction.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.12-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
The following changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project and will reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following techniques to reduce construction emissions are
found to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval and are made
binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.12-1]
The following conditions shall be included in each SPA Plan:
Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units.
Low pollutant-emitting construction equipment shall be used.
Electrical construction equipment shall be used, as practical.
. Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used.
Injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment shall be used.
. The construction area shall be watered at least twice daily to minimize
fugitive dust.
. Graded areas shall be stabilized (for example, hydroseeded) upon completion
of grading to minimize fugitive dust.
Permanent roads shall be paved immediately after grading to minimize dust.
L. NOISE
Page 123
Significant Effect: Noise levels in many areas of the Project would exceed the
60dBA CNEL standard for residential uses. Also, indirect roadway and construction
noise would exceed the 60 dBA Leq standard for Least Bell's vireo habitat and
California Gnatcatcher. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.13-1 through p. 4.9.13-3]
Finding: Significant noise impacts have been identified from roadways, the Nelson
and Sloan Mining Operation, the Daley Quarry, the Otay Landfill, the San Diego Air
Sports Center, construction sites, and the various industrial activitL s in close
proximity to the Project site. Pursuant to section 15091 (a) (1) of the CEQA
Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will substantially lessen the identified noise impacts from these noise sources,
but not to below a level of significance. This determination must be made at the
SPA level when more detailed development plans are available to assess impacts and
current conditions. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts below a
level of significance at the GDP level. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact
is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.13-4 through p. 4.9.13-5]
. The GDP text identifies areas where a site-specific study is required. The
identified areas shall include the following:
Areas within 9300 feet of the Nelson and Sloan Mining Operation and
the Daley Quarry;
All areas within the 60 CNEL noise contour of onsite and offsite
roadways, which shall include all roadways on the Otay River parcel
and all roadways assigned a future ADT of 3000 trips or greater on the
Proctor Valley and San Ysidro parcels;
All areas within 1250 feet of the Otay Landfill;
All areas within one mile of the San Diego Air Sports Center; and
All areas adjacent to Least Bell's Vireo habitat and California
Gnatcatcher habitat.
Site-specific acoustical analyses shall be required during SPA Plan review and
prior to adoption of any Circulation Element General Plan Amendments.
The study shall provide a description of the Project, the existing noise
Page 124
environment, the methods of evaluation, the future acoustical environment,
noise impacts, and the required mitigation measures. The study shall be
prepared by a qualified acoustician in accordance with local standards for
preparation of such studies. The following standards shall be achieved.
. Residential development within the impact area shall not be allowed
unless the site specific noise study shows that the exterior noise level
can be mitigated to 60 CNEL or below and that the interior noise level
can be mitigated to 45 CNEL or below.
. Impacts to Least Bell's Vireo and California Gnatcatcher habitat shall
be mitigated to achieve a level of 60 DBA Leq or below.
Proper site planning to reduce noise impacts shall be utilized for all
noise sensitive land uses. Site planning techniques shall include the
following:
Place commercial uses adjacent to the high noise roadways such
as Heritage Road, Orange Avenue, Otay Valley Road, Paseo
Ranchero, and State Route 125.
Place less noise-sensitive land uses on parcels closest to
significant noise generators such as the Nelson and Sloan
Mining Operation, the Daley Quarry, the Otay Landfill, and
adjacent to the various industrial activities.
Increase the distance from the noise source to sensitive
receptors by creation of setbacks.
Place noise-sensitive land uses outside of the 60 CNEL noise
contour of roadways.
Place non-noise sensitive uses such as parking lots and utility
areas between the noise source and receiver.
Orient usable outdoor living space such as balconies, patios,
and children play areas away from roadways.
. Noise barriers such as walls and earthen beams shall be used to
mitigate noise from ground transportation sources when setbacks are
not feasible. To be effective, a barrier(s) shall block the line-of-sight
from the source to the receiver. A barrier shall also be of solid
construction (e.g., masonry) without holes or gaps and be long enough
to prevent sound from passing around the ends. A site-specific
Page 125
acoustical analysis shall be required to determine the proper height
and placement of a barrier.
. An interior acoustical analysis shall be required for all residential
buildings located within the 60 CNEL noise contour to ensure that the
building's design limits the interior noise level to 45 CNEL or below.
The analysis shall be conducted upon submittal of building plans by a
qualified acoustician. Careful consideration shall be given to the
placement of doors and windows. Construction techniques such as
heavy pane or double-pane windows shall be required to increase the
sound insulation within a room. If it is necessary to close windows to
control interior noise, an alternative means of ventilation such as heat
pumps or forced air unit is required to meet the Uniform Building
Code requirements.
M, PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Water Availability and Supply:
Significant Effect: Project-generated water requirements would result in significant
impacts related to the capability of local jurisdictions to provide adequate water.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-1]
Finding: As discussed in the FPEIR, it is unknown at this time if, in the future,
adequate water supply will be made available to the County Water Authority (CW A)
from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). If it is determined that adequate
water supply is not available at the time of individual SPA Plan review, development
shall not proceed. If it is determined that adequate water supply is available at the
time of individual SPA Plan review, implementation of the following mitigation
measures shall be required. Identifying and/or contracting for a precise water
contract at this time is impossible since densities, phasing, buildout and other factors
are still unknown. The City Council has determined that delaying the identification
of a contract will not result in environmental impact because of the other measures
adopted herein. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program ErR.
The following changes or alteratio~ are required as part of, or incorporated into, the
Project and will mitigate Project-specific water facility/service impacts to below a
level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-2]
Page 126
. Upon completion of the comprehensive master plan currently under
preparation by the Otay Water District (OWD), the facilities proposed for the
Otay Ranch Project shall be reviewed for conformance to this plan and
current OWD standards, if the Project is ultimately annexed to OWD,
. Annexation of land to the appropriate water jurisdiction as necessary.
. Applicant shall prepare and submit for the appropriate jurisdiction(s) approval
prior to the first SPA Plan, a Water Master Plan. The Water Master Plan
shall include:
A Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan.
A Water Conservation Plan which shall include an analysis of water
usage requirements as well as a detailed plan of proposed measures for
water conservation. Measures shall include, but not be limited to,
planting of drought tolerant vegetation for onsite landscaping and
roadside maintenance; the use of irrigation systems which minimize
runoff and evaporation loss; and the use of water conservation devices
including low flush toilets, shower fixtures, and other amenities.
A Water Reclamation Plan which shall include a reclaimed water
distribution system designed to meet appropriate engineering
standards. The plan shall address, in detail, storage and conveyance,
phasing, and financing. The construction of a dual piping system of
water supply shall be required for all development where the use of
reclaimed water will not jeopardize potable water supplies.
A Reclaimed Water Uses and Restrictions Plan which shall be
prepared by the Applicant in conformance with the Water Reclamation
Plan and current engineering and health standards, prior to any SPA
Plan adoption. These uses and restrictions shall be prepared in
coordination with the appropriate agencies to promote the maximum
use of reclaimed water allowed by law within the Project area.
The Water Master Plan will provide:
Design criteria and assumptions, in accordance with the appropriate
agency and regulatory authorities.
Information on how the Project will satisfy MWD's Water Use
Efficiency Guidelines.
Location and size of facilities for onsite and offsite improvements.
Page 127
Operations and terminal storage.
The Master Plan shall be consistent with the GDP and implement all
applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of prior approval(s). The
SPA Plan shall not be approved unless the Water Master Plan is
accepted/approved by the appropriate jurisdiction(s).
Written verification from the water district that water will be provided
concurrent with need shall be required prior to tentative map approval.
The following mitigation measure is rejected as infeasible:
Environmental analysis and a decision by lAFCo on the water supply and the water
supplier shall be made after the Sphere of Influence Study and prior to the approval
of the first SPA. Additionally, a development agreement shall not be entered into
without first identifying a water source. Finally, no financing entities shall be formed
or revenue bonds sold prior to the identification of a water source and confirmation
(i.e. a will serve letter) that such water source is available to supply the proposed
development concurrent with the need for Otay Ranch.
Rationale: The rejected measure is infeasible because it outlines a cumbersome
process that provides no further guarantees regarding the provision of water than the
adopted measures. For example, the measure contemplates a separate process for
lAFCo to identify a water source. However, it is contemplated that such decisions
will be made in the context of the Sphere of Influence Study which also requires
environmental documentation. Additionally, the measure forbids the establishment
of financing entities even though such entities may be necessary to secure or provide
the water source. The City Council finds that the mitigation measures adopted
herein reduce the impact below a level of significance and that the measures rejected
as infeasible do nothing towards further reduction of the identified impact.
. . .
Wastewater and Sewer Service:
Significant Effect: Facilities to accommodate additional sewage flow and wastewater
treatment would be required. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9,14-2]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Implementation of
the following mitigation measures at the SPA level will mitigate Project-related
wastewater and sewer service impacts to below a level of significance.
Page 128
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-2 through p. 4.9.14-3]
. Prior to approval of any SPA Plan within Otay Ranch, it shall be determined
which sewer district will serve the proposed SPA. The Project shall obtain
written verification from the applicable sewer district that the tract or parcel
will be provided adequate sewer service concurrent with need (a "will serve"
letter). When applicable, the Project shall obtain written approval from the
County Department of Health Services of private subsurface sewage disposal
systems.
Following the determination of which jurisdiction will provide sewer service
to a proposed SPA and prior to approval of the first SPA, in Otay Ranch, the
Applicant shall prepare and submit for the appropriate jurisdiction(s)
approval, a Sewer Master Plan in conformance with the sewer engineering
and facility siting standards of the appropriate jurisdictions for each SPA. The
Sewer Master Plan may be phased and shall address, in detail, the following:
Location and size of facilities for onsite and offsite improvements in
accordance with the appropriate agency and regulatory requirements,
A Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan. Phasing of facilities
shall be consistent with the growth management provisions of the GDP
Subregional Plan.
The Sewer Master Plan shall achieve:
Design Criteria and Assumptions in accordance with the appropriate
agency and regulating authorities.
The Master Plan shall be consistent with the GDP and implement all applicable
mitigation measures and/or conditions of prior approval(s). The SPA Plan shall not
be approved unless the Sewer Master Plan is accepted/approved by the appropriate
jurisdiction(s).
A Sewer Master Plan shall be approved prior to the approval of each SPA Plan
within Otay Ranch.
. . .
During the public hearings, several members of the public argued that sewer service
should be prohibited in Central Proctor Valley and Planning Areas 16 and 19, This
prohibition was rejected as infeasible by the Council because the Project proposes
Page 129
to cluster development unless environmentally constrained areas thereby necessitating
public sewer. Furthermore, the use of septics in these areas has the potential to have
an adverse impact on the City of San Diego's water supply, namely, Otay Lakes.
When precise development plans are submitted for approval, the appropriate
jurisdiction shall perform the necessary percolation test and/or other tests to
determine whether or not the sewer should be extended into these areas.
Page 130
within the jurisdiction of San Diego County and overlaps the boundaries of several
county planning areas. Most of the site is within the southern part of the
Pala-Pauma Subregion, although more than 4,000 acres are within the Valley Center
plan area (eastern end) and over 2,000 acres lie at the far eastern end of the North
County Metropolitan Subregion. Ranch Guejito itself, along with some adjacent
land, is held by one owner. However, more than 300 landowners hold title to the
entire site under consideration, primarily in the area immediately east of Valley
Center and west of the ranch. County Route S-6 (Va:ley Center Road) is adjacent
to the site at its extreme northwest comer.
The Rancho Guejito Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it is not adjacent
to existing developed areas. Consequently, the development of Rancho Guejito
would be more growth inducing because of the gap between developed and
undeveloped areas. Such non-contiguous development would result in greater air
pollution impacts, greater traffic impacts and greater energy consumption. Rancho
Guejito has multiple ownerships as opposed to one single ownership and for that
reason the decisionmakers believe it would be more difficult to implement
program-wide mitigation measures such as a preserve. Finally, the proximity of
Rancho Guejito to the research observatories in the county would create significant
unrnitigable impacts to those facilities. For these reasons, the Rancho Guejito
Alternative is considered by the decisionmakers to be infeasible.
E. DELUZ OFFSITE ALTERNATIVE
Because the site contains only 3,340 acres with less than a 25% slope, this site was
eliminated from consideration early on in the site selection process. The Otay Ranch
site allows the decisionmakers to comprehensively plan a 23,088 acre site and more
specifically to allow the creation of a long term comprehensively managed Preserve
within that site, while still meeting Project objectives of creating a balanced mix of
housing in close proximity to employment centers. For this reason, the City Council
rejects this alternative as infeasible.
The DeLuz Alternative was rejected because of the following:
. More growth inducing;
. More air pollution generated and more energy consumed;
. More stress on local and regional transportation systems;
. Had multiple ownerships;
. More impactive on both research observatories in San Diego County.
For these reasons, the Deluz Offsite Alternative is considered by the decisionmakers to be
infeasible.
Xl.
Page 175
Significant Effect: The Otay Ranch population would result in the need for
additional staff and facilities to provide these services. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
4,9.14-3 through 4.9.14-4]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Implementation of
the following measures at the SPA level will mitigate Proj' t-related impacts to
below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-4]
The Applicant shall prepare and submit for the appropriate jurisdiction(s)
approval prior to the first SPA Plan, in close coordination with the
appropriate service provider and based on the jurisdictional arrangements, a
Law Enforcement Services Master Plan. The Law Enforcement Services
Master Plan shall address city/county law enforcement standards the staff
needs of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), and include:
The types of facilities and equipment to be provided.
Site and location criteria.
Design techniques and guidelines to minimize crime.
Funding mechanisms identified by the appropriate law enforcement
agency and implementation method assured.
The Master Plan shall be consistent with the GDP and implement all
applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of prior approval(s). The
Law Enforcement Services Master Plan shall assure the Project meets the
following standards:
Provide properly equipped and staffed law enforcement units to
respond to 84 percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within 7
minutes and maintain an average response time of all "Priority One"
emergency calls of 4.5 minutes or less. (Urban service)
Provide properly equipped and staffed law enforcement units to
respond to 62 percent of "Priority Two Urgent" calls within 7 minutes
and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7
minutes or less. (Urban service)
Page 132
Provide facilities for properly equipped and staffed law enforcement
units to maintain an average response time for "Priority One" calls of
12 minutes, and 24 minutes for low priority calls. (Rural service)
The SPA Plan shall not be approved unless the Law Enforcement Services
Master Plan is accepted/approved by the appropriate jurisdiction(s).
Applicant shall prepare and submit for appropriate jurisdiction(s) approval
prior to the first SPA Plan in close coordination with the appropriate service
provider, a Fire Master Plan. The Fire Master Plan shall address:
Facilities requirements of the city and county including equipment
needs,
Si te selection criteria.
Specific site locations.
Funding mechanisms.
The Master Plan shall demonstrate that the proposed facilities shall enable
the fire protection servers to achieve the urban and rural emergency response
times established by the City of Chula Vista threshold and County of San
Diego Public Facilities Element and include a Sprinkler Plan, an Emergency
Disaster Plan, and a Brush Maintenance Plan. The Master Plan shall be
consistent with the GDP and implement all applicable mitigation measures
and/or conditions of prior approval(s). The Fire Master Plan shall assure the
Project meets the following standards:
Provide sufficient fire and emergency services facilities to respond to
calls within the Otay Ranch urban communities: within a 7 minute
response time in 85% of the cases; a 10 minute travel time in the Otay
Ranch estate communities with lots averaging more than 2 acre (and
attendant neighborhood serving commercia). and; a 20 minute travel
time in the Otay Ranch rural communities with 4 acre lots or larger.
Provide sufficient fire and emergency services facilities to respond to
calls within: Otay Ranch single family communities with residential lots
of less than two acres, or more intensive uses as multi-family
residential, including industrial development and all commercial
development except neighborhood commercial, in a 5 minute travel
time; Otay Ranch single- family residential lots from two acres to four
acres, including neighborhood commercial development, in a 10 minute
travel time; and Otay Ranch large lot single-family residential and
Page 133
agricultural areas with lot sizes greater than four acres in a 20 minute
travel time.
The SPA Plan shall not be approved unless the Fire Master Plan is
accepted/approved by the appropriate jurisdiction(s).
Applicant shall prepare and submit for appropriate jurisdiction(s) approval
prior to the first SPA Plan in close coordination with the appropriate service
provider, an Emergency Service Master Plan. The Emergency Service Master
Plan shall address facilities requirements including facilities for hazardous
materials incidents, service locations and funding mechanisms, and shall be
approved by the appropriate fire protection district. The master plan shall
demonstrate that a 10-minute emergency response time will be achieved by
all new or upgraded facilities. The Emergency Service Master Plan shall
provide:
Fire protection service facilities concurrent with need.
Emergency service facilities concurrent with need.
. SPA Plans shall include a Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan.
. Each SPA shall be required to meet the criteria of the approved master plan.
. . .
Schools
Significant Effect: The Otay Ranch student population would generate the need for
additional schools. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-4 through p. 4.9.14-5]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR. Implementation of the following measures at the SPA level will
ensure that Project-related impacts to school services are mitigated to below a level
of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-5]
. The Applicant shall prepare and submit for the appropriate jurisdiction(s)
approval prior to the first SPA Plan, in close coordination with the affected
Page 134
school districts, a School Facilities Master Plan. The School Facilities Master
Plan shall assure the availability of school service for the first development
within Otay Ranch and shall provide a comprehensive framework for the
provision of school service with implementation of the entire Otay Ranch
development. The School Facilities Master Plan shall:
Demonstrate that a maximum capacity of 650 elementary students,
1,500 middle school students and 2,500 high school students will be
achieved at each new school proposed in conjunction with Otay Ranch,
in accordance with school district standards.
Identify the general locations of schools through the General
Development Plan.
The Master Plan shall be consistent with the GDP and implement all
applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of prior approval(s). The
SPA Plan shall not be approved unless the School Facilities Master Plan is
accepted/approved by the appropriate jurisdiction(s),
. Prior to SPA Plan approval, the Applicant shall provide documentation
confirming school site locations and school district approval of the locations
within that SPA. This approval shall entail site location, size, and
configuration of schools, with provisions for access and pedestrian safety to
the satisfaction of the various school districts. Funding and phasing shall also
be addressed and confirmed in accordance with school district procedures.
. SPA Plans shall include a Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan.
. Prior to SPA Plan approval, the Applicant shall provide documentation to the
appropriate jurisdiction confirming school district satisfaction of facility
funding to fully mitigate Otay Ranch student generation impacts to below a
level of significance.
. . .
Library Service:
Significant Effect: Additional library facilities would be required to serve the Otay
Ranch population. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-5]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Implementation of the
Page 135
following mitigation measures at the SPA level will mitigate Project-related impacts
to library service to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-5]
. The Applicant shall prepare and submit for the appropriate jurisdiction(s)
approval prior to the first SPA Plan, a Library Master Plan in accordance with
the standards of the applicable jurisdiction. (See, for example the City of
Chula Vista's Municipal Code section 19.09.040 (D).) The Library Master
Plan shall address site location, size, and funding mechanisms. The Master
Plan shall be consistent with the GDP and implement all applicable mitigation
measures and/or conditions of prior approval(s). The SPA Plan shall be
approved unless the Library Master Plan is accepted/approved by the
appropriate jurisdiction(s).
. SPA Plans shall include a Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan.
. . .
Parks. Recreation. and Open Space:
Significant Effect: Otay Ranch would generate additional demand for regional and
local parkland, open space, and recreational facilities. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p, 4.9.14-5
through p. 4,9,14-6]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program ElR.
Implementation of the following measures at the SPA level will ensure mitigation of
Project-related impacts regarding parks, recreation, and open space to below a level
of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-6]
. Open space shall be provided in compliance with the following policies
outlined in the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for Otay Ranch. The
RMP provides for minimum standards to be achieved in the development of
the Project.
Page 136
. Within the RMP management preserve, permitted recreational uses shall be
consistent with long-term protection and management of sensitive natural and
man-made resources. A maximum of 400 acres within the preserve may be
designated for active recreational purposes. A range of public access and
regional recreational uses shall be provided within the management preserve.
Permitted recreational uses within the preserve shall include the following, so
long as they are designed in an environmentally-sensitive manner:
Walking and hiking trails throughout most of the preserve, linking with
the county trails system.
Limited wilderness-type camping and picnic facilities in non-sensitive
areas.
Equestrian trails in non-sensitive areas.
Bicycle trails in non-sensitive areas.
A native plant nursery and botanical garden.
Links-style golf course(s) in non-sensitive areas.
A "Recreation Access Plan" shall be formulated during the Phase 2 RMP,
when more information regarding population density, location and regional
park concepts is available, to identify the types (hiking, bicycle, equestrian)
and locations of public trails to be provided within the management preserve,
The required Access Plan shall address the following issues:
Establishing linkages between preserve trails and community and
regional trails systems, including regional park trails.
Identifying trail access points to the management preserve consistent
with resource protection goals.
Establishing appropriate daily and seasonal limits on trail use.
Assuring that the kind and intensity of trail uses is consistent with
protection of resource areas being traversed.
. The Project must provide 15 acres of regional park and open space per 1,000
Otay Ranch residents, a minimum of 3 acres of neighborhood and community
park land per 1,000 Otay Ranch residents and 12 acres of other active or
passive recreation and open space per 1,000 Otay Ranch residents.
Page 137
Recreational facilities and open space shall be provided in accordance with
the General Development Plan (GDP)/Subregional Plan and the General
Plan Amendments.
The Project SPA Plans shall further define the location, acreage, and
boundaries of neighborhood and community parks and open space on the
Otay Ranch property in a form and manner acceptable to the City of Chula
Vista and the C Junty of San Diego.
The Applicant shall prepare and submit for appropriate jurisdiction(s)
approval prior to approval of the first SPA Plan in accordance with the
required parkland acreage standards of the appropriate jurisdiction(s), a
Recreation Access Master Plan. The Recreation Access Master Plan shall
address facilities requirements, site-selection criteria and specific park site
locations, and funding mechanisms, and provide a bicycle and trails plan
developed by the Project Applicant in conjunction with the Parks, Recreation,
and Open Space Master Plan for Otay Ranch.
The Master Plan shall be consistent with the GDP and implement all
applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of prior approval(s), The
SPA Plan shall not be approved unless the Recreation Access Master Plan is
accepted/approved by the appropriate jurisdiction(s).
. All SPA Plans shall include a Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan.
. The funding source for local parks shall be the Park Lands Dedication
Ordinance (PLDO), or similar exaction authority. Should the PLDO be
satisfied through the payment of fees, the park improvements shall be made
by the jurisdiction or park district. If the PLDO is satisfied by land
dedication, the Applicant shall provide turn-key facilities,
. The reconstruction of the State Department of Recreation's California Riding
and Hiking Trail shall be implemented along with the attendant roadway
improvements. If necessary, easement relocation within Otay Ranch shall
occur at the Applicant's expense.
. . .
Electricity and Gas:
Significant Effect: Additional substations and associated distribution lines would be
required to service the Project. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-6]
Page 138
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the following measures during Project development shall mitigate
impacts to electric service to below a level of significance. The provision of gas
facilities is not considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9,14-6]
The Project Applicant shall work with SDG&E during all stages of electrical
and gas facilities planning to minimize disturbance to sensitive resources.
. Land uses adjacent to the SDG&E transmission lines shall be subject to
review and comment by SDG&E.
. . .
Health and Medical Services Facilities:
Significant Effect: Otay Ranch would generate the need for additional health and
medical service facilities. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-7]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures at the SPA level will mitigate
Project-specific impacts to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval are made binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-7]
. To ensure provision of and access to facilities which meet the health care
needs of Otay Ranch residents, governmental agencies and development
planners shall work directly with service providers to identify the need for and
location of medical and health facilities in the Otay Ranch area during all
stages of planning.
. Prior to SPA Plan approval, siting and design criteria shall be developed by
the Project Applicant, in conjunction with the appropriate governmental
agencies, to address public and private health and medical care facilities,
Criteria should include, but not be limited to, consideration for impact of
Page 139
facility concentration on neighborhoods, access to transportation, and
co-location of comparable programs where feasible.
. . .
Senior and Social Services:
Significant Effect: Otay Ranch would generate the ..eed for additional senior and
social service facilities. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-7 through p. 4,9.14-8]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures at the SPA level will mitigate
Project-specific impacts to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-8]
To ensure provision of and access to facilities which meet the senior and
social service needs of Otay Ranch residents, governmental agencies and
development planners shall work directly with service providers to identify the
need for and location of senior and social service facilities in the Otay Ranch
area.
. Prior to approval, SPA Plans shall be circulated by the Project Applicant to
the Conunission on Aging, Department of Social Services, Area Agency on
Aging, Human Services Council and Chula Vista 21 for their review and
input.
Planning for social services for the residents of Otay Ranch shall incorporate
the following considerations:
The elderly have special needs for affordable housing, transportation,
and health care. The number of persons 65 years of age and older
requiring long-term care will continue to increase significantly, and as
family size also decreases, there will be less family-based support and
increased reliance on outside services for the elderly.
The public sector and community-based organizations will need to
deliver services in more culturally sensitive ways. Close collaboration
with ethnic and cultural groups will be essential.
Page 140
. . .
Child Care Facilities:
Significant Effect: Otay Ranch would generate the need for additional child care
facility space. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-8]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures at the SPA level will mitigate
Project-related child care impacts to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14]
. Applicant shall prepare and submit for appropriate jurisdiction(s) approval
prior to the first SPA Plan, a Child Care Master Plan. The Child Care
Master Plan shall address site-selection criteria and acreage requirements
based on the child-care demand of the Project. The Child Care Master Plan
shall require that Child care and pre-school facility sites shall be located
adjacent to public and private schools, religious assembly uses, village center
employment areas, transit centers and other locations deemed appropriate.
The Master Plan shall be consistent with the GDP and implement all
applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of prior approval(s), The
SPA Plan shall not be approved unless the Child Care Master Plan is
accepted/approved by the appropriate jurisdiction(s).
. . .
Animal Control Facilities:
Significant Effect: Otay Ranch would generate the need for additional animal
control facility space. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-9]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures at the SPA level will mitigate
Project-related animal control impacts to below a level of significance.
Page 141
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required
as a condition of approval and is made binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-9]
. The Project Applicant shall participate in programs to equitably share the
funding of animal control facilities and designate animal control facilities
sufficient to provide adequate square footage of shelter space per Otay Ranch
dwelling unit to the satisfaction of the appropriate jurisdiction.
N. RISK OF UPSET
Significant Effect: Increase in urbanization would result in an increase in the use,
transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and an associated increase in
the risk of an upset condition in the area. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.15-1]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measures identified below will mitigate impacts to below a
level of significance. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.15-2]
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.15-1]
. Soil and ground-water testing shall occur in the ranch operations center area
potentially affected by the previous disposal of hazardous waste or historic
pesticide use. The purpose of the testing shall be to identify areas of
contamination in excess of federal and state standards. Should areas of excess
contamination be identified, remediation shall occur prior to residential
development.
The Applicant shall notify prospective buyers and the California Department
of Health Services (DHS), as required, regarding the Applicant's intention to
develop the area adjacent to the Otay Landfill and the Appropriate
Technologies II hazardous waste facilities.
The U.S. Army or another appropriate entity shall conduct a survey of the
Brown Field Bombing Range to identify the presence of any unexploded
ammunition. Should unexploded ordnance be located on the property,
appropriate measures shall be taken for removal of the material.
. The transport of hazardous waste by the Applicant, sub-contractors, and
future businesses on existing and future roadways shall be conducted in
Page 142
accordance with the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations identify Department of
Transportation (DOT) approved methods for packaging and containerizing
hazardous waste and site appropriate options and procedures relative to the
handling and transportation of these wastes.
. The need for emergency evacuation routes and other emergency facilities shall
be determined at the SPA level if necessary based on the presence of onsite
industrial uses as well as the presence of offsite industrial uses.
. . .
Significant effect: Direct and Indirect growth inducing impacts; in particular with
regard to Jamul and the potential availability of sewer extensions.
Finding: The Project has the potential to induce growth, particularly in Jamul
because of the potential availability of sewer service. This change is significantly
adverse and unrnitigable nd remains significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3)
of the State CEQA Guideline there are no feasible mitigation measures which would
mitigate the impact. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations,however, the Board of Supervisors has determined that this impact
is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
The following mitigation measure is rejected as infeasible:
. Preclusion of sewer service to Jamul Rural Planning Area 16.
Rationale: The decisionmakers have determined that the measure is infeasible
because site specific tests regarding the feasibility of septic systems need to be
completedJld,Qr to determining how to serve that area. Because the impact on water
quality (if septic tanks were used) needs to be assessed at the SPA level, the
decisionmakers need to maintain flexibility in determining which type of system to
use. Additionally, the decisionmakers have determined to cluster housing in an
urban manner in this Planning Area in order to avoid impacts to open space, This
urban village setting is potentially conducive to sewer expansion.
These findings discuss all impacts contained in the FPEIR and discussed at the numerous
public hearings. However, to the extent that an impact or "alleged" impact of the Project
either direct or secondary has not been discussed in this document, the Council hereby
overrides such impact for the reasons described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
IX.
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MmGATION MEASURES
Page 143
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects" (Public Resources Code Section 21082.2 subd.(b)). Several development
proposals have been submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the
cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the County of San Diego in proximity to Otay
Ranch. These "current or probable future" development proposals would affect many of the
same natural resources and public infrastructure as Otay Ranch. Several potentially
significant cumulative impacts are associated with development of Otay Ranch in
conjunction with these surrounding development projects.
Although the EIR does not analyze the specific cumulative impacts associated with the
Mitigated Phase II-Progress Plan, it does analyze a range of alternatives including the Phase
I-Progress Plan which is comparable, but more impactive, than the Final Project. Since the
Phase I-Progress Plan proposes more dwelling units and, thus, has relatively more significant
environmental impacts than the Final Project, the analysis of the Phase I-Progress Plan plus
reasonably related current and probable future projects provides a reasonable basis upon
which to analyze cumulative impacts.
In formulating mitigation measures for the Project, regional issues and cumulative impacts
have been taken into consideration. Many of the mitigation measures adopted for the
cumulative impacts are similar to the Project level mitigation measures. This reflects the
inability of the Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures on surrounding jurisdictions
(i.e" City of San Diego, City of National City and Mexico) and the contribution of these
jurisdictions to cumulative impacts.
The final Project along with the other related projects will result in the following
irreversible cumulative environmental changes. All page numbers following the impacts
refer to pages from the Final Program EIR.
Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
The cumulative loss of over 32,000 acres of open space and agricultural land.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-9]
Potential land use incompatibilities between Otay Ranch and the alternate
county landfill sites. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-9]
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
Change in character from rural to urban development. [FPEIR, Volume 2,
p. 6-13]
Overall landform alteration, creation of manufactured slopes, and grading of
steep slopes. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13]
Page 144
The cumulative effects of night lighting. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13]
Biological Resources
Significant decrease in key biological resources in southwestern San Diego
County. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13]
Cultural Resources
The loss of approximately 75 percent of the known cultural resource sites in
the combined cumulative study area. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-26 through 6-29]
Geology and Soils
An increase in population and property that would be exposed to the effects
of seismic ground shaking from local active faults, such as the Rose
Canyon and Coronado Bank faults. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p, 6-30]
Paleontology
Increased probability of disturbance to significant paleontological resources,
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-31]
Agricultural Resources
Loss of prime farmland and grazing land. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-35]
Mineral Resources
Loss of aggregate mineral resources. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-36]
Water Resources and Water Quality
Degradation of water quality and a reduction in ground-water basin recharge,
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-38]
Transportation, Circulation, and Access
Impacts on short-term and long-term traffic operations. [FPEIR, Volume 2,
p.6-41]
Air Quality
Page 145
Stationary and vehicular emissions would aggravate the San Diego Air Basin's
current inability to attain state and federal air quality standards. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 6-41 through 6-42]
Noise
Exposure of residential and other noise sensitive land uses to vehicular noise
leve:. exceeding prevailing and local noise standards. [FPEIR, Volume 2,
p, 6-43]
Public Services and Facilities
Water Availability and Demand: Availability of water to serve region.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-45]
Wastewater and Sewer Service: Increased flow generation. [FPEIR, Volume
2, p. 6-46]
Integrated Waste Management: Declining landfill capacity in the region,
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-47]
Police and Fire Protection and Emergen~ Medical Services: Need for
additional facilities to provide services. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-48]
Schools: Projects would generate the need for additional schools. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 6-49]
Library Service: Additional library facilities and books would be required to
serve the cumulative impact area. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-50]
Parks. Recreation. and Open Space: Additional regional and local parkland,
open space, and recreational facilities would be required to serve the
cumulative impact area. Significant cumulative impacts would also occur to
waterfowl hunting in the area. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-51]
Electricity and Gas: Additional substations and associated distribution lines
would be required to serve the cumulative impact area. [FPEIR, Volume 2,
p. 6-52]
Other Public Services: An increased demand for health and medical facilities,
senior and social services, cemetery facilities, child care facilities, and animal
control facilities in the cumulative impact area. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-53]
Risk of Upset
Page 146
The potential risk of adverse health effects associated with the use, transport,
and storage of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste would
increase. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-54]
Certain of the above cumulative impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided,
As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that these cumulative impacts have been reduced to an
acceptable level than accepted because of specific overriding considerations. The
below sub-sections define each of the above-described cumulative impact issues,
setting forth either the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the
mitigation measures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons
proposed mitigation measures are infeasible due to specific, economic, social or other
considerations.
A. LAND USE. PLANNING. AND ZONING
Significant Cumulative Effect: The cumulative loss of over 32,000 acres of open
space and agricultural land. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-9]
Finding: Cumulative development in the Otay Ranch impact area will result in a
significant loss of open space and agricultural land with or without Otay Ranch. This
impact, therefore, is considered significant and unmitigable. Pursuant to Section
15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that
would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined
that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations,
. . .
Significant Cumulative Effect: Potential land use incompatibilities between Otay
Ranch and the alternate county landfill sites. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p, 6-9]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR. However, since a site is yet to be selected, land use interface impacts
are unknown and thus remain potentially significant. Pursuant to section 15091 (a)
(3), as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required either as a
condition of approval or is made binding on the Applicant through these Findings,
Page 147
The SPA plans developed for the areas of the Otay River parcel adjacent to
any of the alternate San Diego County landfill sites shall contain landscaping
and buffering standards designed to prevent land use interface impacts such
as health hazards, noise, lighting, and loss of privacy between Otay Ranch and
these adjacent land uses. The SPA plans shall be reviewed by the City of
Chula Vista City Council and the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors
to ensure that proposed standards are adequate to prevent significant
interface impacts from occurring. :FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-10]
B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS
Significant Cumulative Effect: Change in character from rural to urban development.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13]
Finding: This impact is considered unrnitigable. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate
the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this impact is
acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
. . .
Significant Cumulative Effect: Overall landform alteration, creation of manufactured
slopes, and grading of steep slopes. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the Project's contribution to the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final EIR. Cumulative impacts of the other projects are
substantially lessened through similar measures as well as through enforcement of the
County's 1-73, Hillside Development Policy, Policy 15.K.7 of the Jamul/Dulzura
Subregional Plan, the City of Chula Vista's Hillside Modifying District Ordinance and
other regulations and policies of Chula Vista's General Plan Land Use Element, and
the City of San Diego's Hillside Review Overlay Zone. In spite of these regulations
and site-specific design and grading measures, cumulative impacts to landform
alteration and aesthetics are considered significant and only partially mitigable, This
impact, therefore, is considered unmitigable and significant. Pursuant to Section
15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, then: are no other feasible measures
that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined
that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Page 148
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required
as a condition of approval and is made binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13]
. Applicant shall implement the measures contained in Section VIII of this
document (for example, the use of contour grading, the implementation of
design guidelines, and the incorporation of planned open space) would reduce
Otay Ranch's contribution to cumulative impacts.
. . .
Significant Cumulative Effect: The cumulative effects of night lighting. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 6-13]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required
as a condition of approval and is made binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13]
. Compliance with the San Diego County Code Sections 59.101-115 (the County
Dark Sky Ordinance). Compliance will be required even if an SPA is being
developed under the jurisdiction of the City.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Cumulative Effects: Significantly decrease key biological resources in
southwestern San Diego County. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-17]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR. The Project mitigates effects to key resources through design
features; however, not to a level below significance. The cumulative reduction of the
sensitive coastal sage scrub habitat mosaic which supports California gnatcatcher,
cactus wren, Otay tarplant, and vernal pool habitat within the boundaries of the Final
Project is unmitigable due to the magnitude of the effect. This impact, therefore,
remains significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, there are no other feasible measures that would mitigate the impact
below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this impact is
acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Page 149
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-18]
The cumulative effects shall be mitigated through a combination of measures
which ultimately concentrate on protecting the key resource areas and tying
these areas together onsite and with adjacent offsite areas to create a viable
regional open space preserve (see Section VIII of the EIR:. The key
component of this mitigation is the Resource Management Plan (RMP) which
establishes minimum standards to be achieved with the development of the
Project.
Sensitive habitats on Otay Ranch shall be restored or preserved to provide
mitigation for both the loss of habitat and sensitive species due to
development of the property. Restoration of disturbed habitats will increase
the resource value of the habitat, as well as potentially provide links to key
resource areas on both local and regional levels. Habitat restoration in areas
that connect two or more otherwise isolated key resource areas will allow
migration between subpopulations resulting in more viable populations.
. Restoration of habitat in highly biodiverse areas can play an important role
in effectively increasing the population size of sensitive species, Disturbed
portions of the Otay River Valley will be restored back to an intact riparian
habitat, which will allow for an increase in the number of least Bell's vireo
breeding pairs that will utilize the expanded habitat. Restoration of Diegan
coastal sage scrub habitats will potentially contribute to the maintenance of
the California gnatcatcher population on Otay Ranch, and disturbed coastal
sage scrub habitat adjacent to areas currently utilized by cactus wren could be
restored with maritime succulent scrub in order for the cactus wren
population to expand.
During the administrative hearings it was recommended by the public and various
resource agencies that adoption of the Project be delayed until adoption of an MSCP
or NCCP. Such a measure is infeasible because there is no certainty regarding the
time line for adoption of such a plan. The Otay Ranch Project has been in the
processing pipeline for over three years. There is a demand in the South County for
a wide variety of housing types; the Project intends to assist in meeting that demand,
It would be infeasible for economic and planning reasons to delay approval of the
Project until adoption of the MSCP /NCCP.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Cumulative Effect: The loss of approximately 75 percent of the known
cultural resource sites in the combined cumulative study area. [FPEIR, Volume 2,
Page 150
p. 6-26 through 6-29]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant (if
established in the region) through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-29 through
6-30]
A regional preservation plan with specific cultural resource preservation goals
shall be established to determine what kind of database the managing
agencies desire to retain after the region as a whole has been developed.
Once a plan and goals have been established, a specific resource preservation
plan developed by the Applicant for the Otay Ranch that focuses on database
diversity in terms of values shall be established and implemented specifically
for the Otay Ranch Project. This plan shall conform to regional preservation
goals, establish realistic preservation measures that address secondary impacts
and long term preservation and access to the database.
. A regional repository shall be established and cultural material from the
Project and the region shall be preserved in this repository. Furthermore,
funding for its long-term preservation shall be secured to ensure preservation
of the resources; the Applicant shall pay a fair share.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Significant Cumulative Effect: An increase in population and property that would
be exposed to the effects of seismic ground shaking from local active faults, such as
the Rose Canyon and Coronado Bank faults. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-30]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures presented in Section 3.5.3 of
the Final Program EIR would mitigate cumulative impacts of seismic shaking,
geologic hazards and soil conditions to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-31]
Page 151
. Cumulative impacts related to seismic ground shaking shall be avoided by
designing and constructing proposed projects in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code (UBC), state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the
Structural Engineering Association of California (SEAOC), and applicable
local building codes as required by local agencies. No additional measures
are necessary for seismic effects.
. All significant cumulative geologic and soil impacts shall be mitigated through
appropriate site-specific investigations and implementation of standard
construction and design methods as described in Section VIII of the FPEIR
F, PALEONTOLOGY
Significant Cumulative Effect: Increased probability of disturbance to significant
paleontological resources. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-31]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures presented in Section 3.6.3 of
the Final Program EIR for all developments in the cumulative impact area would
mitigate cumulative impacts to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures outlined in Section VIII of the
FPEIR are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made
binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-32]
G. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Cumulative Effect: Loss of prime farmland and grazing land. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 6-35]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR. The impacts, however, still remain significant. Pursuant to Section
15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that
would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this
impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation- Measures: The mitigation measures outlined in Section VIII of the
FPEIR are to be feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made
binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-31]
Page 152
H. MINERAL RESOURCES
Significant Cumulative Effect: Loss of aggregate mineral resources. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 6-35 through 6-36]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR. The phasing of development of the San Ysidro and Proctor Valley
parcels to allow for the extraction of mineral resources before construction would
effectively mitigate impacts to mineral resources. However, should this not be
feasible the cumulative impact to mineral resources would be significant and
unmitigable. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, there
are no other feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of
significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however,
the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant
through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-37]
. Project phasing in the San Ysidro and Proctor Valley parcels shall allow for
mineral extraction before conflicting development occurs, if feasible.
. Compatible land uses shall be developed in areas where mineral extraction
would likely occur.
I. WATER RESOURCES AND WATER OUALITY
Significant Cumulative Effect: Degradation of water quality and a reduction in
ground-water basin recharge. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-38J
Finding: Purs)lant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-40]
Page 153
Additional surface water modeling shall be required upon preparation of a
final design plan at the SPA level. The standards identified in Section VII of
the FPEIR shall be met. This modeling shall analyze:
. Location and number of detention basins necessary to control the peak
discharge at an acceptable level;
. Peak discharge values at specific locations important to the structural
design of bridges, etc.; and
. Total volume of surface water discharge during a design storm.
J. TRANSPORTATION. CIRCULATION. AND ACCESS
Significant Cumulative Effect: Impacts on short-term and long-term traffic
operations. [FPEIR, p. 6-40]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. Impacts,
however, will remain significant after implementation of the mitigation measures.
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are no
feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required
as a condition of approval and is made binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-41]
. Any project within the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista shall be required
to meet or exceed the traffic standards set forth by the City of Chula Vista
Municipal Code section 19.09.040 (I).
. Projects in the region will be required to instruct appropriate improvements
and contribute their proporitonate share towards construction of regional
facilities.
K. AIR OUALITY
Significant Cumulative Effect: Stationary and vehicular emissions would aggravate
the San Diego Air Basin's current inability to attain state and federal air quality
standards. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-41 through 6-42]
Page 154
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
These measures, however, will not reduce impacts below a level of significance.
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are no
feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council
has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-43]
The cumulatively significant degradation of regional air quality can be
mitigated but not below a level of significance by implementing public transit
and trip reduction programs onsite and by requiring housing and building
designs that minimize air pollutant emissions. It is a policy of the City to
require participation in strategies listed above. The Lead Agency has
required Applicants within the Otay parcel to contribute their fair share to
LRT.
. Project-specific and regional measures as discussed in Section VII of the
FPEIR are required.
L. NOISE
Significant Cumulative Effect: Exposure or residential and other noise sensitive land
uses to vehicular noise levels exceeding local noise standards. [FPEIR, Volume 2,
p. 6-43]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
Program EIR. Impacts, however, may not be reduced to a level below significance.
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are no
feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a levei of significance. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Page 155
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-43]
Future acoustical studies shall be required for residences and other noise
sensitive land uses exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 CNEL or greater for
all projects within the jurisdiction of the agency.
Future acoustical studies shall be required for Least Bell's Vireo habitat and
California Gnatcatcher habitat exposed to noise levels of 60 DBA Leq or
greater for all projects within the jurisdiction of the agency.
Noise attenuation techniques, such as construction of walls and/or earthen
beams between sensitive uses and significant noise sources shall be required
to achieve standards as discussed in Section VIII of the FPEIR.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Water Availability and Supply
Significant Cumulative Effect: Availability of water to serve region. [FPEIR, Volume
2, p. 6-45]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measures described below shall ensure that potentially
significant cumulative impacts to water availability and demand are mitigated to
below a level of significance through the implementation of site-specific
improvements as identified by future studies. If it is determined that adequate water
supply is not available at the time of individual SPA Plan review, the Project will not
proceed.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-45]
. Mitigation measures shall include the preparation pf water facilities studies
and financing plans to identify specific impacts on the water' supply system to
determine the significance of those impacts on water facilities, and to identify
measures that would reduce or eliminate the effects. These studies and plans
shall include an analysis of the cumulative water demand and survey of the
water necessary to serve existing, proposed, and approved projects within each
service zone.
Page 156
. Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project-specific improvements
and to construct, or contribute toward the cost of constructing, any regional
facilities required by the study with respect to the cumulative water demand
as a result of new development.
. . .
Wastewater and Sewer Servic(,;
Significant Cumulative Effect: Increased flow generation. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
6-46]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measures described below shall ensure that adequate
measures are identified during site-specific analyses that will mitigate potentially
significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater and sewer service to below
a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following IDltIgation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-46J
. Each Applicant shall prepare and obtain appropriate jurisdiction approval of
sewer basin studies and financing plans in order to identify specific impacts,
to determine the significance of the effect, and to identify measures that
would reduce or eliminate the effect upon the sewerage system. These studies
and plans shall include an analysis of the cumulative sewage flow to be
generated by existing, proposed, and approved projects within each basin.
. Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project-specific improvements
and to construct, or contribute toward the cost of constructing, any regional
facilities required by the study for wastewater conveyance, treatment, and
disposal in proportion to the flows contributed by each development with
respect to the cumulative flows from the new developments.
. . .
Intes:rated Waste Manaiement
Significant Cumulative Effect: Declining landfill capacity in the region. [FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 6-47J
Page 157
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measure described below shall ensure that adequate measures
are identified during site-specific analyses that will mitigate potentially significant
cumulative impacts with respect to solid waste management and disposal to below
a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-47]
. Each Applicant shall prepare and obtain appropriate jurisdiction approval of
solid waste facilities studies and financing plans to identify specific impacts,
to determine the significance of the effect, and to identify measures that
would reduce or eliminate the effect on the integrated waste management
system, such as recycling facilities and landfill capacity. These studies shall
include an analysis of the cumulative solid waste generation as a result of
existing, proposed and approved projects.
Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project-specific improvements
and contribute towards the cost of constructing, any regional facilities required
by the study with respect to the cumulative solid waste generation as a result
of new development.
. . .
Police and Fire Protection and Emergen<;y Medical Services:
Significant Cumulative Effect: Need for additional facilities to provide services.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-48]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measures described below shall ensure that adequate
measures are identified during site-specific analyses that will mitigate potentially
significant cumulative impacts on police and fire protection, and emergency medical
services to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on Applicant through
these findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-48]
Page 158
. Each Applicant for a discretionary project shall prepare and obtain the
appropriate jurisdiction's approval of police protection, fire protection, and
emergency service facilities. Studies and financing plans to identify specific
impacts, to determine the significance of the effect, and to identify measures
that would reduce or eliminate the effect on police protection, fire protection,
and emergency services shall be prepared if appropriate. These studies shall
include an analysis of the cumulative demand for these services as a result of
existing, proposed and approved projects.
Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project specific improvements
and to construct, or contribute towards the cost of constructing, any regional
facilities required by the study with respect to the cumulative demand for
police protection, fire protection, and emergency service as a result of new
development.
. . .
Schools:
Significant Cumulative Effect: Projects would generate the need for additional
schools. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-49J
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measures described below shall ensure that adequate
measures are identified during site-specific analyses that will mitigate potentially
significant cumulative impacts with respect to schools to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-49]
. Each Applicant shall prepare and obtain appropriate jurisdiction approval of
school facilities studies and financing plans to identify specific impacts, to
determine the significance of the effect, and to identify measures that would
reduce or eliminate the effect on schools. These studies shall include an
analysis of the cumulative demand for school facilities as a result of existing,
proposed and approved projects.
. Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project specific improvements
and to construct, or contribute towards the cost of constructing, any regional
facilities required by the study with respect to the cumulative demand for
school facilities as a result of new development.
Page 159
. . .
Library Service:
Significant Cumulative Effect: Additional library facilities and books would be
required. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-50]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measures described below shall ensure that adequate
measures are identified during site-specific analyses that will mitigate potentially
significant cumulative impacts with respect to library service to below a level of
significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-50 through 6-51]
. Each Applicant shall prepare and obtain appropriate jurisdiction approval of
library facilities studies and financing plans to identify specific impacts, to
determine the significance of the effect, and to identify measures that would
reduce or eliminate the effect on libraries. These studies shall include an
analysis of the cumulative demand for library facilities as a result of existing,
proposed, and approved projects.
. Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project specific improvements
and to construct, or contribute towards the cost of constructing, any regional
facilities required by the study with respect to the cumulative demand for
library facilities as a result of new development.
. . .
Parks. Recreation. and Open Space:
Significant Cumulative Effect: Additional regional and local parkland, open space,
and recreational facilities would be required to serve the cumulative impact area.
Significant cumulative impacts would also occur to waterfowl hunting in the area.
[FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-51]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measures described below shall ensure that adequate
Page 160
measures are identified during site-specific analyses that will mitigate potentially
significant cumulative impacts with respect to the provision of parks, recreation, and
open space to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The fOllowing mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-52J
. Each Applicant shall prepare and obtain appropriate juriSdiction approval of
the park, recreation, and open space studies and financing plans to identify
specific impacts, to determine the significance of the effect, and to identify
measures that would reduce or eliminate the effect on these services. The
establishment of the management preserve through the RMP, construction of
the various COmmunity and neighborhood parks, and installation of the
regional bike, equestrian, and hiking trail network would serve the needs of
Otay Ranch, and also provide for recreation oPPortunities for the entire
region.
. . .
Electricity and Gas:
Significant Cumulative Effect; Additional substations and associated distribution
lines would be required to serve the cumulative impact area. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p.
6-52J
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The fOllowing mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. fFPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-53J
. The Project Applicant shall work with SDG&E during all stages of electrical
and gas facilities planning to minimize the disturbance to sensitive resources.
. Land uses adjacent to the SDG&E transmission lines shall be subject to
review and comment by SDG&E.
. . .
Other Public Services:
Page 161
Significant Cumulative Effect: An increased demand for health and medical
facilities, senior and social services, cemetery facilities, child care facilities, and
animal control facilities in the cumulative impact area. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-53]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measures described below shall ensure that potentially
significant cumulative impacts with respect to the provision of health and medical
and senior and social services, cemetery, child care and animal control facilities are
mitigated to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-54]
The Applicant shall work in close coordination with the relevant service
providers and the appropriate jurisdictions to ensure the provision of adequate
facilities.
. . .
N. RISK OF UPSET
Significant Cumulative Effect: The potential risk of adverse health effects associated
with the use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and generation of
hazardous waste would increase. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-54]
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with
applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of
significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through
these Findings. [FPEIR; Volume 2, p. 6-54]
. The mitigation measures identified in Section VIII would reduce the risk of
upset associated with the development of Otay Ranch. Application of these
measures to the other projects in the area would reduce the cumulative risk
of adverse public health effects associated with the use, storage, and transport
of hazardous materials to below a level of significance.
Page 162
X.
FEASIBILITY OF POTPNTIAl. Project t\L1ERNATI~.s
B,~o" th, P'oj,,, will ~"" ,"m, Oo,"id,bl, .gnifi~" oo~w"""'''''' off,,,, "
"'Hi",d 'bo", c... &0.00 VIu), !h, ei~/Cooo~ mo" """'idoc th, ""ibili~ of "'Y
"~;w,,",'nJ'"y '"p'''i., "'lorn,." 10 !h, PWjOCJ, " finaIly 'ppW"d. Th, ei~ mo"
'''""'10 wh"hoc 0", ., more of !h,,, "'lorn,""" <>onJd "oid ., ,"I"',""",~ I'~M Ih,
Oo,~oid'bJ, .gnifi~o, '""w,,",ooW ,ff,,,,. i' 0 , Ii,,, i , M 0
~h,,~ (1988) 198 em. APp3d 433 [243 e,l. RpO. 727J; ....al.otJ Pob. R''"''re, Cod,
""ioo 21002. BOo""" i, " , jOdgmM' "'" wb,thoc '" "'Ioma,,,,, i, 'o....oom'o''''ly
'"poci", (i.,., 0", "","","" P""'~", more ".,iti" biolo","" """ "'" ""'thoc """"
'h, ",""~ 0"'~"'Y '0 '"Pport LR1) thm, fiodio" 000'"" '"d oomp"" ," of ,h,
alternatives analyzed in the FPEIR.
10 g","", io p"p"'iog ,"d 'dop"og fiodio" , I,,,,, ogM'Y o"d 00' "'''''mily ""d,,~
'h, f'''ibili~ of both mi"g"",o m"""", "'" oo~w,,",OOtally '"P'ri", 'It'n""~,,, WhM
""OlompI'"og th, 'PI'w"," of, PWj", wi!h ,ignifio,", imp".. Wb,,, tho ,igoit""'"
imp,,,, "'" '" mi"""", 10 '" '''''pIabl, (;"i",,,,,,,,,,) 1'''1 ,"1'ly by ,h, 'dop"oo of
mitig,""" m,,,",,,,, tho 'goo'Y, io d""'og i. fiodi"" h" 00 oblig"'ioo 10 "''''idoc ,h,
f""ibili~ of oo~wOmOOWly '"pori., "'Io"","~m, "00 if th,b im"", woold '" '''' """
'h," tho" 0' Ib, PWj,,, " midg"'d. , i b fm, m 0 i i 0 ~ R
of tho VoI~'rni", of e'Ii'OWi~ (1988) 47 Od..3d 376 [253 em. Rplt'. 426J; Lao", HiI"
Hom,ow"," "'''''i'''oo ~. Gi C~'moil (1978) 83 CoIApp.3d 515 [147 e",. Rpl,. 842J...
,I," Kio~ C~ 0 F,,,,, B " ~ i f Hoo" (1990) 221 CoIApp.3d 692 [270 Cal.
Rp". 650J. "='dio",y, f., thi, "'ojOCJ, io ""op"og tho Hodio" OOO"'miog "'oj,,,
,ltoc","~"" ,h, Ci~ Counoil "'''''d,"",1y Ib"", M~w,,",OOlal imp,,,, Ih", fot 'h, finolty
'Ppm"d PWj'd '" .",,,,,,,,, ood "",""I'" '''id'd ., '""',,"""'Iy I"'''",d Ibwo..
mitigation.
"'Ire", " io !h;, PWjOCJ, ,;go"'""" M....oomMI'" 'ff,,,, ,,_ "00 ,"" 'ppli,,"oo of
," f'''''bl, mi"","oo 10,,,",,,, IdOOtit1'd io th, Final "'0",,"" EiB. th, d"i.o"""",,rn
mo" """"10 the Prnj", ""_IN", idMI""d In ,h, Final "'= EiB. Vodoc th""
oit",m,,,",,,, CEQA "qultm fiodlo" 00 !h, f""ibiU~ of P<Oj,,, "'Io""'ti~". '''''.bl,'
m,,,,, ~p,bk of h'l.,. ''''''mpli''red In. _ otmm" withio ""'""bl, lim,.
tokiog "OOOmio, oo~<oomootol, I'g"" _'" "'" """OOlog''''' f,,,o~ 10'0 ''''''Ont (CEQA
Guidelines section 15364)
If 00 "'oj,,, "'10"",""" "" r"'ibJ, !he de""o",",,,," m"" 'dop, , SIalomoo' 0'
""e"iding Considmliom with "go,.. '0 th, "'oj'd If th", i, . ""ibl, ,1t'<O"i" 10
Iho "'oj'd th, d";,ioom,"'~ m"" d'od, wh'!h" I, " OO....O"""OI"'ly'"P"iot 'o,h,
P<oj,,,. Pwp"", P<oj,,, "'''"'''"~", oo$id",d 10m, b, on" whioh """.Id f"'ibly "'010
tho b,.o ohj,,,iv,,, of tho P<Oj", " H""",,,, tho Gniddino< "''" "q.h, 00 EiB to
"'-, "''''onliv" ""pobl, of'l!minnt;og" ""'<ooment'" "',," '",0 ff th"" "'''"'''"",
Page 163
"would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives." [CEQA Guidelines
section 15126 subd.( d)))
These Findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to
demonstrate that the selection of the finally approved Project, while still resulting in
significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and other
benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the finally
approved Project objectives _..ild weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the
objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the Project best meets the finally approved
Project objectives with the least environmental impact. The objectives considered by the
decisionmakers are:
. A new community through long-range planning, coordination, and
development of Otay Ranch;
A balanced housing mix to address the local and regional housing demand:
. Housing in proximity to employment centers;
. A plan for open space and regional and community parks;
A program for the long-term comprehensive management and protection of
natural resources;
. A four-year university;
. A range of commercial and business uses to complement existing commercial
centers in the area; provide such uses to establish a connection between Otay
Mesa and the United States/Mexican border and to the City of Chula Vista
and the San Diego metropolitan area; (FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 201)
The Final Program EIR for the Project examined a broad range of reasonable on site and
off site alternatives to the Project to determine whether it could meet the Project's
objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the Project's significant,
unavoidable impacts.
These Findings examine each alternative to determine feasibility. The term feasible is
defined in the CEQA Guidelines as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social
and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines section 15364)
A. PHASE I-PROGRESS PLAN ALTERNATIVE
Page 164
D'd" th, Ph,,, I-Pro",,,, P"", Alre""'d", , m""""'m of 29,773 "';dMd"
dw",", oof. woold b, "''''''"_ 00 8.250 =" of J,"d whh'o th, 23,08B-"re ,;,,_
Adopdo, ",d i""",mMtadoo of", """"'v, woold ,",oft io 'PP'o>Ima',Jy 86,456
new residents in the Project area. Approximately 54 percent of the housing proposed
under this alternative would be single-family residences, while the remainder would
be multi-family attached units.
Th, Ph,,, I-Pro""AA P"", AI,,_v, iodod" , "',,''''' """I" i, "'" u,,'" tho
"',""" P~'d ro, th, fioaUy 'PProv'd Proj',,- Admd"""Jy, 'h, '"',"y 'PProv'd
Proj", pro"," mo" "''''hiv, ,<><01" "'d "'''''dv, b,bf", io P""<oJ" 10 Pogg;
Ca'yo, "'d SaJ, C'''k ,,",yo, "'d ,"oth of th, Jok" ''''0 th, Ph,,,, I-"'O""AA PI",
Alre""'d,,_ Th, Proj,,,, " mo" romp"fbl, wJth th, O"y La'dJiU """'" "'d 'b,
N,.oo "'d 51"'0 Qoany b,,,,,", 'b,,, " , "'..", boff" ProP""d " th, U"'''y
approved Project.
Wi'b "gMd '0 I"'dfo= "Ie"doo "'d ""b'da, th, Ph", I_Pro""" P,,,,
Alternative has a greater impact on Slopes and ridges.
W'th "gMd to bf olog'O<I ',"0"", tho Pb"" 1_ Prog"" PI", "" .",,,, ;mp,,"
in the following areas:
. Coastal sage scrub
. Maritime Succulents
. Needlegrass grassland
. Wetlands
. Vernal Pools
. A number of high priority plant species
. A number of second priority plant Species
. A number of third and a nUmber of fourth priority plant species
. Coastal cactus wren habitat
' G"''''''b" h'b'ta, (m P"""'I", SaJ, C'''k. Wolf C'"yoo ,"d Pogg;
Canyon)
, Imp,," to 'b, RJ"~'d, Foi,> Shrimp "'d S", Di'go v'ro" pooJ fu'ry 'h'imp
. Harbison's dun skipper
. Herme's capper
. Thomes hairstreak
Quino checkerspot
. A nUmber of second priority animal species
Th, Pb", 1-"'0""" PI", "gillfi""Uy 'm""", "giooa! wfldUf, OOIT;do~ by
significantly COnstraining movement within those corridors.
" "'mp,",o, wJlb th, Ph", 1-"'0"'", PJ... th, fio,"y 'PP''''''d "'oj,,,, 00",,,",
more provisions for intersection improvements to assist in the movement of traffic
Page 165
and requires certain levels of service to be met on all circulation element roads.
With regard to transit, the finally approved Project restricts development beyond
15,000 units, or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial, until the funding and
construction is assured for LRT.
The City Council therefore finds that because of the above described significant
unmitigable impacts the finally approved Project is environmentally superior to the
Phase I-Progress Plan.
B. PHASE II-PROGRESS PLAN
Under the Phase II-Progress Plan Alternative, a maximum of 29,908 dwelling units
would be constructed, resulting in a potential population of approximately 83,980.
The Phase II-Progress Plan falls between the Phase I-Progress Plan Alternative and
the Fourth Alternative in terms of developed area. Residential uses would be
located on 8,038 acres, approximately 55 percent of the total being detached homes.
Land uses would generally be arranged in villages, with most of the proposed homes
(23,913 residences) located in the 12 villages located on the Otay River parcel. The
Proctor Valley parcel would feature two villages, while San Ysidro would be
developed with one village. Rural estate development is also planned for the eastern
parcels.
In the Final Project, the following changes were made to the Phase II-Progress Plan
Alternative:
The Preserve was expanded to protect more sensitive species and more
sensitive habitats, particularly in Poggi Canyon and Salt Creek Canyon.
. Larger buffers were added to allow continued operation of the Landfill and
Nelson and Sloan Quarry.
. Development was eliminated from many, but not all, ridges and slopes. The
Project contains a condition that not more than 17 percent of steep slopes be
developed.
. Wildlife corridors were significantly improved by eliminating development
constraints to wildlife movements.
. Additional intersection improvements were incorporated to assure that
transportation level of service standards are met.
. Development cannot occur unless precise levels of service are met on
circulation element roads.
Page 166
. Development beyond 15,000 dwelling units, or 4,000,000 square feet of
Commercial, is restricted until funding of construction is assured for the LRT.
. Construction of Alta Road across the Otay River was eliminated.
The City Council therefore finds that the fiJ.1ally approved Project is environmentally
superior to the Phase II-Progress Plan and therefore rejects the Phase II-Progress
Plan.
C. FOURTH ALlERNATIVF,
The Fourth Alternative developed for the Otay Ranch represents a more moderate
Overall level of development than the New Town Plan and Phase I-Progress Plan
alternatives. Development under the Fourth Alternative would result in an expected
27,418 residential units on 7,120 acres of land, resulting in a population of
approximately 80,408 persons. Approximately 50.7 percent of the housing would be
single-family detached units, while the remaining 49.3 percent would be attached
multi-family units.
This Alternative proposes construction of a conference center in the Jamul.
Mountains, whereas the Project has eliminated any development in the Jamul
Mountains. Development in the Jamul Mountains would significantly impact wildlife
corridors by constraining wildlife movement in the major regional wildlife corridor
between the Jamul Mountains and the San Miguel Mountains.
The Fourth Alternative is an alternative that includes predominantly single-family
residential development, without compact urban development. The lack of
commercial development adjacent to residential development could significantly
increase reliance on the single occupancy vehicle and results in more negative
impacts to air quality and traffic.
The Fourth Alternative blocks a continual linkage of coastal sage scrub across Rock
Mountain from Wolf Canyon to the Otay River Valley. In comparison, the finally
approved Project creates a continuous 450-foot wide linkage between Wolf Canyon
and Otay River Valley.
Residential development on the eastern parcel (east of the upper Otay Reservoir)
would significantly impact Gnatcatcher habitat. The finally approved Project avoids
development in that area.
The finally approved Project restricts development beyond 15,000 units until funding
of construction is assured for LRT. Additionally, levels of service must be met on
all circulation element roads. The City Council therefore finds that the Project is
Page 167
environmentally superior to the Fourth Alternative and rejects the Fourth
Alternative.
D. THE PROJECT TEAM ALTERNATIVE
The Project Team Alternative also represents a moderate level of development on
the Otay Ranch property. Approximately 6,317 acres of land would support the
development of a maximum of 24,064 dwelling units for an estimated population .>f
67,046. The Project Team Alternative differs from the others mainly on its emphasis
on multi-family residences (i.e., 60.4 percent of the total) and reliance on clustering.
The Project Team Alternative requires that 60.4 percent of the units be devoted to
medium, medium-high or high density development (multi-family). This high
proportion of attached housing cannot be supported by projected market demand.
~ "Preliminary Market Overview" of the Otay Ranch Project in San Diego County,
California, July 21, 1989, Kenneth Leventhal and Company, attached hereto as
Exhibit A). Additionally, the Chula Vista General Plan does not support that high
of a ratio of multi-family to single- family development. Finally, compatibility with
existing adjacent communities would not be achieved by this mix.
The impacts identified in the Project Team Alternative with regard to biology in
Central Proctor Valley are even greater than the Phase I and Phase II-Progress Plans
because the residential areas impact important biological habitat and wildlife
movement.
The Project, unlike the Project Team Alternative, requires certain levels of service
to be met on all circulation element roads and restricts development beyond 15,000
dwelling units or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial until funding and construction
of LRT is assured. The City Council therefore finds that because of the above
described significant unmitigable impacts the Project is environmentally superior to
the Project Team Alternative.
E. THE COMPOSITE GENERAL PLANS
Development of the Otay Ranch property under the Composite General Plans
Alternative would utilize the land use designations within the City of Chula Vista
Eastern Territories Plan, the County of San Diego Otay and Jamul-Dulzura
Subregional Plans, and the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan.
Development of the Otay River parcel would be governed by the policies and
provisions of the City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego, while both eastern
parcels would be subject to County of San Diego plans and policies. Overall,
buildout of this alternative would result in a maximum of 20,470 dwelling units at an
average new density of 0.85 du/ac and generate approximately 62,487 residents.
Page 168
Approximately 80.6 percent of the homes would be single-family, while the balance
would be multi-family residences.
The Composite General Plans Alternative contains no Resource Management Plan
(RMP). Rather, the Composite General Plans alternative proposes less dense
development on the San Ysidro and Proctor Valley parcels without any preserve
contemplated within those two parcels. The result of that type of development would
be:
. No wildlife corridors
. No preservation of contiguous blocks of sensitive habitat
. Significant impacts on every species identified in the EIR
The Final Project and the finally approved Project Objectives seek to establish a long
term comprehensive management and protection program for natural resources.
The lack of an RMP, in addition to eliminating a preserve, would also eliminate the
proposed interpretive center currently proposed in the finally approved Project. The
finally approved interpretive center would function as an educational center for
cultural, biological and other resources.
Additionally, the General Plan Composite Alternative envisions an east-west access
road in the Otay River Valley leading to Salt Creek. This crossing has the potential
to result in significant impacts to biological resources including a coastal sage scrub
link between Wolfe and Salt Creek Canyons which serves as an avian wildlife
corridor, could block the entry to Wolf Canyon which could impede mammal
movement and potentially impacts sensitive plant species.
Because the General Plan Composite Alternative results in significant biological
impacts that are greater in degree than those that result from the Project (primarily
as a result of the lack of an RMP) the City Council rejects this alternative even
though there are some environmental benefits to this alternative. In making this
determination the decisionmakers have balanced the necessity for creating a Preserve
in perpetuity and creating densities sufficient to support transit against other
potential environmental benefits of the environmental alternative.
In addition to the biological impacts summarized above, the Composite General Plan
Alternative envisions traditional suburban development rather than a village design;
the village design is thought by planners to encourage more pedestrian and bicycle
trips, thereby reducing reliance upon the automobile.
Finally, the Final Project, unlike the Composite General Plan Alternative, restricts
development beyond 15,000 dwelling units, or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial
until funding of construction of LRT is assured and requires the Project to achieve
Page 169
certain levels of service on circulation element roads. The City Council therefore
finds that because of the above described unmitigable impacts, the Final Project is
environmentally superior to the composite General Plan alternative.
F. LOW DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Adoption of this alternative would result in 7,423 acres of residential development
and allow for a maximum of 10,287 dwelling units at an overall density of 0.44 du/ac
and a population of approximately 32,544. Approximately 87.9 percent of the new
units would be single-family, while the remaining 12.1 percent would be multi-family
units. This alternative emphasizes single-family residential and represents the second
lowest development density of the Project alternatives evaluated in the ElR.
The Low Density Alternative does not include an RMP, consequently there is no
provision for the preservation of the numerous species and habitats as defined in the
finally approved Project. The lack of an RMP, in addition to eliminating a preserve,
would also eliminate the proposed interpretive center currently proposed by the
Project. The proposed interpretive center would function as an educational center for
cultural, biological and other resources. The Low Density Alternative significantly
impacts sensitive biological areas south of the lakes and on the Jamul Mountains.
The Low Density Alternative also significantly impacts wildlife movement by
constraining most of the wildlife corridors.
The finally approved Project and the finally approved Project Objectives, seek to
include a long term comprehensive management and protection program for natural
resources. Under the Low Density Alternative such a program is not contemplated.
In addition, the Low Density Alternative does not contain sufficient density to
support transit options. Without sufficient densities to facilitate transit, reliance on
the automobile will continue with resultant negative impacts to traffic and air quality.
(See e.g. "Land Use Strategies for More Livable Places", Local Government
Commission, June 1, 1992, Exhibit B, and "South Bay Rail Extension Study,"
SANDAG, February 5, 1991, Exhibit C, attached hereto)
For these reasons, the City therefore rejects the Low Density Alternative as
environmentally inferior to the Project. In balancing the need to create a long term
comprehensive preserve and to plan development densities conducive to the
provision of transit, the City Council determines that these goals are more important
than the other potential benefits of this alternative Project.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE
This alternative was developed to minimize environmental impacts of the finally
approved Project, especially effects on steep slopes (greater than 25 percent) and
Page 170
sensitive biological and archaeological resources. In comparison to the other project
alternatives, the Environmental Alternative would result in the lowest gross density.
Adoption of this alternative would result in 4,553 acres of residential development
and allow for a maximum of 9,251 dwelling units at an overall density of 0.40 du/ac
and a population of 28,863. Approximately 73.4 percent of the homes would be
single-family detached units, while the remainder would be multi-family attached
units.
The Environmental Alternative does not contain a Resource Management Plan to
manage the biological and cultural resources on site. The lack of an RMP, in
addition to eliminating a preserve, would also eliminate the approved interpretive
center currently approved by the finally approved Project. The proposed interpretive
center would function as an educational center for cultural, biological and other
resources. The Project Objectives seek to include a long term comprehensive
management and protection program for natural resources. Under the
Environmental Alternative such a long term program is not contemplated.
The Environmental Alternative does not implement the land use and housing goals
of the Interjurisdictional Task Force. Both the Project objectives and the
Interjurisdictional Task Force objectives seek to provide a balanced housing mix to
address local and regional housing demand. Since the environmental alternative
proposes predominantly single-family dwellings (73.4%) this alternative does not
meet the Project objectives of a balanced housing mix.
In addition, the Environmental Alternative does not contain sufficient density to
support transit options (See attached Exhibits B and C). Without sufficient densities
to support transit, reliance on the automobile will continue with resultant negative
impacts to traffic and air quality. Additionally, the finally approved Project restricts
development beyond 15,000 units until LRT funding and construction is assured. The
Project also requires that specific levels of service on all circulation element roads.
For these reasons the City Council finds that the benefits of creating a long term
comprehensively managed Preserve and the benefits of planning development
conducive to transit outweigh other potential benefits of the environmental
alternative.
H. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Project Alternative the property would remain in its present condition
as rural agricultural land and undeveloped open space. It is anticipated that dry
farrning and grazing uses would continue to occur on the majority of the property.
The eastern extension of East Orange Avenue and construction of Hunte Parkway
would still occur to accommodate regional traffic from the EastLake development,
Page 171
but both roadways would terminate at the edges of EastLake. SR-125 could still be
extended through the Otay Ranch property by CalTrans.
SANDAG estimates that the housing needed for projected growth in San Diego
County exceeds what can be constructed pursuant to existing General Plan
designations. The No Project Alternative would leave the property in its current
undeveloped state. This alternative is rejected by the City Council because the
finally approved Project provides the needed hous' Ig and jobs anticipated by
SANDAG. The Project objectives also specifically identify the necessity to create a
balanced housing mix, particularly in proximity to employment centers. In addition,
the Project provides the decisionmakers with the opportunity to plan the entire parcel
as a whole and thus more effectively pursue the preservation of biological and
cultural resources and sensitive land forms on site.
The No Project Alternative would make it difficult, if not impossible, to implement
the circulation element and the County regional transportation system because
necessary regional roads would not be constructed. Significant impacts from already
approved zoning would occur in proximate communities such as the City of Chula
Vista, the City of San Diego (San Ysidro) and West Otay Mesa if the regional
facilities are not constructed.
The No Project Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives of the Final
Project to provide housing in proximity to employment centers currently planned for
development in Otay Mesa. Finally, the No Project Alternative would allow for the
continued grazing and farming of the site which results in continued degradation of
the natural and cultural resources on site. The finally'approved Project Objectives
seek to create a program for the long term and comprehensive management and
protection of natural resources. This objective could not be met by continued
farming and grazing onsite.
For these reasons the City Council rejects the No Project Alternative as infeasible
because it does not meet any of the Project objectives. Additionally, the failure to
plan the entire site as a whole and provide for an extensive Preserve now could result
in piecemeal sale of the property and non-contiguous habitat with questionable
viability.
In addition to the onsite alternatives the FPEIR also looked at a range of offsite
alternatives. The following offsite alternatives are rejected for the reasons described.
A. GREATER DULZURA OFFSITE ALTERNATIVE
The Greater Dulzura Alternative site is bisected by SR-94 and is located immediately
east of Otay Ranch. The community of Jamul, which has a "Country Town"
designation in the general plan, is adjacent to the site to the northwest, while the
Page 172
communities of Dulzura and Engineer Springs are within the site boundaries to the
southeast. The site is under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego, and is
completely contained with the Jamul-Dulzura Sub-regional Planning Area. The site
consists of approximately 22,850 acres and is owned by several hundred individuals
and businesses. The topography is characterized by numerous small valleys and
mountains, with elevations ranging from approximately 600 feet above mean sea level
(MSL) at the western boundary to 2,650 and 2,840 feet above MSL in the mountains.
Approximately 9,250 acres have slopes under 25 percent, and most of that area is
assumed to be developable. Most of the balance of the site ( 13,600 acres) has slopes
over 25 percent, and it is assumed that such lands would generally be withheld from
development.
This alternative has the potential to result in significant impacts to lower Otay Lake
which is the Source of drinking water for the City of San Diego. With regard to
transportation, extensive road upgrades would be required for this alternative site
location. In addition, transit would be extremely difficult to implement because,
unlike the Otay Ranch site, the Dulzura site is not contiguous to existing transit.
The Greater Dulzura site has a greater impact on growth inducement since it would
represent significant "leap frog development." For these reasons the Greater Dulzura
Alternative is not considered by the decisionmakers to be an environmentally
superior alternative.
B. WEST RAMONA OFFSITE ALTERNATIYE
The West Ramona Alternative site is an elongated area more than 11 miles long,
located near the town of Ramona. In size it totals 23,400 acres, of which 10,175
acres have less than 25 percent slope and are considered potentially developable.
Topography is varied, ranging from elevations of 500 and 700 feet above MSL in San
Pasqual Valley at the northeast comer and adjacent to the San Vicente Reservoir at
the far southern boundary, to 2,349 feet at the top of Mt. Woodson. Most of the
developable acreage is located on a plain northwest of Ramona, with a smaller area
of approximately 2,000 acres directly east of Poway along SR-67. Approximately
2,500 acres of the site are within Poway and San Diego City limits. The other 20,900
acres are under the jUrisdiction of San Diego County, primarily in the Ramona
planning area; approximately 5,000 acres are being proposed for non-development
within the northern Lakeside and southwestern North Mountain SPAs. The site is
crossed by SR-67 and SR-78 and has more than 200 landowners. It is adjacent to an
existing urban limit line at Ramona.
The West Ramona Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it is not adjacent to
existing developed areas. Consequently, the development of West Ramona would
be more growth inducing because of the gap' between developed and undeveloped
areas. Such non-contiguous development would result in greater air pollution
impacts, greater traffic impacts and greater energy consumption. West Ramona has
Page 173
multiple ownerships as opposed to one single ownership and for that reason the
decisionmakers believe it would be more difficult to implement program-wide
mitigation measures such as a preserve. Finally, the proximity of West Ramona to
the research observatories in the county would create significant unmitigable impacts
to those facilities. For these reasons, the West Ramona Alternative is considered by
the decisionmakers to be infeasible.
C. EAST RAMONA OFFSITE ALTERNATIVE
The East Ramona Alternative site consists of approximately 23,950 acres located
immediately east of the urban limits of the town of Ramona, and west of the small
community of Santa Ysabel. Other boundary landmarks include Sutherland
Reservoir to the North, and Cleveland National Forest to the east and southeast.
Topographic elevation ranges from 1,700 feet above MSL in one valley near the
southwest corner, to 3,279 feet above MSL at Witch Creek Mountain near the
eastern boundary. Approximately 11,000 acres have been identified as developable
(less than 25 percent slope). Within the 1,950-acre balance, most areas consist of
steep slopes, but there is also a substantial area of over 2,000 acres which has slopes
of less than 25 percent. SR-76 passes through the site, which is almost completely
within the county's Ramona planning area. A small area, less than 1,200 acres, lies
within the North Mountain subregion. The site has more than 600 owners.
The East Ramona Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it is not adjacent to
existing developed areas. Consequently, the development of East Ramona would be
more growth inducing because of the gap between developed and undeveloped areas.
Such non-contiguous development would result in greater air pollution impacts,
greater traffic impacts and greater energy consumption. East Ramona has multiple
ownerships as opposed to one single ownership and for that reason the
decisionmakers believe it would be more difficult to implement program-wide
mitigation measures such as a preserve. Finally, the proximity of East Ramona to
the research observatories in the county would create significant unmitigable impacts
to those facilities. For these reasons, the East Ramona Alternative is considered by
the decisionmakers to be infeasible.
D. RANCHO GUEJITO OFFSITE ALTERNATIVE
The Rancho Guejito Alternative site consists of approximately 23,700 acres, located
over three miles east of the urban limits for the town of Valley Center, over four
miles east of the City of Escondido, and three miles north of the northernmost
reaches of the City of San Diego. Approximately 10,800 acres are considered
potentially developable (with slopes less than 25 percent). Topography is quite
varied, ranging in elevation from 1,500 feet above MSL to 4,221 feet above MSL at
the peak of Pine Mountain. Potentially developable areas are located in several
valleys and on several mesas in the southwestern two-thirds of the site. The site is
Page 174
Project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding
considerations. ~ CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15093.)
The City finds that the Project would have the following substantial social, environmental
and economic benefits:
Environmental Protection and Preservation
In addition to the air quality, circulation and social benefits outlined below, the Project's
single ownership, size and density make possible the planning and financing of a
comprehensive natural resources preserve. The Project proposes to convey 12,509 acres of
natural open space, encompassing the Otay River Valley, Jamul Mountains and San Ysidro
Mountains. A managed preserve operated in accordance with the Project's approved
Resource Management Plan (RMP) will be established to preserve and manage the
resources and ensure their viability. The preserve includes an open space system which
incorporates public education programs, links community to natural areas, and preserves and
restores sensitive habitats, special land forms and wildlife corridors. In addition, a system
of paths and trails will connect the urban villages and their parks, forming a passive and
active recreation network throughout the Project.
The RMP adopted by the City Council has the following functions:
. Functions as a plan-wide multi-species/habitat and cultural resources
management program;
. Provides the funding, phasing and ownership mechanisms necessary to
effectively protect and manage on-site resources over the long term;
. Plans for coordinated, controlled public use and enjoyment of the
Management Preserve to be established as part of the RMP consistent with
protection of sensitive resources; and,
. By requiring irrevocable dedications of open space acreage, provides certainty
that the open space will be preserved in perpetuity. (Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, October 5, 1992, p. 51, Exhibit D).
. Preserves/protects cultural resources.
The RMP provides for management, resource enhancement and restoration research,
education and interpretive activities to ensure that resource values in areas to be preserved
are maintained and enhanced in perpetuity. The RMP also addresses cultural,
paleontological, recreational and agricultural resource protection needs in addition to
sensitive habitats. Finally, the RMP provides an opportunity to establish large blocks of
interconnected natural open space. By linking the Otay Ranch Management Preserve
system to large and adjacent publicly owned open space lands with resource values similar
Page 177
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described
in detail in Section VIII of these Findings of Fact (Direct Significant Effects and Mitigation
Measures):
. Land Use (Project-specific and cumulative);
. Landform Alterations/Visual Quality (Project-specific and cumulative):
. Biological Resources (Project-specific and cumulative);
. Cultural Resources (Project-specific);
Agricultural Resources (Project-specific and cumulative);
. Mineral Resources (Project-specific and cumulative);
. Transportation, Circulation and Access (cumulative);
. Air Quality (Project-specific and cumulative);
. Noise (Project-specific and cumulative).
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts.
Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these
significant impacts, adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the
impacts. .
Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Based
on this examination, the City has determined that none of these alternatives both (1) meets
Project objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the finally approved Project.
As a result, to approve the Project the City must adopt a "statement of overriding
considerations. pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. This statement
allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social or other benefits as a
justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental
effects that have not been avoided. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgment,
the Project's benefits outweigh the unavoided significant effects. Where another substantive
law (e.g., the California Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the California or
Federal Endangered Species Acts) prohibits the lead agency from taking certain actions with
environmental impacts, a statement of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead
agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the decisionmaker has recommended mitigation
measures based on the analysis contained in the FPEIR, recognizing that other resource
agencies have the ability to impose more stringent standards or measures.
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts. in an EIR. Rather,
EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment,. defined to be
"adverse." (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21068.). The Legislature amended the definition to
focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial
impacts must also be addressed. ~ Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 190,
206 [132 Cal.Rptr. 377].) Nevertheless. decisionmakers benefit from information about
Page 176
network which minimizes the number and length of single passenger vehicle
trips. Designed to encourage walking, biking and use of transit and reduce
reliance on automobile, the Project clusters high density, high intensity
development in villages near transit and light rail terminals. Jobs, homes,
schools, parks and commercial centers are close by and linked by pedestrian
and bicycle routes.
The San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) 1991 .South Bay
Rail Transit Extension Study; (Exhibit C) which examined the feasibility of
providing additional rail transit to the South County area by connecting the
existing trolley system to Otay Mesa, concluded that the alternative trolley
alignment, through Otay Ranch, resulted in the largest increase in regional
new trips of the alternatives studied. (South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study,
SANDAG, February 5, 1991, Exhibit C.) Additionally, the Project limits
development to 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial
use unless funding for light rail is assured.
. Social Benefits of Transit and Pedestrian-Oriented Development Pattern
In addition to the improvement to air quality and congestion resulting from
a reduced need for automobile trips, the Project's unique land plan will result
in social benefits as well. Because most of the activities of daily living are
within walking distance for most of the Otay Ranch population (particularly
on the Otay Valley parcel), residents will benefit from the opportunity for
increased mobility, particularly for those segments of the population who do
not have the ability to drive, including the young, elderly and disable, and a
sense of community.
Comprehensive Regional Planning
The Project provides the opportunity to comprehensively plan development which meets the
region's needs for housing, jobs, infrastructure and environmental preservation. These
benefits are made possible by the Project's size and scope, and the fact that it is being
developed under a single owner. The General Development Plan for Otay Ranch includes
a provision for regional purpose facilities and public services that are typically not
undertaken for smaller development projects. The regional planning process undertaken
for the Project involved long-range inter-jurisdictional coordination, ensuring maximum
achievement of policies and regulations of both the City of Chula Vista and San Diego
County.
The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the Project include the
following:
.
Comprehensive consideration of the Project's cumulative effects
Page 179
to those found on the Otay Ranch property, the RMP contributes to the creation of an
overall regional open space system, providing more than 35,000 acres of interconnected open
space in Otay Ranch and the immediate vicinity.
Specifically, the preserve will result in the preservation of the following acreages of certain
sensitive habitats which contain approximately 100 species of sensitive plants and animals:
. 8,232 acres of coastal sage scrub (includes "limited development areas").
. 286 acres of maritime succulent scrub.
. 265 acres of needlegrass grassland (includes "special resource study areas").
. 183 acres of vernal pools.
. 75 acres of southern live oak riparian forest.
. 16 acres of tecate cypress forest.
. 180 acres of coast live oak woodland
. 7 acres of sycamore alluvial woodland
. 13 acres of southern willow scrub
4 acres of aquatic/freshwater marsh
. 108 acres of alkali meadow
. 479 acres of floodplain scrub
Community Plannin& and Development
Development Patterns Which Minimize the Adverse Impacts of Development
on Air Quality and Congestion
The Project area currently exceeds Federal and State air quality standards for
a number of emissions factors, including ozone and carbon monoxide. A
substantial majority of these emissions are attributable to motor vehicles. In
order to comply with the Federal and California Clean Air Acts, the San
Diego region must reduce these sources. The Project is designed to reduce
the adverse impact to air quality and automobile congestion that would
otherwise result if jobs and housing were provided for in a typical suburban
development pattern. The Project accomplishes this goal through its location
and design.
The Otay Ranch parcel is located close to the urban core of the San Diego
region, which will reduce the length of commuter trips. In addition, the
Project's location adjacent to the Otay Mesa industrial area will provide
housing proximate to this planned employment center. A mixed-use
development, the Project will promote linkage of trips, reduced trip length
and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation such as biking,
walking and use of transit. The Project creates a multi-modal transportation
Page 178
Fiscal Benefit
The fiscal impact analysis conducted for the Otay Ranch has concluded that, at buildout, the
Project will have a net positive impact on both the City of Chula Vista and the County of
San Diego. Because it is anticipated that during buildout there will be short-term periods
in which the costs to service the Project exceeds revenues, the Project includes a reserve
fund program, which protects the City and County by correcting for any operating
deficiencies incurred by the affected jurisdiction during years where there is a fiscal shortfall.
Financing of the reserve program and the cost of annual fiscal reviews will be the
responsibility of the applicant. (Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan, January 11, 1993.)
For the foregoing reasons, the City finds that the Project's adverse, unavoidable
environmental impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits.
GAF /96/FINDINGS.CfY
RflOf5f93
Page 181
Consistency in the approach to resolving regional issues such as
transportation, air quality, habitat preservation, infrastructure and public
services planning.
Long-range coordination of local and regional public facilities.
The General Development Plan includes a provision for designating land for regional
purpose facilities. The City's requirement for cOl._munity purpose facilities (for uses such
as social and human services, senior care, day care, etc.) to include facilities to house
regional services such as offices, courts, detention facilities, medical facilities and public
common areas. These facilities are provided by the County and are currently housed in
County-owned facilities, where available, but are more commonly located in leased or rented
space. Designation of land for regional purposes will facilitate the provision of these services
and provide better locational opportunities for users of these uses than is currently available
with new development. [Source]
Regional Housing Needs
The Project will help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing by providing a
wide variety of housing types and prices. Recent SANDAG housing capacity studies indicate
a significant shortfall of housing will occur in the Project area within the next 20 years. For
example, the SANDAG Series VII population growth forecast, published in January 1987,
estimates that within the South Suburban MSA, in which the Project site lies, employment
will grow more substantially than housing or population (South County Land Use Analysis,
Alfred Gobar & Associates, 1990, Exhibit E.) In recent years, the cost of housing compared
to other uses has risen disproportionate to the cost of other uses in the Project area (e.g.,
commercial, industrial), reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The Project will
help reduce the cost of housing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for
residential development.
The Project also provides a mixture of housing types in proximity to one another, responding
to needs of singles, families, students and seniors. With 55.5 percent single-family
designations and 44.5 multi-family designations, a broad range of housing types and costs
are anticipated. The classification of a sizable portion of the Otay Ranch housing product
type as attached will assist in providing more affordable housing, since it is recognized that
the key contributing element of the cost of housing is the price of land. 4 This range of
housing types and prices will promote socio-economic diversity, which the City finds both
important and desirable.
It is commonly recognized that increasing allowable densities allows more units on
available land, effectively increasing the supply of land and decreasing the cost of housing. (OLand for
Housing, 0 Urban Land Institute, p. 3-5, Exhibit "f" and '"The Next American Metropolis,' Princeton
Architectural Press, Peter Calthorpe.) (Exhibit "G")
4
Page 180
Fiscal Benefit
The fiscal impact analysis conducted for the Otay Ranch has concluded that, at buildout, the
Project will have a net positive impact on both the City of Chula Vista and the County of
San Diego. Because it is anticipated that during buildout there will be short-term periods
in which the costs to service the Project exceeds revenues, the Project includes a reserve
fund program, which protects the City and County by correcting for any operating
deficiencies incurred by the affected jurisdiction during years where there is a fiscal shortfall.
Financing of the reserve program and the cost of annual fiscal reviews will be the
responsibility of the applicant. (Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan, January 11, 1993.)
For the foregoing reasons, the City finds that the Project's adverse, unavoidable
environmental impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits.
GAF /96/FINDINGS.CfY
R/10/5/93
Page 181
EXHIIJIT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
DOCUMENT 1TILE
"PRELIMINARY MARKEl' OVERVIEW' OF '!HE OTA Y RANCH PROJECT
IN SAN DIEGO COUNrY. CALIFORNIA, JULY 12. 1989.
KENNETII LEVENI1IAL AND COMPANY
'LAND USE STRATEGIES FOR MORE UVABLE PlACES"
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION. JUNE I, 1992
"SOUTII BAY RAIL EXTENSION SI1JDY., SANDAG
FEBRUARY 5. 1991
'OTA Y RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PIAN/SUB-REGIONAL
PIAN", OCTOBER 5. 1992, PAGE 51
"SOUTII COUNrY lAND USE ANALYSIS', ALFRED GOBAR
& ASSOCIATES. 1990
"lAND FOR HOUSING; URBAN lAND INSITI1ITE, p. 3-5
"THE NEXT AMERICAN MEI'ROPOLlS - ECOLOGY. COMMUNITY,
AND '!HE AMERICAN DREAM; 1993
(ONLY INCLUDED IN COUNCIL AND BOARD PACKETS)
Page 182
-----~-
I!
EXHll3i7
~
Kenneth Leventhal & Company
Preliminary Market Overview
01 the Otay Ranch Project
in San Diego County, California
July 21, 1989
Kenneth Leventhal & Company
Certified Public Accountanu
Certified Public Accountants
-~
It
\.
-
'i'\'-
____--..::o..-~~....
.....-..'._~...-.-A'_~...~OC....;::O"_.'
'~'..,,#,.....-
Kenneth Leventhal & Company
Certified PublIC Accountants
660 Newoon Center OrNe
New-oort 8eacn. Call1ornla 92660
714640-5000
FAX 714644-7909
Ms. Elizabeth Long
The Baldwin Company
In accordance with our engagement letter dated May 31, 1989. we have prepared a preliminary
market overview of the Otay Ranch project (the "ProJect'" in San Diego County, California. Our
report 'ncludes an analysis of the residential, industrial and commercial components.
Our preliminary market overview was based primarily on information provided by you and your
outside consultants. While we believe the sources of information are reasonably reliable, we
have not verified the accuracy of such information, and we do not express an opinion or any
other form of assurance on the accuracy of such information.
The market overview includes assumptions about future developments ,n the economy and the
local real estate markets as well as assumptions about potential future actions and marketing
efforts by the Project's management. Achievability of the assumptions depends on the timing
and probability of a complex seri~ of future events. both internal and external to the PrOJect.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion as to either the achievability of the assumptions or the
probability that the actual results of the Project will approximate the estimated performance.
We did not ascertain the legal and regulatory requirements applicable to the Project including
zoning, other state and local government regulations. or any other entitlement or title
considerations. Furthermore, no effort was made to determine the possible effect of recent or
future federal, state, and local legislation on the Project, including any environmental or
e<:ological matters or interpretations thereof. or toxic waste or other significant physical site
issues.
The market analysis prepared for this engagement includes long-term annual growth estimates
that represent averages over periodic future economic and real estate cycles similar to those that
have occurred during the past twenty years. No attempt has been made to estimate the timing
and severity of such cycles.
The purpose of this report is to assist management in evaluating the Project and providing
information to potential lenders. Neither the report nor any of its contents may be referred to,
quoted or reproduced in any registration statement. prospectus. loan or other agreement or
document without the prior written consent of Kenneth Leventhal & Company.
The terms of our present engagement do not provide for reporting on events subsequent to the
date of this report. Therefore, we accept no responsibility to either update or revise this report
subsequent to the date of its issuance.
~~~ &";r-r
July21,1989
-
Table of ContenU
Paae
Exe<utive Summary
Introduction
15
5an Diego County Growth Trends
16
5an Diego County Residential Market
21
Competitive Advantages of the Otay Ranch
25
South Bay Residential Submarket
27
Re<ommended Residential Product and Pricing
and Estimated Absorption on the Otay Ranch
32
Industrial Market Analysis
36
Office Market Analysis
43
Retail MarketAnal~ls
48
Te<hnical Appendix
51
-
.-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Otay Ranch (the "Ranch") is a 20,SOO-acre property located in unincorporated San Diego
County (the "County") twelve miles south of downtown San Diego and immediately east of the
city of Chula Vista. The Ranch is being planned and developed by the Baldwin Company
("Baldwin") as a master-planned community with a full spectrum of urban uses, ,ncluding
residential. commercial, industrial, resort, public and open space uses. The large size of Otay
Ranch indicates a long-term development period to reach full buildout. on the order of 30 years.
Baldwin has retained Kenneth Leventhal & Company ("KL&Co") to prepare long-term projections
of Otay Ranch absorption of malor residential, commerCial and industrial uses at an overv.ew
level; and to provide recommendations for the residential product mix and prICing, and
commercial and industrial land prICing. The results of our study are outlined in this Executive
Summary. More details of our analyses, conclusions and recommendations are summarized in
subsequent sections of this report.
SAN DIEGO ECONOMIC GROWTH
During the past few years, San Diego County has been one of the most rapidly growing major
urban areas In the United States. San Diego has a diversified economIC base and a very attractive
living and working environment, which are projected to maintain the County as one of the most
rapidly growi"g urban areas over an extended period of future time. Regional growth in
population and employment generates demand for real estate products and developed land, so
future long-term demand for real estate development in San Diego is expected to remain strong.
The San Diego County economy over the next 30 years shows an average growth rate for
employment of 2.1 % per year and 1.6% per year for population.
SUBREGIONAL GROWTH PATTERNS
San Diego County growth until the last 2-3 decades was mostly centered around and expanding
slowly outward from the downtown San Diego area. With the advent of major freeway
construction over the past 20 years, employment and especially population growth have occurred
rapidly in several other areas of the County. The freeways that stimulated this dispersion of
growth are Interstate 5 (north and south from downtown), 1-8 (east from downtown), 1-15
(northeast from downtown), and the I-S connection to Orange County to the north.
The greatly improved region-wide accessibility provided by these freeways has stimulated the
growth of several major employment centers in addition to downtown (see the map on the
following page):
· The South Bay area, south of downtown along 1-5
. Mission Valley, northeast of downtown along 1-8
· Kearny Mesa, northeast of downtown near 1-8 and 1-15
· University Town Center/Sofrento Valley/Mira Mesa north of downtown along 1-5
· The north coastal area of Oceanside, Carlsbad and Vista/San Marcos along 1-5
· The Escondido/Rancho Bernardo area in the northeast county along 1-15
-1-
~
-
SAN DIEGO RESIDENTIAL SUBMARKETS
N
OCEANSIDElCARLSBAj
rSTA/ESCONDIDO
I
I
I
,
E3condIdo !
poway
LA JOLLA/LA COSTA
MI<amar
TIofTua....
SAN DIEGO C
Source: Mar1<et Profiles
-.--.-'
-"-"-
.-..-..-.
Me>rico
-
In addition, several long-standing employment concentrations have been provided by large
military installations at San Diego Harbor, Mira Mar Naval Air Station, and the Camp Pendleton
Marine Base in the north county.
The growth of these employment nodes, and the accessibility to them provided by the freeways.
has stImulated the rapid development of housing and population growth in several of the
following County areas overthe past 10-15 years:
. The 1-8 corridor east through La Mesa and EI Cajon
. The 1-5 corridor north from La Jolla to OceanSide
. The 1-15 cOrridor north from Mira Mesa to Escondido
This recent rapid growth has generated an anti-growth reaction in the city of San Diego and
many North County cities during the last five years. The anti-growth sentiment is largely based on
real. Imagined or anticipated traffic congestion, overloading of sewer and water systems. and
deterooratlon in the existing "quality of life." Growth limIting movements In those areas have
succeeded in passing growth limiting initiatives and ordinances in citIes such as Carlsbad,
Encinitas, and Oceanside.
Almost all of the growth limitations have been in the form of maximum numbers of housing units
allowed per year, ranging from a temporary moratoroum on all housing units (Poway), to about
1.000 units per year (Escondido), to 10,000 - 15,000 units per year (City of San Diego). All of these
housing unit limits are substantially less than the demonstrated demand for new housing units in
the citIes. Nonresidential growth has been subject to few restrictIons throughout the County.
The Otay Ranch is located in the South Suburban (South Bay) subregion of the County. The Cities
and agencies that ultimately control growth in this subregion have not placed any fixed
limitation on the number of housing units that can be built each year. Instead. they have tied
residential growth to construction of infrastructure systems adequate to support the community
needs. Their policy is to approve substantial levels of residential growth if the needed
infrastructure systems are provided before or concurrent with the construction of houses. One
result of such a pOlicy in the future will be to cause a significant amount of the strong County
housing demand to shift to the South Suburban area if agencies and developers In that area
construct, in a tImely manner, the infrastructure systems needed to support elevated levels of
housIng production that respond to the demand.
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF THE OTA Y RANCH
Strong future growth in San Diego County will produce high levels of aggregate demand for new
housing and nonresidential building space. The Otay Ranch will be competing with other County
subregions and developments to capture a significant portion of that demand. The Ranch will
have a strong competitive position due to a number of significant competitive advantages, such
as:
· The large size of the Ranch allows Baldwin to develop a quality, well-planned. fully
integrated community that provides jobs. housing, shoPPIng and most of the public
and private urban facilities and services that create a desirable place to live, work
and do business. Baldwin is planning to develop such a communrty. The previous
experience of many other large, well-planned communities in Southern CalIfornia
has demonstrated that people and businesses prefer to locate in such communities
instead of smaller. uncoordinated, lower overall quality tracts and developments.
-2-
,.-
· The light industrial, business park and commercial centers planned for the Otay
Ranch, and other employment-provIding developments in Otay Mesa, will provide
thousands of jobs adjacent to residential areas of the Ranch. Many workers will be
attracted to nearby housing in Otay Ranch. At the same time, the thousands of
workers living in Otay Ranch will provide a nearby labor force that will help attract
employers to the Otay Ranch employment centers. Otay Ranch housing is planned
to provide a full spectrum of housing opportl'nities affordable to workers of most
income levels. This mutually supporting relationship between labor force and jobs IS
one of the major advantages of fully integrated master-planned communities like
Otay Ranch.
. The large scale of Otay Ranch will allow BaldwIn to spend substantial amounts every
year to market and promote the Ranch. This marketing advantage will help
substantially in attracting a higher market share and will help to create a stronger
image. Smaller competing developments cannot afford to spend as much and
consequently WIll have less marketing impact than Otay Ranch.
· The Otay Ranch area presently has better access to major employment centers In the
harbor, downtown, Mission Valley and Kearny Mesa areas than most other
residential areas in the north and east County. Freeways and arterials from the other
residential areas to the indicated employment centers are now highly congested
during peak hours, while freeways and arterials from the South Bay area are much
less congested. Several additional north-south and east-west freeways and arterials
are planned for construction through and to Otay Ranch. When these are
completed, access to jobs for Ranch residents should be even better while freeways
to the north and east of the downtown area become even more congested. This
situation will attract households to locate in Otay Ranch.
· Until the last few years, the South Bay area had the image of an inferior place to live
compared to areas in the central and north County. The recent success of the
Eastlake development, which is a large, good quality, well-planned residential
community, has changed that image. The strong acceptance of the high quality,
higher priced housing in Eastlake has demonstrated that South Bay has become an
attractive place to live. Otay Ranch is adjacent to Eastlake, so the Ranch can bulla on
this favorable image without having to go through the often lengthy and difficult
process of initially creating the image.
· As indicated above. the limitations on housing unit development in much of the rest
of the County will shift residential demand to the South Bay area and to Otay Ranch,
which will be the largest and highest quality, fully integrated master-planned
community in South Bay. Since Baldwin is planning to ensure that infrastructure
systems keep pace with Otay Ranch growth, the Ranch should be able to produce
enough housing units to maintain this substantial competitive advantage and
absorb the residential demand.
· Developed land and housing prices in most north and central County areas have
increased rapidly in the past few years, and have reached fairly high levels. This run.
up in prices has been caused, in part, by residential growth restrictions that have
limited supply relative to demand. and by high land development COSts in some
areas due to difficult topography. Baldwin's relatively low land cost base. and the
easily developable topography of much of the Ranch, should allow Baldwin to price
its residential land and housing, and nonresidential land and buildings, very
competitively with respect to developments in other areas of the County.
-3-
~
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND SOUTH SUBURBAN HOUSING DEMAND
The strong future population growth in San Diego County, indicated in the population
projections presented above. will generate a strong future demand for housing unItS In the
County. The historICal growth in County occupied housing units, and the projected future
demand, is summarized in the following table:
Peri od
1980-1984
1985-1988
19B9-1995
1996-2000
2001.2020
Average Annual
Increase in
Occuoied HU
11,900
31,800
25,900
23.400
1B,800
As indicated previously, most housing growth over the last 10-15 years has occurred in the central
and northern parts of the County. During the 1980-1984 period, the South Bay Submarket area
where Otay Ranch is located captured only 7.6% of total County housing growth. One Significant
reason for the low capture rate was that there were no sizable housi ng developments in the
South Suburban area, so total housing production levels were low.
During the 1984-1988 period, however, the South Bay Submarket capture of County hOUSing
growth increased to 9.3%. This increase largely resulted from two factors:
. The Eastlake project east of Chula Vista was developed and started producing and
selling houses at a rate of 400-600 units per year. The Bonita Long Canyon project
was also developed and produced and sold 200-300 houses per year. These two
larger projects, combined with a number of smaller tracts. helped increase housing
unit absorption in the area from 700 units in 1983 to 3,500 units per year dUring the
1986-1988 period.
. 1984-1988 was the period during which many of the growth limiting ordinances
were passed elsewhere in the County, as outlined previously. This constraint on
supply tended to force some demand to other areas of the County, and the South
Suburban area was one of the beneficiaries.
The scenario, thus, was one of rapidly increasing South Suburban housing production at the same
time that the shift in demand absorbed the houses.
In the future this scenario is projected to continue and accelerate. with the South Suburban area
increasing its capture of San Diego County housing absorption from the present 9% to 15% by
1995 and 20% by the year 2000. In addition to the continuing shift in demand, development of
Otay Ranch, with its size and competitive advantages, will attract increasing numbers of
households to locate in the South Suburban area.
In terms of housing unit absorption, the South Suburban market is projected to absorb an
average of 2,300 housing units per year through 1994, then 3,500 units per year through 1999,
and 3.800 housing units per year in 2000 and after.
-4-
-
In order to provide an additional indication as to whether or not the South Suburban market can
absorb 3,SOO-3,800 housing units per year. the actual experience of three other comparable
rapidly growing areas in Southern California was analyzed. These areas are Mission VielO, the
Irvine Ranch, and the Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga area. These three areas have the following
major characteristics in common with the South Suburban area:
· Adjacent to a large, rapidly growing urban area.
· Good freeway access to jobs in the adjacent urban area.
· Approximately the same large amount of developable land.
In addition. Mission Viejo and the Irvine Ranch were developed by a single owner/developer
(Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga had a few large developers); Otay Ranch is by far the largest prolect
in the South Suburban area. The Irvine Ranch and Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga also included
large nonresidential, job-<reating developments similar to the planned large business park and
light Industrial areas in and adjacent to Otay Ranch in the Otay Mesa (Mission Viejo was almost
exclusively residential).
Mission Viejo and the Irvine Ranch started large-scale development about 1970 and experienced
their rapid growth phase in the late 1970s. The Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga area started
development In the late 1970s and is still in ItS rapid growth phase. These three areas thus have
already gone through much of the typical growth pattern that Otay Ranch and the South
Suburban area will experience: A steady buildup of growth in the early development phase; a
period of rapid growth; and then a phase of somewhat slower growth as the area matures and
becomes urbanized.
During their early development phases. these three comparable areas absorbed 2.400-2,900
housing units per year; and during their rapid growth period, the areas absorbed 3.000-4,500
units per year. The experience of these comparable rapid growth areas indicates strongly that the
South Suburban area can achieve housing unit absorption of the projected 3,500-3,800 units per
year.
OTA Y RANCH HOUSING UNIT ABSORPTION
Within the South Suburban area, Otay Ranch will be competing with SIX sizable planned
residential developments. as follows:
Development
Eastlake
Salt Creek
Bonita Meadows
Bonita Miquel
Rancho Del Rey
Sunbow
Total Housing Units
Start of
HU Sales
now selling
1990
1991
1994
1990
now selling
Remaining
Units
6,993
4,231
275
1,550
4,028
2.161
19,238
.5-
-
Otay Ranch is planned to have 43,000 housing units, with home sales starting in 1994. In addition
to these larger developments, a significant number of small tracts now are producing and will
continue to produce housing units in the South Suburban area.
When Otay Ranch starts selling units in 1994, it will be competing with the other large planned
residential developments as well as the smaller scattered tracts. Since the Ranch will be a new
develop, "ent, it will take a few years to establish itself in the South Suburban competitIve market.
It is expected that sales of homes in Otay Ranch will increase steadily during this period, starting
at 800 homes per year in 1994 and increasing to 1,400 homes per year by 1996. Sales at the Ranch
will start at the fairly high level of 800 homes in 1994 because the Ranch will have a superior
marketing Impact (as discussed previously), and because Otay Ranch is planned to offer homes
over the full spectrum of home types and price ranges In 8-10 tracts initially.
Otay Ranch home sales are projected to remain at the 1,400 unit per year level until after the year
2003, when the other large residential developments will have achieved sellout. At that POint.
home sales on the Ranch are projected to increase to 1,800 units per year and remain at that level
until all Otay Ranch homes are sold out in about 2020.
Year-by-year projections of Otay Ranch housIng unit absorption are presented in a subsequent
section of the report. 8aldwln plans to sell lots to home builders, who typically buy lots aoout one
year before homes are completed and sold. An annual projection of lot sales was also prepared. In
which lots are shown as sold by 8aldwin one year before the resulting homes are sold.
Our analyses covered only the for-sale housing market for Otay Ranch; the apartment market was
not analyzed. However, the experience of other large master-planned communities Indicates
that apartment units can be absorbed in significant numbers (200-400 units per year) after a
project has been under development for a number of years and has established itself.
RECOMMENDED OTA Y RANCH RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS
KL&Co performed a detailed analysis of the characteristics of housing units sold in San Diego
County and the South Bay area during the past year. Following is the prICe distribution of the
homes sold:
San Diego South Bay
Price Ranoe Countv % Share % Share
Detached
$400,000 .. 4% 3%
S350,OOO-S400,OOO 5% 11%
5300,000- mo, 000 5% 9%
$250,OOo-S300,OOO 12% 8%
$200,000-$250.000 20% 0%
S 150,OOo-S200,OOO 19% 16%
$ 1 OO,OOO-S 1 50,000 .-2oA, ---1%
Total 71% 56%
Attached - -
$200,000 + 5% 0%
$ 1 50,000-$200.000 5% 4%
S 1 00,000-$ 1 50,000 10% 34%
Under S 1 00,000 -!% -1%
Total 29% 44%
- -
Note: DiscrepancIes In totals are due to rounding.
.
San Diego County tracts in the aggregate produce units across the full price spectrum.
Absorption was strongest in the middle price ranges, S150.000-S250.000 for detached homes and
under S 150.000 for attached homes. Absorption was low in the S 1 OO.OOO-S 150.000 detached
price range because not many homes were produced; high land and development costs make it
difficult to develop homes profitably for these prices.
The South Bay price distribution is erratic since it reflects only what was produced by the much
smaller number of tracts in 50uth Bay. No or few units were produced in certain of the price
ranges, and the attached home distribution was distorted by one highly successful condominium
project In Eastlake.
Otay Ranch can maximize housing Unit absorption by producing homes over the full spectrum of
types and prices. Accordingly, the San Diego County home price distribution is a much better
indicator of demand than the South Bay distribution. Based on our analysis of the County and
South Bay housing markets. we recommended that Baldwin produce the following mIX 01
housing units and prices in Otay Ranch:
Lot Size/ Home Size Home Price Percent
Home Tvoe Densltv (SF) (1989 Ss) Distribution
Detached
Estatei 1/2-1 acre 3,000-4.000 S400.000-5500,000 2%
Semi-Custom 10,000 SF 2,500-3.500 5325.000-5450,000 8%
Detached High-End 6.000-7.500 SF 1,800-2.600 5250.000-5325,000 12%
Detached Medium 5.000 SF 1.500-2.000 S200.000-5250,000 23%
Detached Patio 4,000 SF 1,300-1.600 S 160.000-5200.000 28%
Total 73%
-
Attached
Attached Patio 3.500-4.000 SF 1,300-1.500 S 130,OOO-S 165.000 12%
Townhomes 7-10/acre 1 ,000-1.300 S 11 O.OOO-S 135.000 10%
Flats 18.221acre 850-1.000 S8O,OOO-S 11 0,000 --2%
Total 27%
-
This mix provides a complete range of home priCei and types that can be sold to a large spectrum
of different households. A preponderance of the units are concentrated in the middle price
ranges where absorption has been strongest in San Diego County. This is the kind of mix that can
maximize home absorption in Otay Ranch.
Baldwin is planning to sell fully serviced. rough-graded parcels to home builders. who will then
construct the subdivision streets and utilitiei. finish grade the lots, and build homes. We
performed a residual lot value analysis to estimate the price per lot a home builder would pay for
a parcel delivered at that level of development. The estimated prices per lot that Baldwin can
obtain are the following:
-7-
-
Average Price
Home Tvpe Per Lot (1989 5s)
Detached
Estate S 114,900
Semi-Custom 119.500
Detached High-End 83,800
Detached Medium 69,000
Detached Patio 53,900
Attached
Attached Patio 5 42,200
Townhomes 24,500
Flats 16,400
Detached home pnces in 5an Diego County have increased at a compounded rate of 9% per year
since 1979. at a 15% annual rate since 1984, and 26% per year since 1986. Attached home prICe
increases have been more modest; 5% per year Since 1979 and 7% per year since 1984. Clearly,
neither the County nor Otay Ranch can sustain annual home pnce increases of 15%-26% over the
long-term future. However, in view of the Ranch's many competitive advantages and the strong
future demand for housing in the County and 50uth 8ay, we estimate that Otay Ranch can
achieve home price Increases on the order of 10% per year over future years.
INDUSTRIAL MARKET ANALYSIS
The light industrial area of Otay Ranch is located in the Otay Mesa, which lies between the main
part of the Ranch and Mexico. The Otay Mesa is largely flat and contains the largest undeveioped
industrial area in San Diego County, some 6,500 acres. Industnal development activity has
accelerated In Otay Mesa over the last few years, with some 1,600 acres now In some stage of
planning or development. This high level of activity IS due to several Important advantages of the
Otay Mesa location, including the following:
. Close proximity and good access to intenor San Diego with its urban servICes,
businesses and labor force.
. Excellenttransportation access via freeways, the Port of San Diego, and airports.
. Low land development cPSts due to the flat terrain, resulting in land and lot prICes
significantly lower than Industrial land elsewhere in San Diego County.
~
. Adjacent to the Mexican border, which makes it efficient for companies to operate
twin plants on both sides of the border to take advantage of lower labor costs In
Mexico. Many U. S. and international firms are establishing these plants in Otay
Mesa.
. The largest amount of industrial land available in the County, including large
Industrial sites that would be scarce and expensive in other partS of the County.
All of these advantages point to the future continuing rapid development of Otay Mesa with
industrial uses. In addition, development of a full range of houSing opportunities In the adjacent
-
Otay Ranch will provide large amounts of nearby housing for employees. which will make Otay
Mesa even more attractive as a location for businesses. Planned additional north-south and east-
west freeways into Otay Mesa will also provide even better regional transportation access.
In our analysis of long-term industrial land absorption in Otay Mesa, we first projected future San
Diego County demand for industrial building space based on the strong future growth in County
employment. We next estimated how much of this demand Otay Mesa can capture, and then
converted building space absorption to finished lot absorption using a floor area ratio (FAR) of
.35 (building space divided by lot area). The results of this analysis are summarized in the
following table (industrial building space in millions of square feet):
Year
1986
1990
2000
2010
2020
San Diego
County
64.6
93.8
153.1
216.3
263.0
South Bav Area
Sa. Ft. % of Countv
10.2 15.8%
15.9 17.0%
33.7 22.0%
64.9 30.0%
92.1 35.0%
Otay Mesa
SQ. Ft. % of So. Bay
0.1 1%
3.2 20%
13.5 40%
37.6 58%
61.7 67%
The South Bay area's share of County industrial space is projected to grow steadily, primarily due
to rapid development of Otay Mesa, which has most of the remaining available industrial land In
South Bay. The very rapid growth of Otay Mesa is indicated by the addition of industrial space
during the last few years. In 1986 there were 100,000 sq. ft. of industrial buildings In Otay Mesa;
by the end of 1988 this had increased to 1.3 million sq. ft. Another 900.000 sq. ft. is projected to
be developed dUring 1989. This accelerated rate of development is due to the strong advantages
outlined above that Otay Mesa offers as an industrial location. and this high rate of development
is projected to continue oyer the long-term future.
This rapid growth in Otay Mesa building space translates Into the following annual absorption of
space and finished lots:
Peri ad
1990-1994
1995-1999
2000-2004
2005-2009
2010-2020
*Uslng an FAR ot .35
Annual Averaae Absorotion
Sq. Ft. of Acres of
Industrial Soace Finished Lots"
876,200 57
1,188,000 78
2,072.400 136
2,759,600 181
2.404,400 158
.a.
-
The Otay Ranch portion of the Otay Mesa industrial area will be competing with several other
major industroal developments and a number of smaller projects in Otay Mesa. It is recommended
that the Otay Ranch industrial land be developed with the following characteristics to give it a
competitive advantage over other projects in Otay Mesa:
. Developed as a master-planned industrial park with landscaped streets and
architectural and design controls to produce a high quality envlf nment.
. Provide a mix of lots from small (1/2 - 5 acres) to large (30 - 50 acres) to encourage a
mix of small tenants, light manufacturing. distrobution/warehouse, R&D. and low-
rise office space users.
. Market the Otay Ranch industrial park as an integral part of the wnole Otay Ranch
to take advantage of the Ranch's marketing power and impact.
. Take advantage of Baldwin's relatively low land cost base to prICe finished lots
below competing Otay Mesa proJects. ThIs price advantage is important to
achieving significant absorption rates, partICularly In the early years of industroal
park development.
In view of the foregoing competitive factors, we estimate that the Otay Ranch industrial park can
initially capture 20% of Otay Mesa absorption, with this capture ,ncreasing to 25% once the
industrial park is established. The projected absorption of finoshed lots In Otay Ranch Industroal
park is thus the following. ,n acres:
Peri od
1990- 1994
1995-1999
2000-2004
2005-2009
2010-2020
Total
Annual Average
Absorption
11
20
34
45
40
Period Total
Absorption
55
100
170
225
400
950
-
ORIP%
of Otav Mesa
20%
25%
25%
25%
25%
Current finished lot prices in Otay Mesa are approximately 55.50 - 57.75 per sq. ft. plus S 1.25 -
51.40 per sq. ft. in assessments, for 1/2- to 5-acre lots. Larger lots of 5 to 30 acres generally sell in
the S5.00 to S5.50 per square foot range. These prices are sIgnificantly below finished industrial
lot prices in most other areas of 5an Diego County, which generally range from about 59.00 .
$15.00 per sq. ft. As indicated previously, we recommend that Otay Ranch industrial park lots
generally be priced at about 55.00 - 56.50 per sq. ft. (exclusive of assessments). which is below
current Otay Mesa prices. The few large lots would be priced somewhat lower.
OFFICE MARKET ANAL Y51S
Office space demand for Otay Ranch will consist of two components:
· Population-serving office tenants, which are primarily firms that serve the local area
population such as real estate agents, escrow companies, insurance agents, dentIsts,
doctors. attorneys, etc.
-10-
-
· Business-serving office tenants, which are generally larger space-usin;} firms that
serve regional or national markets largely comprised of other businesses.
The Otay Ranch population will generate demand for a certain amount of population-serving
office space. Development of a significant amount of demand for business-serving office space
on the Ranch will, on the other hand, be a difficult and lengthy process. Otay Ranch and the
South Bay area will have to compete for tenants with the well-established office nodes in
downtown San Diego, Mission Valley, Kearny Mesa, and University Town CenterlSorrento Valley.
These nodes, in addition to being well established, are centrally located with good access to
businesses throughout the county. Otay Ranch has a competitive locational disadvantage
because it IS at the very southern edge of San Diego County. These established nodes, other than
downtown, took many years to establish themselves as business-serving office locations, and
space absorption In the initial years was very slow. The experience of many present office nodes
in Southern California is almost uniformly one of difficult. slow Initial growth because it is hard to
attract major tenants to locate in new projects away from more centrally located. large,
established concentrations of office space.
The outlook for business-serving office space absorption for Otay Ranch is thus one of slow,
steady absorption over an extended period of time. We estimated this space absorption by
projecting total business-serving office space absorption for the County, based on County
employment proJec1ions. We then estimated the share of this space that the South Bay area and
Otay Ranch could capture. Finally, we converted office space to land absorption uSing an FAR of
.35, which is typical of low-rise office proJects. The projections for the South Bay area are
summarized in the following table:
South Bav Area
County Annual
Office Space Space Average
~ (million SF) (million SF) % of Countv Increase (SF)
1986 26.7 1.4 5.3%
1988 31.0 1.6 5.0% 70,100
1990 34.5 1.7 5.0% 82,800
1995 47.0 2.6 5.5% 172,100
2000 58.5 3.5 6.0% 185,500
2005 70.5 4.6 6.5% 214,300
2010 85.0 5.9 7.0% 272,800
2020 108.8 8.7 8.0% 275,900
A substantial portion of South Bay annual absorption is expected to go into low-rise and mid-rise
office buildings located in business parks in Otay Mesa. We estimate that Otay Ranch can capture
15% of the South Bay absorption during the Initial years of its office space development, and
20% after some office space has been developed and the rest of the Ranch IS well under
development. The Otay Ranch business-serving office absorption prOjections are summarized
below:
.11-
-....
Capture of Annual Average
Otav Ranch Absorption
South Bay Cumulative
Period Space Absorption Soace (SF) ~. Acres Absorbed
1991-1995 15% 25,800 2 8
1996-2000 20% 37,100 2 lB
2001-2005 20% 42.900 3 33
2006-2010 20% 54,600 4 53
2011-2020 20% 55.200 4 93
. USing an FAR of .35
Demand for local population-serving office space was estimated using a demand factor of four
square feet per person, which represents a typical demand in urban areas. Applying this factor to
the growth in Otay Ranch population resulting from the projected housing unit absorption
produces demand estimates of about 14,800 SF per year initially, increasing to 18.500 SF per year
in the year 2000. Using a low-rise office FAR of .35 results in land absorption for local population-
serving office space of 1.0 - 1.2 acres per year.
Estimated total office land absorption in acres for Otay Ranch is summarized in the following
table:
Annual Averaoe AbsorPtion
Business Population Cumulative
Period Servi no Servino Total Absorption
1991-1995 2 3 12
1996-2000 2 3 27
2001-2005 3 4 47
2006-2010 4 5 72
2011-2020 4 5 122
The acres indicated above are in the form of fully serviced, graded lots or parcels.
The local population-serving office buildings and parcels should primarily be located as an
integrated part of Otay Ranch shopping centers to make the bUildings most accessible and
convenient to the surrounding population. These office building parcels should be priced at the
same prices set for shopping center sites, or S8.00 to S 1 0.00 per SF.
Business-serving office buildings and parcels should be located in specific office park
developments that have a minimum of several office bUildings. These parks can be located either
adjacent to major shopping centers in the center of Otay Ranch, along or near the freeway, or in
the Otay Ranch industrial park. The parks should be located with good frontage on and vIsibility
from major arterials, preferably at an intersection of two major streets. Since such corner
. ~,-
........
locations will be the best locations in atay Ranch industrial park, office parcels should be priced
somewhat higher than general industrial lots, or $6.50 - $7.50 per SF (exclusive of assessments).
Office parcels located in office parks in central Otay Ranch can be priced at the retail site price
range, or about $8.00-$ 1 0.00 per SF. Office parcels located in an office park near the freeway can
be priced in the $9.00 - S 11.00 per SF range.
RETAIL MARKET ANAL YSI$
Demand for retail space in Otay Ranch will be generated primarily from the retail spending of
Ranch households, with some additional demand coming from areas around the Ranch. A fairly
complex series of calculations was used to estimate demand for retail building space. Following IS
a brief outline of the calculation process:
. Future increases in total retail spending were calculated for Otay Ranch households
(primary market area) and the rest of South Bay (secondary market area). The
spending estimates were based on average household Income and the future
growth In households.
. The capture of total retail spending by Otay Ranch retail facilities was estimated in
variOus categories of retail expenditures.
. Typical average annual sales per square foot for these categories were applied to the
category expenditures to estimate the number of square feet of retail building space
that will be absorbed in Otay Ranch.
Building space absorption was converted to Otay Ranch shopping center site absorption by using
an FAR of .25, which IS tYPICal for suburban shopping centers. The results of the absorption
analysis are summarized in the following table:
Retail Sales
Expenditures Retai I Space Acres Cumulative
Peri ad ($ millions). Absorbed (SF) Absorbed Acres Absorbed
1 994- 1999 S 202.9 682,000 63 63
2000- 2009 $ 412.6 1.388.000 127 190
2010-2020 S 443.9 1,493.000 137 327
. tncreas. In expenditures dUring the period
In order to b~t serve the Otay Ranch community, this space should be distributed among the
following three general types of shopping centers:
· Neiqhborhood center: Typically anchored by a supermarket and drug store. usually
With 80,000 to 145,000 SF of building space on 8 to 14 acres. They are located
centrally in neighborhoods of 2,000 to 3.000 households.
· Communltv center: Generally anchored by two or more large discount-type or
home improvement stores, and ranging In size from 120.000 to 250,000 SF on 12 to
24 acres. Each center will serve a substantial portion of Otay Ranch households, and
should be in a central location on a major arterial.
.1 ~_
~
. Recllonal center: There probably will be only enough demand for one moderate-
sized regional center serving Otay Ranch and the surrounding area. Such a center is
typically anchored by three or more department stores, and ranges in size from
600.000 to 800,000 SF on 50 to 70 acres. This center should be located centrally in
Otay Ranch at the intersection of two arterials or at a freeway offramp.
Neighborhood centers will be the first retail facilities needed on the Ranch as residential
neighborhoods are built. When 8.000 to 12.000 homes are built they will support a community
center. Adequate support for a regional center probably will not develop until Otay Rancn
approaches buildout.
Our retad expenditure calculations did not Include expenditures for autos and auto-related
servICes. Toward the end of Otay Ranch buildout. the Ranch will probably support an auto mall of
about 50 acres. which would include auto dealerships and other auto-related establishments such
as repair shops. body shops and tire stores. This mall should be located centrally In the Ranch on a
major arterial orfreeway offramp.
A retail space distribution and phasing scenario for Otay Ranch might look like the following:
1994-1999 2000-2009 2010-2019 Total
Center Tvoe Number. ~ Number. ~ Number * Acres Number * ~
Neighborhood 3 38 6 75 5 67 14 180
Community 25 26 26 3 77
Regional - - - ...1 .2Q ...1 ...2Q
- - -
Subtotal 4 63 7 101 7 163 18 327
Auto Mall . . ...1 ..2.Q 1 ..2.Q
- -
Totals 4 63 7 101 ..l 213 19 377
- - - - - - -
. Number 01 centers
Sites for the retail centers should be sold as fully serviced. graded parcels. Neighborhood and
community center sites in the area generally are selling for 58.00 to 510.00 per square foot. and
Otay Ranch sites should be priced in this range. Regional center and auto mall sites in Southern
California are generally prICed at 52.50 to 54.50 per square foot. which is appropriate pricing for
the Ranch sites. .
OTHER COMMERCJAL U5E5
Our analyses did not cover the demand for specialized commercial uses such as a destination
resort. tourist-oriented specialty retail, hotels. bowling alleys. skating rinks. etc. There may be
demand for such uses. and their sites. as the Otay Ranch develops.
r
LAND USE
~-. '.;;ryr-r
'~s:
STRATEGIES
FOR MORE
LNABLE PLACES
..
.-
~. .2..7. ~-: ~,:... ~
~.. --"
.'
..;. - ~~,~:....~.;.::;-~;-~
,
~
~
,.
'~
.'-'"
.... -
",.
4::,-f
t!--oc:o.".A-,
~_~.~5~~-:..
'ir'-~~":"
.'.-
,-'k:~'
>t-.~'-~',_.
- - . ~ ~_....
, . >
~~ :-;1~~ :?~
~~1.~~'
,~..c:_
~~::~::; ~
~~~~:~~t
. '~~. ,,", ~. n'
-~~~.~~:iL~
,,",~'." ,~':7~.~__ " " ' '.~
-~...~,.:_. .-~ .;-~.~
......
~
LAND USE STRATEGIES
FOR MORE LIVABLE PLACES
."r./W.... /,y: The Local Government Commission
909 12th Street. Suite 205
Sacramento, CA. 95814
w.... ~
S[cve Weissman
Judy Corbett
h J -rl~
Tom Sa:gcn[
Jcs Slavik
Robin Weiss
F-J../ /,y:
Sam of California Air Resources Board
Bay AniaAir Quality Management Dimia
Non:bcm Sierra Air Quality Management Disaia
San Bcnwr:i.ino County Air Pollurion Conuol Disaia
San Diego County Air Pollution Control Disaia
South Coast Air Quality M2mgemCl1[ Disaia
June 1, 1992
Contents
E:cecurive Sum7Nlry 1
1 The Transponation Challenge 7
2 How Land Use Decisions Affect 15
Automobile Dependance
3 A Strategy For BUildin;t. Uvable 19
Communities: The A wahnee Principles
4 Toward Better Community Planning 23
5 Regional Principles 43
6 Makinq It Happen: Implementation 49
Principles
7 Getting Staned: Some First Staps e1
8 Some Communities That Are Leading The 63
Way
Appnuiiz
A BOOQ and Periodical. 77
B Draft Resolution 8&
C Model RFP 89
~~
. ~;;- \
~
. .~-
. ,
~ ~
i~'~ .....
.
......,
HouIlll1!l for on _tHle_IV
.....
\.
~.;~~,
..~~ I~""
... --
.;'
III
/'
--+
"OUStn9 for _ pedeStrI.n SOCJety
Executive Summary
Forty y=s ~o. Califom~ w;as a SUte dominated by compact communi-
cic:s. iTom rura.! places like Fort Bragg. to towns like Pasadena, to cities made up
of disrinct neighborhoods. Communiries were distinct from one another.
separared bv open space. T odov. in response to demands for more rurallifc:sryies.
gn:uer mobility. and .nordoble howing. we have filled our agriculrural vaileys
widl howes. spread communiries across the desertS and hiBs. and choked our
frerwo.ys with =. The side effectS have been severe: polluted air. neighbor-
hoods with no sense or community, homes ~t separate children from parents
with endless commutes, and vanishing fannJand. wildlife habitat and open
Sp3Ce. Beca= or the ~y we are growing. the social and the physical strUCture
nazssary to suPPOrt a thriving economy in the State h;as begun to fail apart.
California is expected to absorb millions of new residents in the n=
deade. We urgenrlyneed to idenrifya different sm.tegyforaccommodatingthis
growth. There is a growing consensw among groups;as disparate;as environmen-
raiists and the building industry, the manuhaurer's association and minority
groups ~t new development must become more' compact", be of mixed wes
and pedesuian-oriented.
B}' drawing on the best featUres or our older neighborl100ds and the best
ideas or innoV1l.tive ardUteets and plann=. we can improve built-out commu-
nities and design new ones in ways that will empower and encourage people to
m...., about without wing their calS- by ailowing a greatervariery orland uses
clooer to work and home, by providing more successful W21kw:ays and bic:yc!e
pahways. by bringing people and transit closer together and by stOpping the
pralifcmon of spnwl development =ss rural land.
Howdowua:omplish this? We mustmovebeyond 'piecemeal planning"
where loaJ offic:ials = to new development on a pmject by pmject basis.
Insaad, cities and counties will need ro initiaze the plonn;ng of new and d.onsing
neighborl100ds. General plans and zoning ordinanccswill have to be revised and
inril be neccssuyto make more use of specific plan.. and other creative planning
tools. Wewill need ro involve each aunmuniry'sc:itizc:nsin thepbnn;ngpma:ss.
Wemust coordinate these plans with neighboring jurisdictions ro make regional
rrmsit systems become viable. l.ocallc:aders must begin to take charge.
,
The Problem
The Solution
Implementing the
Solution:
The Ahwahnee
Principles
;\group of noredarchireas and d~ign~rs ot peaesrn2l1-onem:ed me transIt:
oriented communities. working Wlth me Local Government Commission. has
developed a set or plannmg pnnciples and implement:mon m=ures which. we
believe, provide a blueprint ror planning more livable places. First presented [0
a gathering or elected officials at Yosemite's Ahw..nnee nOtel. rilev h.ave "een
ncied the Ahwa.hnee Princlples.
The prinCiples apply equallv to iniill development. redevelopment and new
development. Taken individuallv. rhev are hard not to like. nowC\'er. rhe
principles do not stand alone. Like pieces or a puzzle. each is critical [0 our
success. Thev are as iollows:
Community Principles:
. All pl::onning should be in the form of complete and
integrated communities con~::oining howing, shops, work
places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the
daily life of the residents.
. Community size should be designed so that howing,
jobs, daily needs and other aaivities are within easy
w:01lnng distance of each other.
· As many aaivities as possible should be located within
easy w:01lnng distance of transit stops.
. A community should contain a diYusity of housing types
to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levds
and age groups to ~ within its boundaries.
· Businesses within the community should provide a range
of job types for the community's residents.
· The locuion and charaacr of the community should be
coasisteDt with a larger transit netWOrk.
. The commanity should l1Pe a center focus that combines
commercial, civic, cultural and .-:.e..aonal uses.
. The community should cont:Un an ample supply of
r"Ir.M open space in the form of squares, greens and
parks whose frequent use is encouraged through place-
ment and d....W'-
2
. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the atten-
tion and presence of people at all hours of the day and
nighL
. Each communitY or cluster of communities should haw
a wdl defined ~dge, such as agricultural greenbdts or
wildlife corridors, pennanendy protected from devdop-
menL
. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should conttib-
ute to a system of fully-conneaed and interesting routes
to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedes-
trian and bicycle use by b~ small and spatially defined
by buildin~ trees and lighting; and by discouraging
high speed traffic.
. Wherever possible, the namral ternin, drainage, and
vegetation of the community should be. preserved with
superior aamples contained within parks or greenbelts.
. The ~~~ty <i~igra should hdp COo.serft resources
and Iftln'ft'l17~ W'aSte.
· Communities should provide for the efficient use of
water through the use of namral drainage, dmught
tolerant landscaping and recydiug.
. The street oriencu:ion, thel'"r-..mt of buildings and
the use of sh"ding shoul conttibute to the energy
efficiency of the community.
RegitnwJ Prindpln:
· The regioaal land use pl..nning structure should be
integr:tted with.in a ~ traDSportation netWOrk built
around traDSit rather tfwt fre...".,~
. RegiODS should be bounded. by and provide a continuoDS
system of greenbelt/wildlife corridors to be determined
by namral conditions.
· Regional iJbc:iwbons and services (gu...mment,stadi-
ums, mu.-......~, etc.) should be loc:aredin the urban COli:.
3
Communities
When: They
AzeLeading
The Way
. Materials and methods of construction should be spe-
cific to the region, exhibiting continuity of history and
culture and compatibility with the climate to encourage
the development ofloc:aJ character and community iden-
tity.
Implemmration Principles:
. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the
above principles.
. Rather than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal de-
velopment, loc:aJ governments should take charge of the
pl"nning process. General plans should designate where
new gxowth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to
oa:ur.
. Prior to any development, a specific plan should be
prepared based on the pl"nning principles. With the
adoption of specific r.lans, complying projects could
proceed. with minim" delay.
· Plans should be developed through an open process and
participants in the process should be provided visual
models of all pl"nning proposals.
A number of communities throughour the nation have bogun [0 imple.
ment the principles stated above. Sacramento County has draired a ground-
breaking gmc:ra.l plan which could well serve as a model for the implementation
of the AhW2hnee Principles. It establishes areas for perm:rnent open space.
identifies are:u for infiJl and new growth and createS a grid of tranSit OpriolU so
char everyone in the county an get where they are going by rail or bus. Design
guidelines specify char both infill and new growth will be compact and pedestrian
oriented.
Similar. more 1~1;7"'; effortS abound. The Town of Loomis has adopted
a specific plan for their downtown to cre:u:e a almpaa. mixed-use. pedestrian
oriented. community core. The Cities of San Jose and San Diego are working
to concentrate development around light rail stOps. Pedestrian-oriented. mDced-
use neighborhoods which look liIa: those built in the U.S. before W odd War II
are making a reappearance on both coas",. These effortS provide important
working models from which we an 1= a great deal in our crucial mission to
plan more livable places.
4
,
'.
-------
.~
---
.. --
-- -
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-- -
- -...
-- -
---
---
---
.::
--
-
,
-
,
j
.....
rr
~
~ .~,..; ~.,-!,".~~~~.....-,.. .
The Transportation Challenge
Ware continually remind~ of the economic. political and environ-
mental re2S0ns that we must reduce our reliance on fossil fuel. Yet our
dependence on private automobiles. which bum most of that fossil fuel.
continues to grow. For =mple. unless we change our ways. there will be
40% more vehicles fighting for space on the roads of Southern cmfornia
(Wenty years from now than there are today (cited by the South Coast Air
Quality Management Disuia in Ma1ring Clean Air a PriDrity, credited
to the Southern cmfornia Association of GovernmentS' Regional
Mobility Plan. February 1989, p.I-2). The number of passenger
miles a:avclled in private an in this country has climbed from 1.2
trillion in 1960 to 1.65 trillion in 1970. to well over 2.5 trillion
today.
More people are driving alone than ever. before. V chicle
occupancy measured in people per vehicle mile has gone down
almOst 20% since 1977. On aVC1'2ge, each car on the road
contains 1.55 people. The aVC1'2ge occupancy for commute
trips is 1.1. Over 100 million an and pick-up trUcks are
driven to work each day.
Suburban residential sprawl and decen=lized indus-
trial devdopment stand as both cause and dfea: of these
trends in the use of private vehicles. Automobiles are
versatile and convey people at relarively high speeds.
Drivers face low fuel prices and aaveI on heavily
subsidized roadways. As a result. a large percent-
age of the population can afford to aavellong
distances between home and work. In
response. developers can sell housing
that is increasingly clistmt not only
from historical population cen-
tCIS but also from the goods
and services nc:c:cicd to
suppon a community.
People have become in-
creasingiy dependent on
an not only to getro and
from the workplace, but
=
-
CO>
-
=
.....
CO>
-
~
CO>
-
=
....
CO>
-
=
...,
CO>
-
=
~
-
=
.....
CO>
-
=
""
CO>
1
How We Use Our
Cars
3000
Domestic Ai,
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
Automobile
1250
1000
750
500
250
T,an.it
o
=
CO>
co
-
Annual
Psaengerwmiles.
in SilJions
&tJmat.d ,.. r rill".,. NlII_ of T,....,., in the United
S,....
7
Cars, Culture and
the Quality of Life
"COUgMIk..1 in mlltor urDan
_.. gr-.g -'15%
--:.
C.II1tomia ~,,"'fJm.,.~I'
of T,.,..~.r --uon
co visit rheir neIghbors at buy a c:.uton of milk. A quic:k look at rhe wav we have
been desIgning our communities in rhe last 40 v=s tells us why. :-"10st new
suburban subdivisions have been designed to cater to users of private veh,cles.
Disconnected routes wirh litcle or no walking area. luge lots. multi-lane arterial
streea. scattered destinations and shoppmg m21ls wirh acres or parking make it
far easier and more appealing to move by car rhan by any other means.
As businesses have moved to the suburbs. commute patterns have become
hopdessly complex; commuters =vel from suburb-to-suburb. from suburb-to-
city. or from city-co-suburb. Instead of dispersine congestion. chis "end has
created new botclencck.s and interfered with rhe ab, ,ty of mass cransit to reduce
private vehicle use. According to the California Department ofT ranspom.tion.
congestion in major urban areas is growing about 15% pcryear. Ifcurrcntrrends
continue. by the year 2010. half of ill road cravel will occur under congested
conditions. Congestion. added to longer distances bcrween work and home.
means chat people spend more and more time in rheir cars. As a resule. workers
arc less productive. f2milies have less time CO spend together. and we ill have less
leisure time. As planners Samuel Pool :and Viaor Dover have pointed OUt. a
pareatwho spends twO haws per day in a car for commuting and other purposes
loses 2 yars of parenting time in the 18 yars bctwccn childbirth and college age.
They also point OUt chat. ac;cording to US Department Of T ransporrarion
statistia, the average &miIy in 1986 spent 25% of its income on owning and
opcz2ting cars.. A second car requires about $7.000 in annual gross income.
Government often responds co traffic congestion by widening existing
roads Ot bl.iJ.li"g new ones. But when land is used for roads. ir cannot be used
fot housing. business:and open space. By some estimates. as much as 50% of the
land in urban communities is covered with the concrcte and :asphalt needed to
serve the autOmobile. Y ct. more roads arc not an answet to cong<:stion. They
arc just a mcans of moving more cars towml a given destination. That is because
more roads tend to CDCOuage more people co drive. Soon. there arc just mote
places where COngestion isa problem. As somconeclsc once put it. building more
roads to conaol congestion is lila: loosening your belt to control obesity.
Women are heavily ~R:-...<i by our '""P"",Iing use of autOmobiles. More
ofrcn than not. women carry most of the responsibility fot l2ising children.
Today, this can ofrcn mean serving:as primary chauffeur. since a child's daily
aaivities may be as effi:a;~ saa....ai as those of an adult. In a recent
ppoli...;..~'Y stUdy, the U.S. Dcparrmcm of T ramportation reportS chat the
number of miles driven by the avenge woman has increased 47% in the last 8
ye2tS.
Our patternS of dcYdopment c:reatc disadvanages fot men:as wdI. Jane
Jambs cli.ccusscci this problem in her landmaric book. Th~ Durh andLift DfGrar
Amman Cines, Vintage Press. New York (961), when she said:
8
. MoS[ c"y archi[.aural design.rs and planners arc m.n. Curioush',
they design and plan [0 exclude m.n as pan or nonna!. daily lire
wh.r.....r p.opl. liv.. . , W o[king places and comm.rc. must b.
mingled right in with resid.nces if m.n. . . arc [0 b. around city
childr.n In dailv lif.-m.n who are pan of normal daily life as opposed
ro m.n who pur in an occa.sional playground app=a: while they
substltut. ror women Ot imiate the occupations of women. n
Our automobil.-dependent society does not treat all peopl. equally. Th.
homes nc:cded ror workers and the offices offering jobs arc often loc:atc:d many
miles apart. Those who would filllow.r paying jobs may not be able to afford
the car nc:cded ro get to work. contributing ro unemployment while keeping
many jobs vacant. Mass rI2J1Si[ may not be an option when the worlcplac. is nor
centrally located and a bus rid. may rake hows. In addition. large suburban
homes are unmordable for most Americans.
Whil. th.r. is a reason for us to segregate some uses. w. have gone [00 far.
Heavy industrial activities - refineries. heavy manuf2auring. agricultural prod-
ua processing and the like must be segregated because they use hazardous
chemicals. create noise, emit odors, and/or use riangcrous equipment. However.
most or our economy is now based on the: sc:rvic: scaor. consisting or activities
which nced not be located miles from residential neighborhoods.
Because suburbs scgrcgare uses. "-on... communities are not designed to
keep eyes on the: srrectS at various times or the: day and night. and be<--II"'" job
centers often become: gbost toWns after 6 PM, these: areas are less safe. The: result
is incr=c:d flight from commwUties nc::ar job Cl:Da:n and mon: .-mingJy
inaacrable aime: problc:ms.
Spr:owl dc:vc:Iopmcnt duearcns the: prcsctY:ltion or open space.. We need
non-urbanized places to grow our food. p:ac:rve animal and plant species. allow
storm run-off to replenish groundwaIc:r cables and tedw:e the conCI:Daation or
air pollutants. We need parics and other open places to fed the sun. to see and
smell gn:en plants and l1owc:rs. to gather rogerbcr. to play.
Finally, the: parrcms or dc:vc:Iopmcnt rIw: have prcvailc:d in the: last several
dc:cadcs have threarc:ned our sc:nsc: or community and dampened our sc:nsc: or
comminncnt. PhilipSlarcrfocusc:donsubwbiain Tht:Pu:mIiz~Beu:sJn
Press (1970), when he said:
"r would like to sugcsr three hlUJW1 desires rIw: are deeply and
uniquely frusamd. by American culture:
(1) The: desire for community- the wish to live in ausr and&2=nal
cooperation with one:' S fdlows in a tOraI and visible colIcctivc
cntlty.
(2) The desire: for engagement - the: wish to come: direaiy to grips
-
--
-
-
-
,-
,-
-
9
.
1t'7$ IIIlStalS2DDDZII2D'O
AnnuII..~~_4 (CalltDmill)
...... mi_ 111_ .. . tn
IIIIIianI
-..-
Automobiles and
Air Pollution
Krd- 1'=""'" Em..
_ By Trip
a
a.
"
I "
1 10 11
..... ..... ......
,.......r._'-......
with social and interpersonal problems and to confront on <quai
terms an cnvtronmc:nrwnich is not composed or ego-caensions.
(3) The desire for dependence - the wish to share responsibilicv for
the conuol of one's impulses and the direction of one's life."
In neighborhoods where we only come to sleep. where there Ue no
sidewalks and visitors ue only greeted by a garage door. it is often hard ro find
a communicy at all. Ie is hard to feel the suPPOrt and prorecrion provided bv
interdependence. It is hard to fc:el eng2ged with loal policies or local concerns
or to involve ourselves in local activities such as youth soccer or baseball.
We continue to we our cars more and more.. While the population grows
by 2% pery=. the number of miles travdIed in automobiles grows an 5% rate.
Evecy mile hum. For instmcc. according to the UlifomiaAir Resources
Board. (ARB), in 1987. the average car emitred 0.6 grams ofhydroc:arboDS into
the aanosph= for each mile =vdIed. As disquieting as these numbers nught
be. all those short trips to the market. school or the gym can be even worse.. The
ARB reports that II grams ofhydroca:bons are rdeased jwr by starting a cold
engme.
And. of COUlSC, the: more we drive:, the: more crowded the roads get.
Driving in traffic jams mak.c:s em much less efficient and results in much more
pollution. Accordingto the:ARB, when a mffic jam rums an 11 minute. 10 mile
trip intO a 30 minUte: trip. hydroca:bon emissions inaeasc: by 250%.
What is all of this driving doing to the: air? The ARB estimateS that cars
and rrucks conaibuted 43% of the: reactive organic guc:s (ROG), 57% of the
n:=gen oxides <NOX), and 82% of the c,rbon monoxide (CO) emitred. during
1987 in the: major urban areas ofUlifor' Rc:active organic guc:s and nirrogen
oxides respond to the presence: of swilignt oy forming ozone:. a major ingredient
of smog. And of the mbome: parriculatc:s which an: directly emitred. from both
stationary and mobile: 50=. over half are dust kicked up by motor vdUcle
activity on roadways.
The Role of Transit There is considerable: interest in the: role: offixc:d-rail rransit in rc:ducingour
depc:ndc:ncc: on aUtomobiles. This in_ is undentandable.. Trains an: more
enc:rgy-dlicient in opc:rarion than em and buses ..........<(' they move on aacks at
rc:guIarc:d spc:c:ds and carry more p3~gers. Often, they provide rapid =vd by
using -I...I;,..-i righa-of-wzy. They can hdp shape: land use: pl.nn;ng and
business decisions because: they crc::u:e: a sc:nsc: of permanence:. Many of the
communities that cannOt afford a rail transit syste:m om:r public buses. All of the
placc:s that have rail systm1S also have bw systems. Most of the: faaors 2ifeaing
the success of a fixed-rail sysa:m also affea the: success of a bus system. While
10
the need to encounge walking. bicycle riding. carpooling and telecommuting IS
common co ill COmmUnlt1es. it's important to consider how our land we
decisions add to or detn.cr irom our dtom ro promote rransit ridership.
When the Bav Area Rapid T ransir System (BART) fim beg21l ro provide
rrain service to San Fn.ncisco commuters. the number of car owners using the
Bay Bridge ro drive into the city went down dramatially. Soon. h~r. the
Bay Bridge was crowded again. Over the years. BART ridership has increased
somewhar. bur the roads have become more congested thm ever.
BART cl=iy took drivers off the road. Y c:t it seems that if everything else
remains the same, more people are willing to drive their cars when roads are less
congested. Like a new freeway, mass a:msit enables more people to move more
quickly toward a given destination. Unlike the hidden costs of using a freewav.
the passenger's out-of-pocket COSt for mass tranSit is obvious and rhe times and
places where crans;t can be used are more limited.
The introduction of mass transit alone will not eliminate congestion. Ir,
only makes a dent when ir is rhe preferred alternative. .To be succcssiU!. mass
crans;r must be the most convenient and 1= expensive way to go.
Nationally, the most successful fixed-rail tranSit systemS are rhe subways
and commuter trains in the older eastern and midwestern cities. In New York
Ciry, forinsance. oven quancrofthosc going to work getrhcre on publica:msir
(Washington D.C. is tops in rhe nation. at 38%). But rhe population rrcnds in
the decades since World War n have ca,rried mOre people to the sourhern and
western portions of rhe nation, to places where rail uansit has not been built. or
older systems have been abandoned.
Among rhe arc:rs in California with 6:xcd-r2il systems. the San Fn.ncisco
Bay Area leads rhe packwith over 10% ofitsCXImmurcn using public a:msit.. But
statewide. only 5.8% of commurcrs reiy on public tranSit. Urgdy, growth in
California is conccnazted in the suburbs and investment in fixed-rail tranSit has
not kept up. Housing is dispencd and suburban job devaopmcat has cakcn the
focus off of rhe urban core, which has muiirionally been rbc ccn_ of tranSit
devdopmenc. In short, toO few people live and work close to tr3DSit stOps.
According to the =u!ts of a swvcy =tIy conduacd by the City of San
Diego, 91.2% ofrhe peoplc get to work by car, 3. 1 % bikeorw:alk.and4.2% rake
publie tranSit.. But when downtoWn CXlmmurcrs are CXlmparcd to chc rest of the
popularion, a di!fermt stOry is told. Over 14% ofw downrown worken use
public tranSit to get to work.
People often choose to rake their cars ro worlt bccausc they have other
things to do bcsicIcs getting to and from the job. Somc:timc:s a car is the oniy
pn.cricaJ means of getting to an inrcn:sring pI=: for lunch. or finding a shoe
repair shop, or picking up groceries on the wzy home. We use cars more often
11
Why Rail Transit
Alone Does Not
Oear rhe Roads
Why More People
Don't Use It
- o.vo CIIywIIIe
....... SpMI for Ct-._. ..
s.n DIego ~_..~_..
_ $!llll1or eommur...
"-_~I
...~_._._.
~......
~~
~~.
~"'~
e:.
-.. DeMIIy -..
Suppo,,. FIuoI T,. ~ I "1 n
Sy-
----
because our transponation needs are complex. The kid's school mav not be in
the same pan: of town as the doctor. The places where we shop mav not all be
open at the same time. It becomes difficult to perTorm auto-dependent tasKs In
dusters.
Many people take their c.ars wherever they go to provide themselves with
greater flexibility. Cars can go just about anvwhere. And if your trust\" car is bv
vour side. it's easier to change your mind about where you are going next.
Better land use planning can hdp address all of these issues. For instance.
in reflecting on the greater tendency for downtown workers to use public tranSIt.
the City Manager of San Diego identified the following factors:
- the downtown area is pedcsuian-oriented
- outlying employment centers are auto-oriented with readilv avail-
able and gencrally free parking
- the mix of uses downtown encourages pedestrian activity
- the density of cc . oloyees across the downtown area is twO or three
rimes mat of. ::e outlying employment centers
- downtown serves as the hub for the regional bus and lighttail transit
system
- more downtown employers subsidize employee t=sit COSts than in
other areas of the city
But how about that old villain, "lifestyle"' Some people argue that
Americans simply love their = and won't do without them. As the story goes.
people like the privacy and the sense of independence that comes with locking
the door. turning the key and playing the radio.
But in the final analysa. isn't this really a matter of economics? Among
those who have a choice. most people now pw -' private automobiles to the
alternatives. But if public =it was faster and r; : convenient and if the dailv
COst of driving was dc:arlymore expensive than the ....ternatives, how many people
would stick to their = as a marrcr of lifestyle choice?
Public =it cannot be faster and cheaperwithout ridership suppon. And
people will only suppon public transit if it is conveniently located. Boris
Pushkarev and Jeffrey Zupan diSC1!SS this problem in their 1977 book. Pubiit:
Tr~aNiLantJ Uu PDIiey. ~communitics become more compact. the
demand for public mnsit inae2SeS. Where there are more people. = become
both less convenient and more c:osdy. According to Pushkarev and Zupan. to
suppon: transit, the genc:nl rule is there must be at least seven unia of housing
per :acre and the downtown area must contain at least 10 miliion square feet of
office space. For very frequent bus service. a community needs at least 8 unia
per ace. A stUdy published in 1990 for the North Carolina Department of
TI2D5porwioc. found that to support a fixed guideway sym:m. a community
should have 43 units ofhousing pence within one-cightb mile of :uarion and
10 unia per = in the nca: on~th mile.
12
Considenng the size or maSt suburban lors. it should be no surprise mat
public transit orren lacks the ridership necessarv to sUPPOrt mare frequent service
at lower pnces. Tnis data also suggests rapid eransit SYStems will never be self.
supporting unless more people are able eo live closer eo transit Stops.
:\nd what aboue the comparaeive COSt or driving a =? The cast of driving
is artificiallv low because the use of automobiles is so heavily subsidized. We pave
and maintain sereetS and then allow cars eo use them far free. Yee. when we build
light rail systems. we are concerned beause Wr box receipts may not caver the
cast of the system. Shopping centers absorb the cost of acres of free parking and
downtown stores and restaurants validate parking garage tickets. Y c:t. how many
commercial c:stablishments reimburse people for bus fare? Gasoline taXes do
caver some casts of driving, but most COSts are absorbed by businc:ssc:s and gener:Ll
t:lX revenues. We have not begun to charge automobile users for the environmen-
tal damage that they cause.
Even today. people usually spend more money driving to their destinations
than they would spend an public transit. This is not surprising, since most
people drive alone and uansit COstS are subsidized as well. However. for most
people. the subsidized COst of driving is amac::ive enough to encourage the use
of private cars. If air dimias and loc:a1 governments remove autOmobile
subsidies. the difference in COst will motivate more people to use public tranSit.
The result of our public: policy preference for automobiles is not a
surprising one. Based on data=ulated by John Pucherftom various sourc:c:s.
here is how U.S. transportation habitS compare with those of other nations:
10
--
(__of_trlpel
R AVllm-a"r"r
. WaII/8Ir.e
11_
.~
10
70
10
so
.0
30
2D
10
o
~S_ __ _
S t-~ ,...
-
a.-,
fl J ~ s..-
'"TIle cost at clrivino is
arttfic:illlly '- __ the
u. of eutomoDila is 80
heevily suaaidized"
13
.:;~-- - ...-:-;:-
~.T-",,:~...,...
-./ " - ~
._.-:~~.. --
.~
~
'# .
~;,- -- ~;~
4..1:L. .
.. .
.
.
. .- -7l;-.
. .
'4.,1 .
- .
. .-
----;:. ~
)0-.
. -
-
,-
'",
,^-r .-;;
.- t.1
~~
..
8_ ._.
-.
~>
~. .-.
L.
~
.
~ 6 .6 -..
--.--- - ----:.:---:---:.-r
0..../-
. '-
.;.- ..
6 _ ~4
1.:. '
. .-
. -, .4~
~- - '1"f .dL:.
.~. '.; , ,',/,: -~
"""- .. .,- ~ ..i. Jf _'
; .", ,', .. .., ,'.-:-":.r.
.I #' . .~~2s:" .'..' _. . '..,'
........ ~.: ._-. A"'~_ '.::~
... ~~ ~~.
--=-:~. ~~-
- -
How Land Use Decisions Affect
Automobile Dependance
Communities planned since World War IlIaci< well-located shops and
services. A hallmark of suburban sprawl is that uses of the land are segregated.
Homes are in one place. schools and parks in anothet. and shops and services are
somewhere else. & a result, people use their = to accomplish even the most
basic casks. In addition, since shops and services are not often grouped together
in a logical way. the number of short trips tends to multiply.
Friends are scattered so even social mvel depends on cars. How do
friendships develop in our society? We meet people at school, at work. in our
communities. When we live in sp2ndy populated ar~. public schools have to
serve a wider geographic area. School friends will be likely to live further apan.
When we commute one or twO haws ii-om home to job center, ourworlt-rc:lated
friends might live an equal distance in the opposite direction. The result? We
have to spend more time mvelling by car just to visit with our friends. And the
long commute reduces the time we have awilable to spend with friends and
family in the community.
Increasingly in the last few years, office and liglu-industrial site dc:veIop-
mem has moved away from the =ditionai urban core and out intO the suburbs.
The larger complexes tend to amact multistory office buildings. shopping malls
and hotels. Characteristically, these offices. shops. and hotels are separated from
the street by large parking lots and movement from one place to another can only
comfortably be accomplished by car. One writer (Jod Garreau) has given these
places a name. He calls them . edge cities" and suggests thai: they are becoming
the predominant physical and cu!twal form in this country. Some such places
are now bigger than the =ditional cities thai: are their clo5CSt neighbors.
One might think that if jobs are concena:u:cd in the suburbs, mon: people
will be able to live closer to work and commutes will shrink. Planning Professor
Robert Cervero has found that . despite the steady migration of jobs to the
suburbs over the past d......,;e. mmy suburban residents commute fanher than
ever." (APA Joumlli Spring, 1989, p.136). Cervera attributes this to several
factors: aclusionuy zoning that leads to an undmupply of housing. rents and
housing COSts that price many service workers OUt of the residential In2rkets near
their jobs, and the growth in rwo-worker households.
Sprawl
Suburban
Job Centers
2
'~__nri_
of~ID___
1IIe II1II.... many
....n.n I . -' fItS
__tMn_.-
R_c.nwo
15
Lack of Transit
Corridor PJ..nning
Recent studies also suggest that even where suburban jobs arc clustered
near rail transit sraps. few workers will use cransir to ger mere. Perhaps mat IS
because our existing rail cransit SV'Stem focuses on the traditional urban core. 7he
places where suburban workers live arc less likelv to be selVed bv convenient rail
transit that would take those workers to their jobs. For examp!e. compare me
options or a worker in downtown Oakland with those of a worker ul suburban
Walnut Creek. Then: are many more places to live within I 0 miles or downtown
Oakland that are dose to the rnnsit system (BART) than there are within 10
miles of Walnut Crc:ek.
Suburban job centers are sddom walkable. The worker in a suburban
[OWer is more likdy to be provided with a jogging path along a creek than a short.
safe wallcwav to restaurantS and shops. Even people who live close-by are ofren
motivated ra drive to work rather than attempt to cross a six-lane arterial road.
or navigate a series of parking lotS along the w:lY,
For all of these reasons. most of those who work in suburban iob centers
depend on their ars - to get to work and home. and ro gain = to food and
services throughout the day.
In theeraofm=rars. tr2dawere often laid bdore communities were built
and the s= route heavily influenced the form that devdopment took. This
trend was discussed in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
T ransirlLand Use Study for the Rcsc:arch Triangle area. Development was
dnwn to the =car route. The resulting communities were compact. with a
well established partem of mixed residential and commercial uses along a
rdarivdy narrow corridor. Pedestrian movement was emphasized.
In contrast. newer rail transir systemS have been built in response to
congestion and environmental concerns. This has involved an effert to adapt
mass tr2J1Sit to existing land use: partems. which are chanaeri2ed by suburban
sprawL In many ases, instead of putting transit in place.s where new develop-
mentwas most promising. tr2dawere laid where right-of-w:lYwas available. . As
a result,' according to the North Carolina srwiy,"these systems wen: built inro
an environment that could not fully support their openrion.' While it would
seem logia! that land use planners and =sit authorities coordinate their
activities, chis has rypiaJiy not been done.
1&
'-
r- I..,. - - - - - J- ...... --';":""---1....-.,-- 1-
"': ; ; ,. ~ ,.. J r' f" I I ': 1"'- I \ rI- i. L r"": i :;1'
~---..; - ..; '-'~ ~ ..~........ ~-;-:f- .-! -:- ~...:-
- I~ I"~- -I --- ,.; I -, -::- r ! ;;:-,. r~:J' -Y. -;;.'f-- I,
,- r;_ ~ ~... i_I _ . \ _ {_ J ~,
- - -. - .;...J.....-.6,r-' -............ -- - .-....., -::. ~..
~
,
.'
.0.
-~:-
,-
.
--.
-
~. ........
,
~
Sola
-
DIll_I
SIn
-
~
17
,-
~
-, ,......
,
1.0 Introduction and Summary
This report documents the analyses and results of the South Bay Rail Transit Extension
Study. The study, conducted for the San Diego Association at Govemments (SANDAG),
was undertaken with major participation and cooperation between the consultants. agency staff
memberS, South Bay property owners and elected officiaJs.
This chapter provides an overview of the project and summary of key findings
and recommendations.
1.1 STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of the South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study is to evaluate the feasibility
of expanding the existing and programmed rail transit services in the region to meet Mure
transit demands in the South Bay.
The Short Range Transit Plan for the area proposes express bus service in the 1-805
corridor, to be Implemented in fiscal year 1994. Neither this short range plan nor the
long-range Regional Transportation Plan recommends extension of regional (inter-
community) transit routes into the areas east of 1-805 at this time. The conclusions and
recommendations of the South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study will provide the basis for
modifying the long-range Regional Transportation Plan.
Funding for the study was provided through the TransNet local transportation sales tax
program. A South Bay transit evaluation was one of the projects specifically identified in
the ballot proposition approved by the voters in November 1987. f'.~
1.2 STUDY DIRECTION
This study was conducted by SANDAG with input from the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board (MTDB), Caltrans. San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County,
and the Cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, National City and San
Diego.
A Policy Advisory Committee was formed to offer direction throughout the study. The
Chairman of MTDB and elected officials from the County and each of the affected cities
served on this committee.
The Technical Advisory Committee was composed of staff and interested parties from a
much broader group. In addition to agency representation, the development community
and civic organizations such as the Sierra Club and the South Bay Transportation
Coalition served as committee members to provide review and input.
1
2
r:
r
[
r
1
I
I
[
I;
It
Ii
I~
Ii
Ii
I
t
II
Ii
,
.,
1.3 STUDY LOCATION/BACKGROUND
The South Bay study area addressed in this study is shown on Figure 1-1, along with the
year 2010 highway network for the area. A number of jurisdictions are wholly or partially
contained in the South Bay and project study area, including the County of San Diego
and the Cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, National City, and San
Diego,
The area south of State Route (SR) 54, the South Bay Freeway, is forecasted to grow
from 223,600 to 364,900 residents by the year 2010, with employment increasing from
53,000 to 112,900 jobs in the same period. In addition, the Otay Ranch and other major
new developments will provide land for additional new development well beyond the
horizon year of the 2010 forecast. Approximately 85 percent of the population growth
through the year 2010 will occur to the east of Interstate 805, from Bonita south to the
international border with Mexico. By the year 2010, 45 percent of the South Bay study
area residents and 41 percent of the South Bay jobs will be located east of 1-805.
In addition to 1-805 and 1-5, the study area will be served by one new north-south
freeway (SR-125) and two east-west freeways: SR-54 in the northern portion of the
area and SR-905 in the south. Right-of-way will be reserved for High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes in all three of these freeway facilities. The State Transportation
Commission has recently selected SR 125 as one of three toll-road demonstration
projects to be privately constructed.
The Chula Vista General Plan proposes additional east-west arterials to serve the area
and provide access across 1-805 into the older portion of the City. Although several
additional north-south arterials are proposed, these streets do not cross the Otay River
to provide a connection from the eastern parts of Chula Vista to the industrial areas on
Otay Mesa. Access to Otay Mesa, within the City of San Diego, will primarily be from
SR-125 and SR-905.
1.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.4.1 Overall Conclusion
The overall conclusion of the feasibility study Is that extension of rail transit into the South
Bay subarea is potentially supportable along one or more alignments. A number of
factors will directly influence the viability of such an extension:
1. Ridership levels are lower than other regional lines, resulting in less attractive
cost-effectiveness ratios. Shaping Mure land use patterns can significantly
increase ridership above that forecast with current travel demand models.
2. Land-use patterns in the developing Otay Ranch and Otay Mesa areas must be
planned to focus activity at station areas. Site planning, density concentrations
and mixed-uses must be employed to generate increased transit ridership.
::-:'Y OF SAN DIEGO
--
I
~~
J1>~ r~ SANDE""C""TY
" ,,-,
C~
'"',
-'-
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
ar... .ve.
/'
ata, V..., ReI.
t.,ftRlAL BE "'C~
OTA.v./\/€STO:<
OUY ~SA
USA
....-
--
i
,i
.1
Ii
1"1..AJANA RlVel:! VALLEY
South Bay Rail Transit
Extension Study
San Diego Association of Governments
:-.-
k... ......... Me..
LiGENO
_biltift9l~~
_ StudY Area ......,
_ SaIl DieOO Troeey l~)
S'T\JDY AREA
~
,,!1.11
,)-JIIIC!""..c """.:,,,...~ ,--
..
,
'-
<
3. Active station area land use management is necessary in order for transit services
to be the most effective in the South Bay in serving travel demands. As the
regional agency responsible for land use and transportation planning, SANDAG
should work with each member agency to establish a program to pro-actively
manage land use planning at station sites. National and foreign experience with
land use planning with an orientation to transit has resulted in a more pedestrian
friendly built-environment and has assisted in mee-'''g other regional objectives
such as trip reductions, air quality levels and maximization of infrastructure
investments. The key to success is to accomplish this action on a regional basis
in concert with other programs to achieve the desired objectives.
i
4
r
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.4.2 Analysis of Alternatives
The study was initiated with a comprehensive inventory of the South Bay and an
assessment of potential travel corridors to determine the physical suitability to
accommodate fixed-guideway transit alignments. A universe of over 35 different
alignment segments was identified. A detailed evaluation was conducted of these options
with regard to physicaJ requirements, environmental sensitivity, capital costs and potential
to serve travel desires. The evaluation resulted in definition of five LRT alignments as
shown in Figure 1-2 and one commuter rail option.
A more detailed level of analysis was conducted which examined the plan and profile
location of possible alignments and station locations, estimated ridership using the
regional travel models, estimated capital costs and operating and maintenance costs and
identified potential environmental impacts. The conclusions of these analyses are:
. 1. Altemative C from the Otay Border to the Iris Street station on the South Une
exhibits the highest ridership of the alternatives studied. The line replaces an
express bus line assumed as part of the Base network which showed ridership
volumes slightly less than the rail line.
2. Altemative A-1 from the border through Otay Ranch to the South Une near SR-54
showed the highest level of New Transit Riders of the alternatives examined. This
is because of the types of land uses served and the difficulty in providing express
bus service to serve the same trip.
3. The most cost-effective alternative in terms of Annual Total Cost per Annual
Boarding is Alternative C which is 40 percent lower than Alternative A-1 .
4. The most cost-effective option in terms of Annual Total Cost per Annual New
Transit Rider is Alternative A-1. The cost-effectiveness threshold used by the
federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration is $10.00 per New Transit Trip.
The cost-effectiveness caJculation for Alternative A-1 is approximately 4.5 times
that level. Additional refinements to increase ridership and decrease costs are
needed.
;
(
\
\
\
'\ s... o.ee
,-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,I
.,'
I.
I
--
~
i"-
-
c
,......
;;> -
~_.' s__....
-
,_ -J
"'-
--,,=.:"
~/
.
.
: t
;-... ~
r~~~~~ \ \l
. --
:
..--.
..~
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
___.J
.-..-
~ I~' ____~--\
---....
-
'/
'. .
'\ ,_/
,.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
H
Ii
......
..
USA
-.
""..IGO
-
CONCEPTUALAUGNMENT
ALTERNATIVES FOR
DETAILED ANALYSIS'
South Bay Rail Transit
Extension Study
San Diego ASSocIatIon of Governments
RIm'
I:'II."E__...'"'!I"~
_ ALTERNAtIVE A
_ AlJElNAnvE AI
.__ A&.1IIHA1IVE .
_ AUllNAtIVI C
_ AlJllNATIVI D
AI. 0._____....... ~t'
. .....- Q'I' ''\
--.. ,,--- -
,-
"--'-
.- .-
.._ 1-2
L
5. Altemative B demonstrates significant transit ridership in the north/south direction
for the South Bay. Relative to the other South Bay LRT altematives, the
performance of this option is substantially cost-effective.
<
I
'.
[
6. Altemative D along 1-805 and the Commuter Rail option along the bayfront to
Imperial Beach are both duplicative of other options or are competitive with existing
services such as the South Une. These options do not contribute significantly to
increasing the effectiveness of transit services in the South Bay.
[
(
7. Altemative E was examined which consisted of a combination of Altematlves A-1
and C. Altemative E exhibited an increase in boardings as expected from the
combination of Altematives A-1 and C but roughly 80 % of the total if added
separately. This altemative was found to be comparable from a Boardings per
Train-Mile standpoint with the other altematives and mid-way between Altemative
C and Altemative A-1 with respect to Total Annual Cost per Annual Boarding.
The combined Altemative E was found to be slightly better than Altemative A-1
considering Annual Total Cost per Annual New Transit Rider at about 4.0 times the
UMTA threshold.
I
6
I
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.4.3 Land Use Adjustments
Current land use planning concepts proposed for the Otay Ranch and Otay Mesa areas
are using techniques which concentrate development at station sites to take advantage
of the transit access. Current SANDAG models do not account for this type of
development pattem. The effect of the land use planning will be to alter travel behavior
and make transit a more accessible part of everyday life. A factoring process is thus
needed to reflect these conditions.
Similarly, with LRT service to the area, additional trip-making can be supported without
increasing the capacity of the roadway system to take advantage of investment in transit
facilities. Within station influence areas and in keeping with maximum development levels
proposed to date, the amount of residential and commercial development can be adjusted
to reflect the added transit capacity.
Research was conducted on land uses and response to transit service in San Diego and
other locations and a factoring process was used to increase the forecast ridership for
Altematives A-1 and C. It was felt this process was conservative in that only a portion
of the new trips resulting from increased development were allocated to transit. The
following results were found:
. Considering both the differences in land use planning techniques and the
increases in intensity, ridership was increased by 63 percent at stations in Otay
Ranch and 43 percent at stations in Otay Mesa.
]
,
)
]
1
J
]
J
J
J
!
]
]
J
]
]
1
]
1
J
. The increased ridership improved the cost-effectiveness by over 500/0 for each
option. However, the Annual Total Cost per Annual New Transit Rider is still two
to three times above the desired UMTA threshold ot $10.00 per New Rider.
The following alternatives were identified for further study:
. Altemative C from the border to the Iris Street station should be studied further.
A significant opportunity exists to integrate the alignment and station areas into
new industrial and mixed-use development on Otay Mesa such that ridership
increases could be expected.
. Alternative A-1 should be studied further because ot this option results in the
largest increase in regional new transit trips ot the alternatives studied. Alternative
A does not as effectively serve the new development in Otay Ranch and should
be eliminated from further consideration. The ridership could be increased further
with attention to land use planning techniques that are currently being used in the
master planning process. Further alignment and station design work could also
reduce costs ot structures and right-ot-way it held by the public or dedicated.
. Alternative B serves and important travel path within the South Bay and connecting
north into the eastern metropolitan area. Given the importance ot the travel path
and the potential tor increased ridership from land use changes, Mure options for
implementation should be preserved. This includes reservation ot right-ot-way in
the SR-125 toll-road project.
. Alternatives' D and the Commuter Rail alternative do not represent suitable
improvements to the transit services in the South Bay or are duplications ot
services which are superior. These alternatives should be dropped from further
consideration.
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
Following this Introduction and Surnmary Chapter, the report is organized in five sections:
2.0 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis - examines physical features,
socioeconomic forecasts and Mure travel demands and uses this information
to identify potential rail transit corridor alignments.
3.0 Segment Evaluation and Identification of Route Alternatives - evaluates
each candidate segment, compares the possible linkages to travel patterns
and defines corridor route alternatives tor detailed analysis.
4.0 Detailed Development and Evaluation of Alternatives - conveys the
results ot detailed plan/profile development ot alternatives and evaluation of
ridership, capital and operating and maintenance costs, and environmental
issues leading to a cornparative evaluation of options.
7
J
,
1
1
1.
1
,
1
1
1
..,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
5.0 Land Use Enhancements to Increase Transit
Ridership
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this chapter is to identify land use enhancements to increase transit
ridership in the South Bay study area. Since little of the southem portion of the South
Bay area is currently developed, a significant oPf-"'rtunity exists for the planning and
implementation of new land uses to be influenced and managed to achieve regional
objectives regarding urban travel. This is important considering current regional air quality
and growth management goals and objectives.
The enhancement of land uses around Mure light rail transit (LRT) stations to increase
ridership is premised on the fact that high levels of activity are necessary for successful
transit services. To take maximum advantage of the investment in LRT, residential and
employment uses should be clustered within convenient walk distance from stations
(feeder bus "design" beyond walking distance). This may mean changes in land use and
site planning are necessary in station areas.
5.1.1 Organization of Chapter
This chapter describes ways to promote compatible private urban development around
LRT stations identified previously in the study. The chapter is divided into four sections:
1. A description of key characteristics of proposed South Bay land use in the
developing Otay Mesa and Otay Ranch areas.
2. An overview of the effects that LRT may have on land development and the
general development expectations that may be associated with LRT stations.
3. A description of the approaches that other American or Canadian metropolitan
areas have taken toward land use planning and development in connection with
their LRT systems.
4. A synthesis of ways to promote compatible development around transit stations.
5.1.2 .Summary of Ways to Focus Development Around LRT Stations
Section 5.3 of this chapter explains techniques to focus growth and development in detail.
A brief summary of general conclusions is presented here.
Essential factors for successful land development around light rail transit stations include
(a) strong real estate market. (b) public support such as land use regulations and
incentives (both financial and non-financial) and (c) high transit ridership levels. With
these factors in place, LRT may focus and even induce substantial amounts of
development around station areas and, to a lesser degree, along lines. However, LRT
77
does not normally induce growth that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere in
the market area for each particular land use. Growth around station sites is primarily
captured from another location in the market area.
Locat land use policies must support transit use and station area development, and
station area land planning should begin far in advance of station construction. Several
American cities have demonstrated success in station area development through public
planning and participation.
Regional transportation planning and corridor land use planning should be coordinated
to maximize station area potential. That is, the value of station area real estate can be
increased by restrictions on the ease of automobile movement, a light rail transit system
that competes well with driving, and relatively compact urban form. Ukewise, proper
station area development promotes transit usage.
Tools to promote area development include:
. Land Use Planning and Urban Design
. Transportation System Planning
. Zoning
. Public Utility System Improvements
. Financial Incentives
. Joint Development
5.2 EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH SAY STUDY AREA
5.2.1 Overview
The introduction of LRT into the developing South Bay area will be unique in the San
Diego region because of the type of travel that will be served. Study of expected travel
patterns in the area at full development of existing plans indicate the transit line will serve
significant suburban-to-suburban travel. The Otay Mesa border crossing with Mexico
will also continue to increase in importance as a trip generator. Connections to Centre
City will be possible but the primary travel demands will be within the Otay Mesa and
Otay Ranch areas.
Recent implementation of rail transit systems has been undertaken in established urban
areas rather than in new suburban locations. This has required design of each system
to fit into existing land uses. Because the Otay Mesa and Otay Ranch areas are largely
undeveloped today, a significant opportunity exists to make suggestions on land use
configurations around transit stations to enhance the attractiveness of transit use and thus
increase ridership.
78
]
]
)
]
]
]
]
]
]
-,
]
]
]
]
]
]
J
1
I
5.2.2 Otay Mesa Planning Area
Otay Mesa is an area of approximately 6,000 acres along the Mexico border south of the
Otay River valley and east of 1-805. The area is expected to be the largest and potentially
the most important industrial use area in the City of San Diego. A Planned Development
Ordinance has been enacted by the City to guide planning in the Development District.
The area is planned around existing Brown Field, a general aviation airport on Otay Mesa
Road in the north-central portion of the District. The area has also been the focus of
planning efforts to locate a new regional airport, possibly in conjunction with Mexico as
a bi-national facility. A major portion of the area has also been designated as an
Industrial Foreign Trade Zone.
As indicated in Figure 5.1, a number of Precise Plans and Tentative Maps have been
approved for Otay Mesa. Over 4,000 acres of industrial uses are planned with about 7.1
million square feet of building area approved. Approximately 3.1 million square feet of
building permits have been issued.
Development plans have been approved on about 630 acres totaling 25 million square feet
of office, warehouse and light industrial uses. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for these uses is
0.295. Plans approved along Otay Mesa Road result in some of the higher FAR's in the
area. Considering 12 projects along Otay Mesa Road. the total floor area is 2.041 million,
square feet of building area on 5.554 million square feet of site resulting in a FAR of 0.37.
Generally, site plans for these projects follow traditional guidelines. Buildings are
normally placed in the center of the site. Parking surrounds each building with parking
surfaces used by pedestrians to access the facilities. Access for transit patrons from the
street can often be the longest walk-distance for any employee.
Nine Precise Plans are currently in process for residential subdivisions. The residential
areas are all west of Otay Valley Road. Roughly 15,000 to 18,000 dwelling units with
supporting commercial uses are spread over 1,800 acres. This equates to an overall
residential density of 5.6 du/acre at the lower end.
The residential plans also follow traditional schemes. Single family parcels take-up most
of the acreage with a few selected nodes of community and neighborhood centers. A
Town Center has also been designated for the site north of Otay Mesa Road at the
proposed PaJm Avenue intersection. ResidentiaJ projects are currently in the planning
stages and design guidelines for the Town Center are being developed.
5.2.3 Otay Ranch Planning Area
Otay Ranch is one of the last large undeveloped areas in the San Diego region. The
Ranch Planning Area is broken into a large western parcel with most the wester portion
of the expected development and two smaller parcels to the east in the foothills. The
western parcel contains the possible LRT alignments and is the focus of this discussion.
79
I
I
I
I
I
,
~
~
. ~ ~
j~i~i!
Q,,~~."":
1"," J!" fi ; i. ~
_:u-=~i ...
'I gHi ~~. ~
t' ~J!8..!18,r.i
~ E' >0>0.... ~!
.~ r25!]g!-:~
!1."".... oc:a~
\8,.......0:;;;"'...,.,
_G:,......:::::::'"
,!. I ,'";"c;lQ_a
.::_J-ckJ.<!'
.. .......
~:::~::;..:.,;..~
""""..,,.,
L
.-
..
,.
. .
r
,
I ..
. .'
i ~:I:II
i ,;" ,
i Jh::
i 1Ji!:
.: : 2':'~;!
:::i::=
-:.; .!!:J eII:t
:! :1:::
:: ~!!!!
:.~~..;;;
-: :
': ~ l ~
;. : ': :,
: i.~ !~I
l!!~j i ~!1
;:!!,-::
ii.... ! :.-
"J :l'l-: jJ
; :...j.;
,1-..-- .
!I;;~:::
..:::::.:.
:~:::::;
.
.
.:
. .
! : ~
.. : -: .!
.. .. u ..
~ .: ': .s ,: ..
: : . ': ~ .
0'" :::a .: :
; ~ :.: ': ':
.. . . . . .
::~i ~!'
;:=:::
ZZ~;;;:
..:::-
-::: :;
-::i:;
: : : i .
.: i ~ .; -: :
: ~:.i.=
r: i :.:. .
;~i~ia=:
;':;:i~:2:
::::=:~~
Z!;",::
~:~:::=:
..-:....,;.
o .
o
.
u .
: ~
~ ~..::
c ..__~ c
::.::.=~~
)0,'::" 'g,;.g ~ E
=>0.:1 .Y";
c ,... c ... ao.:lo
;E=:g::~i':-5
QO~;:"'" ~2
"'.....fA
caUQw": . . .
~Z~
-..,
I~
@J
'(
ca
f:!
c(
c
ca
Q:
~
-
C
::2
e
e
o
o
ca
f)
G)
:E
>-
ca
-
o
~
c
~
o
~
ii
I~
n
lij
.B
f"
'"
o
r
o
i
o
..
l;
u
e
~
o
en t-
Z Z
< W
...J :::t
""
UJ c..
en 0
U en ....
W
UJ "" >(/)
c:: < . ;
"" ::ii Wt-
Q U) Oz
UJ > OW
en - w::E
o ~ t-W '-'-
"" ... Q..W
o Z Oc:
c: UJ 0"
~ t- <<
01 0 .
01
L
-
.-
UJ
C
as
...
t-
.,
i
~
"
..
1:
..
~
>o~
= "C !
as ='"'
a:cn~
>0 .g
as C.!!!
aJ .2 ~
J:UJ~
_ Co
= .! .i'
o >C ~
,,-rn w ~I
~
~
':
.
.
c
a.
.fi
:
.
-
...
...
...
fU
,
I
<
~
:::
-
-
-
ffi)
, j
r
Q
J
1
J
1-
J
,
J
1
]
J
J
J
J
)
J
}
,
J
.
,
I
The western parcel as shown in Figure 5-2 covers about 9,400 acres and is planned to
be home to between 40,000 to 60.000 people depending on the ultimate land use plan
adopted. In a unique process. two development plans have been prepared to be
compared and reconciled for final adoption. The developer has prepared a plan for
review as has a cooperative effort between the County and the City of Chula Vista.
Known as the Joint Planning Group (JPG), the County/City effort was initiated to provide
an alternate development plan for consideration. Recent work has focused on the
consolidation of the two plans into a single, ;: joptable plan.
The ultimate plan for the area will result in a number of interesting elements:
. Between 20,000 tq 30,000 housing units which would result in gross overall density
of 2.2 to 3.2 du/acre. The somewhat low densities are a reflection of the high
proportion of open space in the plans at 55% of the totat parcel. When the open
space is subtracted, the net density becomes 4.7 to 7.1 du/acre.
. Roughly 200 acres will be set aside for commercial and office uses. This area will
include establishment of a major urban center similar to North University City.
Anticipated development levels in the East Urban Center would include:
1.8 to 2.0 million square feet of neighborhood and regional commercial uses;
0.5 million square feet of visitor commercial uses; and,
1.8 to 2.0 million square feet of office uses.
. Designation of a site for a University of California campus on about 380 acres.
Adjacent to the site would be research and development related industrial on about
500 acres.
. An Olympic Training Center, which is under construction, has been located
adjacent to the eastern edge of the parcel. Special event activity may result in
significant generation of travel demands.
Early in the process, it was decided by both the developer and the JPG to focus
development around a series of villages. Nine villages are planned on about 2,400 acres.
Table 5.1 presents calculations of density differences for mid-range and maximum levels
as calculated by the JPG.
81
!~w
I ...
<0 i ~
r.I'1
Lr
!~
I.
I'
U
gi)
;
;:
.
<J
=
~ .
iD..Q ~
C-a:5_ .
~ ; s-! :;
= e.!i~ i
.e.......Q.
00.'0.0
t-(JIU.i~
<J en
go~_~o
'"
~
~
~
;: Q
~ <J
... ~
. ..._ 2
..
.s -,!!
'" ......
'" -.
:-i~~:! ~
.. I!-. -
;~ .-w_ ~
Q.~:"iO~
.o=.g!:c
ocZ~~a:a::>
01 ~
z: 0
~I I!o!!oib
~I 9::;;da:c::>
lID
rea
CI)
...
<
C
ea
is:
~
c
~
E
E
o
(,)
.c
u
c
ea
a:
>-
ea
-
o
@f
~ .
"u
>-
i"
.J .
!
1
J .
~
5
!
~ ..
'"
..
.~
(
r
:::::
-
-en en
C i
as E
- E
t- >-~
-'Cc3
.= ~-
... _ 0
c:: en .~
>- c.S!
as 0 ~
OJ .C;; ~ ~
.c CO:::
- G).~ =
~ -0 _
O><~m
en W (I).ill
.\. ~
r
c
r
r
~
at
=
.,.
.
.
=
;;,
=
w
.
l
:
.
-
...
r
r
,.
I
l
TABLE 5.2
OT A Y RANCH RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
MID-RANGE AND MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT LEVELS
MID-RANGE MAXIMUM
VILLAGES Total DUs Density Total DUs Density
West Poggi 2,400 6.2 3,200 8.1
East Poggi 3,500 7.3 4,500 9.3
Village A 980 10.9 1,240 13.8
Wolf Canyon 830 2.2 1,230 3.3
South Orange 1,900 11.9 2.400 15.0
University 4,250 15.1 5,200 18.5
Rock Mt. 340 1.2 470 1.7
Valley View 1,730 8.9 2.200 11.4
E. Urban Ctr. 3,000 30.0 3.000 30.0
Total 19,000 8.0 23.400 9.9
Source: JPG Concepts, June 1990
5.3 THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY BE EXPECTED AS A RESULT
OFLRT
This section summarizes the findings and conclusions of several sources on the subject
of how LAT can be expected to induce or support land development. These sources
include a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Transportation and seminar
comments by representatives of several cities which have actively used LRT to promote
and shape growth: Portland, Calgary, Toronto, and Edmonton.
The dozen or more North American communities which have developed or expanded light
rail transit systems over the last ten years have varied greatly in their planning (or not
planning) for land development near stations and lines. Most cities with recent new LAT
systems initially did not actively plan for development around station area with the result
that the station areas have attracted little new development until recently. In contrast.
Portland, Calgary, and Toronto actively planned for changes around stations, resulting in
significant new development after the systems had been in operation several years and
ridership potential proven.
There are two fundamental principles observed in these cities relative to promoting growth
through LAT investments:
1. A program of land use planning, zoning, urban design, and development incentives
along with a variety of means of boosting transit ridership must be formally put
into place.
83
2. The public planning and incentives must be accompanied by a healthy
development market to capture proportionately higher growth than would occur
without the transit line.
5.3.1 General Conclusions
Among the published and unpublished documents on the subject of LRT and associated
land development, there is consensus that rapid transit improvements are but one
element in the development process. That is, LRT by itself is not a sufficiently powerful
force to induce or attract urban growth which would not have otherwise occurred in the
market area for each particular type of land use. Factors more important than the
presence of an LRT station or line are (1) market forces (supply and demand, location,
and demographics) and (2) public support for development (such as land use regulations
and development incentives, both financial and policy-oriented).
With both of these factors in place, as in Portland, LRT may induce substantial amounts
of development around station areas and, to a lesser degree, along lines. Without these
factors, as in the case of the San Diego South Une, little economic impact should be
expected. Market support for development near station sites cannot be assumed but
should be verified to the extent possible through studies.
The corridors served by the LRT must be the growth areas of the region or at least have
strong growth potential for competing successfully in a competitive market. If the regional
economy can support only a slow pace of growth, it will be more difficult to attract significant
development in the vicinity of stations. Development around LRT stations is rarely net new
growth to the region but is normally growth attracted from another location.
Over the long term, it is also helpful if the selected development corridors also connect
residential development to growing commercial activity centers. . If Mure commuting
connections require cross-system travel, it will be difficult to induce changes in residential
patterns that will support Mure development. Finally, some amount of existing
development is important as a catalyst for further investments while there should be
sufficient land available for expansion.
84
[
{
[
[
r
[
r
Although information on the expected ridership as a result of land use changes is limited.
a few sources were found which illustrate the relationship:
. In the report, "The Promise of California's Rail Transit Unes in the Siting of New
Housing", Special Report to the Senate Transportation Committee, April, 1990,
conclusions drawn indicate although "the data on ridership by Californians who live
within 3,000 feet of rail transit stations is very limited, ridership of these persons
is over 30 percent of all residents in commuting to work, compared to 10 percent
among persons who work near rail transit stations."
. In the paper, "The Effect of Transit Service on Trips Generated by Suburban
Development", Kevin G. Hooper, ITE 1990 Compendium of Technical Papers, the
following relationships were identified for suburban Washington D.C.:
For suburban office development, there is a direct relationship between mode
share and proximity of the office to the rail station: within 500 feet of a transit
station, a mode share of between 20 to 25 percent can be expected. The
mode shares reflect use of rail and heavy feeder bus.
For suburban residential development, lransit mode share for work trips and
distance is related as:
_ 400 feet, mode share of 60 to 70 percent
_ 400 to 1,000 feet, mode share of 50 percent
_ 1,000 to 2,000 feet, mode share of 30 percent
For suburban retail development, significant transit mode share can be
achieved for the first 1,000 feet from the station entry, a mode share of 40
percent in the aftemoon peak can be expected declining to 20 percent beyond
1 ,000 feet.
Peak period transit mode share at hotels within 2,000 feet of a transit station
were found to vary from a high of 20 percent to zero. The average was 9
percent but no correlation with distance was found.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
. In the book, Public Transportation and Land Use Policy by Zupan and Pushkarev,
1978, certain thresholds for land use intensities were defined for various transit
technologies. For successful application of LAT, a center city core should exhibit
between 20 and 200 million square feet of non-residential floorspace. Inference
may be made that such a threshold. or some major portion of the threshold. could
apply to a suburban center as well. Residential densities were defined as follows:
LRT, headways of five minutes in peak, average density for a corridor of 25
to 100 square miles of 9 du/acre.
Express Bus Reached by Auto, headways of 15 to 30 minutes, average
density over 20 square mile tributary area of 3 du/acre.
Express Bus Reached by Walking, headways of 20 to 30 minutes, average
density over a smaller two square mile tributary area of 15 du/acre.
5.3.2 Findings of the U.S. Department of Transportation
A recent study (Economic and Development Impacts, Douglas Lee, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1987) took a very pragmatic view of the impact of rail transit on land
development. Although Mr. Lee is a proponent of mass transit, he emphasized
throughout his analysis that while transit is very definitely an asset to urban development,
it is difficult to document that fixed-guideway transit systems can effectively shape
development patterns. Furthermore, he contended that rapid transit improvements are
but one element in the development process. More important factors are those cited
above: market forces and public support.
85
..
Landscaping:
1. Use plantings. earthen berms, and attractively-designed watls to separate or buffer
incompatible types of development.
2. Use landscaping to announce the station and improve the visual aesthetics of the
station and its vicinity.
3. Plantings should be used to shelter transit users from harsh weather.
r
;-
..
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Circulation:
1. The pedestrian and bicyclist environment within the station itself, between the
station and nearby development, and among station area activities should be
designed to be safe, pleasant, and protected from inclement weather. Ughting,
landscaping, pavement texture, and route atignment should atl be taken
into account.
'-'
L
2. Pedestrian passage through developments adjacent to the transit station should
be promoted in addition to peripherat movement.
r.
3. A pedestrian precinct within a ten-minute watk of stations, both at the production
and destination ends of the trip, should be defined and watkway improvements
installed there.
"
.
I
4. Neighborhood and city-wide bicyclist systems should be redesigned and improved
as necessary to provide safe. attractive access to stations. This should include the
provision of functionat bicycle racks at stations and nearby private development.
..
L
5. The needs of handicapped individuats must be considered.
t-
,
6. The station area development plan should include the assignment of
responsibilities and the sources of funding for implementation of the pedestrian and
bicyclist system.
[
[
Public Open Space:
1. Use public open space to buffer stable, low-density neighborhoods from the
adverse effects of higher density development near stations. Achieving good
neighborhood "fir will atlow greater use of land near stations.
..
!
2. Create compact public open spaces immediately adjacent to station platforms for
civic purposes.
,.
L
3. Include public art at station sites to build local identity, bolster pride, recognize
local history or achievements, and overall create a more pleasant environment.
r
r
l
97
'"
l
J
1
1
,
1
,
1
,
J
-
~
J
1
]
]
1
]
1
J
]
5.4.2 Transit System Planning
A second way to promote urban development and redevelopment around transit stations
is to plan and promote a highly efficient and desirable LRT system so as to maximize the
accessibility of the stations, to draw more people through them, and to enhance the
appeal of living in their immediate proximity.
1. The LRT system must be regarded by the traveling public, particularty commuters
to the downtown or to outlying major urban centers. as more attractive than
driving. Transit system routes must be carefully selected, stations located and
spaced to balance ease of access and swift train movement, bus service should
be partially rerouted to provide timed access to stations, train capacity and
headways should provide comfort and convenience, fares must be perceived to be
competitive with driving and parking costs, and auto access and station area
parking must be considered.
The bus system must be redesigned to carry patrons to the LRT stations.
Transfers between bus and rail systems must be very convenient, including a
compatible and easy to understand fare structure, minimum walking between
modes, timed connections, and bus priority movements at busy nodes.
2. Restrictions on the growth of freeway capacity should be considered as part of an
overall metropolitan transportation and land use strategy which is less dependent
on the automobile and more conducive to transit use.
3. The City may study and adopt a method of either restricting the number of
downtown parking spaces or creating disincentives to all-day parking by increasing
its cost through a tax which is earmarked for the LRT, bus, and carpooling
transit system.
4. LRT system planners should seek to route transit lines through areas which are
planned for medium-or high-density residential or commercial development, thus
creating an immediate symbiotic relationship between the high-capacity transit
access and the high levels of person-activity.
5. The transit line should connect activity nodes in a logical manner and, if possible.
lines should terminate at major activity centers.
6. A strong feeder bus network is necessary to support fixed-guideway lines. The
flexibility of buses within urban zones is important to maximize accessibility for all
residents and employees. Large sites or groups of employers may collectively
establish shuttle services at shift change to help employees access the LAT line.
7. Programs to market the transit system to both patrons and the development and
real estate community should be included. Marketing programs are essential to
maximize ridership and recognition as well as to create a psychology compatible
with station-area development objectives.
98
Building Site Lots:
No IntenSity Possible
Building Site Decks:
Intensity Possible;
Parking expensive
~
.~
I
Satellite Lots:
Intensity Possible;
Savings can Go To
Transit Line
SOfUU: Land US#! D<<isimts SupporriWl of P'op~ Mt>tIeTs; Waltu KIIiAJh (1990)
South Bay Rail Transit
...:xtension Study
San Diego Association of Governments
Office Park Site Design -
Parking Management Options
ffilllt'" FraMr Eng~nv Inc.
~
~
]
1
1
1
1
1
]
1
]
J
1
J
1
)
1
1
1
1
.
L
5.4.3 Zoning
Many of the traditional zoning techniques with which most planners are familiar can and
should be used to enact land use plans in the vicinity of transit stations. These tested
land use controls can be successfully tailored to fit local circumstances and needs when
applied in an equitable manner and with consideration for due process requirements. In
many cases, zoning ordinance amendments may not be needed; existing districts may
be used to achieve the desired results with a few changes to the zoning map. Other
times, ordinance improvement may be desirable.
Zoning techniques to consider may include but are not necessarily limited to the following:
1. A review and reaffirmation of the current zoning in stable neighborhoods where no
change is planned.
2. Transitional zoning in the form of intermediate density housing or commercial
activity; this may be mapped between high-density development adjacent to
stations and low-density stable neighborhoods.
3. New, higher-density residential or commercial districts, especially including
lessened setback or parking requirements.
4. Planned-unit development zoning, particularly including vertically mixed uses.
5. 'Overlay' zoning in which special requirements and/or review procedures may be
added to the pre-existing zoning district.
6. Air rights zoning to promote economical vertical integration of transit lines and private
development and to capture part of the value created by the improved access.
7. Density bonuses in exchange for publicly desirable features such as transit system
amenities, pedestrian- oriented design, public open space. streetscape
improvements, underground parking, vertically mixed uses and close integration
of LRT and private buildings.
Temporary development moratoria may be used to forestall undesirable growth while
station area plans are being prepared and/or new zoning controls are enacted
near stations.
5.4.4 Financial Incentives
A wide variety of financial packages may be tailored by local governments or community
development corporations to address individual market conditions and the desired role of
the public in the station area development process. As mentioned previously, public
participation may occur either in the form of joint public-private partnerships or through
a public agency or corporation as the lead financial and packaging actor.
99
-
-
-
-
-
-
Buildings centenld on own site
<>>en ~ce fragmented
~
Pal1tlng dictates site design
[
r
~""'"
~~:.'~"':'-:::';':~">>;-:'!-'_.;:
".,.,," .
-W,.-_-:._:..t_~":~;;"":'<';'~_';;"
..,. . . . -....>.,. ....';.~:..,.:./~."._'..,
Dispersed Land Use
r
I
..
Open ~ aggregated
Into large parcels
[
[
[
Buildings focused on
transit stat;ons
Pal1tlng on one aide of site
r
I
~
Clustered Land Use
[
[
r
-
Source: Land Use Decisions S"Pporrive of People Movers; Walt", Klliash (/990)
,-
,
..
E1B
[
[
South Bay Rail Transit
Extension Study
San Diego Association of Governments
EBlllt\\' Fra_ Eng__lng Inc.
Office Park Site Designs -
Dispersed and Clustered Land Use
~
r-
,
I
-
]
1
1
1
1
}
]
]
}
1
1
1
)
J
}
)
Transit related development
Automobile related development
S"""",: Pub"" S,,... [Of' Pub"" Us.. Ponl4NJ's Art"';"; StnJIS C~
D_.(987)
'f'L::::::!JiP
......;a. . -' . -..... eo' - --me.
~
~
~\
e:y
&~\
~y
~\
-.-
I
I
:g
I
I
I
\~\:
/~
\~\:
ifl I
\~ P;
I
D.
IIJIJ
Undesirable
Buildings separated from street
by parking
em eu~ ~1"D'" tel
. - - - -. - . . .,. - .... - - - - -.
. ~ em
_ill
Desirabie
Parking behind building
S""""': G~[",Pub""Tr_iIISnvJIIC",..",..,wiu.SnvJIIC",.",.".;rySYsums.
Brandt. Urbai< T rGIUU AIIl/rDrUy 0; British ColMmbitJ, (1980)
J r / South Bay Rail Transit
. Extension Study
J San Diego Association of Governments
I '- E8BR\\' "'- Ena...... Inc.
~
PIlI
Compatible Site Designs -. 1...
Retail Areas
~
~L
Another study for the U.S. Department of Transportation by Robert L Knight and Usa L
Trygg, Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit: Implications of Recent Experience (1987).
included the following conclusions:
1. Rail rapid transit improvements can influence land use significantly when supported
by other essential factors, including land use controls, availability of land,
attractiveness of surroundings, and regional demand.
2. Because of the likely slow pace of land use impacts, major earty public revenues
captured from such impacts should not be counted on to finance subsequent
phases (beyond 10 years) of transit expansion.
3. Rapid transit improvements might be used as one element of a coordinated
package of efforts to revitalize a declining metropolitan area but should not be
relied on solely or even primarily for such purposes.
4. Recent major transit improvements have been important inducements to downtown
development near stations, but only when supported by other powerful factors
(demand for office and retail space, availability of land, placement of the station,
and other public investments).
5. Recent major rail transit improvements have played a key role in intensification of
land use in station areas outside the CaD but only when joined with other
favorable farces (community support, station site access and physical
characteristics, available land, and suitable land use controls).
6. Although evidence is limited, recent experience provides no indication that any
rapid transit improvements have led to net new urban economic or population
growth in the market region.
7. In addition to impacts of conventional rail rapid transit, some recent major
commuter rail improvements were found to have contributed to land use
intensification. Evidence on light rail and busways was sparse and inconclusive.
8. Local land use and other related policies should be identified more precisely, and
transit-related land use impact objectives should support these explicitly.
9. Commitment to local land use policies supporting desired land use impacts should
be demonstrated before the transit improvement is begun.
10. Local land use policies have often been instrumental in facilitating transit's land use
impacts. At the same time, the transit improvement itself has sometimes provided
the rationafe needed for acceptance of such policy changes.
,.
86
.
]
]
]
].
]
]
]
]
]
1
.
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
)
J
5.3.3 Common Themes Expressed In Other CIties
A consensus of ideas relative to land use and development effects. emerged from
representatives of LRT systems in Portland. Calgary, Toronto and Edmonton when they
gathered for a seminar hosted by the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council and the Twin Cities
Regional Transit Board on May 18, 1990. These themes are summarized below.
Positive Development Impacts:
. LRT not only moves people, but because of the enhanced accessibility, offers
cities an opportunity to shape and guide additional city growth, consuming less
land and generating less traffic.
. Increased land use densities around stations can create more dynamic pedestrian
centers that possess an active. human character.
. Underutilized or blighted properties in the vicinity of stations can be redeveloped
or upgraded, revitalizing that portion of the community.
. LRT can increase a community's property tax base with increased land valuations,
particularly in LRT station areas. Much of this tax base growth represents a
redistribution from other locations, possibly within the same municipality, however.
. Commercial properties in station area attribute improved business to the increased
pedestrian activity and visibility that the LRT has provided.
Effective Preservation of Stable Neighborhood and Businesses :
. Early involvement of existing businesses and neighborhoods in station area
planning ensures the community that their concerns will be positively handled,
developing a greater degree of public trust.
. Station area planning graphics were utilized to communicate with existing
businesses and neighborhood concerning proposed land use changes. access and
pedestrian amenities, and where no significant changes would be made, to assure
neighborhoods that no further development would occur.
. Community environments in the vicinity of stations have been preserved and even
enhanced with effective urban design and landscaping measures, and in some
cases with down-zoning.
Positive Transportation Impacts :
. LRT provides these cities a fast, reliable, highly visible, high capacity transportation
alternative.
. Overall transit system ridership can be increased, through land use development
policies thus reducing reliance on roadways to accommodate travel.
. The potential of financing transit with private sector sources can be enhanced with
LRT but only in a highly competitive real estate market where it can be
87
demonstrated that the retums to an investor would be increased by an amount
greater than his/her investment in LAT, while risk is minimized.
5.4 TECHNIQUES TO FOCUS DEVELOPMENT AROUND LRT STATIONS
The previous sections of this chapter addressed the development expectations which may
be associated with LAT stations and the conditions which must complement LAT to
achieve results. The approach and experience of several American and Canadian cities
were briefly described as a means of illustrating the relationship which may be developed
between light rail transit and land development.
The following section will describe the various tools which may be used in the South Bay
to leverage a change in land use master planning in coordination with light rail transit.
These include:
1. Land use planning and urban design
2. Transportation system planning
3. Zoning
4. Financial incentives
5. Public utility improvements
6. Joint Development
5.4.1 Land Use Planning and Urban Design
Every metropolitan area which has demonstrated success in redeveloping the vicinity of
LRT stations has engaged in a process of planning and designing the 1/4- to 1/2-mile
radius area of the station prior to the advent of the station. Similar but less intensive work
has also been conducted along the rail lines between the stations.
The Objectives of Station Area Planning Process
While every station area land use plan should be tailored to local needs, desires and
values, there seem to be several objectives which ought to be considered in South Bay:
1. Coordinate land use decisions with the LRT development process.
2. Make more intensive use of land near stations so as to take advantage of its
improved accessibility and also to encourage the use of LAT.
3. Establish a pedestrian-friendly environment in and around stations.
4. Preserve the scale, character and quality of attractive, healthy neighborhoods
along with individual buildings which have special architectural or historic merit.
5. Minimize the potential disruption associated with LRT construction and operation.
88
J
1
J
]
1
]
]
1
]
..
~
]
J
]
]
1
]
1
-J
I
New housing in the immediate vicinity of stations should be built to a density of at least
25 dwelling units per acre. Commerciat development should be designed to minimize land
devoted to parking and driveways, should be combined with housing or offices when
possible, and should protect nearby housing through careful use of landscaping, berms,
watls, lighting, trash handling. traffic control. and hours of operation. Ukewise, reasonable
attempts should be made to maximize the floor-area ratios of office buildings near
stations. Public open space and special urban design treatments should be strategicatly
used to soften t'1e effects of increased density.
Process of Land Use Planning
The process of land use planning should proceed in step with that of light rail transit.
That is, broad assessments should be made of land use in corridors when alignment
altematives are being studied and successively more detailed studies conducted as finat
alignments are seiected, station areas evaluated, stations sited and designed, and transit
operation commences.
Phase 1--Corridor Assessment:
The South Bay Rail Transit extension Study is the first of several corridor-level studies
that will be required as LRT implementation is pursued in the South Bay area. At this level
of study, the ability to change land uses to support transit is a key measure in determining
feasibility. Fixed-guideway transit can also be considered earty in designing sufficient
transportation capacity. Competing transportation facilities should be discouraged.
While corridors are being studied and ranked in priority for possible LRT development. locat
planners should think about the role which LRT could play in reinforcing or remolding general
pattems of development, redeveloping blighted areas, supporting stable neighborhoods, and
generally conforming with.locatgoats. Issues to be resolved. speciat features to be protected
and general impacts to be mitigated should be identified at this stage.
This stage would not be too soon to begin a coordinated process of market studies that
support and improve the rationate for land use planning efforts. If transit is expected to
leverage changes in land use patterns and promote station area development, then it is
imperative to understand the general and specific markets. Market studies can also
improve the selection of corridors and station sites. These studies should become more
specific as transit decisions are made.
Phase 2--Station Area Land Use Planning:
After rail alignments have been chosen and station locations chosen, land use planners
should refine and expand the work done during Phase 1. The 1/4- to 1/2-mile radius area
of statio!", influence should be identified and altemative land use plans drawn for these areas
with resident and business input. These plans might include identifying areas for no change:
redevelopment and intensification, mixed uses, and other variations. It is important that the
planned level of growth around stations be acceptable to the community.
89
Phase 3--Detailed Station Area Plans:
When or if a station moves into the final engineering phase, the local planners should
further refine their land use planning. It may be that a station area plan requires no more
work, as no significant land use or access changes are desired. However, where
redevelopment or intensification is envisioned, a detailed plan should be drawn
interactively with the rail authority.
Land use planning should sherpen the identification of development opportunities through
the use of an economic market analysis. The final plan should select one land use
pattern and set of objectives, density and building height ranges based upon the market
analysis and evaluation of access, pedestrian and vehicular access plan, parking controls
for the neighborhood, mitigation plan for impacts, and an urban design and architectural
theme. The market studies will provide the basis for defining financial incentive programs
and private support that may be required to achieve the desired objectives.
An implementation plan should be adopted which addresses zoning and other official
controls, improvements to streets, utilities, and streetscape, development moratoria to
protect station areas and rights-of-way, land acquisition for redevelopment, and financial
and zoning incentives for developers in exchange for specified performance such as
transit-related amenities.
Phase 4--Station Area Development
Once station construction has begun, Cities should implement their station area
development plans. There are three possible approaches to land redevelopment:
1. The City reacts to private sector proposals.
2. The City works cooperatively with private developers to assemble properties and
to organize mutually beneficial business arrangements.
3. The City or a not-for-profit development corporation takes the lead in
land development.
The second two approaches have proven to be more successful in producing new
development in established areas along rail lines. In either case, the public sector will
have to acquire land for development and provide relocation assistance, negotiate with
developers to obtain commitments for station area development, and implement the
financial plan described previously.
Land Use Planning Guidelines
Although station area land use planning must respond to the particular desires and needs
of each neighborhood, there are guidelines which may be considered if the community
wishes to take advantage of the locale's improved accessibility and protect stable,
low-density residential areas. Some of the guidelines followed by other communities with
successful LRT station area development are presented below, and others may be
created locally.
90
..-
,
r
iL
'"
..
~
L
[
C
r
(
[
C
C
[
[
C
]
]
I
1
)
}
J
J
J
1
I
!
1
t
I
I
I
.
1. Land use planning and transit planning must be coordinated within a metropolitan
area for a rail system to be successful and, consequentiy, for station area
development to be maximized. That is, rail transit works best in a region (a) with
relatively high development density in the broad transit corridors and (b) which
makes a conscious attempt to restrict freeway capacity and downtown parking
ease.
2. The most intense uses of land should be located closest to the tran.~!t stations, and
densities should decrease with distance from the station.
3. Transit usage can be promoted by locating high-density housing along a transit
line along with high concentrations of employment and/or colleges or other
schools. Cities should establish minimum residential densities and, when
commercial or industrial development is considered. minimum employment
densities.
4. High-quality, compatible land uses should be encouraged in the vicinity of the LRT
stations so that the areas function as a recognizable focus of activities oriented
toward human activity. An example of compatible site designs is presented in
Figure 5-3 which illustrates a concept called "pedestrian pockets" by Peter
Calthorpe.
5. Transit stations offer opportunities for civic and cultural activities and to make a
neighborhood statement about local identity, culture, history, or accomplishments.
The use of public art and public open space should be incorporated in this regard.
6. In developed communities, blighted or underutilized land parcels near LRT stations
should be targeted for redevelopment.
7. If major redevelopment activity is proposed to occur, it should be located near the
transit station as opposed to the interior of an established neighborhood. Smaller
scale in-fill development wouid be the preferable approach to stable neighborhoods.
91
The Peritstri.an Poc:Jcd would
provide for many types of housing
needs; elderly clusters are an t!I1S'f
stroll to park, seruias, tmd trolley
line; two story tOfDnhouses with
attsu:Jroi garages and pritlau yards
provide for families; thrv: story
apartments prurNie for sing~ tmd
ciril.dless coup~.
The commerr:iJU. center of the
paitstriJm poc:Jcd would mi:r large
bGd: offia jobs TDilh ground flour
rdszil12Staurants tmd 5mIIller
business. The retail TDOIlld faa the
light nlilline and all employee
TDOIlld be within TDtllking distance
of the station. Czrs ctnlld drc:u1JJu
on !he shopping str~ tmd parking
stTucturl!S TDOIlld ~ far thost
who choose to drif1e.
DitJl!TSe opm space would be
diWid in the Peril!Stritm Poc:Jcd;
priNU yards for the families;
cluster open space for /I group of
houses; central parb to ~ used lry
aU; couTtvards tmd /I wmain
str~W shopping areiz /lround the
station at the emter.
SOW'Cc: P<Umiml POCUU, p".,. C4Izhorp., (1987)
~~~
~J][~~~~~'l'JN-
PAI":l(" ~ . HO'-I'sc.
~~~~~~
I~ II~~~
~VIa:!>~At-" aFFI{;f..~
01=;;/t-E,
Qd gQ
~E.""AIL.. H,-T
P9 P9~"A-n0i'1
P''"'''''''N.(,
~~j.u:;.-riJII:"~
DFF/t..f., ~
/AUft::'T"f,HCD ,
, :~,
H"i" 5"f'A-r"ON
vLU-S'TP1::
OP"~N
~P"'LL
$140l'P'NJ, ~-r'~a..""
I
--
( / South Bay Rail Transit
Extension Study
San Diego ASsociation of Governments
\. ESBR\\' Ffa_ env...... Inc.
'"
Compatible Site Designs -
Activity Node Pedestrian Pockets
~
~I
]
1
]
1
1
}
]
J
I
J
}
J
1
1
J
J
1
;
.
I
Urban Design
As with land use planning, station area urban design is a matter of local preference,
although the following concepts that have been advanced in other cities may be useful.
These and other ideas can be used to promote land development near stations, among
other objectives. The typical differences between dispersed and clustered uses are
shown in Figure 5-4.
B~m~~s~m~tH~~t~dMa$m~
1. Locate taller buildings near stations and lower-scale buildings on the periphery of
the station area.
2. Locate major buildings within a reasonable walking distance of transit stations.
3. Create "defensible space" through careful design of buildings, windows. pedestrian
ways, landscaping, parking areas, lighting, and other features.
4. Favor human scale buildings, mid-rise high-density versus high-rise high-density
except perhaps in downtown locations.
5. Relate buildings closely to streets and sidewalks rather than separating them with
large. parking areas and open space.
Vehicular Circulation and Parking:
1 . Do not separate transit stops from final destinations by walk distances that are
longer than for automobile users. This is especially true for large complexes with
a few main entries. This is also true for on-site shuttles. An example of this
problem is presented in Figures 5-5 in retail areas and Figure 5-6 for office sites.
2. Redesign, if necessary, local street systems to prevent or minimize transit-related
traffic from cutting through neighborhoods. Instead promote the flow of traffic to
collector or arterial streets which lead to stations on the periphery of neighborhoods.
3. Unk routes for buses and high-occupancy leading to transit stations.
4. Connect freeways and arterial streets to transit stations.
5. Attempt to minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists.
6. Allow reductions in parking in exchange for desirable predetermined design features.
7. Locate parking areas away from pedestrian routes.
8. Allow penetration of large sites by feeder buses or shuttles.
93
...
Financial tools may include:
1. Land acquisition, clearance, and relocation with discounted land resale.
2. Agreements for private project development with sale to a public entity and
leaseback by the private sector.
3. Public bond financing for certain eligible private or public improvements (po$ibly
through the tax increment financing statute).
4. Special 8$essment districts.
5. Building rehabilitation loans and/or grants.
6. Business development loans.
-
-
-
-
-
Depending upon the market conditions and corresponding degree of development
difficulty, the public may desire to structure financial assistance agreements or special
8$essment districts so as to recapture some of the increases in property value
attributable to improved access.
Prior to making substantial public investments to leverage private development around
transit stations, local officials should attempt to determine whether such subsidies would
result in a net increase in local tax revenues or merely shift tax base from one part of the
city to the station areas.
-
"""'
5.4.5 Improvements to Public Support Systems
The capacity of land development is sometimes limited by sanitary sewer. storm sewer,
or water system lines and/or local streets. Thus, upgrading these utilities or streets in
coordination with private ~evelopment may be necessary. Utility and street system needs
should be evaluated and addressed during Phase 3 of the land use planning process:
Detailed Station Area Plans.
-
5.4.6 Joint Development
Closely related to each of the preceding five means of promoting development around
LRT stations is the subject of joint development. This may be defined as the cooperative
design and development of private, commercial, or residential building(s) with a physically
integrated transit station, possibly including shared financial risks and rewards. to the
mutual benefit of the transit system and the real estate venture.
-
-
It must be emphasized once again that strong market conditions along with public.sector
policies that influence these conditions are essential in achieving substantial transit-
compatible development. Particularly important is the fact that successful join
development projects have usually involved heavy rail transit, which has higher patronage
and station traffic figures than light rail.
-
-
-
100
-
-
J
I
J
,
I
I
I
r
I
J
I
r
1
t
I
1
I
I
L
--.,.-.,.,-
Benefits of Joint Development
The coordination of land development with transit can have many benefits. It can:
. Cause land values to appreciate
. Increase transit ridership
. Provide the public sector with opportunities to capitalize on the property value
increases that its transit investment has created ("value capture")
. Enhance returns on private sector real estate investment
. Broaden the tax base
. Strengthen the market for further urban development
. Save utility and municipal service costs
Public Agency Involvement:
The success of transit-induced development depends heavily on the degree of public agency
involvement. Strong public sector involvement eariy in the process produces the optimum
level of joint development. Certainly other factors such as the rate of growth. the type and
setting. of the station. and the area's property ownership patterns also exert important
influences on station area development. However, the traditionally held view that the private
sector can maximize the value of real estate with minimum public sector coordination, is from
a public sector perspective. subject to considerable debate. Although the private sector
perspective. subject to considerable debate" Although the private sector can perform
admirably in a strong market. from the point of view of the community, the optimum level and
quality of development near a transit station can be enhanced with public involvement.
The public may become involved in station area and other transit-related development
through any of three major approaches.
Laissez-Faire Market Approach:
Under this approach. the community limits its involvement to performing customary
regulatory functions. Its objective is to design and construct the most cost-effective
system in the most expeditious manner. Comprehensive land use planning, if it occurs
at all, is usually not initiated until after transit system construction is well underway. The
private sector determines, within the context of zoning regulations, the location, scale. and
composition of station area development.
Because public agencies increasingly recognize the shortcoming of the laissez-faire
market approach, they tend to support one of the following alternatives: (1) substantial
coordination of private and public development or (2) public-private co-development
101
Coordinated Development:
The coordinated development approach involves establishing a comprehensive land use
planning program before any transit construction is begun. This would be the preferred
course of action for Otay Ranch and Otay Mesa. Stations are designed to optimize Mure
joint development opportunities. Parameters for transit station area development are
established in local plans including land use, traffic circulation, building bulk and height.
streetscape improvements. utility system improvements, and pedestrian and bicyclist
features. Compatible zoning is adopted prior to transit system construction and public
financial mechanisms are agreed upon.
Project Packaging:
Under this type of approach, comprehensive planning is supplemented with specific public
value capture objectives and financial leveraging resource are applied form the outset to
optimize station area joint development. The land use planning process takes into
account both the near-term and long-term development potential of each station area.
Rampant land speculation is discouraged. Finally, the private sector is actively solicited
to participate in joint development opportunities.
Reasons for public agencies to become strongly involved in the station area development
process include the following:
1. To gain some control over the pace and scale of urban development.
2. To protect existing residential neighborhoods.
3. To ensure orderty and compatible station area development.
4. To optimize economic returns deriving from the system.
5. To maximize the transportation benefits of the system.
5.5 APPLICATION OF SELECTED TECHNIQUES TO SOUTH BAY LAND USES
This section will address the application of selected techniques to the Otay Mesa and
Otny Ranch areas. Of specific interest is the potential changes in ridership that may
result from changes in:
. Land use types and configurations
. Intensities of uses around station sites
. Site planning to improve transit access to uses
A two-step process has been designed to adjust forecast LRT boarding presented in
Chapter 4.0 according to these changes in land use. The adjustment process accounts
for the fact that land use planning. especially in new or developing areas. can be focused.
102
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
J
J
]
]
J
]
]
1
1
]
J
,
.'
Based on experiences from other areas of the country, the forecasted LRT ridership will
be adjusted to account for the land use design focused around villages. The transit
stations will be located within the village centers and thus be accessible to a high
percentage of the residents and employees in the villages.
The current SANDAG models do not account for this type of development because the
models are calibrated on existing land use patterns and travel behavior. The effect of the
land use plr"nning on Otay Ranch and Otay mesa will be to alter travel behavior and
make transit a more accessible part of everyday life. A factoring process is thus needed
to reflect these conditions.
Similarly, with LRT service to the area, additional trip making can be supported without
increasing the capacity of the roadway system to take advantage of investment in transit
facilities. Within station influence areas, the amount of residential and commercial
development can be adjusted to reflect the added transit capacity.
5.5.1. Otay Ranch Land Use Changes
The Joint Planning Group has prepared a land use plan for Otay Ranch which attempts
to focuses land uses in villages. A mix of land uses will be included in each village to
reduce dependence on the automobile and to encourage use of alternate modes such as
transit, walking and bicycling.
The JPG examined several levels of development before arriving at the recommended
configuration including a mid-range and a maximum level of development. This work
was used to guide the adjustment of intensities.
Land Use Planning
To reflect the JPG land use planning and site design techniques, factors were developed
for each station influence area. SANDAG has determined that for LAT in San Diego. a
reasonable walking distance to a station is one-half mile. Using this distance. circles
were drawn around each station and the areas within each T AZ were summed.
Using a proportionate allocation technique, the transit productions and attractions were
totaled for each station influence area. These totals were then adjusted to account for
the clustering for uses in villages with the following factors:
Productions were increased by 35%.
Work-based attractions were increased by 20%.
Non-work based attractions were increased 10%.
These factors are based on empirical data from other areas in the country referenced
eartier int his chapter. Implicit in the assumption is the fact that a poticy-oriented plan
must be in place to ensure the land planning is implemented with a transit focus.
103
, .'
Intensity Increase
Because of the extensive amount of effort that has gone into planning of Otay Ranch.
changes in intensity were limited. An increment of residential dwelling units was added
near each station except the East Center (Orange Station) while the employment intensity
was adjusted only in the EUC.
Residential units were added to the station influence areas to reflect the difference
between the Mid-Range and the Maximum Land Use Plans developed by the JPG in
Summer, 1990. These levels were not exceeded because it was felt the JPG had set a
reasonable upper limit of units that could be supported considering other factors such as
water availability.
The land use in the EUC was adjusted to increase the amount of office employment from
1.2 million square feet to 3.0 million square feet of building area. The level of
development was set to more closely approximate levels that justify fixed-guideway
transit service. Based on national experience, the threshold amount of development for
fixed-guideway service to suburban centers is between 5.0 and 10.0 million square feet.
(op. cit. Zupan and Pushkarev)
Once rations of land use factors and development increases were established. the
forecast boarding for LRT A-1 were adjusted by the proportionate amounts. Table 5.3
presents the information.
5.5.2 Otay Mesa Land Use Changes
The City of San Diego PD~ for Otay Mesa has established overall planning restrictions
and guidelines for development in the area. Development of individual lots or
subdivisions will take place independently with the few large master plans grouped in the
northwest end of the planning area.
The lack of single-developer control, especially in station influence areas will tend to limit
the ability of planning efforts to focus on transit accessibility. A total of five stations could
be available with Alternative C or six with the combined Alternative E. This presents a
total of almost five to six square miles that would be within station influence areas, over
40 percent of available land in the Otay Mesa Development District.
Land Use Planning
Land use or site planning for developments on Otay Meas has not employed techniques
and patterns used on Otay Ranch to focus development at transit nodes. Designation
of an express line with major transit stops in the corridor would allow this type of planning
to take place. Assuming future planning will begin to directly incorporate transit
accessibility requirements, the factoring process was applied to each Otay Mesa station
influence area.
104
.
. .
0 '/!. #. #. '/!. '/!. ~ #.
C\I 0 <>> C') ~ ~
W <>> CO It) ~
.....J
en< 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0
:;:).... .... ,... C') ... ~ C\I
"'0 0 ... It) ,... ...
0.... ... ... ... Lci'
0(
'/!. '/!. #. #. '/!. ~ #.
It) It) C\I C\I ,... CO
C\I C\I ... ... ... ....
>
~~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
It) ~ CO ...
... ... + ... + CO
+ + +
en
W ~~ ~
CJ #. '/!. '/!. #. #. #.
z i~ ,... ~ ,... ... C\I ;
0( CO ~ C') C\I
:c 0 0 ~
(.) 8 8 ~ 0
,... CO CO
W ~ ~ ... C') + ~
en.... + + + + ....
:;:)z
OW
~~ en II rJ)
9 u ::E ::E
~ 0 0
M eew coS coS
u) f2~
W It)
.J 00 0
CD w:c ....
:! In(.) z rJ) II rJ)
:;:)z :5 ::E ::E
..,< D- C'! C'!
oee ... ...
0(>
e::! ~a: 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0
:cO C') .... CO CO It)
en ~~ ,... q C\I ~ <>>
ee C\i
W ...
0 ~~
i:
.... 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0
5 C') C') CO 0 C') <>>
~ It) <>> 0 ... ....
C\i ri ri N ~
... ~
'"
.J ...
wee ~ 0 0 0 g ~ ~
OW 0 t1I
~ ~ 0 .... :::J
00 C') C'!. C') C') a
::lEi: ... ri ..,
'"
'"
U
.5
... ... ~
<11
Z E <11 <11 i?:' a:
0 0 '6 E .US :?- cD
0 Q) > ~
~ Iii Q) Iii CI~ ... <: OJ
CL. ::E c:(.) Q)
~ CL. > ~ .... t>
<11:;:) -
~ j .2 0 :::J
u.i "'w - 0
en 0_ :;:) 0 .... en
, .' ..
A significant difference between Otay Mesa and Otay Ranch is the fact that five of the
six station areas will not have residential uses nearby. The response of the factoring
process to the land use/site planning techniques will be much less at these station areas
because of the unbalanced nature of the transit productions (largely generated by
dwelling units) versus employment-related trip attractions. Further, since the land uses
at most of the stations are primarily employment-related, fewer trips are generated for
shopping or other purposes. The exceptions to this are the Caliente station on the
western end of the Mesa, which is more similar to the mixed use villages on Otay Ranch
and the Otay Border station which has an extremely high external trip count from the
international crossing.
Intensity Increase
Increase in land use intensities were assumed at each station on Otay Mesa. Current
development of employment uses is averaging an FAR of 0.37 along Otay Mesa Road which
is parallel to the LRT alignment. The PD~ allows a maximum FAR of 2.0 with building
heights to 150 feet. Assuming that building FARs would decline in concentric rings around
each station, an 8$umption was made to increase the overall intensity from 0.37 FAR to
0.50 FAR. Assuming an average of 500 square feet per employee and a net developable
area within each station influence area (500 acres) of 65 percent, the number of employees
would increase from 10,500 to 14,000. a 35 percent increase. Employment-related
attractions were. therefore. increased by this percentage at each station.
Since the Caliente station is similar to the Otay Ranch stations, both dwelling units and
employment-related uses were increased. Dwelling units were increased from an
average of 8.3 du/acre to 10.0 du/acre over half the station influences area. This would
increase the number of dwelling units from about 2.10 to 2.500. Employment related
uses were increased by the 35 percent developed for the Other Otay Mesa stations.
With these factors. boarding for the Alt. A-1 and Aft. C were adjusted for each station.
The results are presented in Table 5.4.
106
.
]
~> . .
]
]
]
]
)
]
]
]
1
]
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
f
TABLE 5.4
LRT RIDERSHIP ADJUSTED FOR
LAND USE CHANGES
OTAY MESA PDO
DAILY ADJUSTED
RIDERS ADDITIONAL RIDERS DAILY PERCENT
STATION (MODEL) LAND USE INTENSITY RIDERS INaEASE
Caliente 1.210 310 270 1,790 +48%
Cactus 1,090 230 250 1.570 +44%
La Media 840 170 130 1.140 +36%
Otay Mesa 360 80 90 530 +47%
Lone Star 270 60 70 400 +48%
Otay Border (1)1,630 350 320 2,300 +41%
TOTAL 5.400 1,200 1,130 7,730 +43%
('Work1rip at station only, no extemal trips adjusted.
Source: SAW. Inc.; 17 January 1991
107
'. , : ..
5.5.3 AdJustments to Cost-Effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness calculations will change with the increase in daily ridership. Using
the adjusted ridership totals for Alternatives A-1 and C. Table 5.5 was prepared to
compare cost-effectiveness calculations.
Parameter
Daily Boarding
Annual Boarding
(Millions)
New Transit Riders
(Millions)
Total Annual Cost!
Annual Boarding
Total Annual Cost!
Annual New River
TABLE 5.5
ADJUSTED COST-EFFECTIVENESS
COMPARISON
Route Alternative
SANDAG Adjusted
A-1 C A-1 C
16.120 19,240 19,420 +12% 21.270 +11%
5.34 6.37 6.43 +21% 7.04 +11%
3.660 1,930 6,860 +87% 3.960+105%
$9.99
$6.14
$8.29 -17% $5.56 -9%
$44.09
$61.11
$23.49 -47% $29.86 -51%
Source: BAW. Inc.; 22 January 1991
5.6 OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the preceding analysis of land use changes, the following observations and
conclusions are made.
1. Land use and site planning has the potential to increase ridership significantly from
levels currently forecast. Experience in order urban areas with fixed-guideway
transit lines has shown that proactive land use decisions can substantiaJly add to
the propensity of travelers to chose transit. This is especially true within walking
distances of transit stations. The important objective should be to maximize the
accessibility of stations to adjacent land uses a.nd increase intensities to take
advantage of the transit capacity available. .
2. Land use planning to focus development around station areas in the South Bay
has the potential to increase ridership 60 to 70% in mixed-use centers with a high
percentage of residential land uses from that forecast by SANDAG. The response
to transit accessibility is generally greater for residential use than for employment
and other uses in the suburban South Bay area.
108
I
I
,
t
I
t
I
I
t
I;
I
I
!
!
I
If.-
,.
3. Land use and site intensities can be increased to take advantage of the transit
investment and available person-capacity from the fixed-guideway line. Indeed,
residential densities within walk distance of South Bay transit stations will need to
exceed traditional single-family development levels in order to support transit.
Overall density within station influence areas should be a minimum of 10 du/acre
to generate additional ridership. However. these levels of intensity by themselves
do not guarantee sufficient ridership levels to support LAT.
4. Within station influence areas, concentric rings of employment uses should be
utilized to result in a net overall Floor Area Ratio above 0.5. The clustering of
higher intensity employment within the first 1,000 feet of the station will result in
significant increases in transit ridership, resulting in between 20 to 30% more
riders to and from jobs.
5. With the designation of an alignment in the South Bay, station influence areas
should be designated at all candidate sites. This is especially needed in Otay
mesa because the number of individual land owners and developers will result in
a lower degree of control than is possible with single master plan developer such
as on Otay Ranch.
6. Development patterns to date on Otay mesa are typical of automobile-oriented
suburban development. Express transit service. whether bus or LAT has been
shown to carry high volumes in the SR-905 corridor. Transit station influence
areas should be designated to focus development for future transit service. This
will include increases in intensities within walk distances and site planning to
promote use of transit, walk and bicycle access modes.
7. Station influence areas should also be designated at Otay Ranch sites once the
fixed-guideway alignment is established. Land use planning could be even more
aggressively oriented to the transit line with assurances of future implementation.
This aggressive and planning approach could utilize techniques such as
"pedestrian pockets" or neo-traditional town planning with greater densities
focused at the station areas.
8. As the regional agency with responsibility for land use and transportation planning,
SANDAG should work with each member agency to establish a program to
proactively manage land use planning at station sites. National and foreign
experience with land use planning with a transit orientation has resulted in a more
pedestrian friendly built-environment and has assisted in meeting other regional
objectives such as trip reductions, air quality levels and maximization of
infrastructure investments. The key to success is to accomplish this action on a
regional basis in concert with other programs to achieve the desired objectives.
109
I
I
OlDy Ranch CDP / SRP a Part I
I
EXHIBIT 1)
Q Specific public service locations and facilities.
Q Conveyance of dedicated parcels into the natural preserve
onsite.
Mitigation measures proposed by the EIR identify the gUIdelines
and performance standards that subsequent development
proposals (iSPA Plans) shall meet in order to be considered
consistent With the findings of the GDP /SRP ErR
3. Resource Management Plan
The Resource Protection Ordinance (RPOJ was adopted by the San
Diego County Board of Supervisors in May. 1989. The purpose of
the Ordinance is to protect the County's wetlands. fJoodplall1s.
steep slopes. sensitive biolOgical habitats. and prehistortc and
histortc sites. Article V of the Ordinance provides for e."{emptions
from the Ordinance. Section 9 of Article V e."q)ressly exempts "any
project located Within the appro=ately 22.500 acre property
known as Otay Ranch. 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."
The Resource Management Plan (RMP) serves as the functional
equivalent of the County's adopted RPO for Otay Ranch. The RMP
also:
Q addresses State and Federal regulatory programs and
functions as part of an overall multi-species/habitat and
cultural resources management program:
Q prOVides the funding. phasing and ownership mechanIsms
necessary to effectively protect and manage onslte resources
over the long term;
Q plans for coordinated, contro!led public use and enjoyment of
the Management Preserve to be established as part of the RMP
consistent With protection of sensitive resources: and
Q by requirtng irrevocable dedications of open space acreage.
prOVides ce:rtaJnty that the open space will be preserved in
perpetuity.
In contrast. wh1le RPO provides a tool for setting aside resource
areas, it does not prOVide effectiVe long-term management and
implementation tools. address the need for a public access and
recreation plan. or address State and Federal Regulatory issues.
Without appropr1ate management tools, resource areas set aside
as part of the land development process are often subject to
inappropr1ate and damag1I].g uses. These undestrable uses include
off-road vehicle acttvtty. illegal dumping. shooting actiVities. and
Introduction of noxious non-native plant matertals into sensitive
resource areas. Such uses degrade and destroy sensitive habitats
and other resources.
Oc:tDber 5. 1992
Page 51
'~""!J"''''':'?''''_
.. i -0(,':,. '
._;'~.:;i~~ ~
~. ~
-
SOUTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAND USE ANALYSIS
Prepared For:
THE BALDWIN COMPANY
March 1990
.
. .
.
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES. INC.
201 South B",. Boulevard. B"'.. Californl. 92621 Tel"""",,e (714) 529-9411
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This report describes the results of an evaluation of the
interrelationship of the land use allocations for major planned projects
being processed in the South San Diego County area. Techniques involved
in the preparation of this analysis focus on relationships between
employment and population and the distribution of employment by type of
job in relationship to the availability of land developable for the
types of uses that respond to probable demand for work places, retail
and service facilities, etc., versus relationships to residential land
uses. They are based on equilibrium concepts of jobs, housing, and land
resources.
These research methodologies have been derived from more than 25
years of investigation of the interrelationships of population,
employment, land use, circulation, etc. Background for some of these
techniques is found in the following publications generated early in the
Consultants' research into these factors:
"A Simple Land Use Model," presented at the 1st Pacific Regional
Science Association Meeting, Honolulu, August 1969.
"Inefficiencies in the Retail Sector of the American Economy,"
presented at the Western Regional Science Association Meeting, San
Diego, Spring 1970.
"A Simple Land Value Forecasting Model,' presented at the Western
Economic Association Meeting, Sacramento, 1970.
'PUD's as Alternatives to New Towns,' National Real Estate Review,
Summer 1971.
"One Aspect of Neo Mercantilism at the Regional Level,' presented
at the 46th Annual Conference of the Western Economic
Associations, British Columbia, August 1971.
1
ALFRED GDBAR ASSOCIATES
a
I
I
I
.
.
.
a
a
a
t
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"The Obsolete Shopping Center - A Study of Causes and Cures,"
Journal of Prooertv Manaaement, September/October 1972.
"Should You Have a Shopping Center in Your Project?" House & Home,
August 1973.
"Reserving Too Much Land for Industry Restricts Prospects for
Broad-Based Development," Industrial Develooment, May/Jur1 1977.
2
ALFRED GDBAR ASSOCIATES
.
CHAPTER I I
SUMMARY AND CDNCLUSIONS
1. The allocation of industrial land in major projects in the study
area exceeds the level compatible with the allocations of
residential development by 3,700 acres, even on the basis of the
following highly conservative assumptions: extremely low employee
density in developed industrial facilities, a high ratio of
industrial employment to total employment, the assumption that all
employed residents of the South County area work in the South
County as distinct from the current commute patterns, and fairly
high ratios of employment to population with no military
employment represented in the South County population, as well as
the assumption that existing employee densities in existing
industrial development in the South County remain constant.
2. At an employee density of 15.7 persons per developed industrial
acre, the labor force requirement to absorb the amount of
industrial land allocated exceeds the available labor force likely
to be generated by the population in the South County area by
58,200 jobs, assuming that no employed residents of the South
County area commute to jobs elsewhere in San Diego County. The
58,200 additional jobs (calculated on conservative assumptions)
required would have an economic multiplier effect creating a total
of 232,800 jobs some place in San Diego County and requiring an
increase in population of 535,000 persons to generate the
appropriate labor force. At 2.8 persons per household, induced
3
.
.
I
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
I
I
.
.
.
.
~
.
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOC'A TES
housing demand related to the 3,700-acre overal10cation of
industrial land constitutes a requirement for 191,000 dwelling
units. Even high estimates of absorption potential for industrial
land in the South County study area support the hypothesis that
cur,ent allocations of the planned new developments in the study
area include too much industrial land and not enough residential
land in terms of the appropriate balance between these two types
of land use.
3.
A more efficient allocation of the 3,700-acre overal1ocation of
industrial land use is as follDws:
Acres
Residential at 3.5 Dwelling Units/Acre
Industri a1
Retail and Office
1,855
169
141
2,165
925
610
3,700
Subtotal
Roads and Streets
Institutional and Parks
Total
4.
Even assuming that little or no office employment results from
economic growth in the South County area, the allocated commercial
land in the new developments being planned in the South County is
low relative to the probable level of demand for retail and
Consumer commercial uses supportable by the population base that
is consistent with the number of units and the. amount of
residential land allocated within these projects. A comparison of
the relationships between actual recent patterns of residential
and commercial land absorption in the City of San Diego with the
4
j
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
I,
j
implications of the study area land use allocatiDns illustrates
this potential.
land AbsorDtion Shares
Residential Commercial
Industri al
City of San Diego 1980-86
Major Project land Use
Allocations for South
County Projects
65.3%
14.4%
20.3%
70.8%
4.4%
24.8%
Acres of Nonresidential
land Use Per Acre of
Residential land Use
Industri a 1 Commerci a 1
1986 land Uses in South County
Major Development Plans Future
Total at Buildout Existing & Future
City of San Diego Increment 1980-86
City of San Diego Static 1986
0.203
0.351
0.261
0.310
0.175
O.lll
0.062
0.093
0.220
0.144
5. These comparative analyses indicate that better land use and
economic efficiency could be achieved by allocating relatively
more land in the planned new communities to residential uses and
commercial uses and less to industrial use. The potential
consumer population implicit in the dwelling unit allocations for
the study area will su~port 950 to 1,200 acres of retail and
consumer service land use. The study area allocation is within
this range - 1,135 acres. The allocation, however, makes no
allowance for pure office space which could require as much as
another 390 acres of commercial land - reali'stically about 160
acres. In order not to restrict development of sales tax
generating elements, the most generous allocation of
nonresidential land should be for commercial rather than
industrial land use.
5
I
.f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIA TES
6.
Throughout Southern California in recent years there has been a
tendency to overallocate nonresidential land uses in the hope of
expanding the economic base. The result has been an inversion of
the historical relationship between land prices for various uses.
Ideally, residential land should be less expensive than commercial
sites. Commercial operations require not only a definable amount
of land area, they also require locational characteristics that
are not crucial to the success of a residential development. In
Southern California, land prices for residential development are
now in many cases higher than the price of land for commercial
development, suggesting a mismatch between supply and demand. The
relative undersupply of entitled residential land is in part a
function of planning policies. This inverted price relationship
has contributed to the high cost of housing in the face of
overbuilt commercial real estate sectors, especially offices.
This is not a socially desirable set of economic circumstances.
6
ALFRED GDUR ASSOCIATES
CHAPTER III
LAND USE RELATIONSHIPS
One axiom of micro economic theory is that everything is connected
to everything else. Urban land use is a function of the structure of
the pertinent urban economy in fairly obvious ways. Consumers who
occupy housing units also represent support for retail stores,
professional offices and services, and create demand for places to work,
as well as for a variety of government services which also involve land
use. Somewhat imperfectly, private sector land uses respond to market
forces which are a function of the structure of the local economy.
There is a clear connection between employment and population. In
fact, employment growth is believed by many economists to drive
population growth. There is an even closer relationship between
nonagricultural wage and salary employment and the number of households
in the economy - a relationship which is demonstrated elsewhere in this
report.
Private sector land uses can be conveniently divided into four
categories, several of which respond to somewhat independent economic
forces. By far, the bulk of privately developed urban land is used for
residential purposes - on the order of 50.0 percent in most areas. The
second largest use of urban land is for roads and streets (!22.0 to 25.0
percent). Third most important is public and semi-public uses (parks,
schools, cemeteries, golf courses, airports, etc.) which typically
represent 15.0 to 18.0 percent of developed urban land. The amount of
urban land devoted to retail commercial, office commercial, and
7
ALFRED GO...... ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
industrial commercial uses in a given area is a function of the economic
structure of the local economy and the degree to which residential areas
are separated from worK areas by commute.
The amount of urban land used per capita or per employee is to
some degre& related to land cost and, therefore, the need to use it
economically or with high-density activities in expensive locations.
Relationshio of Emolovment to Pooulation
Typically, the ratio of nonagricultural wage and salary employment
to population in most "average" urban areas is on the order of 0.40 to
0.44 nonagricultural wage and salary jObs per resident unless the area's
population is characterized by an above-average proportion of senior
citizens or other atypical factors. These relationships are illustrated
for California and the U.S. as a whole in Exhibit III-I. In 1987, the
ratio of jobs to population in these two large areas was about 0.42
nonagricultural wage and salary jobs per capita of population.
Similar data for each of the two major Southern California
concentrations of urban population are shown in Exhibit 111-2,
indicating the degree to which inter-metropolitan area commuting
distorts the employment-to-population ratio for a given metropolitan
area in this megalopolistic entity. Restricted ability to develop
housing in Orange County has caused employment to grow faster than
population creating an incremental ratio of employment growth to
population growth of 0.94 jobs per new person. The large commuter
population in the Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area sustains a
very low ratio of employment to population both on a static basis and at
the margin in the Inland Empire. The incremental rate of employment
8
.1
I.
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
growth relative to population growth In San Diego County has been
similar to the comparable figure for the Ventura metropolitan area.
Comparisons of employment-to-population ratios for the Northern
California metropolitan areas are included in Exhibit 111-3, showing
similar but somewhat higher ratios of nonagricultural wage and salary
employment to population. This difference probably reflects some long-
distance commuters working in the Bay Area who live in areas as far away
as Modesto - a separate metropolitan area that is not included in the
Bay Area totals. Another factor causing the ratio of civilian
employment to population in the Bay Area to be higher than in Southern
California is the military population in San Diego County. Adding an
estimated 120,000 military personnel to the 1988 employment figures for
Southern California raises the overall Southern California ratio to
0.441 jobs per capita.
Except for retirement areas, economic well being appears to
require the output of workers at a ratio of about 0.40 to 0.45 jobs per
capita. At first blush, the statistics for San Diego County do not
support this hypothesis. The ratio in 1988 was 0.385 civilian non-
militarv nonagricultural wage and salary jobs per capita of population.
A detailed 1988 employment profile of San Diego County vis-a-vis the
U.S. as a whole is shown in Exhibit 111-4, suggesting that San Oiego
County's employment base is biased towards construction; trade; finance,
insurance, and real estate; services; and government at the expense of
jobs in manufacturing and transportation and public utilities. These
data deal with nonagricultural wage and salary employment. Introducing
the assumption that the military job base in San Diego County is
9
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIA TES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
approximately 120,000 persons, the comparative ratios for 1985 would be
(as shown in Exhibit 111-5) illustrative of a good deal more balance
than the ratios in Exhibit 111-4 that exclude consumer support
represented by military jobs. Military jobs are in many respects
antTogous to manufacturing Jobs in that the source of funds for payroll
is drawn from outside the local economy; i.e., an economic base element.
As shown in Exhibit 111-2, the ratio of civilian nonagricultural
wage and salary employment to population in Southern California's urban
areas in 1988 was 0.433 jobs per capita. If San Diego County's military
employment is added to the total, the ratio for Southern California as a
whole is 0.441 Jobs per capita population. Dependency ratios for
military jobs are less than for civilian nonagricultural jobs,
suggesting a working ratio of 0.435 civilian nonagricultural jobs per
capita.
Similar comparisons for 1988 (based on the assumption that the
military constitutes 120,000 jobs in San Diego County) are provided
below:
Percent
EmDloYmt:!nt Percent !l...L.
Mining 800 0.1 0.7
Construction 57,300 5.6 5.0
Manufacturing 127,300 12.3 18.4
Military 120,000 11.6
Transportation, Conanunication,
and Util ities 35,200 3.4 5.3
Trade 222,000 21.5 23.9
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate 63,800 6.2 6.3
Services 243,100 23.5 24.0
Government 163.200 15.8 16.4
1,032,700 100.0 100.0
10
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIA TES
These comparisons suggest that land use patterns reflecting the
structure of the local economy in San Diego County should be reasonably
similar to national averages except for the military component and the
correspondingly lower proportion of manufacturing jobs in San Diego
County.
Economic Structure and Land Use
The City of San Diego, largely under the impetus of George Orman,
has for about 30 years maintained a fairly detailed land use inventory
expressed in terms of net acres of land devoted to general land use
categories. Patterns of land use in the City are not a microcosm of the
Countywide patterns because of the City of San Diego's role as a central
place. They may be useful, however, in establishing perspective. The
City's land use code assigns a separate code to roads and streets and
also incorporates land uses that do not respond to market forces -
military installations, public and semi-public land uses, vacant land,
agricultural land, etc. The land uses of most specific interest in
negotiations between the public and private sector are those that are
market-driven residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. A
comparison of change in the reported inventory of land in use for these
purposes in the City of San Diego between 1980 and 1986 shows the
following relationships:
11
ALFRED DDBAR ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
City of San Dieoo Land Use Inventorv Net Acres
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Percent
of
l2aQ ill.2 Chance ChanCle
39,310 43,914 4,604 65.3
5,320 .6,339 1,019 14.4
6.261 7.690 1.429 ..1Q..1
50,891 57,943 7,052 100.0
852,500 955,399 102,899
21. 69 21. 76 22.35
160.24 150.72 100.98
136.16 124.24 72.01
16.75 16.49 14.59
Population
Persons Per Acre:
Residential
Corrrnercial
Industrial
A 11 Uses
Residential land represented 65.3 percent of the increase in land
use over this period, corrrnercial land 14.4 percent, and industrial land
20.3 percent. Althou9h useful as a benchmark, data for the City of San
Diego are not directly transferable to potential land use patterns in
the South County study area because of differences in the economic
structure in the urban core of the metropolitan area and the suburban
parts of the metropolitan area.
As shown in Exhibit 111-6, the City of San Diego accounted for
44.2 percent of the value of retail development authorized by permit in
the County in 1980 through 1985. The City represented 85.8 percent of
the value of office space construction authorized by permit in the
County over this same interval. as illustrated in Exhibit 111-7. About
51.6 percent of the building permit value of industrial development in
the County was in the City of San Diego over this interval, as shown in
Exhibit 111-8. During this interval, population growth in the City of
San Diego was about 46.8 percent of total population growth in the
12
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
.
County. The accuracy of this estimate is contingent on the definitions
of population level in the City of San Diego at the two end point years.
The California State Office of Planning uses somewhat different
population figures for the City than those found in the City of San
Diego's Pooulation and Land Use Bulletins, probably related to the date.
Reta 11 Land Use
Alfred Gobar Associates, Inc., maintains an ongoing analysis of
land use patterns relative to economic growth for all major metropolitan
areas in Southern California. Growth in retail employment in San Diego
County, shown in Exhibit 111-10, is converted to estimates of demand
potential for retail floor space to be compared with estimates of
development based on an analysis of building permit valuations, as shown
in Exhibit III-II. The employment components used as a proxy for floor
space demand are summarized in Exhibit 111-12. From 1980 to 1986,
estimated development of new retail floor space in San Diego County was
20.7 million square feet. At a lot coverage of 25.0 percent (10,890
square feet per developed acre), this represents development of
approximately 1,900 acres of new retail facilities in San Diego County
between 1980 and 1986. If the City of San Diego accounted for 44.0
percent of this total. implicit level of development in the City was 836
acres of new retail floor space.
Offi ce Land Use
Similar excerpts from the Consultants' model of San Diego County's
office sector are included in Exhibits 111-13, 111-14, and III-IS. Over
the period from 1980 to 1986, an estimated 23.6 million square feet of
office space was developed in San Diego County. (Note that the vacancy
13
ALFRED GD8AA ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
a
simulations in Exhibit 111-14 do not include an adjustment for the loss
of some office tenants to upgraded industrial buildings.) The figures
above indicate that about 86.0 percent of the permit value of office
development in San Diego County over the period from 1980 to 1986 was in
the City of San Diego - an unadjusted estimate of 22.6 million square
feet of office development in the City. Office uses are highly
centralized in most urban areas as is the case in San Diego County.
Because of the nature of office construction in the City of San
Diego - high-rise buildings with parking structures, etc. - the dollar
value of permits used to calculate the share of development probably
overstates the amount of square footage of office space developed in the
City as distinct from the suburban areas where development of lower cost
suburban office space is more feasible. Discounting the 22.6 million
square foot estimate to reflect an average cost of development about
30.0 percent higher in the City than is typical of the average for the
County as a whole suggests the effective development level in the City
was 17.4 million square feet. At an FAR of 2.0, implicit land
absorption related to these assumptions is 8,700,000 square feet of
surface area, or 200 acres.
Adding the estimated level of land absDrption for office space to
the 836 acres of estimated development of retail sites produces an
estimate of absorption of commercial land in the City of San Diego
between 1980 and 1986 of 1,036 acres. Materials from the City of San
Diego Pooulation and land Use Bulletins define absorption of 1,019 acres
for commercial use over the same interval - a difference of 1.6 percent
between the top-down analysis and empirical data.
14
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Industrial Land Use
Exhibits 111-16, 111-17, and 111-18 are comparable data from the
Consultants' model of industrial land use in San Diego County,
indicating development of approximately 1,674 acres of industrial
facilities Countywide between 1980 and 1986. If 52.0 percent of this
development was in the City, the implicit development level in the City
of San Diego was 870 acres over the six-year interval. The Pooulation
and Land Use Bulletins indicate 1,429 more acres of land were classified
as industrial use in 1986 than was true in 1980.
Assuming that reclassification of existing land use is not a
factor in the difference between the reported change and the calculated
change in industrial land use in the City from 1980 to 1986, the
implicit employment density at the margin (change in industrial jobs
relative to change in land use) was 15.7 industrial jobs per new acre of
industrial land use. A substantial body of research, however, supports
the argument that the appropriate land use coefficient for industrial
land use in San Diego County is !25 industrial jobs per acre, or !G80
square feet of floor area per acre at an average of 17,000 square feet
of floor area per acre lot coverage. Both coefficients were employed in
the comparative analyses in Chapter IV.
The relative shares of increase in land use in the City of San
Diego over the six-year interval studied as noted above was composed of
the following proportions:
Residential
Conmerci a 1
Industri a 1
65.31-
14.4%
20.3%
100.~
15
I
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
I
I
Assuming the industrial absorption figure is correct and does not
represent a reclassification of land use from other classifications
prior to 1980 with no change in actual use, the equivalent ratio
expressed in acres is as follows:
Industrial Land 0.31 Acres Per Acre of ResIdential Land
Commercial Land 0.22 Acres Per Acre of Residential Land
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In suburban areas, the ratios' of nonresidential land use to
residential land use are likely to be less because of the central place
nature of office jobs and industrial jobs and the lower density of
population in residential areas in the suburbs as compared with the City
of San Diego, The ratios of 0.31 acres of industrial land per acre of
residential land and 0.22 acres of commercial land per acre of
residential land, therefore, probably are substantially higher than
market forces will dictate in a suburban location such as the South
County study area described in Chapter IV.
The models used to estimate demand for developed industrial real
estate are driven by employment patterns. Although some employees of
construction, manufacturing, and wholesale firms are housed in offices,
the projection system assumes all jObs in these employment categories
relate to industrial space. Mining employment is related primarily to
extractive land uses. With the exception of service yards, generating
plants, airports, treatment plants, and other relatively fixed
facilities that are not affected by employment change, much
transportation, utility, and communication employment is in the field or
in offices; i.e., spread over many land use categories. From 1980 to
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALFRED G08AR ASSOCIATES
1989, this category of employment grew by an average of 850 Jobs a year
or 2.7 percent of total employment change in the County.
Similarly, all finance, insurance, and real estate jobs and part
or all of the employment in several service sector sUbcategories of
employment - business services, legal, medical, architects, engineers,
accountants, charities, etc. - are assumed to represent potential
occupancy of office bUildings. Some service sector jobs _ hotels, auto
repair, other repair, hospitals, museums, travel agencies, personal
care, religious, etc. - relate to other land uses _ retail sites
(accommodated in the retail land uses) and public and semi-public uses
which are not addressed precisely in the planning-based land use
allocations provided for the study area.
Cross transfers of demand from one category of demand to a
noncongruent land use are treated on a specific case-by-case basis in
the applications of these models to specific sites for market
feasibi.1 ity studies.
17
FIGURE 3. SIMPLE CORRELATION OF
DEMAND AND SUPPLY VARIABLES TO
RESIDENTIAL LAND PRICES
197~
1980 Lot lnae.se
Indepenacnt YlMbIcs PI1<< In Lot Pn<<
Demond
1 1980 PocolatJon .162 -.064
2. Increase In Pooulatlon,
1975-80 084 .371
3. 1979 Pe7'..(aPlta JncOl'T'le .331 .365
4. Increase In Per-(aPlta Income,
1975-79 043 .378
5 Emcl~ Growth ~te.
1975-80 .390 490
Suppty
6. Pt'tyslcal Restnct10ns .394 239
7 R.egulatory RestrIctionS 698 - 651
R_ed
8. 1975 LOI Pnet 7S8 059
9 1975 Raw I81d Pnet .590 334
10..1980 ~aan HOUSIng PrIce .705 .582
So.Icr:. f...IrbIrI una II'!stItIa.
housing markets. The cost of raw land. land devel-
opment. construction. and rehabilitation are aU af-
fected by local land use and building regulations.
environmental policies. public works standards. and
the capacity of roads and utilities. Carrying costs
and risks are affected by delay and uncertainty in
the permit approval process. Importantly, any in-
crease in the cost of new housing is eventuaUy felt
in existing housing prices as households shop for
better deals and bid prices up..
Of the major cost components of new housing-
land. labor. materials. and capital-land is most
subject to the policies of local government.
Urban planners have sometimes argued that land
speculators. not land use controls. should be
blamed if land prices shoot up. Such an argument
makes the point that speculators speculate when
they perceive a scarcity of land supply. Where the
production of improved sites for housing is not
keeping up with demand. speculative buying of
available sites is inevitable.
In an urban area with reasonably good growth. if
the supply of developable land becomes tight In
geographic sectors where demand is greatest. devel-
opers will have to bid higher to purchase land. re-
sulting in new residential development being priced
up. aimed toward the higher-income brackets. In
those neighborhoods where there is little or no per-
ceived housing demand from higher-income
groups. the tendency will be to increase density and
EXHIBIT "F"
I
develop housing to sell at the same price level as
previously.
If land supply and density restrictions are tight
enough in the geographic sectors where people
most want to live. the market mav shift to districts
that traditionally have low demand. These districts
may then experience an increase in development ac-
tivity-provided developable land is available-
aimed at the middle- and low-middle homebuying
market. If this occurs. the average house price in
the urban area will increase-especiaUy if the quali-
ty of the project is held constant. The amount of in-
crease caused by rising land prices will depend on
the amount and distribution of demand for housing
as well as the amount of developable land in various
geographic markets.
Before higher-priced new units can be sold in
any volume. prices of existing houses will be pushed
up somewhat because of new land supply con-
straints while homebuyers shop among comparable
units in the new and existing markets. Conse-
quently. the effect of local policies on the market
should hold greater sway in making local govern-
ment decisions.
FIGURE 4
EFFECTS OF GOVERNMENTAL
RESTRICTIONS ON LAND PRICES
-
...
...
u
<:
...
...
Co
VI
...
~
'0
o
-
c
...
c:::
...
Q
..
='
~
I
I
I
I
I
0,
0,
-::::0
C
~
Quantity of Land Available for Development
LEGEnD
"
\
.-4-'-___
// i...
/' '....
.W.c.nt "nid'ntj.IZonln~
_V.UntlnduStrl.IZoninq
'/c'W.c.nt: t,otPr."ntlYIOMd
--
i
I
,~----
.....
,
.....
~,
,
'-.=:".
,
"
Vacanr lana In Nevv Orleans.
LOCAL LAND MANAGEMENT
ods to resolve issues surrounding land supply. To-
gether. local governments. homebuilders. and con-
sumers have the knowledge. the capacity, and the
understanding to establish a workable system to en-
sure that a plentiful supply of developable land ex-
ists.IO
To provide adequate land for residential develop-
ment. communities may first take a series oi steps
aimed at managmg their land supplies better.8
These steps include developmg an improved data
base and creating analytical tools to monitor land
prices. measuring the availability of land. assessing
the costs oi development. and determining the ex-
tent and nature of future land demand.9 After this.
communities can establish programs and imple-
ment actions to meet land demand and Increase
land supplies.
LOCAL ACTIONS FOR INCREASING
LAND SUPPLY
It is crucial that the public and private sectors
work together to develop a means for measuring
land supply and demand and for establishing meth-
Five types oi action to increase land supply are
discussed here:
· Overcoming inirastructure iundlng problems.
with emphasis on alternative local revenue
Sources.
4
· Overcoming environmental and topographic con-
straints. with emphasIs on combining resIdential
development wIth agrIcultural and wetlands pro-
tection.
· Increasing allowable densIties. which In effect
places more unots on available land and thus in-
creases the land supply.
-X-
,
divisIOn is omItted because no successful examples
were found. Also. little is said about governmental
land backing. except in the context of tax-delin-
quent and surplus public land. In general. tech-
nlques used to WrIte down the cost of land through
government subsidies las In the old federal urban
renewal program! are not treated in th.s dIScussion.
Another common approach not discussed here in-
volves the use of neighborhood improvement pro-
grams to upgrade the marketability of sites in dete-
rIorating areas: most cities are engaged in a varIety
of neighborhood improvement activities.
· Developing tax-delinquent and surplus public
land.
· Using tax and eminent domain powers to influ-
ence landowner decIsIons.
Although these live subjects Include most of the
methods by whIch local governments can influence
land suppiy. thev do not cover all possibilities. For
example. the use of government assistance In over-
coming problems caused by inapproprIate land sub-
To the extent possible. case examples are used to
illustrate the various types of actions covered in th.s
report. Appendix A contains names and addresses 01
people in each communoty who can provide further
information. The endnotes provide references to
publicatIons that may be helpful.
Outlined In rl1e pooro IS the Norm Central Austin Growrh Corridor MumClDdI Utility D/stnct No 7 a 695-acre OeveloDmenr bemq
manageci by Nasn PruIJIDSlCODUS Ine Nmereen monms Into aevelooment, 50 orojects dre uno;;, construction -