The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 1992/09/24 AGENDA JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY / CITY OF CHULA VISTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 3:00-5:00 P.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24,1992 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER BOARD CHAMBERS 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 I. ROLL CALL . George Bailey, 2nd District County Board of Supervisors . Tim Nader, Mayor City of Chula Vista II. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may address the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council on any subject matter under the jurisdiction of the Joint Board of Supervisors/ City Council. However, pursuant to the Brown Act, no action can be taken by the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council unless listed on the agenda. III. ACTION ITEM Consideration of extension of Public Review period IV. INFORMATION ITEMS . Introduction to the Village Development Concept (Lettieri/ Arbuckle) . Description of the Plan Alternatives (Lettieri) V. SCHEDULE AND SCOPE OF FUTURE WORKSHOPS (Lettieri) VI. ADJOURNMENT To the next Joint San Diego County Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30, 1992, at the City of Chula Vista Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 'ables:\bofsagnd.ajl ~ ~ ~........~ DIRY RAnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT CQUNTI' OF SAN DIEGO. CIIT OF CHULA VISTA September 14, 1992 Agenda Item III TO: Members of the County Board of Supervisors and Chula Vista City Council ~ FROM: Anthony J. Lettieri, AICP, General Manager SUBJECT: Length of the Environmental Impact Report Public Review At the Joint Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council workshop of July 30, 1992, both the City Council and Board of Supervisors were asked to detennine the period of time the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) would be available for public review. Since the City of Chula Vista is the lead agency for processing the DEIR, the action taken by the Board of Supervisors and City Council took place as follows: The Board of Supervisors reco=ended a public review period of 60 days with the understanding it may be necessary to extend this period. The Chula Vista City Council then took action to set a public review period of 60 days subject to future extension on County request with final decision resting with the City of Chuta Vista. A copy of the Minute Order for that meeting is Attachment 1. Public Review Process Based on the above action, the DEIR was issued for public review on July 31, 1992. Two public hearings have been scheduled and duty advertised (September 16, 1992 and October 7, 1992) at the Planning Commission level. The purpose of these hearings is to take testimony on the DEIR, and on October 7, 1992, to continue testimony and to consider the closing of public review. Once public review is closed, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) will be prepared. Over 250 copies of the DEIR have been distributed to the public and governmental agencies. County Planning Groups, such as Sweetwater, Valle de Ora, Spring Valley and Jamul/Dulzura, have received multiple copies and are in the process of reviewing the documents. We have attached co=ents received to date on the issue of length of public review (Attachment 2). 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157' FAX: (619) 422-7690 County Board of Supervisors/ Chula Vista City Council September 14, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Action Provide direction on the length of time of the DEIR public review period (presently scheduled to close on October 7, 1992). Attachments memos#3:\itemiii.ajl OTAY RANCH PROJECT , I I . COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1992 MINUTE ORDER NO. 1 SUBJECT: Joint Workshop with City of Chula vista concerning otay Ranch project, Including Consideration of Length of Public Review Period for otay Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report PRESENT: County of San Diego: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams and MacDonald. City of Chula vista: Tim Nader, Mayor; and Councilmembers Malcolm, Rindone, Moore and Horton DOCUMENTS: Memorandum, Board of Supervisors Document No. 752047, from Anthony J. Lettieri, General Manager, Joint Project Planning Team, regarding 1992 Work Program Report. Copies of Viewgraphs, Board of Supervisors Document No. 752048, diagraming the Joint City/county Planning Approach for the otay Ranch Project. Memorandum, Board of Supervisors Document No. 751661, from Anthony J. Lettieri, General Manager, Joint Project Planning Team, regarding otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report Public Review Period SPEAKERS: Calling this an extraordinary project with regional ramifications, the following persons encouraged a 120-day period for public review of the draft Environmental Impact Report: Michael Beck, of Endangered Habitats LeaqGe Clark Waite, individually. Also recognizing this as an exceptional project, the following persons advocated a minimum 90-day review period: Daniel Tarr, individually, and representing the Valle de Ora Planning Group Fay McQueen, individually. Greg smith, of the Baldwin company, expressed his belief, as did his attorney, that 45 days is within legal parameters, and would provide for meaningful review. No. 1 7/30/92 mdb Page 1 of 4 pages DISCUSSIOr-; SU~'~.J~l",RY: A hrief histor~' of tIle O~a)' RaIlch project ilIld its structure was gjv~n 1JY Grc~ s;~itil, of tile Baldwin Company, and Lari Sheeha!l, Deputy Chief Ad~inistrativE Officer, with the role of the Executive Staif Co~rnittee and the Project Team defined by J~hn Goss, Chula Vista city Manager. Tony Lettieri, General Manager, Joint Planning Project Team, discussed components of the project, as set forth in Document No. 752047, referenced above; and stated that the Resource Management Plan, intended to be the equivalent of the County's Resource Protection Ordinance for the Otay Ranch, is complete and will be included as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. He stated that the County's General Plan Amendment and the City of Chula vista's General Development Plan are being prepared at this time; and the Service Revenue Plan and Sphere of Influence Study will be complete before they come before the Goard of Supervisors and the Chula vista City Council, as will the state Property Tax Agreement. He reported that the Draft Environmental Impact Report will be ready for public review tomorrow, July 31, 1992; and solicited direction from the joint bodies on the review process. The impact of the upcoming November election on continuity of the process was discussed. Various timetables for completion of public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report were considered. Counsel [or the City of Chula vista opined that the law would tolerate a GO-day review period; and clarified that Cllula \Tistil i~' the lC'ijd agency in setting the review period. Counsel for t.rl(. County contended that a 90-doy revievl period. ",:oLlcl r:e: ;~lurc cL:1C'r;:~~ibJc, pointing out that this Draft Environmental Impact Report consists of almost 4,000 pages, and normally should not exceed 300 pages, which could classify it as an unusual situation under Section 15087(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Counsel for the County also stated that, although Chula vista is the lead agency for environmental purposes, the county would be fully involved should litigation ensue. Counsel for Chula Vista explained that the Baldwin Company has the right to approve counsel in the defense of any lawsuit, and would bear the expense of counsel and any judgment. The issues of public review period extension and County indemnification were examined. It was agreed that setting a goal of 60 days for public review, with the county reserving the right to request extension, should be adequate. Greg Smith indicated that the Baldwin Company would not be opposed to indemnification of the County during the public review period. Uo. 1 "7/ J i '-.':: mclb I\J.qe .. 0 i '~ pdqc~~ -- It was repo!"~cd that at the next <w'or}~shop, O! ,c;(::pt(~mbc:r /I~ ] ~)Cj2 I this item will again be considered, ;~10!lg ~jtl the VilJage Development COIlcept and PlaJ~ AltcrJla~ivcs. At the follo~incl wor};shop, or; October 22, 1992, issue;, rel a tec 1::0 publ ic facilities will be discussed. ACTION: ON MOTION of Supervisor Golding, seconded by Supervisor Williams, the Board of Supervisors set a public review period of 60 days for the Draft Environmental Impact Report, with the understanding it may be necessary to extend this period; and directed County Counsel to meet with representatives of the Baldwin Company to discuss indemnification of the County of San Diego equivalent to indemnification granted the City of Chula vista. AYES: Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, williams, MacDonald Subsequently, the Chula vista City Council took action to set an Environmental Impact Report public review period of 60 days, subject to future extension on County request, with the final decision resting with the City of Chula Vista; and with early sulJnission and review of public comnent encouraged. IJc, . /:~~ Sl2 mdb P,lCjC J of :. tJages ""','l:_ ..... .. -.,." S'Tl\1'E OF C!\Ll FOj~:,\:: h.) County of Snll [)i0?O)~' I, ARLltlE JlULTSCi~, t\ssistant: Cled; of t:he iJoard of Supervisors of the Coun~i' of San Diego, St0te of Californii, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order adopted by said Board at a regular meeting thereof held July 30, 1992, by the vote herein stated, which original order is now on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. Witness my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, this 30th day of July, 1992. ARLINE HULTSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors " ~7:iz~ Ballard, Deputy By l~o. ] 7/30/92 );ldb Page ~ of '1 p2igC'S SUMMARY OF LETfERS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) PUBUC REVIEW PERIOD (as of 7/27/92) Requested Group/Individual Location/Residence Number of Days Sweetwater Community Planning Group/ Bonita, CA 90 John Hammond Valle de Oro Community Planning Group/ La Mesa, CA 90 Jack L. Phillips Jamul/Dulzura Community Planning Group/ Jamul, CA 90 Mark Montijo Descanso Sponsor Group/ Descanso, CA 120 ruth D'Spain Cottonwood Creek Conservancy / Encinitas, CA 180 Mary Renaker The CA Native Plant Society / San Diego, CA 180 Julie M. Vanderwier Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter / San Diego, CA 120 Patricia Gerrodette - 1 - SUMMARY OF LETfERS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT (EIR) PUBliC REVIEW PERIOD (as of 7/27/92) Group/Individual Location/Residence Requested Number of Days So. Co. Environmental Working Group/ Nancy Nicolai Imperial Beach, CA Endangered Habitats League/ Dan Silver Los Angeles, CA 90 Chaparral Greens/ Carolyn O'Patry Jamul, CA 90 San Diego Audubon Society / Norma Sullivan San Diego, CA 180 City of Escondido/ Jerry C. Harmon, Mayor Escondido, CA 90 T.J. Dixon Del Mar, CA 90 Magdalen Boyd-Wilson Escondido, CA 120 Sally Harris San Diego, CA 120 Kim Emerson San Diego, CA - 2- SUMMARY OF LETfERS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT (EIR) PUBliC REVIEW PERIOD (as of 7/27/92) Requested GmupjIndividual Location/Residence Number of Days Kim Gordon Julian, CA Fay McQueen Julian, CA 90 Alber De Matteis San Diego, CA Michael Read Escondido, CA 90 Michael Beck Julian, CA 90 James Nelson Del Mar, CA 90 Lyn Snow Cardiff, CA 120 Stefanie Flory 90 Larry E. Hendrickson Julian, CA 90 Paul H. Goethel Del Mar, CA 90 Sandra Cleisz San Diego, CA 180 - 3- SUMMARY OF LETIERS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT (EIR) PUBUC REVIEW PERIOD (as of 7/27/92) Group/Individual Location/Residence Requested Number of Days Clark F. Waite Descanso, CA 120 Daniel Ford Tarr El Cajon, CA 180 Pete Sprague 90 tables:\days.llb - 4- THE ATTACHED LETTERS WERE RECEIVED AFTER JULY 27, 1992 ._.------- -. -.- ~ '" -" - \ "-'~ , ~: !; . ., ; ) -J','- .'. - "_ '" ~ '_ u_";'" --. -~-_._---_.- 23 c.:li ::-:-/ July 26, 1992 Tony Lettieri, Director Otay Ranch project 315 Fourth Avenue Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Lettieri: I am very happy to hear that the EIR for the Otay Ranch Project will be available at the end of this month. I am anxious to thoroughly read and evaluate this valuable document. I sincerely hope that I will have ample time to do this. The project is so mammoth, and the EIR is so important, that I hope intereted people and groups will have the maximum time to study it, not the minimum 45-days! To allow people only 45 day for study would greatly restrict interested citizens from effectively becoming involved in the future of their city. Please allow mamimum time for careful study. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~ Adrien Myers, Secretary South Bay Sierra Club 1890 Ithaca Street Chula Vista, CA 91913 JERRY C. HARMON MAYOR qIT~ OF e:,8'OOl1DIDO CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 201 North Broadway, Escondida California 92025-2798 (619) 741-4610 July 23, 1992 c~\ !~~S':[~~ Q \[i L~ Ti' I>) .! I .\ ? Qc 1"- -- ',j \ '\\ 'II' ;:' \ li,-..' // \~L ~ Anthony T. Lettieri General Manager Otay Ranch Project 315 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Lettieri, This is to request you extend the EIR review period to 90 days in order to give public adequate opportunity to review what is likely one of the longest EIR's in the history of the region. Even a 90 day review period for a 2,000 page document seems inadequate. Your positive consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated. Jerry Co' Harmon Mayor ..;EFiRY c. HARMON, ~..1A YQR SID HOlLJZ'jS. ,'.,AA YOR PRO TE~A ELMER C. C;'.MERC'j ::ICHARD A,. FCSI~::l ~ORI HOLT .c:=E:LE~ P~:nted on ::1ec"c!nd P~per WilLIAM J. ROB ENS July 27, 1992 ------,-- I ~~--\i Li' (~L~ (! '07-:2 0'\1 " ',' Ii:, - -----"--"----'=-11 t ' 'V'I : J;' :,(/ ?8 II1II! 1,1 \ '- _ "/ : U~i Jl0 Tony Lettieri General Manager Otay Ranch Joint Planning Project 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Tony: My understanding is that the Draft EIR for the Otay Ranch Project is to be issued to the public for comment on July 31. It will require an extended public review and comment period. This EIR is voluminous, with technical addenda, it contains well over 2000 pages. Given the size of the EIR, the importance of the project, and the potential immense environmental damage that the project could cause, the minimum 45 day period will not be enough time for an adequate review. I hereby request that the public review period be extended to 120 days. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, IV ~L?Lc{-r;,,-~ f. /UA/" William J. Robens 254 Camino Elevado Bonita, CA 91902 (619)479-7955 P.O. Box 695 . Bonita, California 91908 . (619) 479-7955 , Carol Freno President Bill Robens Vice. President Will Hyde Treasurer Members Lowell Blankfort Al<an Cai.,.pbc~l William Cannon Jennie Fulasz. George Gi110w Jerry Griffith Tom Pasqua Frank Sealt . Peter Watry Cuy Wright CROSSROADS RESIDENTS WORKING TO KEEP CHULA VISTA A NICE PLACE TO LIVE ~-------; July 27, 1992 Mr. Tony Lettieri Genera 1 Mana ger Otay Ranch Joint Planning Committee 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A Chula Vista CA 91910 -----.-.--.--..... - Dear Mr. Lettieri: We have been advised that the Environmental Impact Report on Otay Ranch will be issued July 31 and at that time the City Council will decide the timing of the review process. In view of the size of this project and the citizen involvement in the planning up to this date we believe a minimum of 120 days would be necessary for all concerned to complete input in this review. It is our understanding the EIR will be over 2,000 pages so a proper amount of time should be allowed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ca ro 1 Freno President P. O. Box 470 . Chub Vista, CA. 92012 . phone 422-3773 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT Southern California Field Station Carlsbad Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 31 _L j July 30, 1992 Anthony J. Lettieri, AICP General Manager Otay Ranch Joint Planning Project 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A Chula Vista, California 91910 Re: Review of the Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Lettieri: It is the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) understanding that you are presently determining the appropriate comment period length for the Environmental Impact Report for the otay Ranch. Based on the exceptional length of this document and the complexity of the subject project, the Service recommends a 180 day comment period to allow a thorough review of this unusually complex project. If 180 day comment period is not possible, no less than a minimum 120 day comment period should be provided. We appreciate your consideration of this request. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Nancy Gilbert of this office at (619) 431-9440. Sincerely, 1Jk;:4~ .~~ f-Richard Zembal ~ Deputy Field Supervisor cc: CDFG: La Mesa, CA (Attn: T. Stewart) ." OFFICERS August 5, 1992 Laura Failla, MSW President Mr. Anthony J. Lettieri Chiid Protective Services General Manager Michael Shames h . Vice President Otay Ranc Pro] ect Utility Consumer Action Network315 Fourth Avenue BeatrizBarraza-Roppe Chu1a Vista, CA 91910 Secretary UCSD/SDSU Por La Vida ProjectRE: Request for Otay Ranch EIR Tony Pettino. MA Treasurer . . S.D. Community College DistrictDear Mr. LettJ.erJ.: BOARD OF DIRECTORS is- Doug Ballis Environmental Health Coalition requests a copy of the internationaiAssociotion Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Otay Ranch of IronWorkers Project when it is released for public comment. We Jim Bell . . are very interested in this project for a variety of Ecological Life Systems Institute reasons. First, it is a very large watershed area Laurence L. Brunton, Ph.D. th t drains at least in part into San Diego Bay UCSD School of MediCine a , . ' . . Mary Carmichael Our Clean Bay C~paJ.gn has been. workJ.ng for. the Escondido Neighbors Against cleanup, restoratJ.on, and protectJ.on of San DJ.ego Chemical Toxins Bay's multiple beneficial uses since 1987. Increased ScottChattield urbanization in the Otay River watershed will severely 101 KGB FM . impact the water quality of San Diego Bay if proper Marc Cummings . Best Management Practices and structural Nathan Cummings Foundation . . RthD I consJ.deratJ.ons are not properly addressed. Further, u uemer . d . d' . d d Sierra Club we are J.ntereste J.n expecte pestJ.cJ. e use an Anne-Marie Feenberg, Ph.D. locations of toxics and hazardous using materials UniverSity of Redlands businesses within the project and project impacts on Edward Gorham MPH air quality Naval Health Research Center . Ruth Heifetz, MD, MPH UCSD School of Medicine Richard Juarez Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee Sharon Kalemkiorion Attorney Lyn lacye Lacye & Associates Dan McKirnon, Ph.D. UCSD School of Medicine Sylvia Micik, MD North County Health Services Reynoldo Pisano Jay Powell Richard Wharton USD Environmental low Since we understand that this is a large EIR due to the size of the project we are requesting that at least a 90-day review period be granted. As you know public comment is necessary for any project to go forward and the extra time would allow more meaningful public comment on the project. Thank you for your consideration. Dione Takvorian Executive Director ely, Hunter, Director Bay Campaign affiliations noted tor identification purposes only Printed on recycled paper @ August 20, 1992 ,"""'- .. J ...~ Council Members Chula Vista City Council 276 Fourth Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 I.'~ r 1. i-ll; t.. ' Dear Chula Vista Council Members: I received_ a copy of the Draft EIR for Otay Ranch last evening. It took me over one week to obtarn-1t. I do not think that sitting in a library to read this massive, confusing document is a viable option for anyone. When I requested a copy at the Otay Ranch office, I was informed I would have to pay $50 for it. The EIR is difficult to access. For this and for other reasons, -I am greatly dismayed that the review period is only sixty days. How can people who work a 40- hour week possibly evaluate this massive document in two short months? How can you adequately evaluate the document in such a short period? Your decision on the ~ay Ranch will change Chula vista forever. Surely, you need and deserve mOre time to evaluate and decide. ....,. The EIR is confusing. Does it describe one project or three? - The EIR is incomplete. Where is the "Wildlife Corridor Study?" Surely you will not decide without it. Under the heading of schools, the Draft EIR states, "Prior to SPA Plan approval, the project applicant shall provide documentation confirming school site locations and school district approval of the locations....(3.13-54)." Where is this documentation? Surely you will not decide without it. Furthermore, who honestly believes that, with the state budget as financially unsound as it is, school districts can possibly approve the construction of more schools? California does not have the money to educate the students who will live in the Otay Ranch project! The Draft EIR for Otay Ranch is inaccessible, overly-massive, confusing, and incomplete. I implore you to grant more time for responsible ci ti zens (includ ing yourselves) to adequately study and respond to it. Most sincerely, ~VJ~ Adrien Myers South Bay Sierra Club 1890 Ithaca Street Chula Vista, CA 91913 cc. Greg Moran San Diego Union-Tribune ~ .:~~j SIf:RRA CLUB, SAN DIEGO CHAPTI:R San Diego and Imperial Counties 3820 .Ray Slrec:t San Diego. CA 92104 AUG24 Mayor and City Council of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 August 20, 1992 .. Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: . ad n .b:half ofllthe Sielrra60Cdlub Land l!se ChomEmIIR'ttefe, IowishRto prhoteGst.your hrecent -/' eClSlon to a ow on y ays to revIew t e or tay anc. Iven t e , extraordinary size of the project and EIR, this project seems to fit the CEQA definition of "unusual circumstances." Our intent is to respond to the EIR as completely as possible in the 60-day time frame, then continue working on issues that we have not had time to address and get those comments to you as quickly as possible. I would also like.to point out that previous opportunities for citizen involvement in this project are irrelevant when considering the EIR review period. This is now a public document and there should be adequate time provided for public review. Sincerely, ~~ G-~ Patricia Gerrodette Chair, Land Use Committee j ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE Dedicated to the Protection of Coastal Sage Scrub and Other Threatened Ecosystems Dan Silver . Coordinator 1422 N. Sweetzer Avenue #401 Los Angeles, CA 90069-1528 213.654. 1456 August 24, 1992 Douglas Reid Otay Ranch Project Planning Office 315 Fourth Ave., Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Otay Ranch draft EIR Dear Mr. Reid: Our group wishes to give the Otay Ranch EIR thorough review and analysis. After beginning our review, however, we find that the unusual length and complexity of the document, along with its lack of clarity, will preclude completing such analysis during the 60 day comment period granted. We concur with counsel for the County of San Diego that the intent of CEQA guidelines is to provide for longer review in cases with these extraordinary circumstances. A reasonable period for public review requires a 60 day extension of the current comment period, for a total review period of 120 days, and we hereby formally request an extension to this length. Sincerely, <J:::.. ~ Dan Silver cc: Chula Vista City Council San Diego Board of Supervisors ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE MEMBERS Laguna Hills Audubon Society Palomar Audubon Society San Diego Audubon Society Los Angeles Audubon Society Buena Vista Audubon Society Pomona Valley Audubon Society Palos Verdes Peninsula Audubon Society Pasadena Audubon Society Sea and Sage Audubon Society EI Dorado Audubon Society Sierra Club San Diego Chapter Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Friends of Penasquitos Canyon Shoreline Study Center Carls bad Arboretum Foundation Cottonwood Creek Conservancy Ecology Center of Southern California Friends of the Hills (UC Irvine) Defenders of Wildlife Orange County Fund for Environmental Defense Laguna Canyon Conservancy Mountain Defense League Save Our Coastline 2000 Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. Friends of Batiquitos Lagoon Friends of the Tecate Cypress San Diego Biodiversity Project Rural Canyons Conservation Fund Friends of the Santa Ana River Tri County Conservation League Los Alamos Neighborhood Association California Native Plant Society Committee for the Environment (Orange County Bar Assoc.) San Bernardino Sage Friends Save Our Forest and Ranchlands Friends of the Foothills , "-------' August 26,--.1-9-9-'2 Douglas Reid otay Ranch Project Office 315 Fourth Ave Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Sir: Last week I picked up a copy of the Otay Ranch Draft EIR. It is very thick. I only have my spare time to review the document as I am gainfully employed in an unrelated field. I respectfully request an extension of the review period so that I can give the document more than a cursory review. An additional 60 days would be nice but any time would be helpful. Sincerely, ~~~ Cindy Burrascano 771 Lori Lane Chula Vista, CA 91910 421-5767 ..---. ,,) AUG3 I " . --.;: 1565C APACHE DR . CHULA YISTA,CA 91910 AUGUST 27,1992 ". --... .....__.~-...._..J MAYOR TIM NADER CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CHULA VISTA, CA DEAR MAYOR NADER: AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN OF CHULA VISTA AND AS A PERSON VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ACCELERATED USE OF RESOURCES IN MY COUNTRY I AM VERY UNEASY ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF OTAY RANCH INTO A "NEW TOWN". DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN LAND MAY BE INEVITABLE BUT IF IT MUST BE, .. IT SHOULD BE DONE WITH CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE NEEDS. IT ALSO SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE ACTIVE SOLICITATION OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. THE LATTER, IN MY VIEW HAS NOT BEEN PURSUED WITH ."". ~ THEAGGRESSIVNESS THAT A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE WOULD SEEM TO WARRANT. I HAVE A COPY OF THE EIR FOR THE OTAY RANCH DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU KNOW IT IS VERY LONG AND VERY TECHNICAL IN NATURE. THE 60 DAYS THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ALLOWED FOR CITIZEN REVIEW IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE. FOR A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE THAT WILL ADD 149,000 PEOPLE TO THE SOUTH BAY AND WILL DRASTICALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE SOUTH BAY IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT YOU SHOULD AGRESSIVELY-ENCOURAGE THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CITIZENS. I SUBMIT THAT A 60 DAY REVIEW PERIOD FOR THE EIR TENDS TO SHUT OUT THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. A MUCH LONGER REVIEW PERIOD IS IN ORDER. A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 120 DAYS MAY BE ADEQUATE. (OTAY.MEMO) REGARDS, ~~ VALLE DE ORO COMMUNITY PLANNING P. O. BOX 3958 LA MESA, CA 91944-3958 GROUP September 8, 1992 , - Ur)')[2 @ ~ O~7@ ~) :L-I) ------;1/ ;" , ( ': , ..: ;.::~~ . ! ,., ,....1 i ." , ....;L;- Dr. Richard Wright County of San Diego Planning Commission 5201 Ruffin Rd., Suite B San Diego, CA 92123-1666 SUBJECT: Review of EIR for Otay Ranch; Request for 120-day Review Period I Commissioner Wright: Thirty days ihto the 60-day review period, our review team has reported that it will be impossible to complete their review of the 3,500 page document, obtain planning group concurrence with their findings, and prepare a report within the remaining thirty days. . The complexity of the development plan is multiplied by the many alternatives presented and by the use of unfamiliar development standards from the City of Chula Vista. Originally this planning group requested a 90-day review period which would have accommodated an accelerated but organized review of the material and preparation of reports. With the subsequent granting of only a 60-day period, our attempts to meet this impossible schedule have resulted in incomplete investigations of most problem areas and gradual discovery of both good news and bad news as the technical back-up documents are penetrated. Our review has been further thwarted by County Staff. Staff requested that the project be placed on our 2 September agenda--and it was. A week prior to that planning group meeting we requested and were promised a presentation of the project alternatives and the general plan amendments that would be required for this project. This presentation was required to provide the entire group with sufficient background information and time to be able to consider review comments at our following meeting on 16 September. Page 2--0tay Ranch EIR; Sept. 8, 1992 Starr appeared at our 2 September meeting completely unprepared to present the requested inrormation! To meet the 50-day schedule, many group members will now have to see the alternatives and General Plan Amendment text for the first time and instantly make decisions on the review team's recommendations. After failing to provide the requested alternatives and general plan information as promised, County Staff suggested that we schedule a third meeting late in September for consideration of the project. Delaying discussion and decision to this late date will not allow adequate time for preparation of a detailed report on our findings. Clearly, the 50-day review period now appears to be an attempt to limit public awareness and comment on this project. The time we have wasted in trying to comply with that unreasonable schedule has shown us that detailed review of all statements in the eleven volumes is essential to assure our community that the impacts of this project have been identified and that sufficient and adequate alternatives and mitigations have been addressed. An additional sixty days must now be provided for this occur. If the time is not extended, this planning group, with its team of experienced planning, engineering, and environmental experts, will not be able to complete the necessary detailed review of the EIR. Sincerely, ~~ . ~to: Anne Ewing, Otay Ranch Joint Planning Project ~)'~/1..;./'~2 8'~: 16 :::: ~,l'? .:::::.;. :;~345 "l:~F:ITI~lE ~11J3E:Jr1 ? t1:: JAMUL-OOLZURA o:lHJNITY PLANNING GROOP Box 613 JSIlUl, CA 91935 September 9, 1992 Tim Nader, Mayor City of Chula Vista 275 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mayor Nader: r am wd ting to request the City Council's support for an extproeQ. r.eview period on the Draft Envir~~tal Impact Report for the Olay Ranoh. The Jamul-OUlzura Community Planning Group originally asked for a 90 day review and were disappointed with the decision to limit public review to 60 days. However, we established five sub-ccmni ttees to divide the work, and have attempted to maintain a schedule whereby a thorough analysis of the docunent and the nine volumes of technical appendices could be cCJlTpleted on time. The task has proven iIT;lOssible. This project has the potential to became an exceptional land development. We all recognize the unique benefits ccrnprehensive planning can offer on the atay Ranch. However, these benefits can only be assured by adequate review. The concepts we have cooperatively developed over the past five years will not become reality unless the implementing procedures are clear and precise. Environmental irrpacts ITUSt be adequately assessed and proposed mitigations must be convincingly supported. Therefore, the JBlllll-Dulzura Carrrunity Planning Group has voted \manirrously to request a 60 day extension beyond October 7, 1992, for publio review. It has beccme clear that without this additional time, we Io/ill be forced to limit the scope of our revie'ri and carrr.::mts on this enorrrous docunent. Res~~.lr sul::rnitted, _ v'1.. 11\7 Mark Honti~i; 09/14/92 0'3:27 RECO~~ ~jO. :57 Gl122 ~ THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY San Diego Chapter. P. O. Box 1390, San Diego. California 92112 SeplCmber 14, 1992 Mr, Anthony J. Lettieri Otay Ranch Project 315 4U1 Avenue. Suite A San Diego, CA 91910 Reference: Pubiic Review Period for Otny Ranch Draft Ellvironmentallmpact Report (DE!R) Dear Tony: On behaif of the San Diego Chapter of thc California Native Plant Society, and in conceIt with many o!her individuals and conr...crvaUon organizations, I would like to fe,quest thnL the public.: review period for the Otay RJnch draft environmental impact. report and te.chnical appendices be extended to 90 days, In my letter to you d.lled July 22. 1992, I stated that we realized th.tt the review period wc were requesting (180 days) waB considerably longer thun that needed for most projects. however, Ollly Ranch is unique in b'lth size and complexity. A 90. day review period is absolulCly rcquired felr us to do a competent and thoughtful rcview. The guidelines [or !hc implementation for the Californi:t Environmental Qu,gJity Act slatc. in Section 15087, that "".review periods for draf'. EIRs should not be kss than 30 days nor longer than 90 days from the date of the notice except in unusual situations," I wouid submit to you that this is nn unusuai situation, In addition, in that lelter I 'C<jucsted !hut the DElR and bioiogical te<ohnlcal appendic~s be :;.;nt to my residence to increase our review time. On August 10. I received a phone call from Mr, Joe Monico indieaLingthat the DElR had already been sent to our mailing address, in Care of the San Diego Natural History Museum. When I asked if app',ndices were sent ,,$ well, hc said no, I aske<! if we could receive copies of the biological technical appendi.;e" and resource management plan, and he indicated that the project office would be happy to mail these to me at my rcsidence and confirmed my address, As of AugUSt 24. I had not received the technical appendices and called the project office. The secretary at first told llIe that tbe, appendices were unavailable, but upon recognizing my affiliation. renlize.d that the appendiccs had been sitting on her desk for two weeks because "she didn't have my phone number and couldn't figurc Ollt how to get them to me." Ultimate.ly, wc had lO make arrangeme.nc. to pick them up from the project office .nd received them some lime the following weck, As YOll know, a review of Ule technical reports is crilical to properly eVl\lllate the corresponding scction in !he DEIR: we will basically have one momh 10 do this as a result of tho project office's apparent lack of ingenuity. In addition. scveral of our members who live in the baCk counb'}' havo indicated that they are having difficulty getting access to the DEIR and technical appendiccs, In particular, one Julinn resident was dLicouraged to find thut the DEIR and appcndices were. not at the EI Cajon public library, a' it is the official repository for such things in east COunty. While r realize that the size of the DElR and its supporting appendices makes this an extremely e"~nsive item to disU'ibulC widcly. the whole point of CEQA is to allow for public review. It is also my understanding that thc appendices were not sent to all of the libraries; is this in fact the case'! It has al.'lO come to my attention that somc conservation groups are under the impression that sm:e and federal re;ouree agencies comments need only be noted, bUI not responded to, in the environmental document. I am assuming mat the}' ~.re mistaken, for CEQA, in Section 15088, does requirc thaI "".major environmental issues mise<! when !he knd Agency's position is :It v~iance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments musl be addro:ssed in dctail. givin:; rcasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There mllst be good. faith, reasoned analysis in response, Conclu50ry st.ltements un;upported by factual information will not suffice." DEDICATED TO rHE PREsERVArlOIl OF GAlIFOAlllA NATIVE FLORA a9,/14/92 09:28 PECON ~'lO. 35'7 003 Mr. Anthony J. Lettieri ~2- September 14, 1992 Again, the Califomia Native Plam SocieLY appreciates the opportunhy to review the DEjR, and biological technical appendices for this important projcct, however, cannaL prepare thoughtful, competent comments without Q,1 extension of the pUblic review period 10 90 days. It would also be most helpful to know if this extension will be granted prior to day 59 of the current 6O-day public review period. . Sincerely, . ~ Julie M Vanderwier ConservaLion Chair -J JMV:arh cc: Tim Nader, Mayor, City of Chula Vista George Bailey, San Diego Board of Supervisors James C. Dice, President. San Diego Chapt"" Norma Sullivan, South COunty Environmental Working Group .. ('-. '" ~ \ , '".../' o 'i: '0 ~LLAGE CHARACTER ISSUE RPER Accepted by: The InterjurisdictionaI 1:'ask Force. August 1, 1991 r" ,), ' , l..' n Of a/Ranch ( Table of Contents I. IN1RODUCTION 1 II. ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS 3 A. Village Types 3 B. Village Elements 5 C. Principles and Policies for Urban and Transit-Oriented Villages 8 D. Implementation 19 ill. SUMMARY OF PAST WORK 22 A. Goals, Objectives and Policies 22 B. Previously Accepted Issue Papers 25 C. Original Baldwin Submittal 25 D. Project Team Alternative (PIA) 26 E. Otay Ranch Gtizen Advisory Committee Recommendations 27 F. Design Charrette 30 N. REFERENCES 31 '"' L"';y Ranch years of anticip~ted imp~ementation of the Otay Ranch project. Some of the design detail can best be shown at the site plan or SPA level of detail. -, ISSUES: Village Character: What are the circulation, land use and design criteria which provide diversity, character and a pedestrian orientation to a village while providing conti- nuity within the Otay Ranch? Trends in Planning and Design Practice Th~fin~ forrn of the OtayRanch will bea result of many factors which influence the character of a community. The sense of place, physical character, economic viability, and social com- ponents of the Otay Ranch will ultimately be the reflection of the ma~y villages which make up its parts. How these villages are deSigned, the components which result in an enlivened human society, and its integration with a mass transit system, will ultimately determine the success of the community. Cur- rent priorities in urban design emphasize the use of transit- oriented, pedestrian-friendly planning in the design of com- munities in which people live, work, and play. The conceptual framework for the village issue is best under- stood in the context of the current national movement in new town planning. The following represents an overview of this movement based upon published urban and suburban town planning concepts. I. INTRODUCTION The Interjurisdictional Task Force has directed that the residen- tial ar~as within the O:ay Ranch will be grouped into villages organlzed around a village core. The purpose of this issue paper is to define this village concept and the related land use relationships, and to examine the character, components, and relationship to mass transit of the many villages planned for the Otay Ranch. Land use planning in the recent past has emphasized and prioritized efficient movement of the automobile between seg- :egate~ land uses, creating an environment which is inherently inhospitable to the pedestrian. Often development follows the location of new freeways, and mass transit is not effective due to the decentralization of employment areas. Single function land use planning and zoning has resulted in a separation of resldenbal, employment, civic, and recreational land uses. This separation requires the provision of high capacity roadway networks to permit the safe movement of the many automo- biles needed to move commuters to and from decentralized ~mployment, retail and activity areas. This ultimately results m urban sprawl, an over-dependence on the automobile (and a great amount of land given to parking), and streets which are too wide for pedestrian comfort. In addition, this issue paper will convey the Task Force's desired direction and provide guidelines for the implementa- tion of village designs, while permitting flexibility in design to allow for evolution of the village concept through the 30-40 Many plarmers advocate the return to traditional town plan- ning practices: . Tree-lined streets, . On-street parking, mixed uses, transit orientation, and . Pedestrian orientation. () !~, qRanch Land use design concepts have been developed that strive to solve the problems associated with suburban sprawl. To ac- complish this they have developed design concepts in which housing, public uses, neighborhood serving retail and other commercial uses are located within approximately a quarter mile walking distance. This mix of land use is designed to encourage convenient alternatives to the auto. By use of this land use pattern, traffic congestion, air pollution, and auto use may be reduced in several ways: proximity of housing and retail uses allow shopping to and from work and home; cen- trally located public uses, such as post offices, libraries, civic cores, day care, and neighborhood parks provide convenient community services and meeting places, as well as support for local stores. approaches, given the sarnepriority emphasis could also provide equitable design solutions which meet the goals and objectives for the Otay Ranch without applying a rigid "formula" approach. Given the multitude of factors affecting the success of a project and the anticipated thirty to forty year phasing of the Otay Ranch project, flexibility should be maintained for the continu- ing refinement of priorities and advances in urban design in the future. The phasing of the Otay Ranch should take into ac- count the regional needs, adjacent properties, and allow flex- ibility. However, the actual phasing of the villages will be accomplished at the SPA/Specific Plan level of planning. This concept has the following effects: . Creates communities that are more human scaled and com- munity oriented than typical subdivision developments and segregated commercial centers; . Reduces the number of automobile trips, for trips to civic, school, and commercial uses; . Reduces air pollutant emissions. . Provides the framework for many of the components of a traffic congestion reduction program required for Air Quality Plans. It should be noted that there are several ways to approach and solve design constraints and realize design opportunities while providing for multiple priorities. The concept discussed above has a set of priorities and design solutions for many of the perceived shortcomings of current design. Other design 2 -.., , 'R ch ',_AY an ,- II. ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS A Village Types The following section includes a discussion and Project Team proposals for the following factors which will define village character: Discussion: . Village Elements: Village Core and Surrounding Area; The organization of traditional communities takes on a familiar and logical form: a central community core with higher inten- sity mixed uses, and a surrounding residential area. This organization creates an understandable land use pattern and concentrates inter-related land uses in an area which becomes a viable transit service area. Urban and Transit-oriented Villages , within the Otay Ranch should emulate this pattern and include the components needed to allow that village to serve the needs of its residents without unnecessary automobile trips, while specialized villages would be pedestrian friendly without the emphasis on transit. . Village Types: Specialized, Urban, and Transit Oriented; . Principles and Policies: Land Use Relationships, Building Siting and Design, Circulation, and Parking; . Implementation: DevelopmentPhasing/GrowthManage- ment, Zoning: Planned Community (PCl/S88 and Village Zoning, Standards and Requirements, Design Guidelines and Policies, Incentives, and Design Review. Because of the variation of topography, surrounding land uses, and progression in intensity from more urban on the western Otay Ranch Parcel to less intense on the eastern San Ysidro Mountains and Proctor Valley parcels, villages within the Otay Ranch should take on differing characters, with differing de- sign criteria, although their basic organization would remain similar: a central village core surrounded by less intense resi- dential uses. Village design, size, and components must respond to the local environmental resources. Open space corridors connecting to parks, schools, and civic areas create a meaningful use of open space within villages. The Resource Sensitivity Analysis iden- tifies environmentally sensitive areas in the three parcels of the Otay Ranch. This analysis should be applied to the final land use plan for the Ranch, affecting the location, density, and boundaries of individual villages. This will have the most impact in areas abutting natural open space areas such as the 3 '---, ~ ~ ( j '~,ayRanch be associated with the village core, and roadways and land use connections would facilitate bus service. Community services would be provided for local needs, based upon population and each type of facilities' master plan. Two villages may share certain services. Open space would consist of neighborhood and community parks, natural features such as canyons that may be retained and green- belt connections to pedestrian/bicycle destinations. Otay River Valley, Salt Creek, Wolf Canyon, and the open space areas of the San Ysidro Mountains and Proctor Valley parcels. o Project T earn Proposal The Project Team proposes that the Otay Ranch contain the following three types of villages: This issue paper does not address the character of the Specialized villages; it will be addressed in the Central Proctor Valley and Area Around the Lakes issue papers. The character defined in these issue papers will be incorpo- rated in the General Development Plan/Community Plan. . Transit-Oriented Villages: these villages would be associ- ated with the light rail transit route. Higher densities and mixed uses would predominate village cores within ap- proximately on~quarter mile of transit stops. Surrounding the village core would be a secondary area of single family residential uses. An emphasis would be placed on provid- ing alternatives to the automobile, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These villages would contain the greatest number and variety of community services, prima- rily to serve local needs. Open space would consist of neighborhood and community parks, natural features such as canyons, that may be retained and greenbelt connections to pedestrian/bicycle destinations. . Specialized Villages: these villages would be generally located in the eastern parcels and could consist of resort, rural, country, or transition villages. Neighborhood com- mercial and community services would be provided in a village core, with limited medium and higher density resi- dential. Low density, single family uses would predomi- nate, with potential recreation and resort uses. Open space would be primarily undisturbed natural habitat. . Urban Villages: these villages would be located on the periphery of the western Otay River Valley parcel, not associated with the light rail transit line, although served by bus routes. Urban Villages should each have a focus, or specialty which provides them with a sense of identity based upon natural features or an amenity. Examples of such a focus would be a golf course, a lake or a large open space/ greenbelt feature as appropriate with special charac- teristics and topography of each village. Although pr~ dominantly single family oriented, higher densities would 4 ,~ " j : t."ay Ranch B. Village Elements Discussion: radius and may be used as a guide for the transit-oriented village core size. Strict size requirements are not recom- mended as the core may consist of a smaller area in urban villages. Although the basic elements of every village within the Otay Ranch (village core and surrounding residential area) may be similar, the character and sense of place of an individual village will be created by the varying intensity, location, topography, and design criteria. The type of village core components:md the densities of the surrounding residential uses would differ for transit, urban, and specialized villages. Many community services are allocated within a region on the basis of popula- tion; in this way, the size and character of a village would dictate a portion of its elements. · A central area of larger shops and offices, with some resi- dential uses including those over retail; . Planned mixed uses, with homes, apartment buildings, stores, restaurants, offices and night-time activities encour- aging pedestrian activities after work hours; . Civic/commercial buildings placed along the squares or at the terminus of streets may provide a focal point; . Villages vary in size and intensity by location, environmen- tal resources, and topography. This variation will lead to villages with emphasis on views, landform, and natural features, leading to distinctive characteristics; . On-street or rear-of-building parking, with few or no large parking lots; shared parking between uses; parking lots should be located and designed in such a manner that they are visually accessible to the driving public; Design criteria are as important as the individual components of a village. These criteria may be summarized as follows: . A network ofroads with a hierarchy and alternate routes to destinations. Streets will be designed for the human scale while ensuring public safety; . Concentric organization: concentration of higher intensi- ties and densities of land use in the village core, with diminishing intensities towards the edges of the village. A central area with an open space (or square), the potential for bus or rail stop, and civic and commercial uses. Thi.s provides a mixed use destination needed to mak.e transIt attractive in urban villages, and creates a commuruty focus for more specialized villages. . A varied streetscene with trees, sidewalks, buildings, and traffic in scale with the pedestrian; . Variations in intensity of uses, and densities of residential uses; . Village core size: limited for ease of walking between l~d uses. 160 acres is roughly equivalent to a on~uarter mile . Design criteria and development s~andards. which. ~~- force the character of the village while allowmg flexJ.bility and individuality. Smaller phases of similar housing types should be encouraged. 5 ~, ,""'- o'ta,J Ranch . A street system which balances pedestrian/bicycle, bus, automobile uses, and alternative transportation modes; o Project Team Proposal The Project Team proposes that the villages of the Otay Ranch contain the following components: 1. Village Core The components of the village core include the most high intensity uses in a village. The village core size will vary de- pending on the population as well as the size of the overall village and adjacent village uses. The village core size should reflect topographic constraints. . Urban Villages: Urban villages have a variety of uses in the village core, with commercial and residential development of an intensity appropriate for a bus transit system. . An area for public assembly such as a town hall or community center; . A village green/open space which serves as a focal point; . Higher and medium density and single family residen- tial uses; . Entertainment, including night-time activities which encourage pedestrian activity after work hours; . Commercial and office uses, with shared parking; . Parks and schools linked by an open space network in or in close proximity to the village core; . A pedestrian/bicycle circulation system, linking parks, schools and adjacent villages; . Bus system; . Community services appropriate for villages with a medium to large population base, such as libraries, community purpose facilities, fire / police stations, recy- cling areas, cultural arts and medical services. All facili- ties will be located by each type of facilites' master plan. . Transit Oriented Villages: These villages include a mixture of residential uses, including a concentration of higher and medium density residential, mixed residential/commer- cial, employment uses such as commercial and retail, civic/community uses, and community services within approximately 1 /4 mile walking distance froI1J. the light rail transit station. Figures 1, 2A, and 2B show alternative schematic plans for transit-oriented village configurations. FIG. 1 TRANSIT-ORIENTED VILLAGE CONFIGURATION - SCHEMATIC PLAN Multi-Family Mixed-Density Residential ~o Elementary SchooII Park !~ Si"9le-Fam,1y ResidentiaJ Single-Family Residential Park +-0 ~ Mixed-Use CommerciallOffice Community/Residential 6 (~~, '-.- ,~'- n OtJ Ranch FIG.2A. TRANSIT-ORIENTED VILlAGE CONFIGURATION - SCHEMATIC PLAN _i In addition to the uses included in urban village cores, lransit-oriented villages would contain the following: . A public plaza; . Mixed residential/commercial uses; . Mixed commercial and office uses, with shared parking; . A pedestrian/bicycle circulation system, linking resi- dential, commercial, transit, and recreational uses, and neighboring vi1Iage cores; . A street system which balances the needs of pedes- trian/bicycle, light rail transit, bus, automobile, and alternative transportation modes; . A light rail transit station in or closely linked to the public plaza; . Community and sub-regional services for villages with a large population base, based upon the facilities master plan, may include libraries, cultural arts, community purpose facilities, fire/police stations, out-patient/ emergency medical services, and recycling areas. -1.-. Park MuUj.Famity Mixed-Density Residential Mixed.Use CommerciallOffice Community/Residential FIG.2B. TRANSIT-ORIENTED VILlAGE CONFIGURATION - SCHEMATIC PLAN Elementary School! Park Single-Family Residential Mixed.Use CommerciaVOffice Community/AesKtentiaJ ~~~ Transilline Mtllli-Family Mixed-Density Residential E-o J, 7 \ " n 2. Outside of Village Core . Overall Character: The village area outside of the village core should be oriented to the village core, through the design of street, pedestrian and bicycle systems and alternative transportation. Residents of this area would still look to a village core for many goods and services. Core areas of two villages may function synergistically. . Land Uses: The predominant land uses are residential, with schools and parks located in ornear the village core. In a few cases, the edge near the village core may also contain office employment co-Iocated with park and ride lots. Lim- ited convenience commercial may be located outside the village core but not at the village entrances. ". ()>tay Ranch C. Principles and Policies for Urban and lIansit- Oriented Villages The uses, relationships, and design of the elements of a village will determine how it functions and whether it presents a unique character and sense of place. The following is a discus- sion and Project Team proposal for urban and transit-oriented village policies for the following categories: . Land Use Relationships and Intensities . Building Siting and Design . Streets and Circulation . Parking 1. Land Use Relationships and Intensities Discussion: Mixed Use: The provision of a mixture of land uses in a cohe- sive pattern scaled to people rather than the automobile may provide for an environment which will develop into a commu- nity. Bringing daily activities such as living, shopping, and working within walking distance has the following benefits: . Many non-driving segments of society are given a sense of independence; . Automobile trips and traffic congestion (with associated pollution) are minimized; . Concentration of densities (for urban and transit-oriented villages) encourages mass transit use; . Citizen interaction and involvement in the community is encouraged; 8 ~ , j r--- -,_......) (' Ot~ Ranch 'This social element, when combined with physical design, is the basis for a sense of place. In less intense settings, land use relationships are as critical as in urban areas, but for different reasons. The formation of a village brings higher densities into a less intense setting in order to provide the population base for the services and infrastructure, and to provide a community focus. Pedestrian Links: Land use relationships within the viIlage core dictate whether the pedestrian or the automobile is en- couraged: connections such as pedestrian pathways, bike- ways, and open space linkages between closely related resi- dential, commercial, recreational, and community service land uses foster a pedestrian orientation. Transit: Transit, whether light rail or bus, shall be included as an integrated part of major activity cores in urban and transit- oriented villages. Penetration of transit lines into areas of dense development, with bus/rail stations within approximately a one-quarter mile walking distance will provide maximum rid- ership. Studies' indicate that: . A threshold of seven dwellings per acre should be present; as densities rise, transit usage increases; . Two-thirds of the demand for transit has been shown to come from within a one-mile circumference of a transit station, with a critical distance of one-quarter mile walking distance from a transit stop; . Oustering transit supporting land uses such as higher density residential adjacent to transit is essential to increase transit use; 1 lAnd u~, Transit, and Urban Form, Ed. W. Attoe, University of Texas, Austin, 1989. · With increasing density, auto trips are reduced and transit trips have been shown to rise dramatically if transit is readily available. At 7-30 dwelling units per acre, 5-40% of all trips are transit trips. The higher the density, the lower the average number of total trips per resident (for all modes). o Project Team Proposal The Project Team proposes acceptance of the following prin- ciples and policies: Mixed Uses: · Planned mixed, uses are permitted and encouraged throughout the viIlage core; . Retail and Office: . In the village core, retail shall be concentrated near the transit station. High trip generators (higher density resi- dential and workplaces) should be oriented towards the transit facilities rather than towards parking lots. . limited convenience commercial maybe permitted outside the village core. These stores may not be located at the village entrances. They are permitted so that village resi- dents who are the most distant from the viIlage core will be within convenient distance of frequently purchased items. . Between one and three stories of office space can be located above retail stores provided that the building height does not exceed four stories. 9 .C'\ ('1 /} (] l....y Ranch . Local retail commercial should be limited to serving a market which can be defrned as the surrounding or adja- cent villages. . Village core residential in transit-oriented and urban vil- lages should be predominantly characterized by higher density townhouses, duplexes and stacked flats with a range of two to four stories, with some single-family uses. . Regional retail and office serving operations should be restricted from the village core and encouraged to locate in the freeway arterial or EVC areas. . Outside the village core, densities shall generally decrease with distance from the transit station. . Village core office uses may have a range of two to four stories. No buildings should exceed four stories in height. . Development areas which will allow the development of two units per lot, with one unit being the main house and the second unit being smaller and ancillary to the first should be encouraged, recognizing the lesser impacts of these units when planning for infrastructure. Appropriate parking and zoning standards, as well as other standards relating to specific subdivision design, would be developed within the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. Housing: . In transit-oriented and urban villages, up to three stories of housing may be located above retail and offices. No build- ings should exceed four stories in height (Fig. 3). Public Uses: FIG.3 MIXED USE BUILDINGS IN VILLAGE CORE . Public access spaces are required. They may be privately owned with guaranteed significant public access. These may include a plaza, town square, park, or a town hall, or community building. . Community oriented buildings in accordance with the facilities master plan are also required (e.g., post office, library, community purpose facility, day care facility). Substructure Parking Cenlral Courtyard and Secondary Building EnlTances . The public spaces and community/commercial oriented buildings are intended to function visually and in spirit as the focal point of the village. 10 r----" , - 2. Transit Station Discussion: There are many communities where transit (both light rail and bus) is not well integrated; transit lines often skirt major devel- opments rather than penetrate them, and internal design does not facilitate linkages with transit lines. Often these are retrofit- ted or afterthought transit systems. It is clear that transit access should be integrated with a pedestrian system and land uses in the initial stages of planning and design (Fig. 4). FIG. 4 TRANSIT STATION AND LAND USE RELATIONSHIPS To Bus System and Residential Neighborlloods rJr- To Parking .....,.................".,.............~ Transit line Transit Station To Parking To Parking To Residential ____ Neighborhoods To Residential ~ Neighborhoods To Parking I ~ _,.~_. To Residential Neighborhoods Neighbofhoods B Pedestrian Routes '"\ t', .' () Otay Ranch o Project T earn Proposal The Project Team proposes acceptance of the following guideline: . The transit station shall be adjacent to pedestrian accessible activities (newsstand, flower shop, convenience store, etc.) and shall contain a sheltered waiting area and bicycle stor- age facility. 3. Building Siting and Design Discussion: Transit station areas, village cores, and streetscapes need to be treated with special design treatments which are usually differ- ent for most jurisdictions' zoning criteria. Villages may be developed based upon "themes", either archi- tectural, historical, or amenity related (such as equestrian or golf course communities). This may serve to develop character and a distinct sense of place within villages if not implemented with a rigid architectura1 style which provides no flexibility. It is important to provide for flexibility to respond to changing tastes, styles, and market trends throughout the 30+ years of the implementation of the Otay Ranch plan. Strict or overly restrictive definition of design themes at a general planning level may serve to limit creativity at the time of implementation. 11 r) I , n o Project Team Proposal The Project Team proposes acceptance of the following policies and guidelines: . Building Heights and Sizes: The height and size of the buildings should be similar to neighboring units. The tallest buildings shall be located near the transit station. Building heights and sizes should gradually decrease as they reach the village edge. . The viIlage anchor buildings should be community / com- mercial buildings which are the most prominent and vis- ible within the village (Fig. 5). FIG.5 COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS . Core areas should have a unified streetscape, a public square and/ or a plaza. Core Configuration: . Buildings in the retail and office areas shall be scaled to compliment pedestrian activities and to recognize automo- bile access and parking needs (Fig. 6). .... -_.-._~- <0 Ranch FIG. 6 SCALE OF COMMEROAL BUILDINGS IN VILLAGE CORE ~ Scale or Commercial Buicfngs Complementing Pedestrian Activities . ...... a Primary Retail Building , J Enb'ance Orien18d to :t! Streets . . Parking lots should allow easy pedestrian access and be broken into reasonably sized areas. Parking lots should be located and designed in such a manner that they are visu- ally assessible to the driving public. . On-street parallel or diagonal parking adjacent to side- walks is encouraged. . On-street parking should not be allowed on the same side of the street and adjacent to monument structures, village greens, and parks. Parking across the street on the same side as commercial/ retail activity is appropriate. Building Entries: . Commercial: Primary ground floor commercial building entrances should orient to plazas, parks, and/or pedes- trian-oriented streets. Design of common entries from the 12 ,'\ ~Aay Ranch . Outside Village Core: Residential units should have front yards and front porches to encourage a streetscape that can retain the interest of pedestrians as well as residents. (--': I' street and parking lot is encouraged as it serves as an area where people can mix and interact. Anchor retail buildings may have their entries from off-street parking lots, how- ever, additional on-street entries are strongly encouraged. Building Facades: . Residential: Encourage ground floor residential building entrances to orient to streets, in addition to interior blocks of parking lots (Fig. 7). Primary Residential Building Entry Oriented 10 Streets . Since most areas of the village core will contain residential units, the scale and architectural treatment (e.g., placement of doors, windows, and roof lines, the setback from the street, building color, etc.) of all residential and non-resi- dential village core buildings should provide compatible diversity. FIG.7 ORIENTATION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ENTRIES '" ~ r..- ~ '- \ - . Access from the street to and from residential and non- residential buildings should be encouraged. "- . Arcades, bays and balconies are also encouraged (Fig. 8). Secondary Building and Parking Entry from Interior of Block On-street Parking FIG.8 BUILDINGS wrrn ARCADES IN TIlE VILLAGE CORE . Land Use Transitions/Changes: Land use changes should occur mid-block, rear lot to rear lot line, or from one block to the next. The important point is that compatible diversity in design should be encourilged to add interest and charac- ter to street scenes. Mixed Use Retail Building Setbacks: . Core Commercial Center. Setback provisions for buildings in the core commercial area should permit a build-to line and variations in setbacks when part of an integral design feature. Residential buildings may have landscape areas between sidewalks and units. Level Change Uncovered Outdoor Sitting Area 13 ~, " , ' n , j n OtajRanch FIG. 9. CONCEPTUAL PLAZA SPACE Building Design: . Buildings should be designed for the local climate of the site. Design elements that are particularly encouraged are courtyards, atriums, solar heating, and the regulation of interior temperature through the use of natural ventilation. Plazas and Squares: . Purpose: Plazas and squares are to be made an integral part of the overall village design. They should contribute to an active public life, offering a high quality ambience to more densely developed areas. Design: . Plazas and squares must be designed to encourage public use. Design details include some of the following: An arrangement of trees, sitting places, walkways, children play areas, structural details (e.g., fountains), sunny spots, wind protected spots, all contained in an area with well- defined edges (Fig. 9). Underground parking may be located under plazas if economically viable. . The edges or areas adjacent to the plaza should contain areas of activities, such as retail shops, restaurants, enter- tainment places, and mixed use developments. . Public space may be buffered from heavy traffic by wide sidewalks but not be so segregated as to appear inaccessible or unsafe. On-street parking should not be allowed on the same side of the street and adjacent to plazas and squares. . To enhance safety public spaces such as plazas, parks, transit stations should be located adjacent to active uses to provide surveillance during both day and night time hours. ~ ~ ,-,,~ Main CommerciaV ................._........~JnnI.........-..t::. Village Plaza Office Buildin including Trees. Entrances should Sitting Places, Orient Towards the Walkways, Chilcren's Street Play Areas. etc. l Mid-block Access Parking localoo. to to Parking and Rear ot CommerclaV Pedestrian Access Office Buildings to Plaza should be ~ p- ~- VII-street aJIUIl9 on only One Side of Street, Butfering Pedestrians from Vehides Plaza should Provide a Focus tor Street System Buildings Surrounding Plaza should Provide Activities for Pedestrians (Retail, Shops, Reslaurants, etc.) "'::J Community Building Facing lhe Plaza 5. Streets and Circulation: Discussion: In many communities, arterial streets are the primary travel networks and the only route to segregated destinations. Forc- ing all automobiles onto a few main roads which bisect com- munities increases traffic congestion (and associated air pollu- tion), and requires pedestrians to negotiate wide and relatively unfriendly roads. Lack of direct pedestrian routes discourages pedestrian activity. Multiple parallel routes to the village core provide short and convenient routes for pedestrians, and alter- nate routes for traffic. 14 ~. ( , /--- \ ) ,,-,ay Ranch j,': A network of interconnected streets has the benefit of provid- ing alternative routes to destinations and increasing the num- ber of intersections on those alternative routes, which reduces the turning load at a given intersection. The geometry of a dense network of streets minimizes travel distance due to the reduction of isolated areas of development and the provision of direct routing. This is not intended to mandate the use of any particular type of street system; alternative routes may be provided in a number of ways (Fig. 10), Minimized street dimensions are intended to make streets more intimate in scale while ensuring public safety; smaller street sections will reduce street crossing dimensions. This may have the effect of reducing level-of-serVice on those streets where the reduced standards are applied. F1exible standards should be developed for use wi thin village cores. Consideration should also be given to one-way streets, where feasible. o Project Team Proposal FIG.IO. DENSE STREET SYSTEM PROVIDING ALTERNATE ROUTES.. SCHEMATIC PLAN i ~~~. ....o,...-;.>-~~.,.-""".:I I':{ , ") '( .t'f'~~ '\ \ ,",,-,.,.,..~ . ......0. . ~_. 0' J; , _o~ ~?-5J (; ,----... 'Sl\. .~ . ".' t!. TranSit Line r (' ..I' -....,"~~ ~ The Project Team proposes acceptance of the following prin- ciples and policies: Street Network: ' Sb'eets . Access to village cores and surrounding areas should be provided for a variety of modes of transportation: walking, automobile, bus, rail, specialized transit, and bicycles. De- sign needs to facilitate changing between transportation modes, such as park-and-ride facilities, bus stops, and a pedestrian and bicycle system. . Road Design: Standards, as the name suggests, apply to "standard" situations; variations oc= when special con- siderations or conditions exist which warrant revision to the norm. To implement the intended transit-oriented design for the urban villages of the Otay Ranch, modifica- tions to the engineering standards and zoning may be required. . An integrated network of streets (rigid grid not rpquired) shall be provided so that multiple ro.utes are available to reach the village core. Major arterials, however, are not permitted within the villages. 15 ~ ,-.", . i .---- 'cJy Ranch . Cul-d~acs are permitted if, at the end of the cul-de-sacs, pedestrians are provided access to reach the village core or other desired uses. Dead end cul-de-sacs are permitted only in perimeter locations where there are no pedestrian destinations. (Fig. 11). . View Corridors: Selected streets should provide a view corridor linking portions of the village with its core. Other streets may frame views of natural features such as parks, open space and/ or special architecture. FIG. 11. OPEN-ENDED CUL-DE-SACS . Arterials: Arterials shall be designed for regional or inter- village trips which shall not pass through the village, but around it. Arterials should be limited as much as possible while still meeting the level of service standards. Streets internal to the village may have a lower LOS than the arterials. Wicl <0 -r . Landscape Themes: Landscape themes should be used to define village character. 't>' ,<1: ft!~' '1'< 1fi:'''C . I landscaping to -r11 T =:;~'" . Street Trees: Shade trees shall be required along all village streets. They should be planted close enough to the street to provide a visual street frame. Access to Pedestrian Paths at the End ot Cul-de--sacs Greenbelt Unking Perimeter of Village to Village Center . .) -+' ~::.trianlBicyd9 --t---J r" ,- . I I \ I 16 (i L_..y Ranch ('--.....\ . Street Widths: Streets should be designed in such a manner that they give equal balance to the needs of the pedestrians, buses, and automobiles. Intersections should be designed to encourage pedestrian movement, reducing the number of turning lanes where feasible and reducing auto speed while ensuring public safety and providing for emergency vehicle access (Fig. 12). 6. Off-Street Parking: Discussion: FIG.12. STREET INTERSECTIONS The use of joint parking facilities in village cores limits the amount of land dedicated to the automobile. Typical parking standards calculate parking based upon ratios per land use, assuming stand-alone uses unconnected with other comple- mentary land uses. With mixed uses, a reduced number of spaces may potentially be provided. Ground Floor Retail to Enhance Pedestrian Activity Short Curb Rad, to Reduce Crossing Distance Ma,i<ed Street Crossings To Accommodate Pedestrian TraffIC: While Crossing the Street Expanded Sidewalk to Facilitate Street Crossing All parking requirements and standards should be designed to be flexible in meeting changing needs. o Project Team Proposal The Project Team proposes acceptance of the following policies and guidelines: Width to Ensure Safe Pedestrian Crossing ~ r ~OPS with Outdoor r ~aling Areas I On.S~eet Parking Buffering Pedestrians From t Moving Vehicles . Parking Design: Parking areas within the village core should be screened wherever possible. Along main streets and plazas (except for single row on-street parking), parking should occur behind buildings. Parking lots should be located and designed in such a manner that they are visu- ally accessible to the driving public. Other screening meth- ods may include underground parking and parking struc- tures (Fig. 13). . Alleys: Use of alleys within the core area may be provided to serve residential and commercial areas to encourage placement of service access to the rear of buildings. 17 i/-' ,~ , I 0'_1 Ranch FIG. 13. PARKING DESIGN IN VILLAGE CORE Parking in structures with retail on the ground level shall be encouraged when economically viable. Parking lots shall be designed so that, as the village matures, redevelopment of the lots (construction of buildings with integrated park- ing structures) can be facilitated. Parking lots should be minimized in size and broken up with landscaping or buildings. Parl<ing Lol Located to Rear of Builcing Common Building Enrrance from Pedestrian Street and Par1<ing Lot Encouraging Pedestrian Activities ID- 7. Pedestrian Facilities: Discussion: Main Streel On-Street Parking To create a pedestrian friendly environment, pedestrian facili- ties must be given equal priority with automobile facilities. For transit-<lriented villages, a pedestrian system must be provided to facilitate access to the transit station at the point of origin and to the desired land uses at the destination point. This system would include sidewalks, well marked street crossings, off- street pedestrian shortcuts, bike routes and bicycle parking facilities, and short curb radii to reduce crossing distances at intersections. Underground Parking Increasing Land Efficiency o Project Team Proposal The Project Team proposes acceptance of the following policies and guidelines: . Predominant Location: Pedestrian and bicycle routes should be in front of the buildings or within greenbelts. . Parking Entitlements: Parking requirements may be re- duced for complementary uses within the village core. This reduction should be done in conjunction with Transporta- tion Demand Management (TDM) plans. Shared parking shall be encouraged. This could be accomplished through parking districts. . Connection with the Core: Pedestrian and bicycle routes should connect all parts of the village to the village core. Generally, such routes may be co-located with streets, al- though a linear connection that may connect the village core with areas outside the village may be provided along side the transit corridor or within a central greenbelt. . Park and Ride Lots: Small park and ride lots for village residents may be provided within the village core. Re- gional surface park-and-ride lots shall be located outside of villages with feeder bus service to the transit station. . Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking shall be provided at every transit station and, in general, at the activity nodes through- out the village core. 18 (\ ..::'" 13Y Ranch orientation and sense of place have been incorporated into the various village design elements. These measures are intended to provide a menu of options for use in implementing villages. D. Implementation Discussion: The first level of implementation of the village concepts for the Otay Ranch is the adoption of a comprehensive General Development Plan/Community Plan. The Project Team proposals as outlined herein, for Village Type, Village Elements, and Guidelines and Criteria, would be included in the General Development Plan/Community Plan, and provide the framework for the development of the villages. Following the approval of the GDP /CP, individual Sectional Planning Area/ Specific Plan documents would further define individual villages. 1. GDP/Community Plan The growth management policies to be developed at the GDP level for the Otay Ranch should take into account the City of Chula Vista growth management and transportation phasing programs, as well as applicable County of San Diego plans, such as the Public Facility Element of the General Plan. Note: The following implementation methods have been prepared only to provide a number of concepts for the review of the City and County. Actual implementation methods will be developed at the GDP level. A master plan for open space dedications in relation to village development needs to be developed at the GDP level. In addition to dedication of open spaces within villages, open space areas which are outside the boundaries of any village, such as the Otay River Valley and the Jamul Mountains area should also be included in the master plan. 2. SPA/Specific Plan o Project Team Proposal The SPA/Specific Plan should include the following elements: It is important to note that communities do not develop over- night; the most successful of the small American towns held as examples for new towns have evolved over a period of many years. What is possible is to create a framework which is compatible with the development of a sense of place, and to allow human society to create the values which enliven it by providing the opportunities for the activities and daily interac- tions which create neighbors and a sense of community. . Development Phasing/Growth Management . A SPA/Specific Plan should be adopted for each village defined within the Otay Ranch; The Project Team proposes the following techniques and in- centives to be used by appropriate jurisdictions, developers and transit authorities to ensure that pedestrian and transit . Phasing must provide for development in a logical manner, in coordination with community services, the regional circulation system, and transit. Phasing must allow for the provision of bus service in the initial phases of the development of Otay Ranch, to be aug- mented with light rail in the future for those villages identified as transit-oriented. 19 .""" .~ , oQRanch . The basic strategy should be to allow development to proceed only at the rate that adequate infrastructure is provided. . Commercial uses that fit the size, scale and intensity of the individual village setting. Economic viability of locations and types of commercial uses should be subject to evalua- tion throughout the implementation of the Otay Ranch. . Zoning: Planned Community (PC)/S88 and Village Zoning . StandardsIRequi.rements The primary method of implementation for the uses pennitted within villages is the zoning document. This should be an integral part of each SP A!Specific PIan, and should focus on the character of the individual village components within the SPA. To meet the proposed guidelines for village components and character, a great amount of flexibility must be pennitted within the village core; therefore a Village Core Overlay Regu- lation is proposed, within the PC!S88 zoning. The Project Team proposes the adoption of two districts, one for the mixed- use village core and one for the surrounding neighborhood. These residential districts should encompass a wider range of dwelling types than those of the typical "segregated" suburban district. Standards, as the name suggests, apply to "standard" situa- tions; variations occur when special considerations or condi- tions exist which warrant revision to the norm. To implement the intended transit-oriented design for the urban villages of the Otay Ranch, modifications to the engineering standards and zoning may be required. . Road Design Standards . Reduction in the level of service (LOS) within transit- oriented urban villages to below LOS C is pennitted; . Development of ruraI road standards for use in areas of ruraI densities; Provisions must be made for: . Design guidelines as an integral part of the Village Core District; . Adoption of revised circulation cross sections for vil- lage core roads. . Parking Standards . Mixed uses including residential! retail, office! commercial; . Setbacks for buildings within the village core, pennitting a build-to line rather than minimum setbacks and variations in setbacks when part of an integral design feature; · Standard parking requirements for commercial! office uses may be reduced within waIking distance (approxi- mately on~er mile) of transit stops to encourage pedestrian activities in these areas. However, park and ride facilities which encourage transit use should be located in close proximity to the transit stop. This may be accomplished through the establishment of parking districts. . Building heights regulated to maintain character; 20 ..-., , ~. i ) t>..ty Ranch . Signage which should be designed to fit in the pedestrian environment rather than addressing itself to the passing vehicles. Sign size, height, and placement can be controlled through the zoning ordinance. . Permit a portion of a use's parking requirements to be satisfied by on-street parking. Parallel parking gives a buffer between moving traffic and pedestrians and moves the larger parking lots to the rear of buildings. . Lowering residential parking requirements for residen- tial uses near transit stations due to decreased demand. 3. Incentives . Design Guidelines and Policies Incentives and bonuses may be provided as part of the village ordinances to encourage mixed use and transit-oriented devel- opment in villages. Specific incentives will be included in the . General Development Plan/Community Plan and imple- mented in the SPA/Specific Plan. Through zoning, the size, bulk and location of buildings can be regulated, but design concepts can be more diffiOlIt to express in an ordinance. Although development regulations can ex- press general design standards, it should be accompanied by specific design guidelines and plans to be used in the SPA and the design review process. The quality of the built environ- ment and its compatibility with the approved polides can be controlled through the implementation of a sound set of design guidelines, including; 4. Review: Design Review The General Development Plan (GDP) should identify a defined review process to maximize successful implementation of the design guidelines adopted as part of a SPA/Specific Plan. . Architectural character specifying scale and proportion, roof shape, placement on the lot, rhythm of the openings, massing, sense of entry, compatibility with the surround- ings and building materials. The exact nature of these elements should differ in every village based on the village's type, topography and natural features. . Detailed design guidelines and criteria that have been de- veloped at the GDP level should be used during the design review process, to maximize the success of implementation for each village design. . Landscape and streetscape guidelines that ensure quality pedestrian environment, consisting of plant materials that develop a unifying village theme, pedestrian oriented side- walks, street trees and street furniture. 21 (' () Uy Ranch point which differentiates it from other villages. Examples include, but are not limited to: a university, golf course, prox- imity to Lower Otay Lake, artificial lake, resort. Ill. SUMMARY OF PAST WORK A. Goals, Objectives and Policies During the initial phases of the planning effort for the Otay Ranch, Goals, Objectives, and Policies were developed and presented to the Interjurisdictional Task Force, and were ac- cepted on December 11, 1989. The following are goals, objec- tives, and policies that give guidance to the village concept (numbers reflect numbering in the original Goals, Objectives, and Policies docwnent). Objective 2: Develop a "village" residential concept which emphasizes non-vehicular traffic in the "village cores." Policies Land Use A. Villages: Each "village" shall be implemented by a Specific Plan or Sectional Plan. The "village" is a building block for the Otay Ranch Project Area. "Villages" will provide a separate, unique identity for its residents, but will also interrelate with other villages within the Project Area. "Vil- lages" may vary in size, population and character. The following items should be considered in the development of the Specific Plan. 1. Within each "village", a Phasing Plan should be devel- oped which relates levels of residential development to development of "village" recreational amenities, and public and civic facilities. Goal 1: Housing and Community Character It is the Goal of the City /County to accommodate a full diver- sity of housing types while maintaining an orientation to de- tached single-family living. Objective 2: The Otay Ranch Project Area should be segmented into villages, each having its own character and sense of place. 2. "Villages" should have a "village core' area where higher density residential, civic, employment and park uses are interspersed with neighborhood commercial and office development. Each "village core" should be oriented away from major circulation roads. GoalS: Design Incorporate unique design aspects into the project, including the development of an individual "Village" theme comple- mentary to the overall theme, which will make the Otay Ranch Project Area a unique, model community for its residents and users. 3. "Villages" should tend to contain a balance of service and employment uses which will minimize the need for residents to leave the "village' area. Objective 1: Individual "villages" should provide a distinct identity which differs from other "villages" within the Otay Ranch Project Area. Each "village core' should have a focal 22 r:by Ranch i-' I ,'"' 4. A void bisecting a "village" by major circulation roads in excess of four lanes. This is not designated to pre- clude consideration of a grid circulation system. Objective 2: Alternative forms of transportation, such as bi- cycle paths, riding and hiking trails, and pedestrian walkways shall be an integral part of the circulation system. 5. Clustering of densities in a manner different from other "villages" should be encouraged to create a different community identity. Objective 3: Provide a thorough and comprehensive bicycle circulation system, emphasizing bicycle paths, segregated from vehicular traffic, between major destinations within and adja- cent to the Otay Ranch Project Area. 6. Buffer and/or transition techniques should be devel- oped which deal with the transition between different "villages" within and outside of the project. Policies 7. Within each "village," architectural and color themes should promote complementary diversity, rather than a rigid, unyielding singular architectural style. A. Circulation System 6. Ensure the development of well planned "villages" which will tend to be self supportive and thus reduce the length of the vehicular trip, reduce the dependency on the automobile and encourage the use of other modes of travel. G. Land Use Pattern 2. The Otay Ranch Project land use plan should create a sense of place, an integrated community that is compatible with adjoining communities and neighborhoods. Circulation 7. Umit size of roads within the "village cores" to maxi- mum of four lanes. Goal 1: Transportation System Objective 4: Develop patterns of land use which will allow the elimination of certain automobile trips and the reduction of overall trip lengths. 8. Bicycle paths separated from vehicular traffic on high volume roadways. Open Space Goal 2: Greenbel t Corridors Goal 2: Achieve a balanced transportation system which em- phasizes alternatives to automobile use and is responsive to the needs of residents. Provide a system of both natural and improved greenbelt corridors intended to both protect, preserve, and manage sig- nificant environmental resources and also provide corridors for alternative pedestrian transportation and recreational op- portunities. Objective 1: Study, identify, and designate corridors, if appro- priate, for light rail and transit facilities. 13 ~) L --"y Ranch /- ,~" Objective 1: Provide a mixture of natural open space areas, "greenbelt" uses and public parks throughout the urbanized portions of the Otay Ranch Project Area. Public Services and Facilities Goall: Public Services and Facilities Conservation Objective 5: School facilities shall be provided concurrently with need and integrated with related facility needs, such as child care, health care, parks, and libraries. Goal 6: Air Quality Objective 1: Develop a land use plan which minimizes mobile and stationary sources of air pollution. Policies A. Public Facilities and Services Parks and Recreation Goall: Park and Recreational Facilities 5. Locate schools in areas free of disturbing factors such as traffic hazards, airports or other incompatible land uses. Objective 1: Provide neighborhood and community park and recreational facilities to serve the recreational needs of local residents. 6. Ensure that schools are integrated into the system of alternative transportation corridors, such as bike lanes, riding and hiking trails, and mass transit where a ppropria te. Objective 4: Develop a riding and hiking trail system which provides both local connections and regional through- routes. 8. Require public transit access from the Otay Ranch plan area to existing sources of governmental social services off-site. Policies A. Parks 2. Neighborhood and community parks should be lo- cated adjacent to public school sites. 11. Encourage areas for small scale medical servi~s, such as physicians offices and clinics in appropriate residen- tial "villages". 4. Sites should be provided for facilities dedicated to the enhancement of the arts at the community level, which contain facilities capable of supporting community the- ater, training and exhibition of art and sculpture, musi- cal training and concerns, and public meetings. 17. Provide sites for childcare and pre-school facilities adja- cent to public and private schools, religious assembly uses, employment areas, and other locations deemed appropriate. 24 B. Previously Accepted Issue Papers In October of 1990, the Interjurisdictional Task Force accepted the issue paper enti tied Character of Village Commercial Cores, which explored the appropriate character for the village cores on the western parcel of the Otay Ranch. The issue paper recommended that the village cores have the following characteristics: . All neighborhood and community commercial uses shall be located within village cores; . Village cores shall be located away from major circulation element roads such as Orange Avenue and Paseo Ran- chero; . Higher intensity residential development should be lo- cated in dose proximity to the village core; . Village cores should mix commercial uses with civic, resi- dential, employment and recreational uses in an environ- ment which allows transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists and automobile drivers equally easy access to and within each village core. This recommendation was made with the provision for reas- sessment as the project is built, due to the economic risk associ- ated with the placing of commercial uses away from major circulation roads. I') L.,iy Ranch C. Original Baldwin Submittal The Baldwin Company submitted the New Town Plan for the Otay Ranch in October of 1989. The Village concept as submit- ted indudes: . Village Cores envisioned to provide the central focus for the many residential neighborhoods throughout the Ranch. Four villages were provided on the Otay River Valley Parcel, surrounding the EUC, and two villages were pro- vided in each of the eastern parcels. Medium density housing was concentrated toward the university and SR- 125, and rural communities were provided to the east. Villages, as defined in the New Town Plan graphics, are located along major arterials, and are formed of individual neighborhoods with parks, a central village commercial area, and a village recreation core located within an open space corridor. . An overall Town Core was provided as part of a resort on the Proctor Valley Parcel (immediately north of the Otay Reservoir) which provided the focus for the community and provided primary community services. · An Eastern Urban Core (EUC) was provided on the Otay River Parcel. The New Town Plan did not dearly categorize, define, or provide criteria for the location, definition, or components of individual villages, leaving this to subsequent planning stages (SPA/Specific Plan). A light rail transit route was not origi- 25 '1 L_yRanch ,"--, nally included in the New Town Plan, and the villages there- fore did not demonstrate transit-oriented design components or a transit-based philosophy. D. Project Team Alternative (PTA) The Baldwin Company has recently developed concept de- signs for typical villages to illustrate the transit and pedestrian- oriented direction taken by the planning and design process since their original submittal. The Project Team Alternative (PT A) represented an attempt to illustrate and communicate the Goals, Objectives and Policies as accepted by the Inter-jurisdictional Task Force in December 1989. A light rail transit route was proposed, with high inten- sity transit-<lriented villages along its length. The PTA presented the following village elements: . An Eastern Urban Core (EUC) to the east of the SR-l25 route, along a light rail route, which comprises the urban- ized core of the Otay Ranch; . Six villages on the Otay River Valley Parcel, with differing characters based upon topography, location adjacent to SR- 125, location along the light rail route proposed in the PT A, and proximity to the Eastern Urban Core and University site. Higher density villages occurred in the western parcel, particularly along the light rail line to promote ridership. . One village in each of the eastern parcels, consisting of rural "country towns". These villages include small village cores with local serving services; Village cores are characterized by land use intensities greater than the surrounding village neighborhoods described above. Some of the specific elements included: . Encouragement of residential uses above retail and office space; 26 · Requirement of civic building or signature structure of distinctive architectural design as a focal point of the village core; . Cultural activities and community cores planned for each village; . Local roads lead to village focal point; . Major arterials do not bisect village cores; . The requirement of public space in the form of gardens, plazas, squares or large linear walkways. ~. /""'. : ) L......y Ranch E. Otay Ranch Citizen Advisory Committee Recommendations In August of 1990, the Otay Ranch Gtizen Advisory Commit- tees were created by combining the nine Citizen and Advisory Task Forces established by the Baldwin Company with the seven Gtizen Committees authorized by the Interjurisdictional Task Force. The combined citizen committees formed three subcommittees: natural resources, infrastructure, and human resources. A Governing Committee comprised of all the mem- o bers of three subcommittees was also established. Gtizen Advisory Governing Committee recommendations address housing, cultural arts and libraries, and village center issues as they pertam to villages and village cores. Village Center. The village center recommendations present policy statements related to elements within village centers, including parking, open space, alternative transportation, pe- destrian facilities and village signature structures. The follow- ing policy recommendations have been made: . All neighborhood and community commercial uses shall be located within village centers, which shall be located away from major circulation element roads such as Orange A venue and Paseo Ranchero. Village centers should mix commercial uses with civic, residential, employment, and recreational uses in an environment which allows transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists and automobile drivers equal access to and within each village. . Where practical, greenbelts should be tied into the village center and link village centers to each other and to other destination points via trails, pathways and bikeways. 1:7 ,.r;~ , ,,, l.Jy Ranch structure would be to provide a unique visual identity for each village - a logo. The structure should be located to provide a focal point for nearby streets. Over time, the structure would become a source of pride for the entire village. · Villages should provide automobile parking in several small at-grade parking lots, not one or two large ones. Only very limited automobile parking should be permitted to serve neighborhood commercial centers. Adequate parking should be provided for alternative means of transportation, such as cars and bicycles. . Even if alternative transportation technologies are not ini- tially feasible, the right-of-way should be reserved as a greenbelt pathway. Planning options should be main- tained as the monorail, people-movers and personal rapid transit systems are explored to ensure that transit is part of Otay Ranch. Housing: The housing recommendations present policy state- ments concerning housing issues within the Otay Ranch, in- cluding affordable housing, density, and senior villages. The following policy recommendations have been made: . In order to establish and maintain the pedestrian orientation of the town center, structures should be close to each other, with minimal separation for pedestrian uses such as arcades. Storefronts should join the sidewalks with a minimum setback and emphasize the landscaping and small park- like seating areas. Parking should be located in the rear of the building. To create a sense of enclosure, provide shade and break-up the bulk of nearby buildings, landscaping should emphasize trees and promote pedestrian orientation. . Each residential village should provide housing as well as cultural opportunities for senior residents. "A village with a senior theme is probably desirable, but seniors should also be encouraged to reside in more socially integrated villages. "TIus will provide lifestyle choices." If a retirement core is located within theOtay Ranch Community, it should provide a range of services from areas for the active to intermediate and convalescent health care facilities. Pedestrian walkways should exhibit an aesthetically pleas- ing architectural treatment. Monument buildings should be distinctive with mixed uses such as churches or civic uses permitted. . The Otay Ranch villages should contain a mix of housing types, including housing for all economic segments of the community. Housing of a wide variety of types and prices should be integrated into communities and not isolated. Attached and detached housing types should be mixed into the villages in the western parcel, and should include SROs. Low income housing should not necessarily be in- tegrated into all communities. . Each village center should have a "signature structure" unique to, and befitting of, that village. The structure may be a piece of art, a civic building, a plaza, etc. The role of the . Otay Ranch Plans should ensure the provision of housing for upper income individuals which would meet the need for such housing within the South County community. These neighborhoods attract the "campus style" industries and businesses targeted for the community of Ota y Ranch. 28 (': . One or more mobilehome parks and/or manufactured housing projects should be located within the community of Otay Ranch, perhaps near the southwestern edge of the Otay Lakes parcel. Mobilehome communities provide af- fordable housing options for young families and/ or senior citizens. If a mobilehome park and/ or manufactured hous- ing project is included in Otay Ranch, it is preferred that it be a "condominium style" park where the resident owns the land upon which the home sits. . Higher densities can be acceptable and even desirable in the village center if done properly. The bulk and scale of such uses should be broken up. Residential uses above stores in the more urban village centers is an attractive possibility, especially for senior citizens when adequate elevated access is provided. Cultural Arts and Libraries: The Cultural Arts and libraries section addresses four goals and implementation measures which directly relate to the villages and village cores. Recom- mended measures are listed below: . Require one cultural arts facility or community meeting facility in each village core, incorporated with parks, librar- ies, or community cores. Five villages shall contain a "Cul- tural Arts Facility." Each village cultural arts facilities' specialized activity should not be duplicated in another village which assists in the reinforcement of a "distinct village". All other villages shall contain a "Community Meeting Facility" to accommodate a wide range of cultural and recreational activities. . Provide a cultural arts complex of not less than 30 acres. il 08Ranch . Establish a design review board to regulate architectural design within the village cores; and encourage the provi- sion of artistic and cultural facilities and site specific art in public and commercial construction. . Reserve spaces in each village (parks, squares, etc.) for site- specific public art; incorporate outdoor street performance space in public spaces in the village cores. 29 E Design Charrette On May 1, 1991 a design charrette was held to produce a land use design concept plan for the transit-oriented Village Iof the Phase 1 Progress Plan. The participants were divided into two groups and established policies and two possible plans for a village. The Charrette findings are summarized as below: Location of the Village Core: With the intent of making the village pedestrian friendly rather than auto oriented, both groups located the village core at a central location. The factors that were considered for location included relationship of core to adjacent villages; market area for major anchor stories; abil- ity to connect village though pedestrian bridges; having a synergism between adjacent village cores; walking distance to the core from surrounding residential areas and sensitivity to existing topography. Village Core Characteristics: Both groups decided the village core should take on a traditional Main Street/Plaza focus rather than a loop road system that would isolate the core from the rest of the village. It was agreed that the village core should contain mixed uses and higher density residential. The village core components considered included the transit station; pub- lic spaces and parks; village serving commercial; day care; schools; senior housing; affordable housing; community facili- ties and small theaters. "--, LJ.y Ranch Location of the Transit Corridor. After considering factors such as placement of transit corridor in relation to the village core; location of transit line and ridership factors the groups decided the transit line should run through or immediately adjacent to the core of the core. Pedestrian/Alternative Transit Routes: In addition to pedes- trian requirements such as greenbelt paths and pedestrian links to surrounding villages, it was agreed that streets would accommodate pedestrian activity, including on street parking and wide sidewalks. Auto Routes: The pattern of the street system; number of roadway access points into the village; street access to the village core; focal points (civic buildings, public parks) and the use of traffic circles were considered. It was decided that the street system can possess a variety of patterns provided that the major streets have visual focal points. On May 15, 1991 a charrette follow up meeting was conducted to summarize topics discussed by the two charrette groups and to provide the Project Team Interpretation of policies estab- lished at the workshop. These policies for the transit oriented village have been incorporated into the "Principles and Poli- cies" of this Village Issue Paper. It should be noted that these guidelines are one way to develop a village that meets the relevantOtay Ranch Goals, Objectives and Policies accepted by the ITF. 3Q ('-'. \ ) /"~~. ('"") Otay"Ranch . "Neotmditianal Tawn Planning: Community Character and Principles ofNeotraditional Design," prepared by Lane Kendig, Inc., Mundelein, TIlinois, 1990. IV. REFERENCES In preparation of this issue paper, primary credit is given to the following sources: . "A Critiml Lookat Neotmditional Tawn Planning," David Slater and Mary A Morris, PAS Memo, American Planning Ass0- ciation, November 1990. . "!'leotraditianaI Tawn Planning: Legal Concerns," prepared by Siemon, Larsen and Purdy, Chicago, TIlinois, 1990. . "Adding New Towns to Map-Solutions or New Woes?," Martha Groves, Los Angeles Times, April 1990. . "Neotraditional Tawn Planning: Site Design Elements of the Nf:W Village and Design l.P.barat01:f, " prepared by A. Nelessen Associates, Inc., Princeton, New York, 1990. . "Cities Agree to Press for Monorail Funds," Metro, the Or- ange Cnunty Register, by Mary Ann Milbourn, October 1990. . "Neotraditianal Tawn Planning: Site Design of the New Vil- lage;' prepared by A. Nelessen Associates, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1991. · Claremont Village Design Plan, prepared by Architectural Resources Group, San Francisco, May 1987. . "Neotraditianal Tawn Planning: Suburban Sprawl or Livable Neighborhood," prepared by Duany & Plater-Zyberk, Archi- tects, Miami, Florida, 1991. . "Development-Related Ridership Suroey, " prepared by]HI< & Associates, Washington Metropolitan Area TrarISit Au- thority, March 1987. . "Neotraditianal Tawn Planning: Will The TraffU: Work?;' pre- pared by Glatting Lopez Kercher Anglin, Inc., Orlando Florida, 1991. · Executive Summary, Planning and Community Develop- ment Department, County of Sacrarnento, March 1990. . "Neotraditianal Tawn Planning: Zoningfor Neotraditional Town Planning," prepared by Gateway/Stapleton Development Office, Denver, Colorado, 1991. . "Florida Town is not Just Another Suburban Seaside Para- dise," Beth Dunlop, Orange Cnunty Register, April 1990. . "umd Use Enhancements To Increase Future LRT Ridership in the San Diego South Bay Area," prepared by Richard D. Pil- grim and William Weber, BRW Inc., 1991. . 'Neotraditional Towns and Neighborhoods," Peter H. Brown, Neotraditional Tawn Planning, 1991. . "umd Use, Transit, and Urban Form," Ed. W. Attoe, Uni- versity of Texas, Austin, 1989. . 'New Land Rush Hits the Mother Lode." Stephen Fenis, The Sacramento Bee, April 1990. . "Oldfangled New Towns." Kurt Andersen, Time Magazine, May 1991. 31 n ~'- ~} /\ ( . ..J n Otay-Ranch . Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines, prepared by Calthorpe Associates for Sacramento County, Planning and Community Development Department, September 1990. . "Record: Mashpee Commons," Architectural Record, McGraw-Hill, March 1989. . "Reducing Traffic Through Transportation Ordinances," Zoning News, American Planning Association, April 1991. . 'Transit-Oriented Development Urged," Daz1y Pilat, Brad- ley Inman, April 1991. · Reinventing the Village, Suzanne Sutro, APA PAS Report Number. 430, December 1990. . "Shady Lanes Back in Design," Robert E. Mack, Shopping Centers Today, May 1988. · 'Teclmics Topics: Affordable Streets," Progressive Architec- ture, June 1991. . 'The FIrst Pedestrian Pocket." Planning, Gary Delsohn, De- cember1989. . 'Their Town, " Peter Anderson, Boston Globe Magazine, April 1989. . 'The Kent1ands Charrette, " Matt Hamblen, Urban Land In- stitute, September 1988. · The Pedestrian Pocket Book, Ed. Doug Kelbaugh, Princeton Architectural Press, 1989. . 'The Promise of California's Ral1 Transit Lines In The Siting Of New Housing, " prepared by Amelle & Hastie, Attorneys-at- Law, San Francisco/Oakland, California, April 1990. 32 JOINT WORKSHOP MATERIALS TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab Date Topic 1..................................,Uy 30, 1992 .......................................Introductlon/Background 2...............................SepI.2A. 1992 .................... Village Issue Paper/Plan Affematlves JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MATERIALS TABLE OF CONTENTS Sept 24, 1992 Workshop Topic Page Village Concept Village Issue Paper......................................................................................... .Insert Plan Alternatives New Town Plan................. ........... .............. ................. .............. ...............................1 Phase One Progress Plan.. ...... ........ ......... ..... ... ..... ........ ..... ................. .... .... ............6 The Fourth Alternative... ... ........ ....... ................... ....... .... ........... .... ............ ...... .... ... 10 Project Team Alternative .....................................................................................14 Composite General Plan ...................................................................................... 19 Low Density........ ............................................................................................. ......23 Environmental...................... ............... .................................................................. 28 No ProJect............................................................................................................. 32 Phase Two Alternative............................................... ........................................... 33 Summary of Alternatives...................................................................................... ~ NEW TOWN PLAN The "New Town Plan" proposes a mixture of residential neighborhoods, co=ercial centers, research-oriented industrial uses, a civic center, art centers, resort facilities, natural open spaces, recreational parks, a town center, and a university site. The proposed land use plan contained within the New Town Plan is illustrated in Figure 1. Table 1 summarizes the various land use types and development densities proposed throughout the atay Ranch and in the individual parcels. Under the New Town Plan, 50,733 new residential dwelling units would be developed on 11,951 acres of the atay Ranch, allowing for a population of approximately 149,810 new residents, resulting in a population density of 6.5 person per acre. The New Town population would be distributed among 15 residential villages or clusters of development. Each village or neighborhood would offer a variety of housing types within close proximity. The village center is intended as the focus of the village community and may include a mix of uses including commercial centers, schools, parks, churches, day care facilities, recycling centers, and other public services, along with high-density residential. ..;oJ" ! The atay Valley Parcel contains 9,618 units, housing approximately 90,000 residents on 9,618 acres, for a density of 9.4 persons per acre. The atay Valley Parcel is characterized by higher land use densities, retail, commercial, research industrial, and the Eastern Urban Center. In addition, the university site is proposed in the atay Valley area. The Proctor Valley Parcel contains 13,826 units, housing approximately 43,000 residents on 7,915 acres, for a density of 5.4 persons per acre. Approximately half the Proctor Valley area is proposed as open space, with the remaining acreage supporting low, low-medium, and medium density residential uses. The San Ysidro Mountains Parcel contains 5,213 units, housing approximately 17,000 residents on 5,555 acres, for a density of 3.0 persons per acre. Land uses within the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel are predominantly large lot low and low-medium residential. accompanied by the Rural Estate special plan area and open space. The remaining acreage of the atay Ranch would be divided between open space and industrial, commercial, public facilities, university, and other supporting uses. The 802 acres of the research and limited industrial land use category would provide for research and development uses, including light industrial, small-scale warehousing, flexible use buildings, 1 \ and support office and commercial services. Industrial lands are generally situated on either side of the proposed State Route 125 alignment, south of the Otay River Valley, and in the vicinity of Brown Field. Major commercial development would be located along the freeway and major roadways, and neighborhood commercial would be clustered within the village centers. Three types of co=ercialland use categories are offered by the New Town Plan: village center, visitor commercial, and general commercial. The village center land use category would allow for a mixture of neighborhood co=ercial, small office, entertainment establishment, and public/education/civic uses. Village centers are planned to be larger than standard 10 to 20 acre neighborhood shopping centers. Visitor co=ercialland use would allow for resort-oriented commercial uses such as restaurants, while the general co=ercial areas would provide for larger-scale neighborhood commercial, service commercial, retail, and automobile oriented uses. '- Two special plan areas on the New Town Plan land use map feature large commercial elements: the Town Center and Eastern Urban Center. The geographic center and focus of the co=unity is the 163-acre Town Center planned along the northern edge of Gtay Lakes Road, overlooking the Otay Lakes. Land uses reserved for this location include restaurants and shops, mixed with professional office space. Space for civic and government offices would be provided as a separate but associated complex. Residential lofts and townhomes are proposed to be integrated throughout the Town Center development, and a major resort hotel would also be situated overlooking Lower Otay Lake. The Eastern Urban Center is proposed along the future alignment of SR- 125. In contrast to the Town Center, the Eastern Urban Center would allow for the development of high density uses, including a regional mall, corporate offices, an auto park, and high density residential uses. The open space designa,ted in the New Town Plan would be divided between natural parks for passive recreation and resource protection and active recreation areas. The open space system is anchored by three major open space areas: the 846-acre Otay Valley Regional Park, the 900-acre San Ysidro Mountains Regional Nature Park, and 4,162 acres of natural open space encompassing the Jamul Mountains. In addition, a 2,716-acre greenbelt system would integrate the many natural canyons and landforms on the Otay Ranch property, including Wolf Canyon, Poggi Canyon, Salt Creek, Proctor Valley, Cedar Creek, Little Cedar Creek, Hubbard Springs, and the San Miguel Mountains. The primary feature of the circulation system is SR-125, an 8-11 lane highway through the western portion of the Otay Valley Parcel. The remainder of the circulation network will be composed of a series of 6-lane prime arterials, 4-lane major roads, and 2 to 4 lane collector 2 '2 streets. Five interchanges with SR-125 are proposed within the Otay Ranch project. The primary changes to the existing circulation network are the realignment of Otay Lakes Road north of its current location near the lakes and south along the San Ysidro area, the realignment of Proctor Valley Road near Highway 94, and the extension of Orange A venue from 1-805. Four roadway crossings of the Otay River Valley, including SR-125, are proposed in the circulation map of the New Town Plan. Comprehensive transit and bikeway systems are proposed. Express light rail transit is anticipated along SR-l25 and Orange Avenue, and bus service routes are identified along the major surface streets. Four potential transit stations have also been located throughout the project area, including one at the Town Center site and three along SR-125, in the western portion of the project. The proposed bikeway system would include bike lanes within roadways, bike lanes within expanded parkways, and off-road bike rails. A comprehensive pedestrian and rail system is also proposed as partof the circulation element of th~ New Town Plan to encourage non-vehicular travel through the project. - The New Town Plan reserves approximately 400 acres, designated public/quasi-public, as the site for a future university. Located to the west of Lower Otay Lake and to the east of Salt Creek, the university parcel is segregated from much of the surrounding residential, industrial, commercial, and resort development planned for the area. The university site is immediately south of the new ARCOlUnited States Olympic Training Center (OTC) on the lake. This site was selected based on minimum acreage requirements of 4-year institutions, proximity to lake and OTC, proximity to existing and proposed population centers and commercial establishments, and the topographic characteristics of the land, which minimize land use conflicts and maximize views of the surrounding open space. The New Town Plan proposes the creation of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for Otay Ranch. The plan presents a program designed to provide long-term protection and management of the diverse and sensitive natural, cultural, and scenic resources. The RMP focuses on the creation of a management preserve that will provide for the protection, enhancement, and management of natural resources within a permanent open space system. In addition to the establishment of the preserve, the RMP policies will create research opportunities and provide educational benefits to the local Otay Ranch community and the South County region. The RMP serves as the functional equivalent of the County's Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO). In that capacity, the RMP would auginent the RPO by including a long-term resource protection and management program and the necessary implementation tools. Beyond the County RPO, the resource protection program addresses state and federal regulatory requirements in light of the resources present onsite. 3 j ~ dble 1 LAND USE STATISTICS FOR NEW TOWN PLAN Otay River Proctor Valley San Ysldro Otay Ranch Parcel Parcel Parcel Total Residential Densilyt Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Land Use Designation (du/ac) Acres Unils Acres Units Acres Units Acres Unils RESIDENTIAL2 Low 0103 237 455 1,576 3,390 677 1,334 2,490 5,179 Low Mediwn 3106 2,723 11,447 1,630 7,380 493 2,493 4,846 21,320 Mediwn 61011 1,428 11,808 270 2,261 33 204 1,731 14,273 Mediwn High ilia 18 419 3,470 419 3,470 lfuh 181027 -ill J.QM - -ill .....2.lli.4 Total Residential 4,974 30,194 3,476 13,031 1,203 4,031 9,653 47,256 COMMERCIAL Relail Commercial 366 366 Visitor Corrunercial 82 82 INDUSmlAL Research Industrial 802 802 PuBLIC, QUASI-PUBLIC AND PARKS Public & Quasi Public 406 406 Parks and Recreation 1,071 78 956 2,105 EASTERN URBAN CENTER Residenlial 100 1,500 100 1,500 Office 113 113 Regional Shopping 150 150 TOWN CENTER3 163 795 163 795 REsORT/LOW REsIDENTIAL 103 103 RURAL ESTATE PLANNED COMMUNI-rY' 2,035 1,182 2,035 1,182 OPEN SPACE Nalural 1,235 4,013 1,361 6,609 ManuCaclured 357 357 FREEWAY -!I:I -M TOTALS 9,618 31,694 7,915 13,826 5,555 5,213 23,088 50,733 I Based 011 ChuJa Virta G~MTal Pion cUnsity Tang~s. 2 Resuulllial aCT~ag~ includu adjac~nI slop~ and paTkwaylgTunbel1 aTlos. j lIalf ofT own C~nt~' aCT~agc alJocat~d to Tesidtntial wes at 6 10 11 dulac. .f Rural Eslalc Plallfud Community 'olal tJcTeage 012,015 inclUlIeS tJII ~slif1liJred 825 tJCTU of tJddilional Optll spact. ....r= Source: Baldwin Virla. New Town Plan, 1989; as Tel/ired by Ogden, 1992. I Hwy 125 > Parkway , i- ....... Transit corridor '.... ; , , Primary arterials / .l j \ { =='="= "A" Way ( I j .' _....l... -- Otay Ranch property / \ , J , ./ ". I j ./ '" ". \. ) " '. Sa.n' Miguel Mount.ain_..._..."'\. '-" \ ,\ I'" ..' \ : I " \....... - ; "Moauataial "\ '. '\ ~ i ~ I : I , . \ '/'\ : }. \ ..' ...-....1 .I / \ r' ./ '\..' ~",:~~,,!~ /,-0.1 r\l K j I I '. '. 1lI1 L ~ ...-J ~ '\ Ij- \ " /' \.....- .... ..'1...--:::-......r...-...- ./' ;" .' ...~ -..,/ ': ! ......j / ". ...-1 ./ ' S . ;.J .'t' / .. .) .... ) \"\t\. 0 '" \ ~ "'" ;;> '. " 1.. ,. , ') , " " \ \ ". . \ .A. " " J \ r-", 'l. ~-..\ .......~ S. ....... " , - -. ........_.../-..._../:~~.::::~...~ ",- '. .-' . -..... /. ..' I .I ... _.. . 1.......-... ......."..... .....,. \...-' \ r "'-.' ( ...........- >-.." .\ , . ~ - .... .'\ .-' / IIlD ,DEN New Town Plan .. . lEGEND f,~~~~~;l,ll Open Space I Illan Ilade Open Space Residential L Low LIl Low Iledium Il Iledium IlH Iledium High H High Commercial C Commercial VC Visitor Commercial RC Retail Commercial Industrial Rl Research I Industrial Public &. Open Space PQ Public &. Quasi Public P Park and Recreation Special Plan Area EUC Eastern Urban Center TC Town Center R Resort HE Rural Estate Planned Community o , Q 6000 , FEET FIGURE ~ 5 I SECTION 2 PHASE I-PROGRESS PLAN ALTERNATIVE Under the Phase I-Progress Plan Alternative, a maximum of 29,773 residential dwelling units (du) would be constructed on 8,250 acres of land within the 23,088-acre site (Table 2). Adoption and implementation of this alternative would result in approximately 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 multifamily attached units. As illustrated in Figure 2, the residential densities would vary across the site, although the majority of the residences would be constructed within the 11 proposed villages on the Otay River parcel at an average net density of 6.60 dulac. The Proctor Valley parcel would be characterized by low to medium density residential development, most of which would be single-family detached homes at an average net density of 2.42 du/ac. Large lots, ranging in size from 0.33 to 2 acres and larger, and special grading criteria are proposed for those homes on foothills and in the vicinity of the community of Jamul. Residential areas on the San Ysidro parcel would consist mostly of low density uses and would be concentrated in the western portion near Lower Otay Lake and in the eastern portion near Dulzura. Lots on the San Y sidro parcel would range in size from 2 to 8 acres, with an area of medium density residential development in the lake vicinity. The net residential density would average 0.88 dulac on the San Ysidro parcel. Commercial acreage, industrial development (i.e., business park and limited industrial), schools/public facilities, park/recreation facilities, and "Special Plan Areas" may encompass an additional 1,817 acres of development. A majority of the commercial land uses would be concentrated in the Eastern Urban Center-on the Gtay River parcel, with San Ysidro featuring a small pocket of commercial development in a village center near Lower Gtay Lake. Thirteen village centers, featuring mixed uses, elementary schools, and neighborhood parks are planned under this alternative. The village centers, Eastern Urban Center, Proctor Valley resort, and conference center uses are "Special Plan Areas" under the Phase I-Progress Plan Alternative. To balance the developed portions of the site, this alternative also proposes the preservation of 10,984 acres of undeveloped open space encompassing the Otay River Valley, San Ysidro Mountains, and Jamul Mountains. A resource management plan would be implemented for this alternative. Fifty acres have also been identified as a vernal pool 110850010,6/92 2-1 b Table 2 LAND USE STATISTICS FOR PHASE 1 . PROGRESS PLAN Olay River Proctor Valley San Ysldro Olay Ranch Residential Parcel Parcel Parcel Tolal Density Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Land Use Designation (du/ac) Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units RESIDENTIAL Single Family 2,349 1,512 627 4,488 Multifamily 693 190 57 940 Special Grading Criteria 582 781 1,363 Restricted Development - ~ ---2.l8. l.ill Total Residential: 3,042 18,491 2,698 6,358 2,423 2,324 8,163 27,173 COMMERCIAL Retail Corruncrcial 100 100 Freeway Coounercial 112 112 INDUSTRIAL Research Industrial 280 280 Limited Manufacturing 26 26 Business Park 106 106 PUBLlCIQUASI-PUBLlC Public Facilities/Schools 300 10 310 PARKS/SQUARES 166 27 193 EASTERN URBAN CENTER Residential 87 2,600 87 2,600 Retail Coounerical 203 203 Parks 15 15 RESORT 151 151 CONFERENCE CENTER 19 19 SPECIAL STUDY AREA (Ranch House) 132 132 OPEN SPACE Vernal Pool Study Area 50 50 Man-made 1,591 383 13 1,987 Natural 3,420 4,482 3,082 10,984 FREEWAY J.1!l -Wl TOTALS 9,618 21,091 7,915 6.358 5,555 2,324 23,088 29,773 -J Source: Robert Beill, Willjam Frost & Associates /991; as revised by Ogtkn, /992. I -... I f / \ '/'. '\ '-.,'- .~: ".-( ./' '" ) I , J '. \. '\ ........ ...... \ :, I ". .' "- .. " " \ 't '.,Yother li1fue1 ' -'Mountain ! / I. \ .' / , . \ :/ "' : f. \ _. ..-..../ / ( .r \ I I \ " " . .\\ \.... '- ...1 ~-':::..J"- \.....- ...-( ( / .-) ^ \ .j ) / J \ s .-" .~ ( I ) \ ./ ./ ( /"7/ ('.J ./ / .~ ) '. : .1 I ; ,-"'-. ) / ".::, 0 \~\1....... S ... "', ) \ " ", Ote.y '" Mou.n t.a.in. " '" r-", '{ ~':\ .........- S. '-- -", : '\ \ " " \ \ '. . \ ."". . ) \. ....-...-'" - L. _" ..-...-..i.... .."'<.... uj ......... .,,, .-....-- '.- . "-" /,.- ...-.... . / /. L..._..'-" ............-1. ...r ',...-.' .-' '--. )-'" \ I Q , /" ..... . .n_.' ~ . _ Roo' o , . I '. ./ flD FEET .-.{ . ./ ~GDEN Phase I . Progress Plan Alternative ..... .^. Immml nn_._n_.......__._....... :~\~ :~i#~~:~:ii~~~~~: I I ~ 1:::::::::::::1 * * LEGEND Open Space Man Made Open Space Restricted Development Vernal Pool Study Area Special Study Area Potential Active Recreational Areas Residential SF Single Family MF Multiple Family SFg Special Grading Criteria MFVC Multiple Family/Village Center J Commercial C Commercial FC Freeway Commercial Industrial BP Business Park Isd City of San Diego Industrial I Limited Manufacturing ./ " '\ \. ( .-.._...l." 8lOO Pu blic & Open Space HS High School JH Junior High School CP Community Park PR Park & Ride facility WS Water Storage PQ Public/Quasi-Public Special Plan Area EUC Eastern Urban Center R Resort CC Conference Center VC Village Center ...... . Hwy 125 Parkway Transit corridor Primary arterials Ota y Ranch property FIG U R I:: 2 <6 study area near Lower Otay Lake. Several community and neighborhood parks would supplement the natural open space and trail system with active recr~ation areas, including parkland within the Otay Valley Regional Park. Man-made open space, composed of parkway and greenbelts, would be integrated into the trail system. A university site is also planned adjacent to the Olympic Training Center and the western shore of Lower Otay Lake, the exact acreage and configuration of which will be the subject of a future study. Future studies are proposed under the Phase I-Progress Plan Alternative to evaluate potential uses for the rock quarry site upon facility closure, the university site, western developable area on the San Ysidro parcel, and to identify appropriate uses for central Proctor Valley and the Ranch House Estate. The circulation plan for the Phase I-Progress Plan features a series of prime arterials, major roads, and collectors. FO)lI" Otay River Valley crossings, including SR-125, La Media Road, Heritage Road, and Alta Road through O'Neal Canyon would provide regional access from the Otay Ranch propeny to the Otay Mesa industrial area. To supplement the roadway network, a transit corridor is planned along the SR-125 corridor and Telegraph Canyon Road. 110850010,6/92 2-5 ) SECTION 3 FOURTH ALTERNATIVE 4.3.1 Description The Founh 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 (Table 3). The "Fourth" Alternative was so named because it was the founh alternative to be developed by the Otay Ranch Project Team for analysis in the EIR. Development under the Fourth Alternative would result in a maximum of 27,418 residential units on 7,120 acres of land, resulting in a population increase 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 multifamily units. As illustrated in Figure 3, the majority of the residences (16,691 units), including those in medium-high and high density categories, would be situated on the Otay River parcel. Approximately two-thirds of the residential development would be multifamily housing. This alternative would not include a university. There would be four roads across the Otay River Valley. Under the Founh Alternative, the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro parcels would devote most of this residential acreage to the low density category, resulting in an average net density of 2.63 du/ac and 1.43 dulac, respectively. On the Proctor Valley parcel, clusters of higher density residential development would occur in a village center, near the center of Proctor Valley and the northwestern property boundary, and in a village center above the northern shore of Lower Otay Lake. Larger residential lots (0.25 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre) would be situated in the vicinity of Jamul. Only a small amount of acreage, 55 acres on the San Ysidro parcel, would be planned for medium density residential. Otherwise, large lots (0.25 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre) would predominate in the eastern portions of the property. In addition to the residential component of the project, approximately 1,539 acres of the property would contain commercial, industrial, and public/quasi-public uses such as schools and parks. As in the other project alternatives, four special plan areas are defined under the Fourth Alternative: the Eastern Urban Center, Proctor Valley resort along northern Lower Otay Lake, ProctorValley conference centers at the Ranch House and in the foothills of the J amul Mountains, and various village centers. Commercial uses would be distributed throughout the Otay River parcel and concentrated in the Eastern Urban 110850010,6/92 3-1 \0 Table 3 LAND USE STATISTICS FOR FOURTH ALTERNATIVE """" I f ) '" -"'-"''-'" San Mieuel Mountain_..._......... of;; \ .,.. ) I. /'. . ,.,'- '" \. 7l\ , \. '. '."\ " \ :\ I' " "- : I '. . . \-- ' "Yo1ml.l.l.ll /' \ ~ ( ,,-/..""'......~...-.. \ \ I , ( J ' \ '/ " : ). \ .' ,----,./ / / \ I I '\ " ,r / / '--... I , \ " . \ \ ". . \ :"". ' ) ::0,. ~ I,' ~ :&.~ :.......,.,.-..... '~~, ,'> \'--""" .......~.. ......~1 '..." ,)..~~-l- I L;....J c- ::- ,\-', , \... ( '. \. "', s '-'---'" '. "', t-.t.. 1 ,. ..... :--.O\~".. ./ : \K.. .....C' ,..) I " -,' r" '. " }.. '. .'. '. Ote.y " : ""I Moun.tain. ( ". '- ."..\.\ \.....- <: ,.-( ./ : '. .- "-" .....--",. '-: \ ) i'" '? ' \ : \ , /....y./. ,i., ,/ \, '.~ --,) '.r' '. .J " ':, ( ) \ roo / .I I ..J \f ,.-.....l.: / ,/ /' ...... _u./ , ._. ..1.... ..._., .' '-hL "< .J . ". .-/ - ...",.' . ............... "lo..-, .-' ..." "'- /., ..,- . / (.' -' ._...(<_.......-L..._...-.. . .- f ....... r-",,,,, \ '.-. '\" . .- /' '- . '''-.' , , .' . / "- V \ _ Road ,_I I '. J dGDEN Founh Alternative ..... LEGEND m""1 -.- ._-----._-.--- --_._._------_.~-- :~:~~~~~~~i~~!~~: I I Open Space Man Made Open Space Residential 1,3 Low 3 12 Low 2 L1 Low I L Low LJ.I Low Medium M Medium MH Medium High H High . Commercial RC Retail Commercial FC Freeway Commercial Industrial RD Research/Development Isd City of San Diego Industrial I Limited Manufacturing Public & Open Space PQ Public & Quasi Public HS High School JH Junior High School ES Elementary School NP Neighborhood Park CP Community Park Special Plan Area EDC Eastern Urban Center R Resort CC Conference Center ...... . Hwy 125 Parkway Transit corridor Primary arterials "A" Way Otay Ranch property --- --- o , Q lIOOO FEET I" G; "I n_ I Center, where a regional shopping center is planned. Two small areas of commercial development are planned, one near the center of the Proctor Valley parcel to service the nearby residents and the other to service the residential development north of the lakeshore. Commercial acreage in the San Ysidro parcel is limited to the high density cluster near the eastern arm of the lake. Twelve elementary school sites, two junior high school sites, and a single high school site are proposed under this alternative, the majority of which would be situated on the Gtay River parcel. A second high school site has been identified for an outparcel owned by the FAA. No university site occurs under this alternative. The remaining 13,273 acres of the Gtay Ranch property, (over one-half of the site) would be retained as open space, featuring passive recreation and resource management areas in the Gtay River Valley, Jamul Mountains, and San Ysidro Mountains. A resource management plan would be implemented for this alternative. All greenbelt areas between land uses and connecting open spa,ce areas, recreation facilities, and villages would be approximately 300 feet in width. Several community and neighborhood parks would supplement the natural open space and trail system with active recreation facilities in close proximity to the villages. The circulation network would be composed of a series of primary, major, and collector roadways and the southern extension of SR-125, which would form four interchanges with the freeway and four north-south crossings of the Gtay River. The four proposed river crossings are SR-125, Gtay Lakes Road, Hunte Parkway, and Alta Road. In addition to the eastern extensions of East "H" Street, East Orange Avenue, and Gtay Valley Road, Gtay Lakes Road would be realigned under this alternative and an existing segment along the northern lake shore would be closed to automobile traffic and maintained for pedestrian use only. The alignment of Proctor Valley Road would be adjusted slightly. An access road around the southern tip of Lower Gtay Lake, South Dam Road, is preliminarily proposed and may only be constructed if warranted by the traffic analysis. The regional transit corridor would extend from the City of Chula Vista along Telegraph Canyon Road, and would circulate east and south along the local street network, linking the various villages, commercial uses, industrial development, and Eastern Urban Center on the Gtay River parcel. The transit corridor would only parallel the freeway near the southern edge of the Otay River Valley. 110850010:6/92 3-5 Ij SECTION 4 PROJECT TEAM ALTERNATIVE The Project Team Alternative also represents a moderate level of development on the Olay Ranch property. Approximately 6,317 acres of land would support the development of a maximum of 24,064 residential dwelling units for an estimated population increase of 67,046 residents. The Project Team Alternative differs from the others mainly on its emphasis on multifamily residences (Le., 60.4 percent of the total) and reliance on clustering. Proportionally, this alternative places more dwelling units on the Otay River parcel and fewer on the two eastern parcels. Approximately 39.6 percent of the units proposed under this alternative would be single-family homes. In general, a full range of residential densities would occur on the Otay River parcel, density being higher there than on the other two parcels (Table 4). A majority of the Otay River parcel units would be located near SR-125, (Figure 4) and the net residential density on the Otay River parcel would average 8.04 du/ac. Residential uses would be arranged in villages, each with its own mixed use village center. Low density residential uses would surround the periphery of Wolf Canyon on the Otay River parcel, occur on the foothills of the Jamul Mountains on the Proctor Valley parcel, and in the foothills and eastern portions of the San Y sidro parcel. Large lots (2 to 4 acres) would be planned in the vicinity of the existing Jamul community (for a net residential density of 1.75 du/ac) and on the eastern portions of the San Ysidro parcel, near Dulzura (for a net residential density of 0.75 du/ac). A greenbelt area or wildlife corridor would separate the low density residential from the moderate use areas in both cases. To complete the community under the Projec.t Team Alternative, the land use plan proposes 2,355 acres of non-residential development, including commercial, industrial, and public/quasi-public uses (i.e., schools and park/recreation acreage). The majority of the commercial uses would be distributed among several village centers throughout the Otay River parcel and occur within two small parcels (approximately 10 acres each) on the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro parcels, respectively. In addition to the industrial area designated by the City of San Diego for property south of the Otay River Valley, the Otay River parcel would also support limited manufacturing/industrial land uses in the southwestern comer, adjacent to the Otay Landfill, and research and development uses in the central portion of the parcel. A 384-acre university site is proposed between the research industrial area and the northern edge of the Otay River Valley, west of Salt Creek. Public facilities proposed under this alternative include II elementary schools and 2 junior 110850010:6/92 4-1 \~ Table 4 LAND USE STATISTICS FOR PROJECT TEAM ALTERNATIVE Otoy River Proctor Valley San Ysldro Otay Ranch' Residcntial Pureel Parcel Parcel Total Density Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Land Use Designation (duJac) Acres Units Acres Unils Acres Units Acres Units RESIDENTIAL Low Ot03 675 1,076 1,658 1,809 2,102 1,030 4,435 3,915 Low Mediwn 3t06 749 3,351 308 1,426 73 315 1,130 5,092 Mediwn 61011 354 2,497 7 68 56 416 417 2,981 Mediwn High 11 to 18 524 6,616 524 6,616 High 18-27 -.ill -.12QQ n --1.1i ...1.2QQ - - Total Residential 2,446 17,500 1,973 3,303 2,231 1,761 6,650 22,564 OFFlCE,lCOMMERCIAL Retail Commerical 88 7 12 107 Freeway Commerical 61 61 INDUSTRIAL General Industrial 222 222 Research Industrial 152 152 Limited Manufacturing 169 169 PUBLICIQUASI-PUBLIC Publie Facilities/Schools 244 24 10 278 University Site 384 384 PARKS/SQUARES 215 37 16 268 EASTERN URBAN CENTER Residential 55 1,500 55 1,500 Retail Commerical 76 76 General Office 100 100 Park 30 30 PubliclQuasi-Public 25 25 RESORT 236 236 CONFERENCE CENTER 161 161 OPEN SPACE NalUral 4,747 5,415 3,280 13,442 ManufaclUred 518 62 6 586 FREEWAY ~ ~ TOTALS 9,618 19,000 7,915 3,303 5,555 1,761 23,088 24,064 " - Source: Robert Hein. William Frost &: ASJociaw, Project Team Land Use Allerna/ives. 0,,,, Ranch. 1990; as rt:lljsed by O,lUlI. /992. V\ '" , f ) '. ./', '\ '..'- '" ) I f , " \, ./ .-".,-. \" '\ '- \ ,\ r ", ,,' , , " \)lothu - " 'Iloun,.,. /' \, ., I , , , I J , , :./ '\ . r, \ ,', ,,-...I / / \ 'y \ " / r" r ,/'~ / : /"b. -...--............. I "-.--1 ,-,),).. ""~' ' ,k ~, "....."\-.." / ----- L '. --'\ \\ _.' '~" /-- L3r/(~' - --, -', _\-\ '- \ '- -, . . '- """- \ ,\. ) i ,./ >- __TI <.-'--, -~- '~ .... .J r ", '> : \ , \ , / / -,~ ,--I. / / " __-i ,j :, _J / S _",,,,\ ( /, ) .--- ) : '- ,^ ^, ,J \, " j ) \, r I / _.....l.... " / / SIr /--, i ~~ '-...- s, " /' \ ",Otay Moun. t.ain " " "--.'" I : 1 \ ': " \ \ - \ . . ..-"-- / ' , / /' ... .' L...-._..'-" ..........-.............C:._.......- .-",/ L, ~ -..t, :~.,'-.__..-...__ , '-, " '" ~"''- 1 ) I - -~ Q lIlOO , , ,/" '-,.._" . . I " ,.J - .... ;,f o ; --{ OlD FEET JGDEN I... . Project Team Alternative [~ LEGEND I' ,i,;,:1 Open Space I I Man Made Open Space * Potential Active Recreational Areas Residential 13 Low 3 L2 Low 2 11 Low 1 L Low LM Low Medium M Medium MH Medium High H High Commercial RC Retail Commercial FC Freeway Commercial Industrial RD Research/Development , lsd City of San Diego Industnal I Limited Manufacturmg Public & Open Space PQ Public & Quasi Pu blic HS High School JH Junior High School ES Elementary School NP Neighborhood Park CP Community Park Special Plan Area EUC Eastern Urban Center R Resort CC Conference Center ....... Hwy 125 Parkway Transit corridor Primary arterials "A" Way Otay Ranch property --- --- FIGURE 4 I high schools. A high school site is planned on an outparcel which is currently owned by the FAA. As noted in Table 4, 268 acres of this alternative are devoted to community and neighborhood parks, and approximately 14,028 acres to natural and man-made open space uses, including passive recreation areas. The majority of the open space proposed under this alternative (13,442 acres) would be placed in a managed preserve with implementation of a resource management plan. A botanical garden would be developed in the community park alongside the Salt Creek open space. An extensive greenbelt system (composed of man-made open space and parkways) along most of the arterial roadways would link all portions of the Otay River parcel and open space areas. Five special plan areas are identified under the Project Team Alternative: Eastern Urban Center, Proctor Valley resort, Proctor Valley conference center, Village Centers, and potential active recreation areas within the Otay River Valley. The Eastern Urban Center would comprise 286 acres of mixed, but predominantly high density residential, uses located in the center of the Otay River parcel. The resort is planned for two locations along the northern shore of Lower Otay Lake, south of Otay Lakes Road. The resort would contain a medium to low-density golf course community, a tourist-oriented commercial center, and rural residential area. The conference center would be situated at the same location as in the Phase I-Progress Plan, Fourth, Low Density, and New Town Plan alternatives. The village centers would feature mixed residential, civic, and commercial uses. Four active recreation areas would be situated in the Otay River Valley. The circulation plan of the Project Team Alternative proposes a series of prime arterials and major and collector roadways to provide access to the entire site (Figure 4). Four crossings of the Otay River Valley are proposed and include extensions of SR-125 and Heritage Road and two new roadways, Alta Road and La Media Road. An additional roadway, "A" Way, is potentially proposed south of Lower Otay Lake to provide access between the Otay River and San Ysidro parcels. This access will only be constructed if the detailed traffic analysis identifies a need for the roadway. As with other project alternatives, a transit corridor is designated on the Otay River parcel to supplement the proposed roadway network. The . corridor would run from western Telegraph Canyon Road through two village centers east of the freeway, freeway commercial areas, Eastern Urban Center, university site, and research industrial area. The transit corridor would link to the SR-125 alignment near the 110850010:6/92 4-5 /1 southern slopes of the river valley before entering the Gtay Mesa industrial area. The proposed villages are arranged to maximize transit use opportunities. 110850010,6/92 4-6 -- l~ SECTION 5 COMPOSITE GENERAL PLANS ALTERNATIVE 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 (Table 5 and Figure 5). 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. Implementation of the City of Chula Vista land use designations on the Otay River parcel would allow for up to 12,112 single-family residences (70.9 percent of total) and 4,971 multifamily units. The county's land use designations on the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro parcels would result in the construction of a maximum of 3,387 single-family residences. The City of San Diego land use plans do not include a residential component for the project area. Overall, buildout of this alternative would involve a maximum of 20,470 dwelling units at an average net density of 0.85 dulac, and generate approximately 62,487 additional residents in the southern San Diego County area. Approximately 80.6 percent of the homes would be single-family, while the balance would be multifamily residences. The majority of the residences and the higher development densities would occur on the Otay River parcel, at an average net density of 4.2 dulac, in comparison to the 0.12 dulac density on the eastern parcels. Higher density uses would be concentrated in the center of the parcel, with low density (0-3 dulac) development on the northern slopes of the Otay River Valley. It is assumed that amendments to the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista general plans would not be required for this alternative. The county land use designations only allow for residential development on the San Ysidro and Proctor Valley parcels, but the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista provide acreage dedicated to non-residential use to service residences on the Otay River parcel. Approximately 1,521 acres onsite would be devoted to commercial, industrial/office, and public/quasi-public uses. Within the Eastern Urban Center of the Eastern Territories Plan, professional and administrative commercial (offices) and retail uses are planned. Research and limited manufacturing uses are proposed adjacent to the freeway and a 160-acre university site. Additional industrial lands are planned on the Otay Mesa portion within the City of San Diego. Public uses associated with the Chula Vista plan include three 110850010:6/92 5-1 l' Table 5 LAND USE STATISTICS FOR COMPOSITE GENERAL PLANS ALTERNATIVE Otay River Proctor Valley San Ysidro Otay Ranch Residential Parcel Parcel Parcel Total Density Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Land Use Designation (du/ac) Acres Units Acres Unils Acres UnilS Acres UnilS RESIDENTIAL Multiple Rural 1 du/4-8-20 ac 7,483 1,870 5,555 1,389 13,038 3,259 Estate 1 du/2-4 ac 255 128 255 128 Low 0103 1,151 3,453 1,151 3,453 Low Medium 3106 1,498 8,988 1,498 8,988 Medium 6 to 11 282 3,102 282 3,102 Medium High 111018 High 18-27 - -- - - Total Residential: 2,931 15,543 7,738 1,998 5,555 1,389 16,224 18,930 COMMERCIAI.,()FF1CE Relail Commercial 25 25 General Office 17 17 INDUSTRIAL Research Industrial 541 541 General Industrial 358 358 PUBLIC, QUASI-PUBLIC AND PARKS Public & Quasi Public 309 20 329 Parks and R=ealion 772 772 EASTERN URBAN CENTER Residential 34 1,540 34 1,540 Relail Commerical 100 100 General Office 151 151 AGRICULTURE 69 157 226 OPEN SPACE illl - 4.311 1Uf ALS 9,618 17 ,083 7,915 1,998 5,555 1,389 23,088 20,470 Source: City o/Chuta Vista (/990) andCounly o/San Diego (1984); as revised by Ogden /992. )--> 0 , \ , 'T '" "'" ) '" . , / ""_/"\.\ i [" \'...... ./ ~"'-"'''--''' . J.T'. .. i- /' Sar:.' Miguel ';:.,. _ ,.\ " "'1:'1-.: Mountaio_ -"\.', . \.. " ".-..' ,........./ .-,' .... .~. , ' I /........... ..< ('" ..~) j.- './ \ I. .: lIJlU' '" II>) \'y' i' ,/ \.....,..1\"" (... -to. ...-\ \. : , r-- -...... -, 4: ,"'~ i'!+J ,...J '- ..~ j /" L-../,Ll..l.....(.. .--/ I ~.~l-J./J..\ \ " \1 ':..,/ I -<:- ~ I ; ~..:::"''''' . / 1~'y"L "-'l~"" ~ \ I:, I .<.~j. ',...--...A , , rl- , ;tj'.......-.... \', j/( I ...-.,",-..' "." J l I "i.'.... -- ( --. ,..\'f' "", '. l \ I.. r'" \ ..'-T...........,'- ~ ,,~ I':.r............~, f')1;'> 'v' T,:/ "\ ~ ~r-, ._............,- 'y :'~ ~ ./ ". ~ I . IIlllJ \ .. '. " · -..'-.......... "' - J I ," m -- . . L.. J-" ;,:! : ~ ',L...r.-. 1,' ./1<IlU i: .~, f' .~ / .. ,.r-",:\-:''', / .' I "-", 1\ "/ ..-...- L .J-..'-\ \ \ . / . .. -"/. /..-. . '... <~...~./' nil (/ ............J..,j /" ' " 1'/ :~""" !...i '...... : 7"... ." I<IlU '~_ t ) "'\"\ \. ...''' _ y)..,- ,\~"I..' '\. \ ),1 1<, ;'~"t-,. I<IlU '-'.,' , \.\.. \. > '. . . " I'" 0.:... "'" ''-. \ , ': "< ....,.. :,. -:: "..,,,...~ '-..,-., '-\---_"'\1,-0 ...<'" ,"', i ./ \. ,... ~ - +- J'.\. ~...L ';"", ._, ...../ ~ 'L.."-r"" II <,.........r...-' ,_ I ' ",. \.,' .\ 't.., .' "- "...~., (', .., I : '" r.-............ _ . " ;.;,: \. , - l.,- \ I<IlU \. .i........ " '''-'' .. j : ) "'!-.., '. .' ~ I'd ". f'" Lr--q....... '..I ...1,:-""t'"_J '> [" .., ~'\' 1 :)....~""!' - /-\ ' (! .: ~ \.. I \ 'j t':-..). I 'L.. ~.L.. . ..-1 j, '\' (..."':7/ , __~ /'.J.....:....... L...'~J ',,- ~ "'\ \. ". 'J", / \:, (:"/ .,' .,~..." <, lIIM".~:,....r..L '-...- _'" \ ;;...i'l N S .~.;( (:' " \ /, // "L ~_' ~ "'1...<...../,:-"" :--..O\:\) N '-" /: '):, ... / I ./..~...~. -t _I' " '"'' ) '\. ' , -:~\~~'" ...... ' S \\'\\t......~ ~. !.'.' '. -(., _.' I' I ; "". "{ ,.)" ,.. .., Cta,.. /II,.~ f : ~\ '...- , ..., Mount.,in ''''-'$ S ,f- ,~ .........' { '. , " , """ \ \ ''I. r ", .' "- i " \.......- . "Yow:ltabl " / / \ -, '. , \ I.........., : \ \ ' '^" \ / /' _.../ '- ........ ..._..._..i,L..,"",<... ._ ..._..,J ".' . ...............- "'-. .-' . ",,: ...-"'~ ..' I r ... .-....(~~_...-~..._..._.. 'r..,- \ '- { -'-" " ,.- "'-.' .- , , . \ -- '\ . / ~GDEN Composite General Plans Alternative ..... /' , \{ _.....l.. LEGEND r!'!illl:l!!~j!:!i Open Space I I Man Made Open Space Residential L Low lJ.l Low Medium M Medium YH Medium High H High EST Fm.a te YRU Multiple Rural Use Commercial RC Retail Commercial PA Professional & Administration Industrial RD Research & Umited Manufacturing Isd City of San Diego Industrial Public & Qpen Space PQ Public & Quasi Public P/SP Public/Semi-Public PR Park & Recreation Special Plan Area EUC Eastern Urban Center AG Intensive Agriculture AGsd City of San Diego Agriculture ...... . Hwy 125 Parkway Transit corridor Primary arterials Olay Ranch property -- 0 Q lIOOO I I FEET elementary school sites, a single junior high school site, and a high school site. Community and neighborhood parks are distributed throughout the Gtay River parcel. The undeveloped 4,311 acres of this alternative, located on the Otay River parcel, would be left as open space, including the Gtay River Valley and the Salt Creek area. Agriculture would occupy 226 acres onsite. The Composite General Plans Alternative does not preserve open space in the eastern parcels. A greenbelt trail system is proposed under the City of Chula Vista General Plan through the Gtay River Valley, the Salt Creek drainage, and up to the southern shore of Lower Otay Lake. No trail system is proposed beyond the lake under the county General Plan. Plans for the Gtay Valley Regional Park would continue evolving and be implemented during buildout. A separate comprehensive resource management plan would not be adopted to conserve and manage sensitive biological and cultural resources onsite. Resources on portions of the alternative within the eastern parcels would be protected by the Multiple Species, Wildlife, and Open Space Plan currently being prepared by the County. The roadway network on the Gtay River parcel includes two river valley crossings, one by SR-125 and the other would be Heritage Road. Eastern extensions of Orange A venue and Otay Valley Road would provide circulation on the Otay River parcel. No alignments have been identified for local roadways accessing the eastern parcels; however, roadway improvements on the San Ysidro and Proctor Valley parcels would follow county standards. Otay Lakes and Proctor Valley roads would not be realigned, and an access road would not be constructed around the southern shore of Lower Otay Lake. Roadway improvements within the City of San Diego industrial area, as adopted in the communitynplan, would include Otay Valley Road and widening o.f Lonestar Road, and similar facilities. 110850010,6192 5-5 J,~ SECTION 6 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. The local population would increase by approximately 32,544 residents upon buildout of the Low Density Alternative (fable 6). Approximately 87.9 percent of the new units would be single-family, while the remaining 12.1 percent would be multifamily units. This alternative emphasizes single-family residential and represents the second lowest development density of the project alternatives evaluated in this document In comparison to the eastern parcels, residential densities would be higher on the atay River parcel (Figure 6) and would result in an average net density of 3.06 du/ac. Moderate density residential would be situated in the center of the Otay River parcel and in the vicinity of the freeway. A majority of the peripheral residential areas would feature low density development (up to 3 du/ac). No land would be dedicated to medium-high or high density residential use anywhere onsite and no residences would be situated in the Eastern Urban Center. Residential areas throughout the Proctor Valley parcel would be characterized by large lots (1 to 2 acres), slightly decreasing in size in the vicinity of Jamul (1 to 4 acre minimums). This same pattern of large residential lots would be present above the northern shore of Lower Otay Lake, resulting in an average net density across the parcel of 0.53 du/ac. The San Ysidro parcel would also feature rural, large lot residential development under this alternative (at an average net density of 0.29 du/ac). The fundamental difference between this land use pattern and the New Town Plan, Phase 1- Progress Plan, Fourth and Project Team alternatives is that the residential areas would not be arranged in villages. The densities would be too low to make such an arrangement feasible. Commercial and industrial land uses are reduced in size under this alternative compared to other alternatives and represent approximately 911 acres of the development on the property. A majority of the commercial acreage is contained in the Eastern Urban Center, near the center of the Otay River parcel. The remaining commercial acreage is distributed among several small areas across the atay River parcel and at a single location within the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro parcels. In addition to the industrial lands on Otay Mesa, limited manufacturing uses are planned in the vicinity of the industrial area along atay Valley Road near the landfill. The research and development uses would occur in the 110850010#92 6-1 d3 Table 6 LAND USE STATISTICS FOR LOW DENSITY ALTERNATIVE Otay River Proctor Valley San Ysldro Otay Ranch Residential Parcel Parcel Parcel Total Density Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Land Use Designation (dulac) Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units RESIDENTIAL Low 0103 2,086 3,186 1,871 1,013 2,112 681 6,069 4,880 Low Medium 3t06 1,163 4,158 1,163 4,158 Medium 61011 191 1,249 191 1,249 Medium High lito 18 High 18-27 - - - - TOlal Residential 3,440 8,593 1,871 1,013 2,112 681 7,423 10,287 COMMERCIAL Freeway 63 63 RclAil 86 17 12 115 INDUSTRIAL Umited Manufacturing 385 385 Research Industrial 140 140 PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC Public FacililieslSchools 191 191 University Site 213 213 PARKSISQUARES 138 19 7 164 EASTERN URBAN CENTER Relail Conuoon:ial 208 208 RESORT 203 203 CONFERENCE CENTER 160 160 OPEN SPACE! Namral 4,448 5,588 3,421 13,457 ManufaclUred 215 57 3 275 FREEWAY ---2.l ---2.l TOTALS 9,618 8,593 7,915 1,013 5,555 681 23,088 10,287 SoIlTce: RobuI Be;,., William Fro~t &. A.r.rocial.tJ'. Project Team Land Use A.llufCali."u. Olay Ranclt, 1990; tU rellised by Ogdt:fI/992. ~ ...r: I \ - 'T '" " ) .' , ) '/'. '.-'- '" \ I , I.. ) .. /' " " '--'.",-. , \ ,\ r ". .' "- i -'. \..u..r _ ' .lImm.... .~ ~ \ , , ;" J . \ : .. " V \ \ .'. ..-..j / / \ '- .r /' " "\'''''''' /,". '{ ~~ '...- S. '1U""""'>-i ~ J '---., ... <1\- ILl ;....1 l :- "("', (' '\ \. ", '-"'-'" '. t-t\ 1 N S .A >-.O'V N.. / ' """ '- .... ...) I <. _.' /., '. " )... '. '. ',Otay : '\ Moun. t.ain ( ". \. \ \.....- \. <" / ).. :.......... ,'- '-" ..~. '-, '\ .I r"', > ' \ . \ '. .^-, " ..-\ ./ ". -' oj .j' '. .J ."'\ ) / .,r" ..,,;/ ..' .' ,/ (../ . ';' j ..~ I )'. , I , .. ^. I ) { I '. \ , '-. ( ....-.....i..: ./ '" ........ , , .~. '. ........ ..._..._..i.~~""'<... -' ,,__ "'-" .I " '- .r' r ._ . '--" -. \ " .-...~ ,/ .' . I r" ... ............... .........L..._...-.. \...-.' ....... .)-........ \ , . ",' '- . '''-,' .~ ) \ I ..........-.. . . I '. ..J _ Roo' .-{ . / eu uGDEN ..... Low Density Alternative /. '.~ LEGEND 1m ........__n....n._._ ._._.__.._--_._--~.~. ~~i~!~f~~~~~~~~~{ I I Open Space Man Made Open Space Residential 1.3 Low 3 12 Low 2 L1 Low 1 L Low 1M Low MediUm M Medium MH Medium High H High Commercial RC Retail Commercial FC Freeway Commercial Industrial RD Research/Development Isd City of San Diego Industrial I Limited Manufacturing Public & Open Space PQ Public & Quasi Public HS High School JH Junior High School ES Elementary School NP Neighborhood Park CP Community Park Soecial Plan Area EUC Eastern Urban Center R Resort CC Conference Center ...... . Hwy 125 Parkway Transit corridor Primary arterials "A" Way Otay Ranch property --- --- -- o , Q liOOO , FEET FIGURE ~5 I center of the Otay River parcel, near the East Orange Avenue interchange with SR-125. The remaining non-residential acreage would be devoted to schools, parks, and other public/quasi-public facilities. The Low Density Alternative proposes five elementary- school sites and one junior high school site on the Otay River parcel. A high school site is proposed on the property currently occupied by the FAA. No school acreage is planned for the eastern parcels. Seven neighborhood parks and three community parks are planned under this alternative, a majority of which would be located on the Omy River parcel. Along with the Eastern Urban Center, the Proctor Valley resort and conference center are identified as special plan areas for future planning studies. As under other project alternatives, the resort would be located along the northern shore of Lower Otay Lake. Two conference center locations are identified, a smaller one in a narrow drainage of the Jamul Mountains and a s~cond on the property of the Ranch House. The smaller site is the same conference center ~ocation proposed in the New To:-vn Plan, Project Team, Fourth, and Environmental alternatives. In addition, a 213-acre site for a community college or private university is identified near the Salt Creek open space. The remaining undeveloped portion of the Low Density Alternative, 13,457 acres, would be dedicated to natural open space. The open space system would link the Otay River Valley, San Ysidro mountain area, and the Jamul Mountains. As in the other project alternatives, a greenbelt system between the developed areas is proposed to connect the natural areas with the local park facilities and residential areas, and a trail system travels throughout the open space. No resource management plan would be adopted to protect the resources within natural open space, since the lower densities would not make such a plan feasible. Instead, the County's Multiple Species, Wildlife, and Open Space Plan would protect the resources of Otay Ranch. The circulation system of the Low Density Alternative would be composed of primary and major roadways interconnected with smaller collector streets. Three Otay River Valley crossings are planned and include SR-125, Hunte Parkway, and Heritage Roadway. The eastern extensions of Telegraph Canyon, Orange Avenue, and Otay Valley Road would form interchanges with the freeway on the Otay Ranch property. Otay Lakes Road would be realigned to a more northerly location, while the segment along the lakeshore would be dedicated to pedestrian use through the resort. An access road around the southern tip of Lower Otay Lake, "A" Way, is preliminarily proposed if traffic analyses indicate that it is necessary for local circulation. The transit corridor would strictly parallel the freeway the 110850010,6/92 6-5 20 entire length through the Otay River parcel, rather than traversing through residential, commercial, and industrial lands. 110850010:6/92 6.6 21 SECTION 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AL TERNA TIVE This alternative was developed to minimize environmental impacts of the proposed project, especially effects on steep slopes (greater than 25 percent) and sensitive biological and archaeological resources. In comparison to 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 (Table 7). The local population would increase by 28,863 residents upon buildout of the Environmental Alternative. Approximately 73.4 percent of the homes would be single-family detached units, while the remainder would be multifamily attached units. As illustrated in Figure 7, a majority of the residential units would be situated on the Otay River parcel and developed in clusters of low, low-medium, and medium densities .(average net density of 4.15 du/ac). No residential units would be located in the Eastern Urban Center. Development on the Proctor Valley parcel would be restricted to an area of large lot single-family residential (0.5 to 1 du/ac) above Lower Otay Lake and a small area of low density residential adjacent to the community of Jamul, making for an average net density of 0.38 du/ac. Large lot single-family development on the San Ysidro parcel would occur at an average residential net density of 0.33 du/ac and be restricted to the nonheastern ponion of the propeny. Residences would not be arranged in villages. Under the Environmental Alternative, 16,981 acres of the 23,088 acre property would remain as open space, including the San Ysidro and Jamul Mountains areas. Many of the open space areas are characterized by slopes over 25 percent. A large ponion of the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro parcels would be contained in the proposed open space system. No formal protection of resources would, however, occur since a resource management plan would not be proposed. Instead, Otay Ranch would be subject to the provisions of the Multiple Species, Wildlife, and Open Space Plan currently being developed by the County. To supplement the open space onsite, community and neighborhood parks are planned as active recreation areas. In addition to residential, park,Oand open space uses, this alternative proposes commercial uses along the freeway and retail commercial uses distributed throughout the Otay River parcel. 110850010,6/92 7-1 2'7; Table 7 LAND USE STATISTICS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE Olay River Proclor Valley San Ysidro Olay Ranch Residential Parcel Parcel Parcel Tolal Density Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Land Use Designation (du/ac) Acres UnilS Acres UnilS Acres UnilS Acres UnilS RESIDENTIAL Low Ot03 799 1,496 573 205 1,718 572 3,090 2,273 Low Mediwn 3t06 1,187 4,513 1,187 4,513 Mediwn 6to 11 276 2,465 276 2,465 Medium High lito 18 High 18-27 -- - -- - - - Total Residemial 2,262 8,474 573 205 1,718 572 4,553 9,251 OOMMERCIAL Retail Commercial 78 78 Freeway Commercial 62 62 INDUSTRIAL Research Industrial 62 62 PUBLlCIQUASI-PUBLlC Public Facilities/Schools 209 209 University Site 225 225 PARKS/SQUARES III 7 118 EASTERN URBAN CENTER Retail Commercial 186 186 RESORT 40 40 CONFERENCE CENTER 132 132 OPEN SPACE Natural 5,999 7,152 3,830 16,981 Manufactured 339 18 357 . FREEWAY -8..5. -8..5. TOTALS 9,618 8,474 7,915 205 5,555 572 23,088 9,251 '. ~ SOUTct .. Robert Bt.tn, William Frost &. Auociatu. Project Team Land Use AllertUlI;vl!S - Olay Randl, 1990; a.r revised by Ogdell, 1992. I , I ) ) .. - ./ \ .,/'. '\ '..'- ',. ...... \ ". '""\ '" \. \ '. " .. I ". 1 ..' I... , '. \ \, f / /' ,\.' ~,:::,:,~~;~~... ~: / 11"'::1 \~ ;". . . y i J.I". .-. (\ ~u:;,"' t /' .,/./ eo -~;;':"""""-. -. L l' '. ........-......... / "I..r-x"':. ..-...-.1 ........"\\ ...-' .~. '-;-./ .~,.,.........,...,..., ( . ,. "C" ... \ " ':.... '.. \ : '. ': '. "- '- \ \." , I '. .- I L,':->- '. f I :'. - ...... '.. ...........,... \...... - ' -'IlIount.aiJ:l I """"'''&''--:-'''-''' j /' \ ~ j/ \ \ \ .' . : '..-....1 / " / ,r '\ \" / \" r" '", ./ /' / s ..-1 / '. . ...-1 .j :. .J / ...., , .1 ~ '" ~ ' \ . \. ,,:..... ,.. / ,. ,:7 I / :./ / :~ i" , ! i : , ^. ./ ..) / , , ( ) .._....i... ./ \ .. /' r " '- " """. ...--..' L. _ -.......... j..-...-hi.... ""'<.~~' .__ ".-... ...... '-........... .,\.., " /,.- ,..-"-' . / f" ... L."_"'-" .-....~~.._...-r- .-' Q 6000 . .- f '- ) r....... \ .~ o , /. '- . "'-,' , . - .... FEET \ I " -' .... ....{ . / dGDEN Environmental Alternative ..... LEGEND I........j Open Space .-...................... .........-.................... .-..-.-.,............. ._.......-................. ._n..___._._..._.... .-....-....,...-........ ........._.._.'.e... ..__...._......._n_n.n. I I Man Made Open Space Residential 13 Low 3 12 Low 2 U Low 1 L Low 1M Low Medium M Medium MH Medium High H High Commercial RC Retail Commercial FC Freeway Commercial Industrial RD Research/Development Isd City of San Diego Industrial I Limited Manufacturing Public & Open Space PQ Public & Quasi Public HS High School JH Junior High School ES Elementary School NP Neighborhood Park CP Community Park Special Plan Area EUe Eastern Urban Center R Resort ce Conference Center ....... H wy 125 Parkway Transit corridor Primary arterials Otay Ranch property F I G U R E 7 2fJ I The Environmental Alternative specifies four special plan areas for detailed evaluation in the future: the Eastern Urban Center on the Otay River parcel, a conference center on the Ranch House property between the. lakes, a resort on the northern shore overlooking Lower Otay Lake, and several village centers (permitting mixed residential, civic, and commercial uses). Several elementary, junior high, and high school, and a 225-acre university site are also planned for the Otay River parcel under this alternative. Infrastructure plans are similar to those of the other alternatives, although sizing of facilities would be reduced. Regional access to the site would be gained from the future extension of SR-125 and eastern extensions of East Orange Avenue, Otay Valley Road, East H Street, and East Palomar Street. As part of the proposed circulation plan, the Environmental Alternative features two Otay River Valley crossings, SR-125 and Heritage Road, and a public transit corridor paralleling the entire length of the freeway. Overall, roadway widths would be reduced under this alternative due. to decreased vehicle generation. 110850010#92 7-5 3\ SECTION 8 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the No Project Alternative, a coordinated planned community would not be developed, and the property would remain in its present condition as rural agricultural land and undeveloped open space (refer to Section 3 for a description of the existing conditions). It is anticipated that dry farming and grazing uses would continue to occur on the majority of the property. No formal resource management plan for the protection of biological and cultural resources would be implemented. The eastern extension of East Orange Avenue and construction of Hunte Parkway would still occur to accommodate regional traffic from the EastLake development, but both roadways would terminate at the edges of EastLake. The SR-125 could still be extended through the Otay Ranch propeny by Caltrans. 110850010,6/92 8-1 32 SECTION 9 PHASE II-PROGRESS PLAN ALTERNATIVE The most recent land use plan developed for the Otay Ranch propeny is the Phase II-Progress Plan Alternative. Under the Phase II-Progress Plan Alternative, a maximum of 30,059 dwelling units would be constructed, resulting in a population of approximately 86,962. These dwelling unit and population projections include approximately 170 acres of development on the Otay River parcel that will be transferred to EastLake for inclusion in a separate General Development Plan (refer to Table 9 for details). The EastLake acreage was included in this alternative to enable the EIR to evaluate the same land area (23,088 acres) as the other project alternatives. In addition to residential acreage, the EastLake ponion of this alternative contains land designated for office, freeway commercial, and open space use. The Phase II-Progress Plan falls between the Phase I-Progress Plan Alternative and the Founh Alternative in terms of developed area. Residential uses would be located on 8,038 acres, approximately 55 percent of the total being detached homes. Figure 9 illustrates land uses proposed for the Phase II-Progress Plan Alternative. 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. Overall, residential densities would generally decrease from west to east, ranging from 3 to 18 du/ac near the urban/suburban uses in Chula Vista to 0.5 du/ac in the more rural areas of Jamul and Dulzura. 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 a management preserve, would be implemented for this alternative. The Otay River parcel would be dominated by the Eastern Urban Center (EUC). This mixed use area of 289 acres would feature a wide variety of office-professional, retail commercial, commercial, civic, cultural, park, and high density residential uses. Within the EUC, pedestrian traffic would be encouraged by the close proximity and mixed nature of the uses. The extension of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) line, which would run north to south through the EUC. would also encourage non-vehicular travel. An east-west linear park would connect the EUC to the other villages and the open space preserves in Salt and 110850010:6/92 9-1 33 Table 9 LAND USE STATISTICS FOR PHASE II-PROGRESS PLAN Olay River Proelor Valley San Ysidro Ol.y Ranch Residenti.1 I'.reel I'.reel 1'. ree I 1'01.1 Density Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Land Use Designation (du/ac) Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units RESIDENTIAL V cry Low Oto 1 686 272 858 144 1,544 416 Low 1t03 242 367 863 1,406 109 307 1,214 2080 Low-Medium 3t06 2,435 10,561 348 924 197 535 2,980 12,020 Mediwn 6 to 11 244 1,876 83 489 327 2,365 Medium-High lito 18 556 7,358 105 1,181 36 508 697 9,047 Limited Development Area -3M --.Wi -llii ....l.!lA 1J..8.5. ....rul Subtotal Residemial: 3,477 20,162 2,454 4,398 2,016 1,598 7,941 26,158 COMMERCIAL Freeway Commercial 77 77 Mixed Use. 270 86 150 23 379 150 INDUSTRIAL Limited Manufacturing 313 313 PUBLICIQUASI-PUBLIC Public Facilities 77 77 Schools 67 4 5 76.. PARKS 76 8 84... EASTERN URBAN CENTER Residemial 70 2,600 N/A N/A 70 2,600 Conunercial 45 45 Office 105 105 PubliclQuasi-public 14 14 School 10 10 Park 45 45 RESORT 213 213 OPEN SPACE Sensitive Resources SlUdy Are. 62 14 76 Manuf.ctured 582 107 41 730 Scenic Corridor 812 261 34 1,107 N.1Ura1 3,212 4,768 3,422 11,402 FREEWAY .....l.Jl.l --1.8l (.N Otay Ranch Subtotal: 9,449 22,762 7,915 4,548 5,555 1,598 22,919 28,908 .-C UJ \..n Table 9 (Conlinued) LAND USE STATISTICS FOR PHASE II-PROGRESS PLAN Land Use Designation Residential Density (du/ac) Olay River Parcel Dwelling Acres Units Proctor Valley Parcel Dwelling Acres Units San Ysldro Parcel Dwelling Acres Units Olay Raneh Tolal Dwelling Acres Units EASTLAKE Low-Medium Residential Medium-High Residential High Residential Office Freeway Commercial Open Space EaslLake Subtotal: TOTALS 28 45 24 22 45 ----2 169 9,618 72 596 483 N/A N/A 5,555 1,598 28 45 24 22 45 --1 72 726 483 1,151 23,913 7,915 4,548 169 23,088 1,151 30,059 . Mixed use category varies by village and includes acreage for commercial. community purpose faciJities and parkland. .. Additional 280 acres of schools combined wilh mixed use and residential acreage. ... Additional ]22 acres of parks combined with mixed use and residential acreage. Source: FORMA Syslems.1992j as revised by Ogden, 1992. Wolf Canyons. In general, villages around the EVC would decrease in residential density with distance from the EVC. Each village would be internally designed to encourage pedestrian traffic featuring mixed-use village centers near the core. All villages would be connected by a system of paths and trails. Other major uses on the Olay River parcel would include a regional park in the Olay River Valley and City of San Diego industrial land south of Olay River. The regional park would be part of a 12,509-acre open space system for this alternative. A major four-year university may locate in the far eastern portion of the Olay River parcel adjacent to Wuesle Road, although actual acreage has not been allocated under this land use plan. Land uses on the Proctor Valley parcel would generally be confined to three geographically distinct areas arranged around the J amul Mountains. These three areas include the resort center village, Central Proctor Valley Villag~, and North Procto~ Valley. The resort center village consists of 793 acres and would include 2,438 homes and a destination resort. This village would be located on the mesa northeast of Lower Otay Lake. It is anticipated that the resort would be developed with a village concept, residential neighborhoods being arranged around the resort. Public and visual access would be preserved and enhanced through a promenade (currently Otay Lakes Road) around the southern boundary of the resort next to the northern lakeshore. The Central Proctor Valley village would be located in a gently rolling valley, bounded by San Miguel Mountain on the west and the Jamul Mountains to the east. Residential densities would vary from low to low-medium to medium, with one village center. Approximately 1,712 homes would be located in this 827-acre village. A golf course or equestrian complex would be situated within this portion of the project. The 1,104-acre North Proctor Valley area would allow for 398 residences. Lots would be a minimum of 2 acres in size, with most areas featuring lots of 3-acre average size. No villages would be placed in this area, and potentially sensitive areas, i.e., limited development land use category, would be evaluated in the future to determine development restrictions in those areas. Land uses on the San Ysidro parcel would be clustered in two distinct areas. A small Estate Village would be located on the western portion of the parcel in a village of approximately 1,350 homes located on 409 acres. A mixed-use village center would also be situated near the residences. Circulation would be provided by rural roads, which would attempt to follow natural topographic contours. The eastern portion of this parcel 110850010:6/92 9-4 3G -- '. "'" J ) " '-".,. Sa~' MlgU.:~ "~ Mou.nt..ain_ ... ' "'-.. 'I I / r~" / ij 'y" iN: i ~ L \ 0- "-" \. \ '. " .. f'" 1 ." ; . \.......- ; -'Wouot.a1ll I : I i .: . \ "- , '" /' ". / / \ f "......... \..... \.. "- ~ .-{'" ) ....... /' w ,..._... . k : " .-'. \ \...~. '- " " u-.,. ......... 1'":":}:~:T:1 ">-~:wn':::'i~.L ~ "'''':L~ ir~<'" ''1 '~"'-.'. ~A 1 .,,<...J ":-.., O\~ ~" ....::, 0 )A: "1 '-,....-.. '\il'~ .'. S \ '. "" .., "-. ""'h. '{ . " r-... ", Otay .' '"' ..........-- 1 : ""'I Moun.t.ain. s.f >~ . , \ ( "', /' -.,' (....,..~...- .~ .. . \ ) r ...... '> ' \ : \. (./":7/' '^" (....../ ./', / ) :~ / i '. : I " \ : ..-{ ,,: (. / ". ....-1 .r. i '.r '. j '. , S .J.)'\ -" . . .~" ( . /:. .) '. { . ) : \. ., J : , ./ r , \'. { ..._.....l... .~ ..L.... ..._...-...", "'-"'- t.. '< .........._....1 "........ ...... ,'- . .............- "'-. .-' , . /:' ...-"'~ ..' / ( .: ..........._.............\::.~_........-'-..._...-.. Q 6000 , ) )-"" '. \ . . I .-{ '. . ./ / - dGDEN ..... ( .\ , , " / '''-.' o , . .... FEET Phase II - Progress Plan Alternative LEGEND fl...""..........1 Open Space l~~~~~~~~~!~grg~igi. IIImIilI Scenic Corridor/Open Space f::::::::::::: I SestllSld' tivAre Resource u y ea I I Man Made Open Space ~ Limited Development ~ Special study Area Residential VL Very Low L Low LMV Low-Medium Village M Medium llH Medium-High Commercial Fe Freeway Commercial llU Mixed Use Industrial I Induslrial Public & Open Space PQ Public & Quasi-Public P Park CP Community Park HS High School JH Junior High School K6 K -6 Elementary School P&R Park & Ride Facility ~cial Plan Area C Eastern Urban Center R Resort EastLake ELId EastLake - Low/Medium Residential EllH EastLake - Medium/High Residential Ell EastLake - High Residential EOF EaslLake - Office EFC EastLake - Freeway Commercial EOS EastLake - Open Space ...... . Hwy 125 Parkway Transit corridor Primary arterials Olay Ranch property F I G V R E 9 I 31 -. ._- -- I would feature very low density residential intermingled with "limited development" on steeper slopes. Residential densities would vary based on terrain, slope, and proximity to developed areas; a lot minimum of 4 acres would be 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 Phase II-Progress Plan Alternative would be distributed throughout the entire Otay Ranch. The majority of commercial uses would be located in the EVC. Each of the 15 village centers would also contain a small component of commercial, office, and quasi-public/public uses. Freeway commercial would be situated on the Otay River parcel adjacent to SR-125. The Phase II-Progress Plan Alternative proposes the allocation of 12,509 acres of natural open space, encompassing the Otay River Valley, Jarnul Mountains, and San Ysidro Mountains. A RMP would be established to preserve and manage the resources and ensure their viability. In addition, a system of paths and trails would connect the urban villages and their parks, forming a passive and active recreation network throughout the project. The circulation system would feature an integrated system of prime arterials, major roads, and collectors to maximize circulation efficiency. Three Otay River crossings would be provided to carry traffic to and from Otay Mesa: SR-125, Heritage Road, and La Media with reservation to provide a fourth crossing east of SR-125 (Alta Road), if necessary. The roadway network would be supplemented by a system of paths and trails to encourage bike and pedestrian uses. A public transit system (e.g., LRT, buses) would parallel Telegraph Canyon Road and traverse the central portions of the Otay River parcel before paralleling the southern extension of SR-125 through the Otay River Valley. These pedestrian and public transit components would provide the project with alternative means of transportation. 110850010,6/92 9-7 3<6 SECTION 10 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Several similarities exist among the land use characteristics of the project alternatives. For example, each alternative proposes a mix of multi- and single-family residential uses, although the distribution and number of units of each type vary among the alternatives. Each alternative assumes the SR-125 freeway would be extended through the Otay Ranch property to Otay Mesa by CalTrans, and Paseo RancherolHeritage Road would cross the river valley. Other roadway extensions are proposed across the Otay River Valley and vary between alternatives. The county's preliminary plans to place a water reclamation plant in the Otay River Valley are accommodated within all the land use plans. The Eastern Urban Center would be present in varying locations and sizes within the Otay River parcel for each alternative, with the exception of the No Project Alternative. Finally, it was assumed that each alternative would entail an amendment of the county and City of Chula Vista general plans, except the Composite General Plans and No Project alternatives, and that similar approvals would be necessary throughout the plan implementation and development process. Table 10 highlights the key characteristics of the project alternatives. 110850010:6/92 10-1 39 Table 4.1-2 KEY COMPONENTS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Ph..el- Ph... D- Fourth Project Team Existinc Generll Low Density Environmontal No Project Issue New Town PI.. PruSIO.. PI.. ProBlOSS PI.. Ahem.live Altemolive Plans Alremativ. Allemativ. Alternative Vllla.e Dennltlon: Gros. Densities 2.13 du/ac l.28du/ac 1.30du/1e I.IS du/ac 1.03 du/ac 0.61 du/ac 0.44 du/ac 0.40 du/Ie Odu/Ie Resiclenlill Mix 64.. SF: 54.. SF: 55.. SF: 51.. SF: ~SF: S~SF; 88.. SF: 73.. SF; N/A 36.. MF 46.. MF 45.. MF 4~MF ~MF 2~MF 12.. MF 27.. MF ViDoge Concopl Mixed-.... Residential with Mixed-.... Residential with Mixed-.... None None Non. None VilIlI. Con.... ViDoge Cenren Villog.C....... VilllI. Con.... Villas. Con.... Transcortallonl UtbonViDoges Utbon Transit Utbon Transit Tr...il Orienled AltlloAuto County,(;ity No T,...it Tr...it Exi.linS Roads Trans I 0rienIed 10 0rienIed Villoges 0rienIed VilIaSOS VilllI. W or Silt Tnnsp: Transit CiR:u11lion Emph..i. Corridor Adj. " vma.es: Transit Transit Corridor Tr...it Corridor ClOOk Corridor PI... 10 SR-115 Adj 10 SR-115 ThrouSh EUC Villas. Con.... and Adj. to SR-115 ~ . Easlern Urban Otay Ri... Otay Riv.. Otay Ri... Otay Ri... Otay Ri... Otay Riv.. Otay River Otay Ri... None ... . Cenler: Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Pm:eI Parcel Parcel Parcel ... (363 Ie) (305 ac) (289 ac) (336 Ie) (286 ac) (285 Ie) (20S Ie) (186 ae) Number of 3 (SR-115. Alia, 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 (SR-115 and 2 (SR-12S and Olay RI.er and P..... P.... Paseo Crossln.s: Rmcltero/ R..chero/- Ranchero/- Heritog.) Heritog.) Heritag.) Ranch House Slle: Medium Special Study Low Densityl conrerence conrerence AsricullUlO Conrerence Conrerence Rlllelt House Residential Area Resort Uses Conler Conler CenIer Center B_SaIt AdjacenllO Adjacent 10 Non. B_ 1-115 A: West orsalt Soulhem OIay None Unl.erslly SlIe: ClOck and Lo.... O~ = Conler Easlem Urban Easlem Cteek (213 ac) River Parcel Otay Lak. Trainml CenIer CenIer and Urban Center (225 ac) (400 ac) and Lower Otay and Otay Lak. OIak Ri... (160 Ie) Lake (size (.ize VII Y (384 ac) undelamined) undeIrm1ined) Conre.ence Cenle.: Non. In lunul MbII. None In Il1llul MbII. In lamul MlIIS. None In II1llUI MbII. None None and Ranch and Rmch House House X Resorl: 103 ac. north or 151 ac. north or 213 ac.northor 153 Ie. north or 236 ac. north Non. 203 ac. north or 40 Ie. oorth or None lake lake lak. and at Iak. onak. lak. lake C>' Ranch House Table 4.1.1 (Conllnued) KEV COMPONENTS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Existin Ph... I. Ph... u. Fourth ":\i:,T~am Oener~ Low Density Envimrunental No Project Issue New Town Plan Propess Plan Propss Plan A1ternati.. lb.. Plans A11an1\iY. AIternativ. Alternatiye Regional Park: 2 R.._ Perks 3 Open SpICe 3 Open Spoce 3 Open Spec. 3 R..ionaI ~jyer 3 Open Spoce 3 Open Spoce Undeveloped (Urban ol Ruro1) Areas Areas Areas Parks Areas Areas Open Spoce Resource Ves Yes Yes Ves Yes No No No No Management Plan (RMP): Other Features: Town Cr:n""'- Spedol Study Spedol S:t, E.r:n split or Urbon/c1us- Mostly Suburban and Lar.. residenriol No Development Govemmr:ntal Areas Areas; Very w attached/detacl tered dev.1op- residenriol ",,01 land uses lots (eastern Core near Ilk. Density units. ment use; no parcels) Residenriol; manlled EastLake ocreage pres.... included in OPA ,. . ... , ,. 4:. COMBINED PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD/COUNCIL HEARING DATES Dav l!ili ~ Time Location PUTDose Friday 9/11/92 Commissions 3-6 Rnch House Field Trip Wednesday 9/16/92 Commissions 5-9 Chula Vista EIR Hearing Thursday 9/24/92 Board/Council 3-5 CAC EIR Public Review; Development Concepts; Alternatives Wednesday 9/30/92 Board/Council 9-12 ChuIa Vista Issue Papers Wednesday 10/7/92 Commissions 5:00 Chula Vista EIR Hearing Friday 10/9/92 Commissions 3:00 County Project Hearing Thursday 10/22/92 Board/Council 3-5 Chula Vista Facilities, Service Revenue Plan Friday 10/23/92 Commissions 3:00 County Final ErR; Project Hearing Thursday 10/29/92 Commissions 5:00 Chula Vista Project Hearing & Action Wednesday 11/4/92 Board/Council 9-1 CAC Project Hearing Tuesday 11/17/92 Board/Council 6-10 Chula Vista Project Hearing Wednesday 11/18/92 Board/Council 9-1 CAC Project Hearing Tuesday 11/24/92 Board/Council 1-4 Chula Vista Project Hearing & Action Revised September 3, 1992 (combined.dts) NOTICE OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the city council of the city of Chula vista will meet on September 24, 1992 at the County Board Chambers, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA, from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. . SAID PURPOSE OF THE MEETING is to consider a General Plan Amendment, General Development Plan, Subregional Plan and related applications for the otay Ranch project. DATED: September 9, 1992 Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk "\ declare uncler penalty of perjury that I am em:o 0 J by tilo City of Chula Vista in the 0, ,:co ,0, '.:'0 City Clerk and that I posted t':is A:,cn:J/:'Jolico en tho Bulletin B~ard at tho :'ujl,c orv' es Bu:lding &nd at ~1:Ia1~ _ OA-I-En- 9,//0 9A SIGNED C {' ~ ~'-', ~. '/; C/ . " , /. :,-,,/,.. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1992 MINUTE ORDER NO. 1 SUBJECT: Joint Workshop with city of Chula vista Concerning otay Ranch project PRESENT: County of San Diego: supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, and MacDonald; supervisor williams being absent. city of Chula vista: Tim Nader, Mayor; and Councilmembers Malcolm, Rindone, Moore and Horton. DOCUMENTS: Memorandum dated September 10, 1992, Board of Supervisors Document No. 752479, from Anthony J. Lettieri, AICP, Otay Ranch General Manager, regarding status of Otay Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report public review. Copy of letter, Board of Supervisors Document No. 752631, from Daniel F. Tarr, to Otay Ranch Joint Planning Project, regarding adequate public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. copy of Letter to the Editor (Sacramento Bee), Board of Supervisors Document No. 752632, submitted by Susan Herney, regarding extension of the Draft Environmental Impact Report review period. Copy of Senate Bill No. 1287 and copy of article in the Sacramento Bee, Board of supervisors Document No. 752633, submitted by Councilmember Rindone. SPEAKERS: The following persons addressed the Board with requests to extend the Draft Environmental Impact Report review period: Mark Montijo, Chair, Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Group Daniel Tarr, Valle de Oro Community Planning Group Michael Beck, South County Environmental Working Group Marti Goethe, Mayor Pro Tem, Imperial Beach Inez Yoder, Shoreline Study Center Norma Sullivan, Conservation Chair, San Diego Audubon Carolyn Avalos, Endangered Habitats League No. 1 9/24/92 mdb Page 1 of 4 pages PULLED TO 11/24/92 # 1 r , ! Susan Wolfe-Fleming, Chaparral Greens Carolyn O'Patry, Jamul, California Terri stewart, California Fish and Game Department Pat Parris, South County Environmental Working Group Nancy Gilbert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tricia Gerrodette, Sierra Club Land Use Committee They expressed the following concerns: ~ The complexity of the document and magnitude of impacts require more time for analysis and serious input. ~ Fairness dictates ~hat due process be extended to the public. I> Appendices, in some cases, were not received with the original document. , ~ The California Fish and Game Department is mandated to review and comment on projects affecting fish and wildlife resources, and needs more time to do so. Daniel Tarr, of the Valle de Oro Community Planning Group, questioned why the comments of the Planning Group made earlier in the process were not included in the technical report; and asked whether or not additional alternatives were being prepared, and, if so, how they would affect the Environmental Impact Report review period. Extensions were 45 days 60 days 90 days Non-specific requested as follows: 1 person 9 persons 1 person 2 persons Michael Green, President, Chula vista Chamber of Commerce, and Susan Herney, representing the Otay Ranch ~overning Committee of the citizens Advisory Committee, recommended that the Project be moved ahead, and the public review period not be extended. Ms. Herney read for the record her letter to the Editor of the Sacramento Bee, Board of Supervisors Document No 752632, referenced above. Greg smith, President, Baldwin San Diego, stated that there will be several more layers of Environmental Impact Reports, and that the October 7, 1992, deadline for pUblic review is sufficient. Ne.' !j24j!2 mli.lIa P.~e 2 ef 4 ~.~es ~~ ( DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Anthony Lettieri, otay Ranch General Manager, apprised members of the Joint Workshop that the Chula Vista Planning commission and the County Planning Commission, at a joint meeting on september 16, 1992, indicated intent to extend the Environmental Impact Report public review period an additional 60 days beyond October 7, 1992. He stated that, conversely, the Otay Ranch citizens Governing Committee, at their regular monthly meeting on September 23, 1992, recommended that the public review period not be extended. Counsel for the City of Chula vista stated that Baldwin has agreed to indemnify both the city of Chula vista and the County of San Diego for a period not to exceed 80 days, or through October 19, 1992. He summarized the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines for the setting of the public review period, and clarified that the issue before the Board is whether or not this is an unusual circumstance sufficient to require a greater than 90-day period of time. He stated that the current power to close the public review period rests with the Planning commission of the city of Chula vista; and clarified that that authority can be rescinded by a Resolution proposing changes to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. It was noted that should there be a supplement to the Environmental Impact Report, it would necessitate another 45 days for public review. The point was made that the community as a whole gains extensively when a major developer comes in with a large project. Concern was expressed that full mitigable rights ensuring quality public education at all levels in the Project area be attained. It was emphasized that there will be several more rounds of environmental review and public comment for this Project. There was general agreement among Councilmembers that authority granted the Planning commission to set the public review period should . revert to the Chula vista City Council. It was reported that at the next workshop on September 30, 1992, the Village Development Concept and the Description of the Plan Alternatives will be considered. No. 1 9/24/92 mdb Page 3 of 4 pages ACTION: ON MOTION of Supervisor Bilbray, seconded by Supervisor GOlding, the Board of Supervisors accepted the deadline of October 7, 1992, for the close of public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, but requested the city of Chula vista to seriously consider an extension of said public review period. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Bilbray, Bailey, Golding MacDonald Williams Subsequently, the Chula Vista city council set October 6, 1992, for adoption of a Resolution proposing changes to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines giving authority to the Chula vista city council to set the Environmental Impact Report pUblic review period; set a joint meeting of the City of Chula vista and the Planning commission for October 12, 1992, at 6:00 p.m., for a public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report review period; and directed that said hearing be advertised. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) County of San Diego) ss I, ARLINE HULTSCH, Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order adopted by said Board at a regular meeting thereof held September 24, 1992 (1), by the vote herein stated, which original order is now on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. witness my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, this 24th day of September, 1992. ARLINE HULTSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By~o4~ Mary D. Ballard, Deputy No. 1 9/24/92 mdb Page 4 of 4 pages