HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/09/30 Jt. CC, County & Planning Comm.
(
r-
I
(
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30,
SUPERVISORS
1992
MINUTE ORDER NO. 1
SUBJECT:
Joint Workshop
Ranch Project:
with city of Chula vista concerning Otay
Plan Alternatives - at Chula vista
PRESENT:
County of San Diego:
Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Williams, and MacDonald; Supervisor
Golding being absent.
city of Chula vista:
Tim Nader, Mayor; and Councilmembers Rindone, Moore and Horton;
Councilmember Malcolm being absent.
DOCUMENTS:
No new documents.
SPEAKERS:
Susan Herney, of the University of California Chula vista Task
Force, requested that the Board provide a General Plan
description of the university that includes an area of 1,400
acres.
Julie Dillon, representing Helix Land,
Helix property is declared open space,
a taking.
stated that if land around
it would be tantamount to
DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, stated that the
Village Development Concept is based on an attempt to produce a
plan using transit and pedestrian access to lessen reliance on
the automobile.
Fred Arbuckle, of the Baldwin Company, described the Village
Concept, stating that the plan for Otay Ranch would place
entertainment and commercial activity in village cores, bringing
people together. Streets, he said, would be as narrow as
possible at the core to slow traffic and encourage people to get
out of their cars. Affordable housing would be a component of
each village, and trees would reinforce individual village
No. 1
9/30/92
mdb
Page 1 of 3 pages
?u--L L e- J
To [I -~'-(-'7J- P-I
.1'
/i ft; ,
A
identity. He explained that rights-of-way would be reserved
throughout each village to expedite the addition of rail lines
later. He gave assurance that the smallest village would support
at least an elementary school. Mr. Arbuckle was commended for
the human approach to this project, and interest was expressed in
making his presentation available to more persons.
Anthony Lettieri discussed plan alternatives and issue papers
accepted by the otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force. The
400 acres set aside for the University of California site
elicited comments from the Board of Supervisors and the Chula
vista City Council. Concern was expressed that the Environmental
Impact Report analyzed only 400 acres for the university, which
is expected to occupy approximately 1,000 additional acres. To
avoid legal ramifications later, it was suggested that an
analysis be done which more accurately reflects that reality. An
overlay, which would provide options and consider residential and
commercial areas surrounding the site, was proposed.
It was announced that the next scheduled joint meeting of the San
Diego County Board of Supervisors and Chula vista City Council
will take place on Thursday, October 22, 1992, 3:00 p.m., at the
city of Chula vista Council Chamber.
ACTION:
There being no motion, the Board of Supervisors heard the report
on Village Development Concept and Plan Alternatives, and the
presentation on Issue Papers: Purpose, Date and Action.
...
No. 1
9/30/92
mdb
Page 2 of 3 pages
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
County of San Diego) 55
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 30, 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 30th day of September, 1992.
ARLINE HULTSCH
Assistant Clerk of the Board of
supervisors
By
P/:f:z~fOA-~.
Ballard, Deputy
No. 1
9/30/92
mdb
Page 3 of 3 pages
SEP 3 0 1992
AGENDA
1
JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY / CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
I. ROLL CALL
. Tim Nader, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
. George Bailey, 2nd District
County Board of Supervisors
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may address the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council
on any subject matter under the jurisdiction of 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. CONTINUATION OF INFORMATION ITEMS FROM SEPTEMBER 24, 1992
WORKSHOP
IV. PRESENTATION ON ISSUE PAPERS ACCEPTED BY THE INTERJURISDIC-
TIONAL TASK FORCE
V. ADJOURNMENT
To the next Joint San Diego County Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City
Council meeting from 3:00-5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 22, 1992, at the City
of Chula Vista Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
tables:\bofsagnd.ajl
otay Ranch Issue Papers: Purpose, Date and Action
Issue Paper Purpose Action
North/South Transit To discuss alternatives and 9/10/90 - Accepted in concept a north/south
Corridor make a recommendation on the transit corridor which generally follows
preferred alignment of the the SR-125 alignment through the otay Ranch
proposed north/south light- and extends easterly into the heart of the
rail/transit corridor. Eastern Urban Center (EUC) to allow transit
to be incorporated into the core of the
EUC. The exact location should be
determined after the SANDAG ridership
, study, ErR, technical and citizen review
are completed.
East/West Transit To discuss alternatives and 9/10/90 - Accepted in concept an east/west
Corridor make a recommendation on the transit corridor, exact location to be
preferred alignment of the determined after SANDAG modeling study and
proposed east/west light- the ErR addressing alternatives are
rail/transit corridor. complete, and further study and review by
citizen and technical committees is done.
otay Valley Road To discuss alternatives and 9/10/90 - Accepted Alternative #2 -
Alignment make a recommendation on the Alignment south of Rock Mountain.
preferred alignment of the
proposed easterly extension
of otay Valley Road.
Paseo Ranchero Road To discuss alternatives and 9/10/90 - Accepted Alternative #2 -
Alignment make a recommendation on the Alignment with current river crossing at
preferred alignment of the Heritage Road.
extension of Paseo Ranchero.
South Darn Road To discuss alternatives and 9/10/90 - Accepted the deletion of South
Alignment make a recommendation on Darn Road from the plan and planning of the
whether an arterial roadway local road and land uses and activities in
(South Dam Road) should be such a fashion that it would not render
constructed connecting the such a future road connection infeasible.
otay Valley Parcel with the
San Ysidro Parcel.
1
Issue Paper Purpose
Millar Ranch Road To discuss alternatives and
make a recommendation on
whether a public road
(Millar Ranch Road) should
be constructed connecting
Proctor Valley Road with SR-
94 west of the community of
Jamul.
Proctor Valley Road To discuss alternatives and
make a recommendation on the
preferred alignment of the
easterly portion of Proctor
Valley Road and its inter-
section with SR-94.
Eastern Urban
Center Location
To discuss alternatives and
make a recommendation on the
appropriate location for the
Eastern Urban Center (EUC).
To discuss alternatives and
make a recommendation on the
proper mix and intensity of
different land uses within
the EUC.
Eastern Urban
Center Land Use
Intensity
Action
9(10(90 - Accepted Alternative #1 - Millar
Ranch Road shall be shown on the plan as a
major public road.
9(10(90 - Accepted Alternative #2 - Route
Proctor Valley Road across Daley property
intersection with SR-94.
10(25(90 - Accepted the location of the
Eastern Urban Center east of SR-125 and
south of orange Avenue.
10(25(90 - Accepted provision for uses of
the following level in the EUC:
Residential - From 2-story townhomes
to high-rise apartments and condos,
15-story maximum; Commercial -
compact, vertical, regional mall
(incrementally developed depending on
market) adjacent specialty shops at
base of office buildings, business
hotels; Office - 8- to 15-story
offices with garage parking; Public
Uses - Full range as outlined in Issue
Paper.
2
Issue Paper Purpose Action
Character of To discuss alternatives and 10/25/90 - Approved staff recommendation -
Village Commercial make a recommendation on the Village centers shall have the following
Centers appropriqte character for characteristics:
the village commercial . All neighborhood and community
centers on the Western commercial uses shall be located
Parcel. within village centers.
. Village centers should be located away
from major circulation element roads
unless found economically infeasible.
. Higher intensity residential
development should be located in close
proximity to the village center.
. Village center should mix commercial
uses with civic, residential
employment and recreational uses in an
environment which allows transit
users, pedestrian, bicyclists and auto
drivers equally easy access to and
within each village center.
Road Interchanges To discuss alternatives and 10/25/90 - Accepted Alternative #1 - Show 4
on SR-125 make a recommendation on how interchanges within the project (excluding
many freeway interchanges on Telegraph Canyon) with spacing of less than
SR-125 should be planned one mile. Southern most would be on the
within the otay Ranch north rim of the otay River Valley.
Project.
Water Availability To discuss alternatives and 10/25/90 - Recommended that ITF proceed
make a recommendation on with approval of the GDP without an assured
whether planning for the long-term water supply.
otay Ranch should continue
without an assured adequate
long-term water supply.
3
Issue Paper Purpose Action
otay Ranch Road To determine how to design 8/1/9l - Accepted Project Team Proposal -
System the road system for the otay This proposal identifies a circulation
River Valley Parcel with all system with a pattern of major streets
forms of transit as the which form a modified grid. The major
primary design principle. To roadways reflect the roads of the General
define the components of a Plan circulation network, however, their
transit-oriented road system alignments vary, and additional north/south
for the otay River Valley roads have been added. Further description
Parcel. of the proposal can be found on page 18 of
the Issue Paper.
village Character To determine what the 8/1/9l - Accepted Project Team Proposal -
circulation" land use and See pages 4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15 and 18 of the
design criteria could Issue Paper for proposal detail.
provide diversity, character
and a pedestrian orientation
to a village while providing
continuity within the otay
Ranch.
Roads crossing otay To determine how many roads 12/19/91 - ITF and the otay Valley Regional
River Valley should be planned crossing Park Policy Board accepted the Project Team
the otay River Valley east Proposal found on page 17 of the Issue
of I-80S. Paper. This proposal provides for up to
four transportation corridors which are
general in nature until the SR-125
alignment is adopted and traffic patterns
on otay Mesa are more clearly defined.
otay Valley To determine what criteria 12/19/91 - ITF and the otay valley Regional
Regional Park should be used to set the Park Policy Board accepted Project Team
boundaries of the Otay Proposal to define the boundary of
Valley Regional Park, and Alternatives A, Band C as contained in the
how much total acreage Issue Paper to serve as the boundary
should be provided for between the otay Ranch Project and the otay
active and passive park Valley Regional Park planning area. The
uses. boundary includes the rock quarry.
4
Issue Paper Purpose Action
Development Around To determine where 2/21/92 - Accepted Issue Paper - Project
Lower otay Lake development on the land Team Proposal - The proposal incorporates
Reservoir surrounding the Lower otay the concepts which are described in detail
Lake Reservoir should be on pages 30-50 of the Issue Paper.
allowed.
Central Proctor To determine the appropriate 2/21/92 - Accepted Issue Paper - Project
Valley community character for Team Proposal - Define the extent of
Central Proctor Valley development in Central Proctor Valley by
taking into consideration the limits of low and moderate levels of
land uses and densities. the Resource Sensitivity Analysis (RSA) , a
total of approximately 934 acres within
Central Proctor Valley. Moderate
sensitivity areas are proposed for
development in order to cluster land uses
and preserve areas identified as highly
sensitive. A detailed analysis is provided
on pages 14-32 of the Issue Paper.
5
~
~....... ~.....
a..-A..,..
RAnCH
JOINT
PLANNING
PROJECT
COUNn' OF SAN DIEGO. CIW OF CHUL.A VISTA
May 10, 1992
TO: Members of the Interjurisdictional Task Force
~
FROM: Anthony J. Lettieri, AlCP, General Manager
SUBJECT: University Land Use Designation
DISCUSSION
In February of 1991, the Interjurisdictional Task Force approved a 1991 Work Program
which included the preparation of a number of issue papers. One of the issue papers was
to focus on a potential location of the University of California campus. Specifically, the
major issue which you asked us to address was "Where should a major four-year university
be located"?
Since that time, and in the process in completing that issue paper, a number of things have
happened. The City of Chula Vista and San Diego City Councils and the County Board of
Supervisors approved resolutions supporting the Wueste Road location for a university
subject to several conditions; notably, that an environmental process be completed assuring
the identification and protection of significant resources. Secondly, there was concern raised
by members of the public ana Baldwin Vista that the location and planning for a university
should be the function of the University of California and not the Otay Ranch Project.
Based on both the actions of the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego actions,
staff will provide the factual information in the appendix of this Staff Report in and the
upcoming General Development Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Based on those
policy actions, we are focusing our attention on how best to accommodate a university
westerly of the Wueste Road site should the University of California decide to locate a
campus at this location. To do this, we are recommending the following conditions of
approval within the scope of the General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan/
Subregional Plan that will be processed through both the City of Chula Vista and the
County of San Diego. Those are as follows:
1. That a map symbol such as an asterisk be used to identify the general location for
the potential UC campus westerly of Wueste Road, and that there be an underlying
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422.7157. FAX: (619) 422-7690
University Land
Use Designation
(2)
May 10, 1992
plan designation that would be utilized should the University of California decided
not to locate in this area.
2. That the University of California be required to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report that would identify and protect any significant environmental resources that
cannot be mitigated.
3. That the Resource Management Plan be re-evaluated to ensure that the siting of this
facility does not interfere with or adversely impact the goals, objectives and policies
of that plan if the UC goes forward with this site. '
4. That performance standards be adopted that would address design, access and
resource protection.
5. That 400.:t usable acres be set aside for university use (as mentioned above in #1)
as an alternative to the underlying plan designation of the General Development
Plan/Subregional Plan.
6. That transfers of residential density be looked at on a case-by-case basis if the
university needs more area than what is set aside in the General Plan for the UC
campus.
7. That local park requirements be looked at on a case-by-case basis should the
university desire or need any area that is designated for a neighborhood or
community park.
8. That an analysis be conducted to ensure compatibility with adjacent villages.
Staff is recommending that the InteIjurisdictional Task Force accept this process as a
replacement to the University Issue Paper. We have included background material as
Appendix I which defines some of the past actions associated with this siting of this campus
facility.
Attachment
memos#2:\itf5592.ajl
OTAY RANCH PROJECT
APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF PRIOR ACTION
1.1 "Otay Ranch Goals. Objectives. and Policies"
The following goals, objectives, and policies for the Otay Ranch were
accepted by the lnterjurisdictional Task Force in December, 1989:
Land Use
Goal 4:
Higher Education and Cultural Activities
Objective 1:
Provide a site for a four-year university which is
adequate for the university's needs and has
adjacent support areas for residential and service
development.
Policy C.1.:
One of the "village" areas should be devoted to
the university and its necessary support areas.
The "village" chosen should be located so that
direct connections to the Urban Center are
possible.
Policy F.3.:
Integrate "campus-style" employment uses into the
overall land use plan where appropriate,
particularly in the area adjacent to the university
site.
Circulation -
Policy A.9.:
Provide bicycle paths separate from vehicular
traffic at intersections with high volume roadways
which connect the following locations:
a. Otay Lakes
b. Jamul Country Town
c. Highway 94 at east end of property
d. University Site
e. Urban Center
f. Otay River Valley
1
1.2 Board of Supervisors/City Council Actions
The County of San Diego Board of Supervisors and City Council have acted
to support the designation of the Wueste Road site for a University of
California campus, consistent with the joint City of Chula Vista/Baldwin Vista
application.
1.3 General Plan Designations
1.3.1 City of Chula Vista General Plan
The City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Plan (adopted in July,
1989), depicts a University site of approximately 170 acres, located
south of Orange Avenue and east of SR-125 (see Exhibit 1).
Section 3. Goals and Objectives
Goal 4. Higher Education and Cultural Activities
Currently, post-secondary education in Chula Vista is provided by
Southwestern Community College. It is anticipated that, as the city and
the South Bay Community as a whole grows in population, there will
be a demand for additional higher education services. It is the goal of
the city to accommodate within its borders a new four-year institution
of higher education.
Objective 18.
Promote, through the designation of a candidate site and discussions
with the State of California, the establishment of a four-year college
or university in the Eastern Territories.
1.4
The Baldwin Submittal (New Town Plan)
..
The university site in the New Town Plan (see Exhibit 2) is in support of
Objective 18 of the Chula Vista General Plan. Another reason for the
provision of this university site is that Baldwin believes the university will
complete the urban portion of Otay Ranch. In the New Town Plan the
eastern edge of the university site has an overlooking view of the lower Otay
Lake and is located relatively close to all urban amenities such as the Eastern
Urban Center, cultural facilities, a range of businesses and commercial
opportunities, and a variety of housing. Greenbelts and pathways as well as
major roads will link the university to the rest of the community.
2
),
,'-
Cu, ~-
.,'~
'-'''' -
J '''" .
SrI 125
"
-, r~
/.:'-
\
..
--
~~
...
~
hu.,..t"
,: I
", I
'r-'
I
~
I
I
__n
-- I
[-, :
: L_"
-"
...
Sf? '<&
~-_::-:'-:=""":L~_~~~7)_J
i--ii~~-
/' I'
~( II
"1! .
"'.
mo__ _
W - 0<91"""'-""
C'f2B "/t>b<rt <JJei11.. 'Willi"", "FIb" IN 500295
~9191
4,000'
"t Issue Paper
Universl Y I Plan
. t Genera .
City of Chula VIS ~niversity Slte1
Exhibit
r--..J
1
.1
l____________
Residential
~ low (.05 to 3 du/ac)
~ low-Medium (3 to 6 du/ac)
o Medium (6 to 11 du/ac)
~ Medium-High (11 to 18 du/ac)
o High (18 to 27 du/ac)
rn o=-_
4,000'
-
Public & Ooen Soace
~ Public & Quasi-Public
o Parks & Recreation
~ Open Space
Commercial
o Retail Commercial
B Visitor Commercial
C'l}B '1t>1><rt "lki,!, 'William <fif>.. alc5'b""";"""
~- I!,'Jl IN 500295
I
I ""I'
,
"'
~
(
0'
......
COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO
Soecial Plan Area
I EUC I Eastern Urban Core
~ Town Center
[Q] Village Center
~ ResorVlow Residential
Sources: Estrada Land Planning
Langdon-Wilson-Mumper
University Issue Paper
Baldwin Original Submittal
Exhlbll2
1.5 The Project Team Alternative
Significant plan elements of the Project Team Alterative (P.T.A.) include a
university site, a campus-style research park and a university village (see
Exhibit 3). Rational for University location: a) Potential for buildings to
make use of scenic viewsheds; b) Accessibility to SR-125, the proposed mass
transit line, and the EUC; c) Absence of biological or archaeological
constraints; d) relatively unconstrained topography; (e) proximity to Otay
Valley and Salt Creek Canyon.
1.6 Phase 1 Progress Plan
The Phase 1 Progress Plan identifies the university site as a topic for further
study (see Exhibit 4).
1.7 Citizens' Committees
In August, 1990, the Otay Ranch Advisory Committees were created by
combining the nine Citizen and Advisory Task Forces established by the
Baldwin Company with the seven Citizen Committees authorized by the
Interjurisdictional Task Force. The combined citizen committees formed
three subcommittees: Natural Resources, Infrastructure and Human
Resources. At this time, the Governing Committee has made no specific
recommendations relating to the University site.
5
. '
0'- ,,1,,1
,
,,_' .-22
"'LU';"";_
Residential
~ low 3 (.05 to .25 du/ac)
~ low 2 (.25 to .5 du/ac)
~ low 1 (.5 to 1 du/ac)
IT] low (0 to 3 du/ac)
~ low Medium (3 to 6 du/ac)
o Medium (6 to 11 du/ac)
~ Medium High (11 to 18 du/ac)
o High (18 to 27 du/ac)
m o=-_
4,000'
-
,
,
\ U.SOlVMPIC',
T~^INlNGFA~tIT~. J
, \
, ,
\ '\
.. '
.\', I
-'. I It :
" .t..--------r ~~~n"]
~j~Z;< L-1 _' o. "'/j
\\ "'--_.:.__.............-
,
,
,.,,~
....". ,"
/
,
/
"
...._".~
Public & Ooen Soace
~ Public & Quasi.Public
~ Eiementary School
~ Neighborhood Park
~ Community Park
~ Open Space
Commercial
o Retail Commercial
c;m <Jtbert"1ki1r..'Wi1liam 'RM 0054-'-"'<.."'-
~ Bf.Jl IN 500295
\ '
"
: I
, I
n I
.. /
,..
/
,.*" \.
-_.~-------..-~-~:_--
\
0"',
I
MI'l. I
-"r;..J
I
I
I
9
"
s
s
o R 0
A
y
N
.';~..".
'0
'= .~, "~
M ? U N --.~,___ A
. N S,
Industrial
~ ResearchlDevelopment
Soecial Plan Area
IEUC I Eastern Urban Core
o Resort
~ Conference Center
University Issue Paper
Project Team Alternative
Exhibit 3
Residential
~ Single Family
EJ Multi Family
Commercial
o Commercial
Public & Ooen Soace
~ High School
IJRH~ Junior High School
~ Community Park
1':-::':':':':1 Man-Made Open Space/Recreation
'.;:.": & Neighborhood Parks
,. Restricted Development
I.... .~A Natural Open Space
m~-
4,000'
-
C]}B ~ "Bent. 'WtIliam "Flbst 0c5b"",..tes
~ lV91 IN 500195
Soecial Plan Area
I RST 1 Resort
~ Conference Center
rycl Village Center (Includes Mixed Uses,
L..:..::J Elementary Schools & Neighborhood Parks)
I EUe I Eastern Urban Core
~ To be the Subject of Further Study
University Issue Paper
Phase I Progress Plan
ExhIbit 4
PRESENTATION OUTLINE: PLAN ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUE PAPERS
ACCEPTED BY 1HE OTAY RANCH INTERJURIS-
DICTIONAL TASK FORCE
1. COMPOSITE GENERAL PLANS
A. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
B. CITY OF CHULA VISTA
II. OTAY RANCH NEW TOWN PLAN
~ INTERJURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
POLICIES
B. UNIVERSITY PLANNING PROCESS
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
III. PROJECT TEAM ALTERNATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE
LOW DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
FOURTH ALTERNATIVE
A. NORTH/SOUTH TRANSIT CORRIDOR
B. EAST/WEST TRANSIT CORRIDOR
C. OTAY VALLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
D. PASEO RANCHERO ROAD ALIGNMENT
E. SOUTH DAM ROAD ALIGNMENT
F. MILLAR RANCH ROAD
G. PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD
a EASTERN URBAN CENTER LOCATION
I, EASTERN URBAN CENTER LAND USE INTENSITY
J> CHARACTER OF VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTERS
K ROAD INTERCHANGES ON SR-125
L. WATER A V AlLABILITY
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
IV. PHASE I PROGRESS PLAN
A~ OTAY RANCH ROAD SYSTEM
B. VILLAGE CHARACTER
C. ROADS CROSSING OTAY RIVER VALLEY
PUBUC TESTIMONY
D. OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
PUBUC TESTIMONY
E. DEVELOPMENT AROUND LOWER OTA Y LAKE RESERVOIR
PUBUC TESTIMONY
F. CENTRAL PROCTOR VALLEY
PUBUC TESTIMONY
V. PHASE II PROGRESS PLAN
memos#4:\bos92992.ajI
JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY/CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COmlISSION 1'70RKSHOP HEETING
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
3: 20 p. m.
\'7ednesd.f!Y.L-April 29, 1992
Otay Ranch House
2691 Otay Lakes Road
ROLL CALL
COHHISSIONERS PRESENT:
City of Chula vista: Chair Susan Fuller, Joe
Casillas, Joanne Carson, Laverne Decker, Thomas
Martin, William Tuchscher
Co un ty of San Di eoo :
Phillip Brown, Edward
David Kreitzer, Frank
Chair Richard Wright,
Ferraro, Toni Kastel ic,
Urtasun
comnSSIONERS ABSENT: Chula Vista - Robert Tugen-
berg. San Dieoo Countj! - Lynne Leichtfuss
OTH ERS
Councilman Len Hoore, Councilman Jerry Rindone,
City Hanager John Goss, Attorney William Taylor
(County), Assistant City Attorney Richard Rudolf,
Greg Smith, President of the San Diego Division of
Baldwin, Assistant Planning Director Jerry
Jamriska, Citizens' Planning Group Representative
Maggie Helton, Lari Sheehan, County Deputy CAO,
and Joint Project Team General Manager Tony
Lettieri
1. l'IELC0I1E/OPENING STATEMENT
Tony Lettieri, General Manager for the Otay Ranch Project,
welcomed those in attendance. Supervisor Brian Bilbray not
being present, he introduced City of Chula Vista Councilmen
Hoore and Rindone.
Councilman Moore noted that this project marked a joint
effort by both City and County to plan a city of 23,000
acres with an estimated population of 50,000 to 75,000
people. He emphasized the need for the rights-of-way for
arteries to be in place for whatever the population may be
in the future.
Councilman Rindone remarked that the task of planning for
these 23,000 acres is the same as if we had been called upon
to plan the City of San Francisco, which is the same size.
He emphasized that working together on "planning before
processing" will result in a better product. The implemen-
tation of the Interjurisdictional Task Force (ITF) has shown
:2.
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
April 29, 1992
2
that interagency efforts can work. Councilman Rindone
stated that listening is a communication skill we tend to
overlook but we learn the most through its use. Baldwin has
done a lot of listening. He spoke highly of the dedication
of the Planning Commissioners and the amount of time and
study the members put into their work and remarked on the
awesome task before them that will affect so many lives in
generations to come.
Tony Lettieri explained that Supervisor Bilbray had been
delayed because of a critical item before the Board. He
remarked that the real purpose of this particular workshop
was to get to know each other. He then introduced Susan
Fuller, Chair of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commis-
sion.
II. JOINT PLANNING COHHISSION INTRODUCTIONS
Susan Fuller suggested that as a means of becoming further
acquainted, each Commissioner introduce him- or herself,
state the number of years on the Commission and present
occupation. She, herself, has been on the Commission five
years and manages the office for the family plumbing
business.
Laverne Decker - Two years on Commission; previously on
Safety Commission for eight years. Seventeen-year resident
of Chula Vista. Retired Air Force. Logistic manager and
logistic engineer. Is active in his Lodge and the Coast
Guard Auxil iary.
Joanne Fuller - Eight years on Commission.
teacher.
Is a school
Joe Casillas - Five years on Commission. Retired Federal
employee with the Department of Defence and Executive Office
of the President. Professional Registered Engineer and a
school teacher. Born in Chula Vista and has been involved in
community action for many years. Was on the County Civil
Service Commission for seven years.
William Tuchscher - newest and youngest member of the
Commission. Born in Chula Vista. Commercial Real Estate
Broker with Grubb and Ellis. Is also on the Economic
Development Commission.
Thomas Hartin - One year on Commission. Makes artificial
limbs, orthopedic braces and shoes.
3
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
April 29, 1992
3
Richard Wright - Chair for County Planning Commission.
Seven-year member. Professor of Geography at San Diego
State. Supported videotaping the meetings so that 50 or 100
years from now others can look back and see what was done to
Otay Ranch. As a geographer, he is most interested in
"getting the right things in the right places".
Toni Kastel ic - Eight years on
Planning Group for nine years.
neurological office.
County Commission. Was in
Is an Office Hanager for a
Phillip Brown - Nine weeks on County Commission. Prior to
that he was a member of the Southeast Planning Committee.
Is immediate head of Black Contract Association of San
Diego. Is a developer, general contractor and life-long
resident.
David Kreitzer - Four years on County Commission. Retired
BUdget/Finance Manager, Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich
Publishers. Is running for public office - that of 3rd
District Supervisor. Is 26-year resident.
Frank Urtasun - From Imperial Beach. On County Commission
for three and a half years. Formerly on Imperial Beach
Planning Commission for two years. Has served on the
Interjurisdictional Task Force for three and a half years.
Edward Ferraro - First year on County Commission. Came from
Fallbrook. Served 28 years as City Manager and RedevelOp-
ment Director. This project is a 28-year dream coming true
- to be in at the beginning of such a project instead of
inheriting it. Is a General Contractor and belongs to the
North County Fire Protection District.
III. STATEMENT BY COUNTY COUNSEL/CITY ATTORNEY
Tony Lettieri introduced Bill Taylor, Attorney for the
County of San Diego and Richard Rudolf, Assistant City
Attorney. These attorneys or their representatives will be
present at all of the hearings.
Mr. Taylor said that he and Mr. Rudolf had combined their
comments in a memo addressed to all of the Commissioners.
While this assembly is being called a joint hearing, for
legal purposes both he and Mr. Rudol f w ill be considering
this as a hearing being conducted by each respective
juriSdiction. The County Commissioners will have to keep in
mind and comply with all the rules that pertain to their
hearings. These may involve small differences from the
rules applying to the City Planning Commission. All
4
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
April 29, 1992
4
meetings will be subject to the Brown Act; i.e., open to the
public and provision will have to be made for public access
even though there will be venues that are different from
what the Commissioners are used to. It is necessary to make
a record of the hearings therefore the microphones must be
used.
Field trips raise some problems. It is difficult to get the
public to accompany the Commissioners when 4-wheel drive
vehicles are involved. It is therefore recommended that all
members of each Commission should stay together. The
present arrangement of seven County Commissioners plus three
City Commissioners going on two half-day trips, and four
City Commissioners taking the all-day Saturday tour presents
difficulties. It is an essential element to a fair hearing
that all Commissioners of a particular jurisdiction receive
the same evidence so that they can make their decisions
based on that evidence.
The information presented orally should be kept to a
minimum. Staff can point out relevant features and ask the
Commission to remember what they are seeing as it will be
elaborated on in the hearing room.
It is necessary to allow the public access. But the public
should be requested not to make presentations, ask questions
or point things out during the trip but to save them for the
hearing room.
Mr. Lettieri pointed out that for the public record and to
avoid legal problems, trips will be videotaped in addition
to being taped by secretary Ruth Smith, a former Planning
Commission Secretary, who will be at all the workshops.
Coordination with Commission secretaries Cheryl Jones of the
County and Nancy Ripley of the City will ensure that
procedures are followed.
Mr. Lettieri continued that a number of staff members were
present to answer any questions. These members are
identified by badges. Also present are Deputy City Manager
George Krempl, Planning Director Bob Leiter and Assistant
Planning Director ~en Lee from the City of Chula Vista as
well as Deputy Planning Director Bill Healy for the County.
III. PRE-PLANNING - BALDWIN VISTA
Greg Smith, President of the San Diego Division of Baldwin,
began his presentation by noting that the present building
had formerly been the hunting lodge of the Hotel Del
Coronado and later remodeled for the Birches' home. Baldwin
~.
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
Apr il 29, 1992
5
purchased it in 1988 and remodeled it to reflect the hunt
club motif and to be used as a community center. Mr. Smith
commented on the tremendous responsibility and opportunity
presented by the Otay Ranch Project. Baldwin researched "new
towns" in the East, Europe and England for ideas. The firm
wished to avoid "copy-catting" other projects as well as a
separation of uses that would encourage more vehicular
traffic. Baldwin contacted the City of Chula Vista and
suggested the concept of joint and interjurisdictional
effort to minimize contention between jurisdictions. The
New Town Plan was submitted in 1989 to furnish a working
base for discussion and ideas. It was presented to citizen
groups for critique. These citizens were unconstrained in
indicating what they liked, disliked and what they wanted
the project to be.
V. STRUCTURE
Lari Sheehan being absent, Mr. Lettieri introduced Jerry
Jamriska, Assistant Planning Director (County) to speak on
the History of the project, the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) and the Role of the Interjurisdictional Task Force.
He also introduced John Goss, Chula Vista City Manager, to
discuss the Role of the Executive Staff Committee and that
of the Project Team, the County and City Staff.
Mr. Jamriska offered apologies for the absence of both
Supervisor Bilbray and Lari Sheehan reiterating that the
North County matter was still being heard.
He noted that although the total acreage is within the
County, the County expanded the process to include other
committees with other governmental agencies. LAFCO
designated the western portion of the site as a SpeCial
Study Area because of its contiguity to Chula Vista. In
1987, Board Policy 1-109 was passed which gave County Staff
directions on development procedures. In 1988, Baldwin
purchased the property from United Enterprises. They opened
conversation with the Cities of Chula Vista, San Diego and
the County. After much discussion, the policy makers
decided a unique planning process was needed to tie in the
three major entities. They adopted the MOU which
established a 10-member Interjurisdictional Task Force
(ITF). A member of the Baldwin Company was included to
ensure immediate feedback and input into the planning
pr ocess.
The role of the ITF is to establish broaJ policy direction
to staff and the General Manager as a planning program is
formulated. Bill Healy ensures that all studies flow
~
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
April 29, 1992
6
through the County bureaucracy while Bob Leiter does the
same for the City of Chula Vista. It was decided that
Chula Vista would be the lead agency for the EIR and
contract administration. When Vern Hazen, the first General
Manager, left to become the City Manager in Oxnard, Tony
Lettieri was asked to replace him. In the fall of 1989,
Baldwin submitted the New Town Plan.
John Goss explained that the role and purpose of the
Executive Staff Committee is to ensure joint cooperation
between City and County. The position is analogous to that
of a chief staff person through whom reports and other
processes must pass before being forwarded to the City
Manager or the Council. The Committee provides a focal point
to give overall direction on these processes. It is
comprised of the County Deputy CAO Lari Sheehan, City
Manager John Goss, Assistant City Manager George Krempl,
County Assistant Planning Director Jerry Jamriska, and Joint
Project Team General Manager Tony Lettieri. The monthly
meetings often include staff people for the City and County,
members of the Project team and Baldwin.
(4:12 p.m. - Lari Sheehan arrives)
At first, it was necessary to develop the Project Team as
well as the goals and directives subsequently adopted by
City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Recommendations
were made to hire consultants when necessary. A number of
papers were produced and overall directions and schedules
provided. There are many issues that impact the Ranch such
as Twin Ports, development of the eastern part of the Mesa
by the County, development of the major part of the Mesa by
the City of San Diego and action by the County Water
Authority as well as the Otay Water District. The overview
of the Executive Committee provides a unique perspective on
the impact of these issues on the Otay Ranch Project.
Mr. Goss spoke of the role of the Project Team. The day
after the MOU was entered into, he and Lari Sheehan sent a
memo to all the City and County Department Heads outlining
what the MOU called for; namely, the development of a single
plan to be approved by both the County and the City. Since
many issues could not be handled by the Project Staff, a
Technical Committee was formed with the intent to bring
experts from the City and County into the process. Nine
Technical Committees were formed to provide expertise.
Their opinions are reviewed by the Project Team. Disagree-
ments are discussed at the Executive Staff Committee level.
If disagreements are not resolved, they proceed to the ITF.
I
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
April 29, 1992
7
VI. PLANNING PROCESS
Planninq Work Proqram/Methodoloqv - Mr. Lettieri reviewed a
memo, dated 4/29/92, distributed to those attending the
workshop. He noted that the Resource Management Plan (RMP)
replaced the County's Resource Protection Ordinance and is
the focus of the environmental protection plan and programs.
It is the management tool to define the areas that are to be
protected and how they will be managed. The Project Team is
completing that now and it is hoped that the RMP and the
Environmental Plan will be available for public review by
July 6, 1992.
A General Plan Amendment will be required for the County,
the Otay Subregional Plan as well as the Jamul/Delzura, Otay
and Chula Vista General Plans. The goal is to have both
legal bodies adopt or amend all of those general plans. He
pointed out that Chula Vista uses the term General
Development Plan (which is similar to a Specific Plan) while
the County uses the term Subregional Plan. Both bodies will
require another step before considering the Subdivision Map
for approval; that is, a Sectional Plan for the City of
Chula Vista and a Specific Plan for the County.
The Service Revenue Plan (fiscal impact study) will consider
the pUblic agency capital expended as well as the operations
and maintenance cost. This will serve as a basis for the
options on a Sphere of Influence Study which is an annex-
ation plan for the property as well as a Property Tax
Agreement between the City and County.
He noted that in the workshop schedule, work is starting
with the Committee Planning Groups in Sweetwater, Valle del
Oro, Jamul/Delzura and Spring Valley for the County as well
as coordination with the Montgomery Plan Committee, the
EastLake Homeowners Association and other groups recommended
by the City of Chula Vista.
Mr. Lettieri then introduced Maggie Helton to discuss the
Public Participation Proqress.
Ms. Helton noted that she was a member of the Governing
Council of the Citizens' Planning Group. This group has
been involved and interested since the very beginning. In
the fall of 1990, when the Baldwin Company and the ITF
discovered they had committees duplicating efforts they
combined those 16 committees and developed a plan for three
subcommittees - Natural Resources, Human Resources and
Infrastructure.
~
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
April 29, 1992
8
The Governing Council, composed of all members, has the role
of overseeing the subcommittees, distributing material to
the appropriate subcommittee and providing resolution of
disagreements. The participants are volunteers interested
in their community and its development. Baldwin has
listened and acted on suggestions. CalTrans requested a
representative to discuss SR-125 as a possible toll road. A
series of recommendations have been sent to the ITF. The
members study intensely, and have voted to be active
participants in the workshops. The main reason is to ensure
that the hopes and dreams for this project have the
possibility of attainment. Ms. Helton concluded saying that
the Governing Council would continue to "watch everything
you do".
VII. SCOPE OF FUTURE WORKSHOPS
Mr. Lettieri pointed out that the two half-day workshops
would tour the entire property beginning with the eastern
9,500 acres on May 15 and the balance on May 22. The all-
day workshop on May 16 would be a tour of the entire
property with a noon break.
On 5/29/92 the substantive issue items will be discussed.
Public hearing notices will be mailed to all persons within
1000 feet of the property. Since that numbers in the
thousands, staff is not sure of the level of participation.
Some of the issues include the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan,
the surrounding projects, regional resource studies
including the Natural Communities Conservation Program, the
MUlti-species Conservation Program (MSCP), the Clear l'later
Program, the Wildlife Corridor, the Otay Ranch Regional
Park, the Otay Valley Regional Park Study, the Light Rail
Study and Twin-Ports.
On 6/17/92, nine plan alternatives will be presented and
discussed as well as some of the development project
concepts.
On 7/31/92, issue papers that have been brought to the ITF
for directions will be discussed. These issues have ranged
from road locations and widths to major land uses; such as,
what should happen around the Otay Lakes and Procter Valley.
On 8/19/92, the topic will be Public Facilities including
the 22 Implementation Plans, ranging from arts and cultural
facilities to the standard public facilities, and the impact
of the Service Revenue Study.
9
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
April 29, 1992
9
Mr. Lettieri concluded by saying that now that the
Commissioners have been apprised of the broad subject matter
to be discussed in each workshop, if either Commission wants
something brought back, it can be arranged well before the
deliberations section of the public hearings.
He concluded saying that if the EIR can go out for public
review on July 6, a Final EIR should be available on August
26.
IX. PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Commissioner Fuller (City) asked for any questions the
Commissioners might have and requested that the public wait
until they have finished.
Commissioner Casillas (City) asked if it would be possible
to get the written material on the EIR as it is completed
rather than receive it all at once. After discussion, Mr.
Taylor (Attorney for the County) stated that the complete
EIR is needed for consideration before action can be taken,
but portions of the EIR can be read in advance.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked what would be the rule
regarding conflicting, contradictory or overlapping motions
since each Commission would be making its own motions and
adopting its own course of action? Mr. Lettieri replied
that they would be working on that prOblem over the next
several months, but it is hoped that there will be a
tremendous amount of agreement. Ms. Sheehan (County)
explained that while a difference of opinion between
Commissions is possible, the recommendations are being made
to the deciSion-making bodies; namely, the Board of
Supervisors or City Council. Those bodies will be sitting
together in deliberation and they may also make separate
decisions but it is hoped they will not.
Commissioner Decker (City) asked if that meant each
Commission will make separate motions? Ms. Sheehan replied
affirmatively.
Commissioner Decker (City) asked if copies of the issue
papers being prepared for the July 21 meeting could be given
to the Commissions earlier? Mr. Lettieri replied that the
papers would be distributed well before that date.
Commissioner Wright (County), in reference to Commissioner
Ferraro's query, said that the Executive Staff Force would
be meeting together on a regular basis and would make
certain prOblems are addressed as they arise. Mr. Lettieri
10
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
April 29, 1992
10
added that the reason for having these early workshops is to
iron out the problems in advance so that the process will
not be delayed when deliberations start. He promised that a
great deal of information would be tendered through the
workshop process.
Commissioner Wright added that he appreciated Maggie
Helton's comments and asked how the Group she represented
came into being? Ms. Helton replied that the participants
came together out of their interest in the project. They are
all volunteers and come from all areas of the County
incl udi ng J amul.
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Fuller requested that the public confine their comments
and/or questions to a 3-minute limit.
Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuerte Farms Rd., El Cajon. Mr. Tarr
said he was a third generation County resident, belonged to
the Green Party and was a candidate for state Assembly. He
is encouraged by some of what he has heard but would like
the estimated population amount clarified. Mr. Lettieri
replied that there are nine alternative plans being con-
sidered; therefore, the estimate ranges from 0 to 140,000
people depending on the plan selected.
Mr. Tarr rejoined that regarding the concept of the "New
Town Plan", he would urge the Commissions to ensure they
build for economy and ecology both while planning a new
city.
George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Rd., Chula Vista. Mr.
Kost said he was involved with 12 or 14 organizations. He
agreed with Ms. Helton and elaborated further on the start
of the Citizens' Planning Group. He asked who would conduct
the economic review and what procedure would be used?
Mr. Lettieri answered that the public agencies and Bald~in
are working on the Service Revenue Plan, which is a fiscal
impact analysis, to ascertain the public agencies' cost
which includes public expenditures as well as operational
and maintenance. An exhaustive survey has been made which
included all the public agencies as well as the social
service agencies. From this survey assumptions of what it
would cost to service the project have been made based on
what has been needed for other projects. This information
is applied to the plan alternatives to determine if the
project will pay for itself.
II
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission Workshop
Apr il 29, 1992
11
No one else wishing to speak the meeting was adjourned at 4:54
p.m. to a Social Hour and to the Workshop Meeting of May 15, 1992
at 1:30 p.m. at the Ranch House for a tour of the site.
-v./,,_?-=- ~ L. ~
Ruth ~I. Smith
Secretary
\1.
JOINT CITY OF CHULA VISTA/COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/WORKSHOP
1: 55 p. m.
Friday, May 15, 1992
Otay Ranch House
2691 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Citv of Chula Vista: Susan Fuller, Chair
County of San Dieqo: Richard Wr.ight,
Chair; Lynne Leichtfuss, Phillip Brown,
Edward Ferraro
STAFF AND OTHERS:
County Deputy CAO Lad Sheehan, Deputy
County Counsel will iam Taylor, Assistant
County Planning Director Jerry Jamriska,
Project Team General Manager Tony
Lettieri, Duane Bazzel, Project Team
(City); Anne Ewing, Project Team
(County); Chantal Saipe, Project Team
(County); Fred Arbuckle (Baldwin),
Susanne Glasgow (CalTrans), Liz Harmon
(Star News) and six members of the
publ ic
I. OTAY RANCH HOUSE. - Site #1
Tony Lettieri welcomed those in attendance and outl ined the
tour route for the two eastern parcels, the San Ysidro and
the Proctor Valley Parcel. Maps of the proposed route were
passed out. From the Ranch House (Site #1) travel would be
to the north side of the lake (Sites #2, 3 and 4) and then
to the east side. The tour will then move to the furthest
eastern end of the San Ysidro Parcel and view the more rural
locations of the area (Sites #9, 10 and 11) within the
community of Delzura. From Jamul to Proctor Valley (Sites
#12 and 13), the trip would proceed into Central Proctor
Valley which includes Sites #13, 14, 15 and 16. The half-
day tour will take 3-1/2 hours and the agenda will be
closely followed.
Mr. Lettieri said that two changes have been made; namely,
no stop at Site #4, the Wildlife Corridor, because of a
washout in the road nor at Site #10, Long Valley. Where no
stop is made, for example Sites #3 and 4, the areas will be
pointed out during passing.
He reminded the participants that the Public Hearing/Work-
shop would be recorded as well as videotaped. The County
Counsel and the City Attorney have advised that the project
not be discussed in the vans. Presentations will be made at
the indicated stops where members of the public can hear the
deliberations of the Commission.
'2..
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 15, 1992
2
Anne Ewing distributed a packet on Environmental Resource
Information which is a brief excerpt from the EIR. Also
distributed was a Resource Sensitivity Analysis packet, an
excerpt from the Resource Management Plan (R~lP). The RHP is
a new document accompanying the EIR which gives an overview
of the goal, all of the objectives and a description of the
11,000 to 12,000 acre preserve to be created on this proj-
ect. The excerpt from the RMP is to be read in preparation
for the discussion of subregional issues at the May 29
meeting.
Figure 23 in this document, is a concept of the composite
preserve; a combination of different elements that approxi-
mate what the preserve will look like. Using the map today
will aid the Commission in determining whether they are in a
preserve area or merely crossing one.
Ms. Ewing gave a quick overview of the Env ironmental Re-
source Information handout. She explained that the
information on the maps is arranged by each of the parcels
in the same order; Otay Valley, Proctor Valley and San
Ysidro Parcel. Figures 3.2-1a through 3.2-lc give a sense
of the degree of slope around the environmental resources.
Table 3.3-1 is a compilation of the different kinds of
vegetation, the acreage and the parcel location. Figures
3.3-1a through 3.3-lc indicate the vegetation communities on
the by parcel. This is purely descriptive information and
does not reflect the sensitive vegetation community.
There are 23 very sensitive plants on the Ranch and are
listed in the next series of Figures. Figures 3.3-2a
through 3.3-2c indicate the location of the sensitive
plants, Priority 1 and 2, which are found on the Federal
List Category 2 and the highest list of the State level.
Figures 3.3-2d through 3.3-2f are Priority 3 and 4 level.
Figures 3.3-3a through 3.3-3c indicate the sensitive animals
by parcel.
Figures 3.3-4a through 3.3-4c show the sensitive habitat
with sensitive plants and sensitive animals overlaid. For
example, 3.3-4a shows the sensitive habitat on the Otay
Valley Parcel is found mainly in a a-shaped configuration
from Salt Creek Canyon to the Otay River Valley then north-
wards through Wolf Canyon. The northwest corner is Poggi
Canyon. Figure 3.3-4b (Proctor Valley Parcel) shows that
the sensitive habitat is ~ore evenly distributed on the
south and western side of that parcel. Figure 3.3-4c (San
Ysidro Parcel) indicates that many more species are found on
the western half and very few on the eastern. The most
3
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission 3
Publ ic Hearing/\1orkshop - ~lay 15, 1992
prevalent sensitive habitat on the Ranch is coastal sage
scrub and it is found throughout.
Hs. Ewing concluded her presentation saying that Figure 3.3-
7 was of the Regional vlildl ife Corridors. The corridors are
marked in lighter cross-hatching and on the western parcel,
a darker set of lines shows the movement of the gnatcatchers
and the cactus wrens. These maps will be utilized during
the tour.
The members of the Project Team, staff members of both the
City and the County as well as Fred Arbuckle from Baldwin
were introduced by Mr. Lettieri. The Commissioners, the
County Counsel, secretary and video recorder were assigned
to the same van.
Mr. Arbuckle warned all persons that the roads were steep
and roughly graded and that rattlers and tarantulas might be
in the tall grass. He asked for and received verbal
acknowledgement from the participants of the dangers and
discomforts involved.
II. HALF-DAY ROUTE ON MAY 15, 1991 AND MORNING ROUTE ON MAY 16
Si te #2 - Overv iew of the Lake: Resort.
After passengers disembarked, Mr. Arbuckle pointed out the
boundaries of the Baldwin Property on the south side of the
lake. He indicated Savage Dam on the opposite side of the
river valley by the first hill and noted that Baldwin owns
the land just to this side of the river valley. He also
pointed out an area of dirt roads and trails as that of the
Helix/Lambron Company, owners of the valley bottom. He
indicated the 160 acres which are shown on the map as a
small outparcel disconnected from the rest of property.
Hr. Arbuckle told the Commissioners that Baldwin owned all
the property to the north of where they were standing. He
identified Miguel Mountain, which is not owned by Baldwin,
and pointed out where the Baldwin and Daley property met.
Hr. Lettieri stated that there are nine different alterna-
tives being studied in the EIR. This is one of the con-
troversial areas. The extent of development of the north,
east and south side of the lake is tne subject of an issue
paper to be distributed on May 29 for discussion at the June
Workshop. Most of the alternatives on the north side of the
lake include a resort and some single- and mul ti-family
residential.
Pointing out the existing location of Otay Lakes Road,
Mr. Lettieri continued that some of the alternatives propose
tf
Joint County/Chula vista Planning Commission
publ ic Hearing/Workshop - Hay 15, 1992
4
a realignment to bring it much further to the north to
eliminate the curve down to the left.
Some of the issues on the east and south side of the lake
relate to the expansion of development further to the south.
Some issues relate not only to the preservation of resources
but the character of development on the southeast side.
There are two areas of separation. The area shown on the
map as "a bowl-area east of the lake" is shown as a develop-
ment on many of the al ternatives. Some development is shown
further to the south. All depends on which alternative is
being considered. There are different levels of development
planned to the south, not along the lake edge, but along
Baldwin's property.
Anne Ewing requested that the Environmental Information
packet be turned to the sensitive habitat depiction, Figure
3.3-4b. The main crosshatching, which covers almost all of
this parcel, is coastal sage grass. The stars indicate
sensi tive animals but most of them are Cal ifornia gnat-
catchers. In the area on the edge of this marine terrace,
are several vernal pools. The southern part of the parcel
contains disturbed Valley needlegrass grasslands. Ms. Ewing
then pointed out some chamise chaparral.
Mr. Lettieri noted that the Commission would view, at a
later date, issues concerning the extent of development
going up toward the hill. He suggested remembering the site
and that slides of the hillside will be furnished at the
time of consideration.
Mr. Lettieri stated that the tour would proceed to Sites #3
and #4 but without stopping at them. The next stop will be
at the "bowl-area east of the lake" which will offer a dif-
ferent perspective looking back to this area.
The vans ~v~r.2 Dcarded again and they returned to Otay Lakes
Road. Site #3, Overview from above the road: residential,
was observed as the vans proceeded.
Site #4, the wildlife openspace corridor was pointed out on
the left. This regional wildlife corridor extends all of
the way to the top of Jamul Mountain, is a staging area and
then goes to San Miguel Mountain. It extends from this area
around the lake. The biological studies show this as a
major regional wildlife corridor and it will be discussed at
the May 29 Workshop.
Site #5 - "Bowl-Area" east of the lake.
An aerial map was displayed and Mr. Lettieri requested that
5
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 15, 1992
Mr. Arbuckle indicate the property line relative to this
site's location.
5
Mr. Arbuckle pointed out the location of the Ranch House and
then traced the passage of the vans out into the plateau and
up the road to the old fence. The vans then turned around
and returned along the lake front. They stopped at Site #4
and looked up the canyon at the wildl ife corridor. He iden-
tified the aircraft runway in the opposi te di rection. The
vans then went through Thousand Trails Campground, crossed a
little creek called the Delzura Conduit and arrived at this
location.
Mr. Arbuckle indicated the right hand side of the mountain
that is on Daley's property and noted a rock formation that
marked Baldwin's property line. The I ine comes down onto
the smaller ridge and carries over to another rock outcrop-
ping. That is the Proctor Valley Parcel which goes on to
the north.
Looking to the right, everything on both of the hills is
Baldwin's property. Baldwin owns the land just to the top
of the knoll which has the little alien trail going up the
face. That's about as high as the property goes. He indi-
cated some fence posts on top of a hill and noted that the
land continues onto the backside of the hill. Outlining the
property owned by the City of San Diego, he stated that
Baldwin owned most of everything viewed except those moun-
tains.
Mr. Lettieri remarked that many of the proposed alterna-
tives show villages or a village in this area, a village
being mixed-use development, a commercial/residential
development. Some show a very low densi ty and other
alternatives show no development. The question to be dealt
with at some point will be what, if any, development would
be appropriate in this area and how far should it extend to
the east or the north.
He added for the benefit of the County Commissioners since
the County has different policies from the City, that this
area is outside of the County Water Authority. There is a
line crossing the resort site, probably about the eastern
2/3 of the surrounding area, which is outside the Water
Authority boundary. All of Proctor Valley is inside the
boundary. The area would have to annex to the Water Author-
ity at some future date should development be approved.
Hs. Ewing referenced Figure 3.3-4c and noted the great vari-
ety of resources; the dark green chaparral, the coastal
sage, and many gnatcatchers. The conifers growing in the
o
Join" XLlltv/:.Lla Vista Pl:;;
_caring/Workshop - Hay 15, 1992
drainage area are Tecate cypress which are quite rare in the
Uni ted states. They occur in small groups in several of the
drainages on this parcel only and are remnants of, or strag-
glers from a very large Tecate cyprus forest here on Otay
Hountain. 1-1s. Ewing noted that many birds could be found on
this site and indicated an offsite riparian development.
In response to a question about drainage, Ms. Ewing said
that it ran toward the lake. In response to a query if the
lake ever harbored any of the migrating geese in the winter
time, she replied that it probably did and that the Audubon
Society takes a bird count several times a year because of
the different species in the area.
She explained that there are several wildlife corridors.
This site is one, the road itself is a corridor, and several
come down out of the mountains to the lake and then head up
through that main corridor (Site #4), through the Jamul
r10untains over into Proctor Valley and beyond.
Mr. Lettieri called attention to the exhibits which have
water lines delineated. These are management-level lines for
the Otay Lakes. However, there is a boundary line which
comes much further up to this area. That is owned by the
Ci ty of San Di ego. The management-level w ill be the 1 ine we
that will be shown on the maps to be distributed to the Com-
missioners.
Ms. Ewing explained that the coastal sage is not just one
plant but is a community of plants including sage, buck-
wheat, sometimes the San Diego sunflower, and 40-some
sensitive annual species.
Regarding archeology, Hs. Ewing said the whole ranch is rich
with archeology. As an example of historic archeology, a
house used to be on this hill overlooking the whole valley.
Mr. Lettieri added that this area and the south side of the
lake are fairly important as issue areas. As the vans
travel south toward Savage Darn (Site #6), the lake will be
on the right side. He pointed out the Olympic Training
Center (OTC) and the proposed university site which will be
part of next Friday's tour.
Mr. Arbuckle, using the map, showed where the vans would be
going. He noted that the tour would be off the property for
some way. There is a little finger of the lake that comes
back to form a small canyon and the orange tape on the fence
in the small valley marks the property. On the return trip,
the vans will go up on Helix property and back into another
bowl area and the view across the lake will be excellent.
:}
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 15, 1992
7
After that, the vans will go through the back gate of
Thousand Trails Campground to the next site.
Site #6: Savage Dam
Mr. Lettieri pointed out the Ranch House property and then
to the north side of the lake where Site #2 is located. He
also pointed out the EastLake Greens Golfcourse Development.
He showed the location of the old dam that washed out in
1916.
Site #7 - Overview of the lake from south side was noted as
the vans proceeded.
In the van, County Counsel Taylor expressed concern that all
the Commissioners (some of whom were absent) would not see
and hear the same thing. He said that, next time, more
effort should be made to have all participate. He explained
that it is not the custom of the County Commission to make
field trips. If the Commissioners wish to visit a site,
they do it individually and then report their observations.
Site #8 - The Little Cedar Creek wildlife corridor was noted
as the vans proceeded.
The vans passed through Site #9 - Oak grove preserve, after
leaving the back gate of Thousand Trails. The Commissioners
also viewed Site #10, Long Valley, from the van.
Site #11: Back country property line.
Using the aerial map, Mr. Arbuckle traced the route of the
tour from the last stop. From Savage Dam to where the vans
turned around, then stopped to view Little Cedar Creek
wildlife corridor, came through Thousand Trails Campground
to the back gate, drove through the grove of oak trees (Site
#9), and up the switchback, through Long Valley to Site #11.
The third canyon starts the offsite area of the Baldwin
property. The property line goes to the left, just above a
little grassland area on the second ridgeline over. A trail
that heads back up to the dark green vegetation can be seen
as it goes offsite. To the right of that in the canyon
below, is offsite. Over to the next canyon is Hubbard
Springs.
Mr. Lettieri said that most of the plans for the area show
very, very low density development, three- to four-acre
lots. The exhibits and maps that the Commission will view
8
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 15, 1992
8
show a definite separation from the lake area. There is .
usually a separation with open space and then there is some
very low density development here. The extent and limits of
development, for environmental reasons especially, is an
issue here.
Ms. Ewing reported that Figure 3.3-4c is still being used.
The resources include a few oak trees and some disturbed
grassland. She explained that there are only 50 acres of
undisturbed Needlegrass land on the property. Ms. ~ving
pointed out the location of two Mexican flannel bush shrubs.
These are the only two in the United States.
Mr. Arbuckle indicated the route to be traversed to leave
the site. In the valley, the vans will pass an old
structure which marks the property line. From there, out to
Highway 94 is owned by Daley. Beyond the treeline that
works across the far end of the valley is Highway 94 which
continues around the next set of mountains to Delzura.
Baldwin's property line comes up and around and over on the
other side of those utility lines and goes on back up beyond
the other side of this hill so the backside of the property
line cannot be seen. It then continues further north and
joins with Daley's property which comes up to the ridgeline.
The homes up above are served by the road over to the left
side of the ridgeline, Honey Springs Road.
He replied to a question saying that the amount of property
developed, the amount preserved (and how it is preserved)
depends on which alternative is reviewed. Different
alternatives also utilize different methods for preserving
different parts of the property.
Mr. Lettieri reminded the Commissioners that they will want
to recall this view when the matter is discussed at the
workshop.
In reply to a question regarding access to this property if
it is developed, Mr. Arbuckle said that there are two
routes, one of which is from Otay Lakes Road. However,
further to the east where the road came up Thousand Trails,
another canyon emerges and secondary access would be through
this area. He suggested that the Commissioners notice dif-
ferent land forms with an easterly exposure within the bowl
area, see how the land form sets and then, perhaps, pick out
different ways for a road to work through.
It was asked if Daley's property, which is between Baldwin
and the road would be incorporated into some kind of access?
He replied that both here and by Jamul there is need to
~
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearingjl'iorkshop - r'lay IS, 1992
9
coordinate with adjacent property owners.
Mr. Lettieri announced that this would be the last stop and
we would now head down to Highway 94 and the Ranch House.
At 5:45, Commissioner Wright left the tour group and departed for
Jamul. County Counsel Taylor declared the meeting was over as
there was no longer a quorum.
ADJOURNMENT AT 5:45 p.m. to the second half of the tour of the
Otay Ranch with departure from the Otay
Ranch House at 1:30 p.m., May 22, 1992.
~--;.."" /,-----1::"-----./)
I -Z:--L. /-"7; >n'" L _
Ruth 11. Smith
Secretary
10
\
\
JOINT CITY OF CHULA VISTA/COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
PLANNING Cor-HESSION PUBLIC HEARING/HORKSHOP
8:30 a.m.
Saturday, May 16, 1992
Otay Ranch House
2691 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
City of Chula Vista - Joe Casillas,
Joanne Carson, Laverne Decker, Robert
Tugenberg, Tom Martin
County of San Dieqo - None
STAFF AND OTHERS:
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Project
Team Gene ral r.lanage r Tony Lettier i,
Duane Bazzel, Project Team (City); Anne
Ewing, Project Team (County); Fred
Arbuckle (BaldWin), Assistant Director
of Planning Lee, one member of the
publ ic
I. OTAY RANCH HOUSE - Site #1
Tony Lettieri welcomed those in attendance and notified them
that this was a Public Hearing and would be recorded by the
secretary as ,veIl as videotaped. This is to provide any
Commissioner who is not in attendance with a record of what
has transpired or been viewed.
Mr. Lettieri stated that the tour would be through some of
the critical areas on the site. About an hour will be spent
on the east and south side of the lake to afford a perspec-
ive of some of the issues and the land use alternatives as
well as the environmental resources.
The focus of today's trip is an orientation to the site as
well as the environmental resources. The nine different
alternatives will not be discussed in detail; however, the
range of alternatives available will be indicated.
He introduced Anne Ewing, a member of the Project Team, to
discuss the environmental resources and Fred Arbuckle, from
Baldwin, to present a property description utilizing an
aerial photograph.
Anne Ewing reviewed the two handouts. The excerpts from the
Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the Environmental
Resources Information. The RMP travels with the EIR but
will not be utilized on the tour except for the map, Figure
II
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
2
23, of the conceptual composite preserve. The RMP deals
with the creation of this 11,000- to 12,000-acre preserve
which will incorporate biological and archeological
resources. The map will be used during the tour to enable
the Commissioners to determine if they are in an area that
is proposed to be preserved or not.
Regarding the Environmental Resources Information, which is
on the agenda for May 26, Ms. Ewing noted that the first
three maps, Figures 3.2-la through 3.2-lc, concern slope
criteria on the three parcels. This information is provided
because development is sensitive to the degree of slope.
There are 15%, 15-25%, and greater-than-25% slopes.
The next table, Figure 3.3-1, gives the acres of vegetative
cover. As shown in the table, the largest resource on the
Ranch is the Diegan coastal sage scrub, which is a very
sensitive habitat. On the Ranch are grasslands, alkaline
meadows, woodlands, aquatic wetlands and marshes.
Figures 3.3-la through 3.3-lc show the location of these
vegetation communities by parcel.
Following that are quite a few figures on the sensitive
plants. The first three, Figures 3.3-2a through 3.3-2c, are
on the Priority 1 and 2 and those are the Federally listed
and state listed. The next three, Figures 3.3-2d through
3.3-2f, are of lesser sensitivity in San Diego County.
There are 23 very sensitive species on the Ranch.
Figures 3.3-3a through 3.3-3c provide the same represen-
tation, but for the sensitive animals.
The next series of maps, goes from a representation of the
kind of habitats and where they are located to what is
considered by biologists as the sensitive habitat. Figures
3.3-4a through 3.3-4c will be reviewed during the travel
from site to site.
Also, the last map, Figure 3.3-7, the Regional wildlife
Corridor Study will be used. The lighter crosshatching
shows the corridors that have been identified for the large
mammals, deer, bobcat, lion and coyote. The darker cross-
hatching on the western parcel is specific only to the
gnatcatcher and the cactus wren. Gnatcatchers and cactus
wrens do occur on other areas of the Ranch but this is the
main corridor that has been counted and studied. The
coastal sage scrub is the habitat for these birds.
!~
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
3
Mr. Arbuckle indicated on the aerial map the location of the
Ranch House. He said a stop would be made at the exit of
the dirt drive to afford a view back up Proctor Valley.
This will be an indication of what defines the planning area
in terms of the land form on both the east and west sides as
well as to the north. The lay of the road and its path
through Proctor Valley will be observable.
Across Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, the route will
proceed to what is referred to as the resort site, a large,
broad plateau overlooking the lake. From there is a view
back to the Olympic Training Center (OTC) which is presently
being graded.
The tour will then proceed to a higher elevation showing
some of the views and the existing land forms getting
steeper to the south. Returning along Otay Lakes Road, a
wildlife corridor, Site #4, will be viewed as the tour
continues to the south side of the lake, returns through
Thousand Trails and traverses into the higher elevations and
views the Tecate cypress, Site #11. The trip will then
proceed to Highway 94, the Daley Ranch property, go to the
northernmost portions of the Proctor Valley and stop for
lunch in Jamul.
After lunch, several stops will be made to look at the
wildlife corridors, and travel across the 9,500-acre piece
to the top of Rock Mountain, Site #20. The trip will be
concluded upon return to the Ranch House around 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Arbuckle advised the one member of the public that some
dangers were associated with the trip; namely, rattlers and
tarantulas in the tall grass as well as rough travel over
poorly graded roads. He asked and received verbal
acknowledgement of the dange rs involved.
II. HORNING ROUTE ON HAY 16, 1992
The Commissioners, Assistant City Attorney and the secretary
were assigned to the same van.
Site #2 - Overview of lake: resort.
Hr. Arbuckle said that the large area of land to the south
is owned by the City of San Diego. Baldwin's property
extends back into the hills behind the sports center. He
identified the extensively graded land as belonging to the
Helix Land Company. He noted that the property behind the
Commissioners belonged to the Bureau of Land Management
13
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
4
(BLM). Otherwise, all the mountain, with the exception of
the outparcel, is owned by Baldwin.
Across the lake, the large flat area in the foreground
belongs to the City of San Diego. He indicated the County
Park owned by the City of San Diego. The little hill to its
rear is on the opposite side of the Otay River valley. The
river valley takes off to the left between the next land
forms. I'lhere the dark vegetation meets the 1 ight vegetation
is about as high as Baldwin development goes, about a
quarter of the way up the hillside. He pointed out the
outparcel owned by the Helix Land Company whose land comes
all the way down the valley. The next peak over belongs to
Baldwin. Further to the left, the large bowl area is Site 5
which will be visited. He pointed out the location of the
wildlife corridor, Site #4, which is inaccessible at present
because of a land washout. Mr. Arbuckle continued that
the property goes upward to include both of the indicated
hills. A BLl>! out-parcel is located on the peak.
He pointed out the Olympic Training Center (OTC) on the
opposite side of the lake. The eucalyptus trees in front of
the graded OTC area identify the proposed boathouse loca-
tion. The high powerline towers are on Baldwin's property
and in the extreme distance can be seen Rock Mountain which
is also on the property.
Mr. Lettieri observed that most of the nine alternatives
show this site as a resort. There are a variety of residen-
tial units proposed in some of the alternatives. Especially
in the lower intensity alternatives throughout the ErR, no
residential units are proposed. The area around the lake is
probably one of the three or four most visible land use
areas on which you will be asked to make decisions.
On the east side of the lake, the area we call the "bowl-
area", Site # 4, is where a village is proposed on many of
the alternatives. A village is mixed-use residential,
commercial or mixed-density residential from Single-family
to estate, to very, low density multiple-family. Some
alternatives show no development on the east or south area
of the lake. The whole south side, east of the lake will be
a very visible issue when we reach that point.
Ms. Ewing referenced Figure 3.3-4b, the sensitive resources
on the Proctor Valley Parcel. She noted that the composite
of the preserve shows this area is not in the preserve but
is an area of highly disturbed grassland with very few
sensitive resources. South, along the edge, are some vernal
If
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Publ ic Hearing/Workshop - nay 16, 1992
5
pools. Most of them do not have indicated species but one
does have a Federally listed species called "little mouse-
tail". On the north side of Proctor Valley are pools that
are easier to get to and have more species in bloom.
This area contains many gnatcatchers and sensitive sparrows;
small, brown birds that fly up and just over the tops of the
grass when flushed.
There are several sensitive plants as well as a Federally
listed mint that occur over to the west. Because this
grassland is disturbed, it is not considered as sensitive as
a local native grassland would be. Far more beautiful
grasslands can be observed east on the San Ysidro Parcel.
Ms. Ewing pointed out the coastal sage scrub on the
mountainside and the very dark green chamise chaparral.
Mr. Lettieri said that most of the alternatives shaw the
relocation of Otay Lakes Road by eliminating the severe
curve on the west side of the lake. He traced other
physical changes that are being considered which would
result in Otay Lakes Road being north instead of south of
the tours present location. He pointed out where the resort
area would be and noted that there would be some residential
south and some north of Otay Lakes Road.
He continued that the vans would proceed north a short dis-
tance to afford a perspective of the si te to the south. A
wildlife corridor will be observed from Otay Lakes Road.
The next formal stop area will be the "bowl-area" east of
the lake, Site #5.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the east end of the lake
would cross approximately where it crosses now? The answer
was affirmative. Commissioner Decker remarked that there
would be a fairly sharp bend in the road to the left eventu-
ally.
Mr. Lettieri indicated a change in the itinerary; namely,
that there would be no stop at Savage Dam (Site #6) as that
can be viewed better from the western parcel. The intent of
that stop had been to view an area on the Baldwin property
which most of the alternatives show as open space except for
the original 1989 New Town Plan which showed some
development.
Site #3 - OVerview from above the road: residential, was
observed as the vans proceeded.
J~
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - Nay 16, 1992
6
Site #4 - The wildlife open space corridor was pointed out
on the left.
Site #5 - "Bowl-area" east of lake.
Mr. Arbuckle traced the route followed from Site #2 saying
the tour had travelled alongside the lake, climbed the hill
and gone across on City of San Diego property.
He indicated that the runway was on City of San Diego prop-
erty under a lease arrangement. All of the tall vegetation
to the left is <,lso on the City property. A fence-line that
runs just beneath the dark green vegetation and goes out to
the west is basically Baldwin's property line. The tops of
some tall eucalyptus trees visible on the other side of the
ridge are all on Baldwin's property. The property line is
just to the right of the eucalyptus trees, takes in all of
the ridge indicated back to the small, round hill. It then
just catches the top of the hill in line with the tower on
Otay Mountain, catches the top of the ridgeline below,
returns to this hill and the two behind it. The base of the
hill with the rock outcroppings is owned by Daley Ranch.
Baldwin's property line is approximately at the top of the
rock outcropping. Then it returns at an angle, across a
minor ridge to the east side and turns down into Delzura
Creek.
Hs. Ew ing ref erenced Fi gure 3. 3-4c and decl ared that several
villages are proposed for this site. The maps indicate much
coastal sage scrub which is the mossy, soft green, low vege-
tation, chaparral and tall grasses.
She pointed out a significant drainage course close by for
two stated reasons. First, because it is a wildlife
corridor and, second, because remnants of continuity with
the Tecate cypress forest up on Otay Hountain is found in
that drainage by the presence of individual conifers. The
mountain, itself, is almost all cypress forest.
The resources at this site are gnatcatchers in the coastal
sage scrub, the wildlife corridor drainage and the presence
of the cypress.
Another significant point of the San Ysidro Parcel is it is
the connecting point with the BLI1 lands, the \,ilderness
preserved areas.
/b
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
publ ic Hearing/Workshop - Hay 16, 1992
7
In reply to a question of where the large animals generally
water, Hs. Ewing said they come dOl~n this corridor to the
lake. She added that there was qui te a network of corriuors
throughout the area.
Mr. Lettieri reviewed some of the land use issues saying
that a number of alternatives indicate residential in this
area. The center of the village would be closer to Otay
Lakes Road. Some of the land use issues relate to the
appropriateness of any development south and east of the
lake. The other issues include how far south should it go,
if development is permitted in this area? He said that the
trip would continue further south onto the Helix Land Com-
pany property and then look back in this di recti on. He
adv ised that the Commissioners wO.uld be off-site when they
reach the graded sections and the view from there would
provide a good perspective of what is happening in this
direction. Nr. Lettieri explained that these are some of
the areas about which the Commission will be asked to make
decisions regarding how far south development is appropri-
ate. Alternatives for this area include limiting develop-
ment on the lake with nothing in this area, to spotting some
development east of the lake.
Mr. Arbuckle said a stop alongside of the road would be made
on the return trip at Little Cedar Creek, Site #8, which is
one of the major \~ildlife corridors connecting Otay r.lountain
to Jamul Mountain. The animals tend to cross and go back up
into the Jamul Hountains. There is also the convergence of
three drainage areas.
Commissioner Decker asked if all drained toward the lake.
The answer was affirmative.
Site .6 - Savage Dam. The visit to this site was cancelled
because of time constrains.
Site .7 - OVerview of lake from south Sloe, was noted as the
vans proceeded. The proposed university site was indicated.
Hr. Bazzel noted that the area is shown as a community park
on the Chula Vista General Plan.
Mr. Bazzel pointed out Site #8, Little Cedar Creek wildlife
corridor.
Ten minute break at Thousand Trails Campground. Resumed
trip at 10:40 a.m. Passed through back gate of Campground
and viewed site '9, oak grove preserve, and Site '10, Long
Valley, as van progressed.
I""r
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
8
Site #11 - Back country property line.
Mr. Lettieri said that Site #11 vas the easternmost area on
the San Ysidro Parcel.
Mr. Arbuckle showed on the aerial map where a stop had been
made at Thousand Trails Campground. The trip progressed
through the oak grove and up through Long Valley. He
pointed out where the high tension lines cross the property.
The tour continued to the present location above a ravine.
He explained that the hill in the foreground is on Baldwin's
property. There are three ravines on the property. The
third ravine, the furthest one to the west, is close to the
property line. Continuing due south, a small trail heads
back toward the peak. \'There it meets the dark green vege-
tation is the southernmost extremity of Baldwin's property.
From there the line continues in a due-east direction. The
large trees on the small knoll are also on Baldwin's land.
The other side of the drainage course pretty much defines
the boundary for development in a number of different
proposals. The hill in the foreground is Baldwin's
property. Looking east, all the darker vegetation in the
foreground before entering the valley is Baldwin's land.
The property line is in the valley east of the high tension
lines.
Walking across to the other side of the site, Mr. Arbuckle
identified a broad valley as Sycamore Canyon which goes back
up far behind Baldwin's property. There are a number of
different property owners on the other side of Sycamore
Canyon. He indicated the Daley property which buffers
Baldwin's property from Highway 94, and pointed out the cars
at the end of Sycamore Canyon travelling along Highway 94 to
Jamul on the left and Delzura on the right.
Mr. Arbuckle indicated an old corral and structure which
mark the Baldwin property line. The line then continues to
the left through a few oak trees to a rock outcropping which
marks the other point of the line.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there was any place where
Baldwin's property touched Highway 94. Mr. Arbuckle
replied, "not through this area". He continued that,
depending upon which alterative was examined, there are
ways to access this site. One, would be to come through
Sycamore Canyon near the old ranch house or down by the oak
trees, crossing Daley's property. Then there is another
/8"
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
9
canyon to the north which is a potential for access.
Mr. Arbuckle stated that the vans
and then branch off to the right.
change of topography between Site
Valley.
would retrace their route
He called attention to a
*11 and that of Long
Mr. Lettieri said this area has been relatively issue free
regarding land use. Most of the alternatives show very,
very low density. The County's General Plan shows 4-, 8-,
and 20-acre lots, depending on slope. Most of the alter-
natives show either that development or no development. The
issues are primarily environmental as this area is very rich
in resources.
Ms. Ewing noted that the referenced areas were mostly on the
other side of the si te. She recapped the dr ive up, say ing
the oak woodland passed through, Site #9, contained two
kinds of oak; the regular live oak and the much rarer blue-
green Engelmann oak. A drainage course to the west side
supported Tecate cypress. She pointed out the location of
the Mexican flannelbush. The two plants represent the only
two in the United States according to the botanists.
She remarked that Long Valley, Site 10, has one of the
largest stands of grasslands on the Ranch, albeit disturbed
gr assl ands.
The coastal sage scrub at this site is not so bio-diverse as
it is on the western parcel, Proctor Valley and the western
part of San Ysidro. There are more sensi tive species there.
Fewer birds and fewer sensitive plant species are found
here. The exception is in the ravine where the Mexican
flannelbush occurs.
Ms. Ewing identified a patch of rough green running up the
side of Otay Mountain as chaparral and the very smooth, dark
green of the huge stand as the Tecate cypress forest.
Commissioner Decker asked if this was the extent of the
range of the Diegan coastal sage scrub. Ms. Ewing replied
that the range extended further, however, the number of
birds declined. The reason is not really known.
(11:40 - 12:20 break for lunch at Jamul).
Jg
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
10
Site #12 - Upper Proctor Valley.
Mr. Lettieri said there had been little or no controversy
regarding the Jamul portion of the property. The County
General Plan designation is 2-, 4- and 8-acre lots and the
average density on most of the alternatives is 2-acre
minimum, 3-acre average.
Mr. Arbuckle pointed out Site 11 and the route to Jamul. He
indicated the small development known as Echo Valley. The
majority of the lots are I-acre. Some 1/2-acre lots were
created in the past but are now forbidden by ordinance.
Daley owns all of the land across the valley.
Mr. Arbuckle said another wildlife corridor, Site 13, would
be viewed, then Proctor Valley, Site #14, and the vans would
return to the lower portion of the valley and the upper
reservoir.
He indicated the dark green patches of vegetation among the
large expanse of grasslands, saying it marked the top of the
San Ysidro parcel where the vans travelled before lunch.
The bluff that comes out to the left is all on Daley's prop-
erty. The farming operations are also. On the other side
of Highway 94, the shiny plastic area is part of Daley's
ranching operations. Across the street is Jamul Estate, a
very nice, high-quality, high-end development. He then
pointed out Lyon's Valley Road which goes through the center
part of Jamul.
Mr. Arbuckle stressed that in looking at the topography, it
is important to imagine where Proctor Valley Road might go.
Some alternatives proposed bringing Proctor Valley Road
through this site to Highway 94 near the location of the
shiny pI astic. Another al terna ti ve woul d take it back
through the hillside next to the residences and to the cor-
ner intersection of Melody Lane and Highway 94.
From another vantage point, he pointed out the community of
Jamul and the valley where Hidden Valley Estates will be
developed. He pointed out Echo Valley again, and then the
barn where the vans accessed Baldwin's Proctor Valley
Pa reel.
Mr. Arbuckle noted that Baldwin's property extends to the
base of San Miguel Mountain and continues down into Proctor
Vall ey.
1--0
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
11
Mr. Lettieri interrupted to say that one of the issues
presented to the Commission will involve Millar Ranch Road
and the impact the project might have. That road will
eventually proceed to Highway 94 and is planned for four
lanes. The issue is very controversial in the community of
Jamul.
Mr. Arbuckle added that Millar Ranch Road will start to the
left of the existing development and continue through to
Hidden Valley Estates development.
Looking to the south, the two peaks are within the ownership
of BLM. Baldwin owns the other peak and all of the land in
the foreground.
Ms. Ewing referenced Figure 3.3-4b noting that the vans had
corne through a meadow with a very high water table. Among
the grasses are found large brown clumps called rushes which
are indicative of high water tables. The amount of buck-
wheat in bloom indicates very disturbed coastal sage.
Further into the property, very good coastal sage which
moves into chaparral and the BLM lands can be found.
On the north-facing slopes are several sensitive species;
such as, Otay manzanita. The vegetation changes as it moves
inland and up the slopes. There are not very many birds
because of the extreme disturbance.
Regarding the high-water table, Mr. Lettieri mentioned that
one of the issues about which Jamul is concerned is the
extension of sewer.
Mr. Lettieri remarked that the vans would continue through
central Proctor Valley where one of the wildlife corridors
would be seen (Site #13). It is more of a drainage course
but serves as a local corridor. It is critical because of
the separation issue between the Community of Jamul and when
it becomes Central Proctor Valley. This will be discussed
during the hearing process so the corridor will be pointed
out. After that, another stop will be made to give an
overview of Proctor Valley area (Site #14). Another stop
will be made at the regional wildlife corridor (Site #15).
Site #13 - Wildlife corridor/Visual separation. The visual
separation provided by the wildlife corridor was observed
from the vans.
~\
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
12
A stop was made to view a vernal pool, a low clay pan that
held water at one time. Ms. Ewing stated that the vernal
pool had passed its prime and everything has flowered and is
going to seed. Over the millennia, vernal pools have devel-
oped their own special flora and fauna. There are certain
indicator species of plants that occur only in vernal pools.
Some occur in vernal pools and also in other areas but they
are not so sensitive. Ms. Ewing stated that in the western
parcel on the south side of the Otay River Valley is a
section of 230 acres of vernal pools that will be preserved.
Site #14, Overview of Proctor Valley.
Mr. Lettieri said Central Proctor Valley lay to the south.
He reminded the Commissioners that at the wildlife corridor
stop, there had been a break in topography where the
property oriented more toward to Jamul than Proctor Valley.
This will be discussed during the hearings because of the
concern, depending on which alternative is chosen, about the
community of Proctor Valley itself. The alternatives are
varied. The County General Plan designates 4-, 8- and 20-
acre lots. Many of the alternatives being considered
include urban densities, ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 lots.
Most of the alternatives show Central Proctor Valley as a
village with Proctor Valley Road winding its way up through
the community.
Mr. Arbuckle indicated a small canyon to the right. At the
top of the hill is the location of the vernal pools.
Looking down and over the valley, Baldwin's ?roperty line
crosses through a swale and comes up to the top of the small
land form with the dark green vegetation. It then turns and
zig-zags all the way through here. There are a number of
different property owners through here, then City of San
Diego property, more different owners and then Salt Creek.
The land form needed to provide orientation would be that
ridgeline just to the right of the tower which is on Salt
Creek and is proposed as single-family detached housing.
Continuing across the horizon, Tijuana can be seen on a
clear day. The EastLake Greens development can be seen and
the eucalyptus near the Ranch House. The slight hill just
to the left of the Ranch House site is an area to be dis-
cussed during the hearings; whether or not something should
occur on the top. From there on back, if a straight line
were drawn up to the saddle on the left, in terms of flatter
topography that is a line of elevation that pretty much
determines where the steeper topography starts.
2~
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/l'lorkshop - Hay 16, 1992
13
The BLll property comes down to just above the saddle and
takes in the peaks. Baldwin owns from the BLl! property back
to the top of the valley behind. This pretty much br ings
out the view of Jamul and the residences in Jamul.
Again, moving to the west, the property on the big mountain
is not Baldwin's. Moving down south, again there is
mUltiple-ownership.
I!s. Ewing said Figure 3.3-4b shows coastal sage and
chaparral. There are gnatcatchers in the valley but not so
densely as they are further south. They do not occur in the
chaparral. She pointed out one of the major regional
\'lildlife corridors which comes from the BLI! land behind the
ridge, crosses Proctor Valley Road and moves up Miguel
Dountain.
11r. !\_rbuckle said that the map shOl'led a stop at the regional
wildlife corridor, site #15, which goes back to a fold
between two peaks. The original intent had been to drive up
behind some of the land forms to ShOlv how the land flattens
out and then takes off again, Site #16. He suggested,
however, that the Commissioners attempt to get the views
back behind the hills as the vans drive down the Valley.
This will save time and still give the Commissioners the
information they need.
Site #15 - Wildlife Corridor, ',/as vie\'led from the vans as
was Site #16 - "Behind the hill" in Proctor Valley.
The vans passed the eastern edge of Salt Lake Ranch,
returned to Telegraph Canyon Road.
Site #17 - Salt Creek.
Mr. Lettieri said the vans had progressed dO~l11 IVueste Road
and stopped right inside the property line. The area is
shown on some of the alternatives as the university site.
Hr. Arbuckle indicated the EastLake Greens property. The
small road cut is the future extension of Hunt Parkway
through the property and down to Otay Valley Road. The
parcel in here is part of the 9,500 acres and is defined on
the map by Salt Creek. The Salt Creek area is basically the
natural vegetation seen here and ~he fingers going back
down. The only portion of this property not within the
jurisdiction of the County is about 200 acres owned by the
Ci ty of San Diego. South of the river valley, the Donovan
23
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Publ ic Hearingjl-Jorkshop - Bay 16, 1992
14
state prison and O'Neal Canyon can be seen. The canyon is a
significant corridor for wildlife back up into the Otay
Bountain. Mountain lions and other animals have been
tracked there. He pointed out the County Park property
which defines the western edge for the Otay River Valley. to
the left.
Ms. Ewing referenced Figure 3.3-4a and called attention to
the fact that the tour was on the edge of the Salt Creek
Canyon which is filled with coastal sage scrub as well as a
very rare type of coastal sage which is called maritime
succulent scrub. It is made up primarily of the cactus and
forms the habitat for the cactus wren. The valley is filled
with gnatcatchers and cactus wrens which are almost as
sensitive as the gnatcatchers. Hs. Ewing declared that this
is a prime stand of coastal sage scrub containing very
little grass and maritime succulent scrub. Behind the sage
is the rolling mesa part of the western parcel which has
been farmed for many years.
Hr. Bazzel explained how the Chula Vista green belt related
to this area, saying the green belt comes up the Otay River
Valley from the Bay and then splits at the mouth of Salt
Creek. One of the legs travels north through Salt Creek all
the way to Salt Creek Ranch and eventually extends over into
Sweetwater Valley. The other leg continues on up the Valley
to the county park and Savage Darn, extends along the
westerly edge of the lower Otay Reservoir and back up to
Salt Creek Ranch and the upper reservoir area. It also
encompasses the lake as a whole. Primarily, there are two
north-south legs going along the face of the river edge here
and one up Salt Creek.
Hr. Arbuckle directed attention toward Savage Darn and its
spillway. Baldwin's property takes in the tops of the first
two ridgelines where the wild oats or grassland type of
vegetation is and continues across. The small knoll in the
foreground just on the other side of the lake is City of San
Diego property. All of the land extending into the lake is
City-owned property. On the other side, the very light
vegetation is owned by City of San Diego. The darker
vegetation forms the marine mesa, which is Site 2, the
resort site. Both of the mountains are part of Baldwin's
property and the BLM outparcel is at the top.
He noted that the property next to the fence is owned by
EastLake and is directly south of the OTC. Further to the
south is the City of San Diego water filtration plant with a
44-million gallon a day capacity at this time. It will be
2t.f
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
15
the terminus of the new aqueduct as it comes through from
north county.
Hs. Ewing added that apparently the gnatcatchers are located
in the north end of the canyon. At some point, another
canyon crosses over and connects with the coastal sage scrub
that runs along the western side of the lake. That
continues north, connects to the coastal sage on Proctor
Valley terrace and northward into Proctor Valley proper.
The preservation of that canyon corridor is very important
to continue the whole wildlife connection for the birds as
is shown on Figure 3.3-7, the wildlife corridors.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked why the land was called a
"marine mesa"? 1.\s. Ewing replied that the land was laid
down when all this area was ocean and is identified by the
paleontology as well as the fact that deposits of marine
water and the substance in the water can be found. For that
reason the water tests as non-potable with very high salt
content. It is captured ocean water in a marine terrace.
Mr. Lettieri said there would be a good view of the Salt
Creek area and that described by Ms. ~~ing from the vans as
they headed along the north end of the river valley. All of
this area is proposed as a regional park which is a separate
study. It is also included in a publication excerpt from
the RMP. This is a very significant area for protection as
well as restoration of resources.
He indicated that the vans would stop at the point where
State Route 125 would be coming through and the next formal
stop will be the view of the Bird Ranch, Site #19.
Ms. Ewing discussed the information on the sensitive map,
Figure 3.3-4a, saying the vans would come through the canyon
and enter the river valley where there are great numbers of
gnatcatchers. This is the area proposed for most for the
coastal sage restoration effort. Eventually, the vans will
traverse Wolf Canyon which is similar to Salt Creek in that
it contains maritime succulent scrub. The 230 acres of
vernal pools and the sensitive species associated with them
will be protected in this corner.
Site #18 - Otay Valley (ledges/archeology).
Ms. Ewing also said that with regarad to archeology, the
remnants of an Indian village had been found.
25
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
16
Mr. Lettieri added that some of the areas without any
biological resources appear very rich in archeology. This
does not mean that they need to be preserved, but they will
have to be further tested.
Mr. Arbuckle suggested that, as the vans go through the
river valley, the Commissioners look at the disturbance
created all along the river valley by Nelson-Sloan's
previous mining operations. Presently, their operations are
confined to an outparcel to be vi~,ed. At that stop, the
Charlotte r'lcGowan dig si te for the archeology that Hs. Ewing
mentioned can be viewed.
To the south will be Johnson Canyon which is where SR 125 is
proposed to continue south and serve the Hesa. There are a
number of studies for different road alignments through the
river valley and some of the key features to look for to
help identify them is a group of eucalyptus on the south
side almost at the Mesa top which identifies the La Media
alignment and also O'Neal Canyon to the south by Donovan
Pr ison.
Site #19 - Otay Valley (Clean Water/Bird Ranch/Gun Club).
Mr. Arbuckle pointed out the Gun Club on Baldwin's property.
Across the street is the Otay Rio Business Park identified
by the palm trees. Baldwin owns most of the base of the
hill. He pointed out the proposed location of the Clean
Water Program sewage treatment plant. He noted that the
round aluminum structure and the small bird house in the
rear is called Bird Ranch. Presently, this site is used as
a holding area for cattle prior to shipment. In the
future, it will be probably converted to some other use;
such as, an administration area. Basically, Baldwin owns
all of the south side of the river as far as can be seen.
The vans Idll travel up Wolf Canyon and try to reach the top
of Rock Mountain.
While traversing Wolf Canyon, the proposed protected park
area was pointed out by Mr. Bazzel as well as the Otay Land
Fill and the Otay Valley Industrial Park.
Site #20 - Rock Mountain (9,500-acre overview)
Mr. Lettieri noted that the view included the entire western
parcel, the Otay Valley Parcel. He pointed out the Vortac,
FAA navigational aid, the water tank and added that nearly
all the farmed land was Baldwin's.
"""'1/
/ ;~
._~
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
17
Mr. Arbuckle pointed out the Miguel Mountains beyond the
Vortac. The working ranch headquarters containing a silo
and a number of residences can be identified by the eucalyp-
tus trees in the foreground. Behind that, is the City of
Chula vista. In the distance, the City of San Diego can be
seen. On a clear day, Pt. Lorna, San Diego Bay and the ocean
beyond can be seen.
The County landfill operation was identified by the grading
in the foreground. To the south, the industrial area just
offside of Baldwin's property was pointed out. Baldwin's
property goes to the industrial area and then wraps around
the landfill, comes to about 1/4 mile this side of the
hospital. To the south, the mesa top can be seen. Johnson
Canyon runs directly to the south. The City of San Diego
owns the mesa top to the right, but to the left are the two
mesa tops that Ms. Ewing has been talking about with regard
to the vernal pools. Donovan Prison and the County jail
facility can be seen on the mesa to the left. Continuing
around, the eucalyptus grove identifies the County facility
at Otay Lake.
The area between those eucalyptus and the 1 ight vegetation,
where the farming area starts, is the area known as Salt
Creek, Site #17.
The grading to the north of that is the OTC. The Jamul
Mountains and the resort site are also visible.
Moving on around, a dirt road can be seen going up the area
between Jamul and Miguel t10untain and that is the top side
of Proctor Valley where the tour stopped and inspected the
vernal pool.
All the farm land in the foreground is all part of the 9,500
acres. The next stop, Site #22, will be pretty much on a
line with the Proctor Valley Road and out in the middle of
the farm land. This is the intersection of SR 125 and where
the eastern urban center might be.
In reply to a question, he replied that part of Wolf Canyon
is one of the areas that the County has considered for a new
landfill. He pointed out one of the finger canyons which is
also being considered. A third location being considered is
out beyond the Donovan prison and back in toward Otay
Mountain.
Ms. Ewing noted that the area contained highly disturbed
~:t-
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
18
coastal sage scrub. The area is not very diverse in terms
of pI ant speci es. It is not known whether it has been so
invaded by the grasses or because the soil is different.
For some reason, there are birds in the canyon but they do
not seem to follow up and over this piece of coastal sage
scrub. Looking into the valley eastward provides an excel-
lent view of where most of the restoration and mitigation
will be carried out.
Mr. Lettieri said that the land use issues in this area
pertained to Rock Mountain itself. Many of the plans have
the peak of Rock Mountain as a park, open space. The extent
of that is a question. The kind of development that may be
developed around Rock Mountain is an issue. There are a
number of alternatives from low-density to clustered
residential to no development. The western parcel contains
the areas where development is concentrated relative to some
of the other areas. Site .25 is one of the proposed
villages, the eastern urban center, and is probably one of
the first villages to be started. The light rail trolley
line is proposed to be extended through both of those
locations. They are areas where there will be intensi ty.
The Chula Vista General Plan probably shows about 10,000
units on the western parcel now. The various alternatives
shown anywhere from that intensity to 30,000.
Assistant Planning Director Lee said the present Chula Vista
boundary is approximately 35 square miles, so the view being
seen is about 40% the size of the present City limits.
Mr. Arbuckle said the next stop will be Site '21, Wolf Can-
yon. He added that one of the early proposals included a
bridge across Wolf Canyon. As the trip returns to the
center of the 9,500 acres, and traverses Wolf Canyon, the
place where that bridge was proposed will be pointed out.
The vans will continue to Site '22 where SR 125 is proposed
to cross and make a quick drive through the working ranch
headquarters, Site '23. There will be a stop in Poggi
Canyon, Site '24, where there are a herd of cattle and then
up and out on a ridge where the vans will park. That is the
proposed Village 5, Site '25. From there, we will continue
to the Ranch House.
The vans proceeded through Wolf Canyon, Site .21 and site
.22 - Center of property and proposed crossing of SR 125.
Site .23 - Working ranch complex was viewed in passing as
~~
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 16, 1992
Site 123 - Working ranch complex was viewed in passing as
well as Site #24 - Poggi Canyon (Orange Avenue).
Site #25 - Village 5 was cancelled because of time
constraints and the vans returned to the Ranch.
ADJOURNMENT AT 3:26 p.m. to the next joint City of the Chula
Vista/County of San Diego Planning
Commission workshop on Friday, May 29,
1992 from 3:00-6:00 p.m. in the County
Department of Planning and Land Use
hearing room.
-- r-<-~'/--/./ L ___~L_
Ruth i'l. Smith
Secr etary
19
A
/~I
,..,,----
JOINT CITY OF CHULA VISTA/COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
PLANNING COHllISSIOtI PUBLIC HEARING/r,WRKSHOP
1:45 p.m.
Fridav. Mav 22. 1992
Otay Ranch House
2691 Otav Lakes Road. Chula Vista
cOtlln SS IONERS PRES EIlT:
City of Chula vista: Susan Fuller.
Chair; william Tuchscher
County of San Di eqo: Richard I'lrigh t.
Chair; Lynne Leichtfuss. Edward Ferraro.
David Kreitzer
STAFF AND OTHERS
County Deputy CAO Lari Sheehan, County
Counsel Claudia Fitzpatrick. Assistant
County Planning Director Jerry Jamriska.
Project Team General 11anager Tony
Lettieri, Duane Bazzel. Project Team
(City); Anne Ewing. Project Team
(County); Chantal Saipe, Project Team
(County); Fred Arbuckle (Baldwin). Chula
Vista Planning Director Bob Leiter,
Principal Planner Gordon Howard. Anne
Kobe (Cal ifornia Transi t Ventures/SR
125). Peter Watry (CROSSROADS) and 14
m22.\.:.E rs of the publ ic
I. OTAY RM1CH HOUSE - Site ~l
Mr. Lettieri welcomed those in attendance. He said that
last week. the tour had included the lake and Sites 11
through III on the San Ysidro Parcel. The present tour will
start at Site 112 in Jamul. and work back to the Otay Valley
Parcel.
He stated that this was a Public Hearing and would be
recorded by the secretary as well as videotaped. This is to
provide any Commissioner not in attendance with a record of
what has transpired or been viewed.
1-lr. Arbuckle pointed out that some dangers were associated
with the trip; namely. rattlers and tarantulas in the tall
grass as well as rough travel over poorly graded roads.
Baldwin is not responsible for the safety of those partici-
pating in the tour. He asked and received verbal acknowl-
edgement of the dangers involved.
30
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Publ ic Hearing/l'lorkshop - 11ay 22, 1992
2
The Commissioners, County Counsel and the secretary were
assigned to the same van.
Site ~12 - Upper Proctor Valley.
!lr. Lettieri said this site was the northern end of the Otay
Ranch. He asked rlr. Arbuckle to orient the viewers to
Baldwin's property line relative to the surroundings.
lIr. P"rbuckle indicated the Otay nOUi1(.ci.1S to tile south \'lith
some plateaus belo\'l. The one just beyond -the plo\'7ed field,
is ownec by the Daley Corpor"tion 'dhich also O\ms the plowed
land. The plateaus beyond are Baldwin's. He pointed out
Hi gh\'lay 94 which connects the communi ty of J ar:lUl and San
Diego. 2''11 e:dsting community across the l'lay is Jamul, an
estate development. Due east from here, all th2 property
uith the de.rker green and rougher terrain is Baldwin's. The
lighter vegetation helOl! is on Daley property. In the
northeast the large homes in the foreground are part of the
community of Jamul and are on I-acre or larger lots. Due
north, Baldwin's property line is over the small knoll in
front. Those homes are predominately I-acre. At one time,
some were subdivided to 1/2-acre. This is now forbidden by
ordinance. The road going north leads to the town center of
Jamul.
110v ing to the other side of the si te, he explained that the
existing homes to the north border Baldwin's property lines.
The property line is coterminous with the edge of the road
to the \'lest. The property to the right in that development
is known as Echo Valley and behind it is the proposed Hidden
Valley Estates. The property then turns west, continues
down to the valley, extends to the other side of the
roadway, to the base of the hill and continues through
Proctor Valley. At Site li14, how the property line
continues through the valley will be described.
Darker vegetation appears on the t\'lO straight peaks to the
southwest and continues southward. Their tops are owned by
the Bureau of Land I,janagement (BLI-l). Baldwin owns the prop-
erty surrounding that outparcel and the property line
continues dOlm to the Daley property to the east. Every-
thing in the foreground is Balcldn's.
rls. &'ling referenced Figure 3.3-4d in the Environmental
Resources information packet distributed at the May 15 tour.
She indicated the group's present location in the cross-
hatched area described as disturbed coastal sage scrub.
She pointed out the chamise chaparral to the south saying it
31
Joint County/Ch1lla Vista Planning Commission
Publ ic Hear ing/Hor ks h op - flay 22, 1992
3
was highly disturbed. The buckwheat is a natural component
of the coastal sage, but there are grasses, crucifers and
other vegetation not normally in it.
In response to Commissioner Leichtfuss, l1s. Ewing identified
the Proctor Valley stream and traced its path. She said it
was not a major stream during the rains, only moderate.
rIs. Ewing replied negatively to a question asked by a member
of the publ ic regarding significant archeological sites
observable :.E :cur_: .:(~is Si"C2.
ZIr. Lettieri noted thZlt a good over']iew of Proctor Valley
would be seen at Site ~14. Regarding the land use issues,
he said that wost or the nine alternatives being considered
shoH existing County Gener&l :?lan densi ti2S, 2-acre :-.linir~lum
lot size, 3-acre average.
rlr. Arbuckle interrupted to say that a study lias done on a
different ways to allow access through this location to
Highway 94 without going through the existing community. He
asked that attention be paid to the l&no forQs at this point
and back across Daley's property as a potential to solve
access issues with this particular parcel.
Upon leaving this location the vans will head west onto the
paved road. When the paved road is left and the vans start
dm"n Proctor Valley to the south, there will be a group of
eucalyptus off to the right. That marks the general area
where ilillar Ranch Road will come through Hidden Valley
Estates and join the proposed Proctor Valley Road that will
go through the entire valley.
l.lr. Lettieri said a stop would be made in Central Proctor
Valley after the vans stop at a wildlife corridor, Site #13.
Site #13 - Wildlife corridor/visual separation.
A stop was made on the outskirts of Central Proctor Valley
to view a vernal pool which is a sample of significant
environmental resources that need to be preserved in the
pr oj ect.
l1s. ~ling said it was very late in the season to describe
the beauty of the vernal pools. These low-lying areas
demonstrate a remarkable chanse in vegetation. The vernal
pools have evolved a vegetation, a flora and fauna, that is
uniquely their own. This particular pool, despite the
disturbance around it, has three indicator species in it.
32-
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
publ ic Hearing/Workshop - r-lay 22, 1992
4
These are species found only in vernal pools. The depres-
sion is a matter of the clay formation \vhich holds the water
and allO\'ls the special flora to come fon/ard. There is also
a special fauna, fairy shrimp, \vhich exist no place else.
They burrow into the soil and hibernate until the right
conditions return. This can be as long as 3 years.
She added that the wide open area in which the pool was
located is a local corridor for \'Iildlife passage also. It
is a open area that comes through and over to the canyon.
The area is shown on Figure 3.3-4b. The vernal pools and
the drainage area are indicated and the wildlife corridor
map, Figure 3.3-7, will indicate a local corridor is here.
11r. Lettieri said this area is also significant because it
is in Central Proctor Valley. When hearings are held on
land use and what should happen in Central Proctor Valley
versus Jamul, this corridor will be referred to as the local
corridor on the north side of Central Proctor Valley that
separates the two communities. That may be subject to
certain agreement or disagreement regarding whether this is
the l?roperty separation or if it is further south. Hhen the
corr1dor is referenced, it will be this area that leads into
the canyon to the left. Later on, an area that has been
identified as a regional corridor will be shown. On [lay 29,
the Commissions will reviewing the wildlife corridor study.
Site 1;14 - Overview of Proctor Valley.
Hr. Arbuckle said the group was at the upper portion of
Proctor Valley. He directed that the Commissioners look to
the south for Proctor Valley. On the right hand edge of the
valley is the Proctor Valley stream seen earlier which
continued dO\'ln. Baldwin's property line continues across
the base of the Higuel Hountains to the first little ridge-
line ridgeline, just beyond where the Proctor Valley stream
bed turns to the west. At that point a number of outparcels
are located. Baldwin owns the majority of the land to the
east but to the south are outparcels.
The Valley can be seen beyond that with the darker green
vegetation in the center and some lighter vegetation on
either side, just beyond where the power lines cross the
valley. The property in the center of the valley is owned
by the City of San Diego. Baldwin owns most of the
ridgeline to the right. The line comes back around a piece
of land shaped 1 ike an upside-down L on the map and con-
33
Joint CountyjChula vista Planning Commission
Publ ic Hearingjl'iorkShop - Hay 22, 1992
5
tinues into the Miguel Mountains.
The eucalyptus on the ridgeline define the southern extrem-
ity of Proctor Valley and also marks the Ranch I{ouse \-Ihere
the tour started. To the left is a small knoll that is
flattened out on the top. That is an area to be discussed
later regarding \vhether development should or should not
occur. From there up the mountain is proposed as open space
in most of the alternatives.
Corning off the ridge. darker green vegetation can be seen
beyond the top of that next tower. It is an important
feature to remember in terms of its relationship to the
overall topography.
The peak due east from here is o\'lned by BLL1. The Bureau's
land comes down to just above the saddle. On the southeast,
a dirt road can be seen going up through the saddle.
Tracing that range line beyond where it flattens out at the
top, the dirt road can be seen again. Right there is about
\'lhere the BLtl property ends. Baldwin owns everything from
there to the north.
Looking in northeast to that next little ridge marks the
vans' first stop, just beyond that hill. Beyond is the
little valley where Lyons Valley Road cuts through the
hills. All of the hills due north of this spot are part of
the Jamul planning area. A couple of homes can be barely
seen in Echo Valley but none in the Jamul area are visible.
nhere that rocky peak starts to drop down and merge with
another land rorm is where Hidden Valley is located. On the
other side or the landform in the foreground and the rocky
peak in the rear is where the property lies.
Anne Ewing rererenced Figure 3.3-4b saying that the site
provides a good appreciation of what the different
vegetation types look 1 ike. There, very clearly are the
dark charnise chaparral on the ridge crossing the road to the
right. Next to that is coastal sage scrub with some
introduced grasses. The 1 ight brown is not native but the
dark components are parts of chaparral invading the coastal
sage scrub. In the coastal sage pockets are California
gnatcatchers but not as many as further south. It is not
known whether the degree of disturbance of the coastal sage
is the reason.
r.lr. Lettieri said the issue with Central Proctor Valley
includes where and at what density development should occur.
34
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Publ ic Hearing/':7orkshop - !-lay 22, 1992
6
There is a wide range proposed. The existing County General
Plan designates Multiple/Rural use, 4-, 8-, and 20-acre
lots. The llel" TOIm Plan, the original Baldwin submittal in
1989, shows the Proctor Valley Road with six lanes coming
through. nost of the alternatives have Proctor Valley Road
as at'least a four-lane road coming through the area.
The the area in the forefront as well as that extending to
the City of San Diego property in the basin is the area
known as Central Proctor Valley. The Task Force has
accepted nine alternatives for this area, most of which
include urban development in Proctor Valley and include a
village. The most recent alternative had approximately
2,000 units in Proctor Valley. All nine alternatives are
being tested in the EIR.
Answering a question, fir. Arbuckle said the mountain
referenced was San niguel. Be pointed to an area on the map
saying it was the stream. The stream marks the location of
the property line. Through here, it's owned by the same
people who owned Hidden Valley Estates but there are many
different property owners through this area going up to the
ridge.
He asked that everyone observe the manner in which the bowl
forms to the north, goes up to the ridge and basically forms
an edge for this planning area. Also the visibility and
separation between here and there and make a note of their
thoughts.
nr. Lettieri reiterated that an issue with which the
Commissioners will be confronted is if that area should mark
the edge for urban versus non-urban development, or should
it be on the other side of that ridge.
Commissioner Decker asked if there had been attempt to have
the connection for the wildlife corridor across this upland
area betl"een San Niguel 1I0untain and Jamul tlountain? Hr.
Lettieri replied that the wildlife corridor study, which
will be presented on Hay 29 to the Planning Commissions,
will discuss that issue. He asked Hs. Ewing to elaborate
further.
Hs. Ewing replied that the regional corridor that moves the
animals from this mountain range through Proctor Valley is
down on the other side of the chaparral-covered ridge. The
tour will stop there so the corridor can be viewed on both
sides. The animals that live in Proctor Valley use this as
a local corridor as well as the creek bed over there. l'lhen
35
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Horkshop - !lay 22, 1992
7
this becomes a road, the animals will shift into the ravine,
just to the Ivest where the creek bed lies. The main
connection between this and that land mass is the regional
corridor down there. No evidence for a regional wildlife
corridor up here has been found. Animals take the ravines
rather than the high ground. In reply to a question, Ms.
Ewing said the study lias done on four focal animals, bobcat,
deer, mountain lion and coyote.
Mr. Lettieri said the vans would stop so the Commissioners
could view the regional 'wildlife corridor to which 11s. Ewing
had referred, Site ~15. The Proctor Valley Road relocation
route proposed in most of the alternatives will be pointed
out. The relationship between Proctor Valley Road and the
Ranch House located on Otay Lakes Road will be sho~1l1 to
enable the Cowmissicners to develop a feel for the
relationship of this parcel anu the potential of urban or
non-urban densities here, depending on what is approved.
fIr. Arbuckle said a number of different alternatives had
been considered both in terms of keeping the grading to a
minimum as \.;ell as trying to develop a planning area 1-1ithout
having it broken into two parts by the road. Using those
criteria, the road goes around the little ridge in the
foreground, comes back and stays to the right hand side
through here. It Comes back over the ridgeline just on the
other side of where the cars are. There is a nice outcrop-
ping in the stream bed which has been avoided by bringing
the road back to this side. It continues up back to the
north and then goes back up that valley looked at up above.
Hhen the vans get to the other side of that dark green knoll
where the wildlife corridor can be seen is about the spot
where the road will cross the creek, stay on the west side
of the valley and hook up \11th the existing road that runs
at the base of the mesa before it turns around and comes
through. That is the approximate alignment.
Mr. Lettieri said that what Mr. Arbuckle is describing is
one of the last alternatives accepted by the Task Force.
One of the previous alternatives actually went through the
ridge. An issue paper that deals specifically with that
will be handed to the Commissioners on July 31.
He continued that Site #16 is being cancelled because it was
eliminated on the May 22 trip because of time constraints
and the legal stipulation that all Commissioners must be
exposed to the same informational resources.
3:04 Site #15 - Ihldlife corridor, ~las viewed from the vans.
~
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearingjl1orkshop - l1ay 22, 1992
8
Ms. Ewing commented that it opens up onto the valley floor
on the flood plain, crosses over and goes into the San
Miguel Mountains to the west. The animals also can use a
local corridor following the creek bed up to the eastern end
of San rJiguel. To go up into the mountain range, however,
is very difficult because it is steep and rocky.
Site #16 - "Behind the hill" in Proctor Valley, was
cancelled because that site had not been viewed by the Com-
missioners on the nay 22 tour.
The vans proceeded to Hueste Road and the Otay Lakes where
Savage Dam, Site #6, was pointed out.
Site #17 - Salt Creek.
11r. Lettieri said that the group \vas on the 9, SOD-acre Otay
Valley Parcel.
rJr. Arbuckle used the aerial photograph to point out the
last stop made in Proctor Valley, Site #14. Upon leaving
that site, the vans came down through the EastLake
industrial Area along Otay Lakes Road to lVueste Road, turned
south and passed the Olympic Training Center (OTC), the
graded area. The proposed boat dock, where construction is
being done, was pointed out. The vans passed the location
of the new City of San Diego !'later District facility on the
way to the present site on the western parcel.
rlr. !'.rbuckle indicated Ilh, 'ehe Baldwin property line is
across the lake. The only portion of this property not
within the jurisdiction of the County is about 200 acres.
He indicated the resort site, Site #2, on the east side of
the lake.
To the south is the City of San Diego water filtration plant
with a 44-million gallons a day capacity. It is the south-
ern terminus of the California aqueduct. A new barrel is
bein0 brought down to end up right here.
He pointed out the eucalyptus trees in the southeast and a
small knoll as off-site. He directed attention to Savage
Dam and its spilhlay. Baldwin's property is just above the
eucalyptus trees including the hill top above the lighter
vegetation. He stated that the hill just behind the little
area the lake crawls back into is Baldwin's. He indicated a
ridge and explained that everything to the left belongs to
the City of San Diego, to the right is Baldwin's.
31
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public :ieariilgAJorl(shop - :1ay 22, 1992
9
tlr. Arbuckle said the Jamul area can be seen on a clear day.
Otay Lakes Road can be seen continuing to the north. The
eucalyptus trees ma.r!~ the Ranch House, Site ~;l. The fence
line with the lighter vegetation on the right marks
Baldllin's property line. The land to the right is EastLake.
EastLake Greens where the grading can be seen is to the
northwest. The cut is the proposed alignment for Hunt
Parkway which will continue through Salt Creek to Proctor
Valley Road.
The group moved to the other side of the vehicles. lc1r.
Arbuckle said that to the north the native vegetation and
the power line easement crossing Baldwin's property can be
seen. All the plowed fields are Baldwin's. The proposed
alignment for SR-125 is over the hill. A little south of
due west is Rock I1ountain. The Tijuana bull pen can be seen
on the horizon to the south.
Mr. Arbuckle pointed out the eucalyptus trees on the south
side of the river valley and the tower for Brown Airfield.
He said that the river valley is really noticeable in this
area. Baldwin's property line is at the top of the valley
on the left, continues through to Donovan Prison and the
State prison behind it.
as. Ewing referenced Figure 3.3-4a saying this site was
located on the upper northeast corner of that map. Looking
to the west over Salt Creek Canyon is a near pristine stand
of coastal sage scrub. It is by far the best in this canyon
or the entire ranch and this area should be the cornerstone
of the preserve being proposed. It is the home of 40 to 50
gnatcatchers. The count varies depending upon the time of
year and conditions. Also found in this canyon, Holf Canyon
and Poggi Canyon are maritime succulent scrub in which the
cactus wrens live and these birds are nearly as sensitive as
the gnat-catchers. There have been 30 to 40 counts of
cactus Ilrens in this canyon.
The darker lines on Figure 3.3-4c represent the migratory
pattern of the gnatcatchers. This portion is the Salt Creek
arm of that loop. A canyon at the northern portion of the
canyon will cross over to connect to the coastal sage that
runs along the western side of the lake. From there, the
birds can move into the Jamul Mountain. That is the
corridor for the birds.
Mr. Lettier said that one of the land use issues continued
from the very beginning of the project is the proposed site
3B
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/l"lorkshop - 1elay 22, 1992
10
of the university. This is the 400-acre site that has been
the subject of much discussion. As of yesterday, the
Interjurisdictional Task Force (ITF) considered this for the
university site. The BalGwin Nel'l Tmln Plan had all of this
area shovln as a universi ty extending to ,'lueste Road. That
is basically what the City and the County have accepted by
resolution as the eastern boundary of the university site.
Other plans show all of this area as open space, including
all of the Salt Creek Canyon up to that foremost ridgeline
vlith the tOl"lers. l\n area about which there also will be a
presentation on 11ay 29, is the Otay Valley Regional Park.
This is an area that the Otay Valley Regional Park people
feel should be part of the greenbelt system connecting down
into the Otay River Valley itself.
r-Ir. Lettieri said the vans \JoulC: travel along Salt Creek
Canyon to provide a sight of the various vegetation forms
and wildlife there. On the north side of the river valley a
fairly significant archeological site will be pointed out
The next stop will be Bird Ranch, Site 19.
Site ~18 - Otay Valley (ledges/archeology), was viewed from
the vans. 1.1s. Elling indicated the coastal sage on both of
the east- and west-facing slopes. She advised the
Commissioners to look for the cholla cactus vlhich is \-lhere
the Cv.ctus \-lren 1 ives. Several large stv.nds are in this
area. A stand was pointed out on the left side of the van.
tcls. Elling said a nest had been found there last year.
Si te H9 - Otay Valley (Clean Water/Bird RanCh/Gun Club)
Mr. Lettieri remarked that Salt Creek was to the right. He
explained that the Commission \-lould be hearing the issues
associated with Salt Creek; such as, \-lhere active recreation
should occur. This location is one of the more significant
environmental areas of the western parcel.
1.1s. Ewing agreed and said that the "Un-shaped configuration
betl~een Sal t Creek Canyon, the river valley and \'101 f Canyon
will primarily be restoration areas. Restoration of the
coastal sage scrub is to offset the impacts that seem
unavoidable \-lith all of the proposals of development. The
north- and south-facing slopes once contained coastal sage.
The ones on the right hand side are pretty disturbed. There
are excellent places for hundreds of acres of restoration of
coastal sage scrub. In the canyons, there can be a
restoration of maritime succulent scrub. She indicated
o I Neal Canyon and said it Ilas full of gna tea tch ers, coastal
3GJ
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearingjl'lorkshop - nay 22, 1992
11
sage scrub and is a wildlife corridor.
ilr. Lettieri interrupted to say there I'jould be a great deal
of discussion regarding 0' Neal Canyon and ~'lolf Canyon.
ns. Ewing resumed by saying that the wildlife corridor loops
around to the east and goes up into Otay r!ountain. It is
the main corridor for the animals to pass down into this
vall ey .
nr. Lettieri said to remember that there is a great deal of
development proposed for the Otay ilesa and some of the
alternatives have developments coming up to the edge of the
river valley.
[Ir. Lettieri pointed out the Otay river valley and saic that
all the alternatives show wost of those areas as development
<'it varying densities depending on the alternative. lIe asked
Mr. Arbuckle to give a feel for the boundaries especially to
the south and to the west.
r1r. Arbuckle saiC: that due west from the site were some
small palm trees running in a north-south direction in the
bottom of the valley. That is Ivhere Otay Valley Road
crosses the river valley and is the end of the paved area
for Otay Valley Road. That area marks Baldwin's property
line.
He explained that the noise of shot guns pinpoints the Gun
Club which is on Baldwin land. Across the street is the
Otay Rio Business Park identified by the palm trees.
Mr. Arbuckle indicated the location of the existing land
fill.
Site #20 - Rock Mountain (9,500 acre overview)
Hr. Lettieri said that, in the foreground, pretty much as
far as the eye can see, the farmed area is the Otay Valley
Parcel where on all the alternatives, most of the intensity
and density of the development is proposed; SR-125, the
light rail transit line, the village center concept with
commercial, higher density residential, and the eastern
urban center directly to the east. The Otay River valley
can be seen to the extreme right and Johnson Canyon, where
SR-125 is coming through. He asked nr. Arbuckle to
delineate the boundaries.
nr. Arbuckle directed attention to the southeast across the
40
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Publ ic Ilearingj\'lorkshop - Hay 22, 1992
12
top of Rock Hountain to the Otay f.1esa. The flat piece in
the foreground just to the right of Johnson Canyon is within
the City of San Diego as ~entioned earlier, and is part of
the industrial development within the City of San Diego.
Brown Airfield adjoins to the right just behind the peak
where all Here standing. Looking dovll1 provides a great view
of Johnson Canyon. Up on its left hand side is Donovan
State Prison. The property betHeen Donovan and the river
valley is Bald,dn's and is the proposed location for the
vernal pool preserve. He pointed out the mouth of 0' [leal
Canyon as well as the County jail and Otay l!ountain behind
it.
Looking due east, the dark green vegetation with a group of
trees is by the City of San Diego Hater filtration plant and
property. The dark green vegetation before the farm area is
Salt Creek, Site n7.
In the foreground, a small dirt road can be seen as Hell as
number of white dru!:ls scattered about the property. That is
important because it is the proposed Otay Valley Road loca-
tion ,~hich basically follows that dirt road align!:lent.
Baldwin's 9,500 acres of Otay Valley Parcel for!:l the broad
expanse in front. At its apex, in line with Proctor Valley,
is where the eastern urban center is proposed under !:lore
recent alternatives.
To the right of Proctor Valley is the Jamul nountain group,
Cilllahan nountain and Ja!:lul 1I0untain. To the left, barely
visible, are Hother Niguel and San rHguel Nountains. The
white structures out there are part of the EastLake Devel-
opment.
In the foreground, just a little east of north, is a little
white obelisk, the Poggi Vortac. It is owned by FAA and
guides planes in and out of Lindbergh Field.
Moving due north, a group of trees, a couple of houses and
some other structures mark the location of the ranch
operation center, Site ~23. It is still used for staging
some of the far!:ling throughout the 9,500 acres.
Southwestern College is in line with the ranch operation
center to the north. Mr. Arbuckle pointed out the existing
hospital with Sunbow Planned Community acting as a buffer
from Baldwin's property. Looking to the left, the sand spit
going to Coronado can be seen as well as a glimpse of Pt.
Lorna. On clear days, downtown San Diego is visible.
if)
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Publ ic HearingjHorkshop - nay 22, 1992
13
The grading operation in the foreground is the County
landfill operation which is planned for expansion. The
canyon in the foreground is Holf Canyon. A couple of the
arms of ,'lolf Canyon can be seen. They are proposed for
consideration in the open space regional park area.
Regarding the county landfill potential expansion, in a line
\'lith the hospital is a finger of land going back. It has
been farmed some\'lhat but also has some existing native
vegetation. That is Vlhere the landfill .l~_~c. be e;:panded
under one of the proposals. Tl1ere are a total of three
proposed sites. The site just discussed, a site over by
Salt Creek and a third site dmin on the mesa to the south.
nav ing around, the Chula. Vista industriul area c.::.n be seen.
Bald\'lin's property line abuts that. To the south, there are
glimpses of Tijuana, some mountains behind it, and then out
to the ocean. There are tremendous views from this spot.
All of the latest proposals preserve this as an overview
area.
The large building in the foreground is part of the City of
San Diego \'later supply system. The water pumped down goes
either further south tQ San Ysidro or back up toward San
Diego. There is an emergency hookup to that system just off
Telegraph Canyon P.oad where the Otay Hater System can tie
into that system if needed.
Ms. Ewing said this location was in a very disturbed area.
Hhen the Commissioners study the maps later, the thing to
remember is that there is coastal sage that more or less
connects Wolf Canyon across Rock Mountain down into the
valley. Tl1ere are some birds there and they do use that
coastal sage. This is the connection that keeps the
continuum complete.
The other resource (on which the Commissioners are standing)
is the meta-volcanic outcroppings of the rock beneath us.
The view itself is great and that also is a resource.
Mr. Lettieri explained that another reason for coming to
this location was to provide a feel for some of the
differences of the property; the river valley itself, its
vegetation, its opportunity for restoration and this farming
area. Visually it provides a good comparison between this,
the San Ysidro Parcel and the Proctor Valley Parcel which
are like three different worlds. It will be difficult to
tie them together in the planning process particularly when
q;z
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Horkshop - flay 22, 1992
14
the Commissioners are in a Chambers, 15 or 20 miles
from the site. Hopefully, aerial photos and slides
assist the Commissions in relating to what has been
away
will
seen.
Nr. Lettieri noted that this was the last actual stop.
In reply to a question, Nr. Lettieri said that the last two
alternatives, proposed 2/3 to 3/4 of the units in this area.
ilost of the 90-95% of the commercial intensity vIaS over
here.
Site #21 - \'7011' Canyon.
The vans were boarded and they returned through \1011' Canyon.
r.1r. Lettieri saie: Half Canyon will be mentioned many tines
during the hearings. One issue will be regardicg the
protection of the resources as opposed to introducing other
recreational features; such as golf courses. The regional
park focus planning area includes ,'loll' Canyon and the ITF
has included Wolf Canyon, Salt Creek and the Otay niver
Valley as part of an open space protection zone.
The trip continued through Site ~22 - Center of property
(EUC/235) and the location of the proposed crossing of SR-
125, Site #23 - Horking ranch complex, and Site ~24 - Poggi
Canyon (Orange Ave), were all were pointed out in passing.
Site #25 - Village 5, was cancelled because it had not been
vie~'led by the other trips because of time constraints. The
tour returned to the Ranch at 5:15 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT AT 5:15 p.m. to the next joint City of Chula
Vista/County Planning Commission workshop on
Friday, May 29, 1992 from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.
in the County Department of Planning and Land
Use hearing room.
~-z::" r-:/ L ~
Ruth 11. Smith
Secretary
'1"
\
JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY/CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/WORKSHOP
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
3 : 20 p. m.
Friday, May 29, 1992
DPLU Hearing Room
5201 Ruffin Road, San Dieqo
I. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS City of Chula Vista: Susan Fuller, Chair;
PRESENT: Joseph Casillas, Laverne Decker, Robert
Tugenberg
County of San Dieqo: Richard Wright, Chair;
Phillip Brown, Edward Ferraro, David
Kreitzer, Lynne Leichtfuss
COMMISSIONERS City of Chula Vista: Joanne Carson,
ABSENT: Thomas Martin, William Tuchscher
County of San Di eqo: Toni Kastel ic, Frank
Urtasun
STAFF:
Tony Lettieri, General Manager, John SuI lard,
RBF & Assoc.; Anne Ewing, Project Team
Chairman Wright (County) stated that although the Agenda calls
for Public Comment toward the end of the meeting, he was pro-
yiding an opportunity for any member of the public to discuss any
topic not listed on the Agenda. No one wishing to speak, he con-
tinued with the Agenda.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 1992 JOINT PLANNING
COMMISSION WORKSHOP
City:
County:
Chairwoman Fuller requested that approval of the
Minutes by the City of Chula Vista be continued
to the next meeting for lack of a quorum. Com-
missioner Tugenberg withdrew the motion he had
made for acceptance.
MSUC (Ferraro/Brown) 5-0 to approve the Minutes of
April 29, 1992 as mailed. Commissioners Kastelic
and Urtasun absent.
III PROJECT SETTING/SURROUNDING PROJECTS
Project General Manager Lettieri displayed and reviewed the Work-
shop Schedule for the benefit of the Commissions and the General
Public. He added that the Commissioners had been given a packet
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
2
containing the issue papers for review prior to the July 31 hear-
ing.
Mr. Lettieri continued that the focus of the present meeting was
to deal with the subregional issues and to acquaint the Commis-
sions with issues relating to the planning of the property, the
project setting, the regional resource information and some of
the regional studies that affect the property and are affected by
it. He introduced John Sullard, a Planner with RBF & Associates
who has been involved in this project from the beginning.
Mr. Sullard noted that since the Commissioners' tour of the Ranch
had provided on-site knowledge, the next important detail would
concern development around the property.
Displaying an overhead map, pointed out the Otay Ranch Project,
Highways 94 and 805, Telegraph Canyon Road, Otay Lakes, and
advised the Commissioners that maps were in their packets.
He then presented a summation of the major developments both in
process or approved in the area of the Otay Ranch Project. He
emphasized the large population of Tijuana south of Otay Ranch.
Then, he traced the areas belonging to San Diego commenting that
if the seven residential projects pending were approved, there
would be 11,000 units in the area. There is, also, 3,200 acres
of industrial zoned land with tentative maps plus Brown Airfield,
the proposed Twin Ports Project, Otay Rio Business Park and the
County Landf ill.
There are four major planned communities within Chula vista;
Sunbow, 602 acres, 1,946 units, gross density of 3.2 units/acre;
Rancho del Rey, 1,500 acres, 4,148 units, gross density of 2.6;
and Southwestern College with an enrollment of 12,000 to 15,000.
EastLake, 3,000 acres, 8,000 units, gross density of 2.8, as well
as a village center, business park with an industrial employment
base, golf-course, lake, and other complimentary development com-
ponents. Bonita Long Canyon, 937 acres, 862 units, gross density
of 1. The Arco/Olympic Training Center (OTC) is located next to
the lake. There is also the County Jail, the State Prison and
the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan with 5,200 acres that is going
through the planning process now.
Using the overhead map, Mr. Sullard pointed out Salt Creek I, 91
acres, 550 units, gross density of 6; Salt Creek Ranch, 1,200
acres, 2,600 units, gross density of 2.2. He indicated that this
was the outer limits of Chula Vista's General Plan area and its
Sphere of Influence.
County Projects, he continued, include Proctor Valley Road, ancho
San Diego, 3,000 acres, 6,000 units, gross density of 2.1;
Hidden Valley, 1,460 acres, 438 units, gross density of .3; Las
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
3
Montanas, 922 acres, 170 units, gross density of .2; as well as
Honey Springs, 2,000 acres, 389 units, gross density of .25; and
Clark Ranch, 1,200 acres, 215 units, gross density of .2. There
is also a quarry on the Daley Ranch.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked if a list of those develop-
ments and numbered maps could be given to the Commissioners for
correlation purposes. Mr. Lettieri said that would be provided
for the binders.
Commissioner Casillas (City) asked what percentage of the total
land mass was devoted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
designation? Mr. Sullard replied that he did not have the figure
but it could be developed after the area was defined. His pres-
entation was intended to give the Commissions an idea of the
urban development occurring around the Ranch.
IV. REGIONAL RESOURCE STUDIES
Mr. Lettieri stated that this was a coordinated presentation
between the City and the County on a number of regional resource
studies taking place on the project and the surrounding area at
the present time. Director of Planning Leiter (City) would speak
on the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program
followed by Mike Evans, a consultant with the County, speaking on
the Mul ti-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
Chairman Wright (County) asked if written material were avail-
able, or was it part of the Environmental Resource handout the
Commissions had been given? He continued that as much material
as possible should be presented in written form for later refer-
ence and study. Mr. Evans replied that the Commissioners had a
chart showing the various resource planning areas and he would be
giving them another handout during his presentation.
Mr. Lettieri commented that the Commissioners had received the
Natural Communities Conservation Question and Answer Program in
their packets. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the RPO
Analysis would be part of another presentation.
Director Leiter said he would review the overall framework for
the regional conservation plan in the County and speak specif-
ically about two programs: the Clean Water Program/Multi-Species
Conservation Program, and the South County Natural Community Con-
servation Program. One of the handouts presented was an overall
outline of the various programs currently in progress in San
Diego County. The Federal and State Endangered Species Act
established a legal framework for conservation planning through-
out the State and the Nation. SANDAG has performed a coordi-
nating role in working with local governments to develop plans to
meet the requirements of the State and Federal Acts. In addi-
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
4
tion, the County of San Diego is currently moving forward on a
Countywide Wildlife Habitat and Openspace Planning Program and
some of today's presentation fits into that program.
He said he would like to focus on two specific subregional plan-
ning efforts involving the City of Chula Vista and the County and
which will have a great deal to do with the planning of the Otay
Ranch Project.
The Clean Water Program/Multi-Species Conservation Program was
started in July, 1991 by the City of San Diego for the Metropoli-
tan Sewer Serv ice Area. It incl udes the entire Ci ty of San Di ego
as well as several other cities including Santee, poway, Chula
Vista and outlying County areas. That is the entire area served
by the City of San Diego's sewer system. He displayed a map
showing the boundaries of the various areas discussed and com-
mented that Mr. Evans would point out the boundary of the Clean
Water Program area and the MUlti-Species Conservation Program
(MSCP). This MSCP was mandated by the Federal Government to
mitigate the growth-inducing impacts of the Clean Water Program,
the expansion of the sewer system. It was required to mitigate
those impacts on biological resources including coastal sage
scrub and other habitat types. The first phase of the program is
a three-month planning program costing approximately $3 million.
This includes mapping the existing and planned land uses, types
of vegetation, and ownership for about 263,000 acres within the
study area. These maps will be used to identify a network of
potential wildlife preserves and connecting wildlife corridors.
The other tasks included in the first phase of the program are
population viability analysis of the California gnatcatcher and
up to four other sensitive species within the study area,
preparation of preserve design and preserve maintenance criteria
for the study area, the identification of funding sources for
preserving the land that is needed to create these wildlife
preserves, and development of an implementation program. This
first stage is expected to be completed by December, 1993.
The second phase of the NCCP, in early 1994, will be acquisition
of the land and establishment and operation of the permanent
wildlife preserve network planned during Phase I. This has been
coordinated by the Clean Water Program staff through the City of
San Diego for coordination with the various interests involved in
such a broad range program. The MSCP Working Group has been crea-
ted and meets regularly with the Clean Water Program staff to
review the various components of the plan. The participants in
this working group include public agency representatives, includ-
ing Chula Vista and the County, several of the major landowners
within the study area, various environmental and conservation
organizations, including Citizens Coordinate for Century 3, the
Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy and Trust
for Public Land and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
State Department of Fish and Games. This program has been
developing a data base and planning framework for multi-species
habitat planning within the overall study area.
Director Leiter said that the Commissioners have a hand-out pro-
viding background information on the Natural Communities Con-
servation Planning Program (NCCP). AS 2171 created the NCCP in
1990 with the purpose of encouraging the preparation of multi-
species conservation plans by local governments and major land-
owners based on guidelines established by a State appointed
scientific review panel.
5
The NCCP coastal sage scrub project is a pilot project. It
focuses on coastal sage scrub and certain target species within
that habitat including the California gnatcatchers. It also
focuses directly and geographically into the three county areas
including Orange County, Riverside and San Diego Counties where
the majority of that habitat resides. The NCCP is a voluntary
program and a collaborative effort between local government and
land-owners sponsored by the California Resources Agency and the
State Department of Fish and Game. It is also coordinated with
the u.S. Fish and wildlife Service. The participating local
agencies were asked to meet certain standards during an 18-month
planning program which began on May 1, 1992. The requirements
of participation in that program would be to assist in the
preparation and implementation of the coastal sage scrub program
for the area in which they are located and also to agree to
certain restrictions and certain measures regarding development
and activities within that area during that period. That
includes monitoring the loss of habitat, protection of public
lands through proper management practices and modified review of
new development within this area.
In looking at this program and deciding whether or not to
participate, the City of Chula Vista, County and other agencies
considered three important components of the NCCP. (1) The State
sponsored the program and agreed to take a leadership role in
coordinating the effort. This was an important step forward from
the fragmented planning regarding species management. (2) It
provided for a regional and subregional focus. It is difficult
to plan extremely large areas, they must be broken down into
reasonable subregions. (3) The NCCP provided a legal framework
for subregional planning by establishing parameters for setting
up preserves and for local governments to operate preserves over
time. This had been lacking, particularly, in State law. Based
on that, the City of Chula Vista and the County worked together
and came up with the boundaries for the South County NCCP. It
includes most of the undeveloped areas of eastern Chula Vista
along with jOined areas of the County to the south and the east.
Mr. Evans will go into more specific detail.
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
6
The reasons for looking at a joint program between the City and
County was that the actual boundaries between the City and the
County in this area did not relate to any biologically sound
boundary; there was obviously an overlap between City and County
interests in this area. Also, since the City and County had been
working closely on both the Otay Ranch Project and the Otay
Regional Park Planning Program, there was a natural interest in
working together on this habitat plan. Several major landowners
within the study area wanted to work with the City and County to
develop this program on a joint basis. Based on that interest
and the interest on the part of the State in having this program
move forward, the City and County both enrolled in the NCCP in
late April. Several of the large property owners, including
Baldwin, have enrolled in the NCCP.
The first stage of the program will include additional field work
on the property to get further scientific information regarding
coastal sage and the gnatcatcher and development of a precise
planning work program, laying out all the steps needed to do a
regional preservation plan. The second stage involves the actual
preparation of that plan including a design of a wildlife pre-
serve and also adjustments to the General Plan and Land Use Plan
for the study area. The program will be coordinated with the
Clean Water Program/Multi-species Conservation Program. There
will be a lot of overlap and sharing of information between the
two programs and it is intended that the NCCP for the South
County be completed by November, 1993. This correlates well with
the end date for Phase I of the MSCP which is December, 1993.
The County and the City will work jointly to prepare these plans
and, as development proposals such as the Otay Ranch are
reviewed, they will be checked for conformance to the basic
concepts being developed in these plans.
Commissioner Tugenberg (City) asked what would prevent a
landowner from bulldozing off any sensitive species such as
coastal sage scrub? Director Leiter replied that enrollees have
agreed not to disturb coastal sage scrub. There are no specific
regu-lations or restrictions that will prevent such action by
those not enrolled. In the case of the City, all the major
property owners who own coastal sage scrub habitat are
participating. Mr. Evans added that the County has a "grubbing
and clearing" ordinance which requires permits for clearing of
native vegetation and non-agricultural activities. That is being
reviewed and will return to the County Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors in 60 days with amendments to tighten
it. The State Fish and Game Commission has discussed specific
controls for non-enrolled coastal sage scrub areas but have not
reached any decision.
Commissioner Decker (City) asked if the City of San Diego would
participate in the program? Director Leiter replied that the
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
City of San Diego is participating in the MSCP and is, in fact,
coordinating MSCP. They are not enrolled in the NCCP but there
will be a coordination of plans to ensure they fit together. The
City of San Diego is proposing that their MSCP become a NCCP for
their territory.
7
Commissioner Leichtfuss (County) asked if the Commissioners could
get a copy of the boundary map for the records? The answer was
affirmative.
Mr. Evans said he would be repeating some of what Director Leiter
had said but would endeavor to indicate a feeling for the
relationship in these various planning efforts. He also wished
to discuss the County's Countywide Plan and the techniques being
used, inasmuch as they reflect the techniques of other resource
planning efforts.
Returning to the chart he discussed its hierarchy. The Federal
Government is shown at the top because the need for more
comprehensive planning started at that level through a specific
subsection of the Federal Endangered Species Act called the HCP
or Habitat Conservation Planning Section. This allows what is
called incidental taking of an endangered species if a specific
conservation plan is prepared and approved. It benefits the
species in general so there is some tradeoff with individuals or
parts of the population. This identifies the traditional
planning for resources although, at the local level it has been
generalized into elements like the General Plan Land Use Element
and the Conservation of Open Space. In the County's view of
developing its multi-habitat openspace plan the lack of a
comprehensive, practical, effective planning framework for
environmental resources has resulted in a degradation of many
resources in the region.
He displayed a map of the County with a number of subarea
planning boundaries shown within. He pointed out the MSCP, the
City's Clean Water Program as the blue area. The crosshatched
red area as the County's Openspace Plan. The yellowish areas
within the MSCP are County-jurisdiction lands within the MSCP.
Mr. Evans noted that SANDAG will be working with the City of San
Diego, the City of Chula Vista and the other cities within the
MSCP area to develop the conservation strategy.
He identified the NCCP, the State planning process specifically
for coastal sage scrub and called attention to the fact that Otay
Ranch falls completely within that as well as the MSCP and the
County in general. He indicated an area already mapped by the
Water District, saying the County would be utilizing their
vegetation data as well as data from the City's effort in
developing the County-wide vegetation map. The Phase 2 area, the
eastern 2/3 of the County will be starting in 1993 to do that
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public HearingjWorkshop - May 29, 1992
8
vegetation mapping. Areas outside the County's jurisdiction will
be mapped by the Forest Service, BLM and State Parks as
appropriate.
Of the number of private sub-subregional plans, the two that have
taken the lead are both in South County. One involves a number
of different ownerships and is called Sweetwater Loveland Open
Space and Habitat Management Plan. This involves a number of
property ownerships that have contiguous openspace easements
required by the County in various environmental documents. That
particular group involves Hidden valley, The Point San Diego
Project, Ranch San Diego, Las Montanas, and perhaps others, along
with the Nature Conservancy to actively manage this openspace
area in perpetuity. The County is currently reviewing the plan
to manage this area under the auspices of the Nature Conservancy.
This is totally funded by these ownerships. The Single Ownership
Project Management Plan, Rancho San Diego and the Otay Ranch
Management Plan, which is still being reviewed, represent a more
specific look at managing natural resources within a specific
ownership.
Mr. Evans commented that there are many different planning
efforts going on at various levels. He stressed that all are
being closely coordinated so there will not be separate plans
without relationship to one another but will be well-integrated.
It is a unique situation in land use planning to have this kind
of interjurisdictional coordination between public and private
projects as well as from Federal, State and local governments.
Commissioner Decker (City) said he was somewhat skeptical about
the BLM and Federal Government cooperating. Mr. Evans replied
that he had been chairing a number of subcommittees at SANDAG
that involved all three of the jurisdictions. BLM had not
attended the meetings but the Forest Service has been very
helpful in leading the Federal side of things. The Navy and the
Marine Corps are also involved on a unofficial level.
Commissioner Kreitzer (County) asked what percent of land BLM
held in this whole study area? Mr. Evans replied that he did not
know. He estimated their ownership adjacent to Otay Ranch to be
a couple of thousand acres and they have other ownerships within
the County.
Chairman Wright said he was aware of the North County wildlife
Forum but not that the South County NCCP had the same type of
coordinating activity. He asked if this was under the auspices
of SANDAG, Chula Vista or the County? Mr. Evans replied that the
County and the City of Chula Vista started this process with the
private landholders. It is unique among these areas because of
the real partnership between the owners and the two local
jurisdictions. In the Central and South County, SANDAG is not
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
9
involved but is heavily involved in North County. In the South
County NCCP, the landowners are paying for much of this and they
have more than carried their share of the burden so far.
Commissioner Casillas (City) asked if all this planning was being
done without regard for what is happening on the other side of
the Border? Mr. Evans replied that a resolution had been written
by County Staff for the Board of Supervisors requesting
assistance from the Federal Government to coordinate mapping on
both sides of the Border. Members of the County Planning
Department have visited with representatives from the City of
Tijuana to discuss the issue. They are interested in using some
of these tools to plan for their resources.
Commissioner Casillas questioned if they had the same kind of
governmental structure that we have; that is, Federal, State,
municipal? Mr. Evans said there had been much more Federal
control of local activities in planning than there is in the
United States. He did know that the State of Baja California has
just passed a new environmental law similar to CEQA in
California. There is more interest at the municipality level,
which is the equivalent to our counties, as well as the state of
Baja California. The environmental revolution is just starting
in Mexico.
Commissioner Decker (City) inquired if mapping required walking
the land foot by foot? Mr. Evans explained that the standard
technique being used is interpretation of infra-red aerial photo-
graphs and in drawing the vegetation map boundaries on those
photographs and then field-tracking and digitizing them. He
displayed a draft map made by Ogden Environmental as part of the
MSCP product which showed the vegetation on and around the Otay
Ranch boundaries.
Commissioner Decker asked if after the techniques were learned,
could someone could just do it from the air? Mr. Evans replied
that a lot of field verification is needed since the maps and air
photos are very large scale, I-inch to 2,OOO-feet.
Commissioner Wright remarked that this was a period of revolution
when it came to collecting and analyzing spatial data and making
use of global positioning, systems technologies, satellite
imagery and, particularly, spot satellite imagery. From that, to
get lO-meter resolution and keep looking at things on a regional
basis is very good. Computer technology has gone to the point
now where computers can handle hundreds of millions of
instructions per second. He commented that there is a consortium
of universities both north and south of the Border that are
working on a wide rangeof environmental issues. One of the major
projects to be funded in the coming year is development of the
environmental geographic system on both sides of the Border. He
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
expressed belief that San Diego State would be responsible for
the Californias' section, Baja and California to the north.
10
Mr. Lettieri remarked that since the Commissioners' field trip,
it was thought helpful to have a brief presentation on the Otay
Ranch Wildlife Corridor Study. He introduced Anne Ewing, a
Regional Planner with the County of San Diego and a member of the
Project Team.
Ms. Ewing said that Dr. Pat Mock, a wildlife biologist with Ogden
Environmental would make the presentation on the Wild-life
Corridor Study as he had headed and carried it out. Ogden
Environmental is preparing the EIR for the Otay Ranch.
Dr. Mock said he had a doctorate in Wildlife Biology with
Ornithology as a specialty. The Wildlife Corridor Study was
initiated over a year ago as a requirement of the Resource
Management Plan (RMP), The importance of wildlife corridors
cannot be over-emphasized when considering a regional network of
biological open space based on preserves. The importance to
wildlife in terms of corridors relates to allowing free and easy
movement of wildlife between the patches necessarily constrained
by development. This movement is critical to the population
biology of many sensitive and common species since if the
subpopulation fragments of habitat are isolated, even common
species can become rare or nonexistent. Interconnectivity
between the network or the habitat preserved is very critical to
long-term viability. The approach taken for the Wildlife
Corridor Study was to prioritize the type of species on which to
focus and to identify species thought to be most sensitive to
development in isolation of their population. The corridor
study, therefore, centered on the focal species of the California
gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren and the focal mammal species
of bobcat, mountain lion and mule deer.
The figure before the Commissions represents the work completed
on the Otay Ranch. These are the regional connection points that
exist on the Ranch in terms of gross population movement of
dispersing animals from one large block of habitat to another.
The ultimate goal of these corridors is to facilitate movement of
wildlife, for example, from San Miguel Mountain to Jamul Mountain
to the San Ysidro Mountains. Large blocks of mountainous or
rough terrain are likely to stay in open space because of the
slope restrictions of the zoning.
On the Otay River Parcel, specialized corridors are identified
for the functioning of the birds, the gnatcatchers and the cactus
wren, because these are areas that don't necessarily need to
support any focal mammal species from a planning perspective.
There is a significant population of wrens and gnatcatchers in
the 175 acres of Sunbow's openspace property which is currently
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
isolated from adjacent populations on the Ranch and elsewhere
because of development. The proposed corridor would have to be
created through revegetation of the slopes along that corridor.
11
Chairman Wright asked that the information be presented so that
someone not attending this meeting and watching the tape could
understand the discussion.
Mr. Lettieri pointed out and named the various corridors on the
map.
Dr. Mock continued that there is a strip of coastal sage scrub
vegetation between Wueste Road and the lake itself that currently
supports seven to nine territories of gnatcatchers and is fully
occupied. That would continue a wildlife corridor to the north
for the bird species along the river bed and would allow the
connectivity of those two significant populations both off and on
the Ranch.
Birds can fly and get through moderately developed areas. Data
reveals that they can utilize riparian and chaparral habitat for
dispersal but not for breeding.
Dr. Mock concentrated the rest of the presentation on the mammal
species. These are much more constrained because they can't fly.
Mountain lion is probably the most sensitive of the three focal
species to disturbance and encroachment by humans. Therefore,
that species is used to define the characteristics of the
corridors to allow for passage. All other species will be able
to pass through the same corridor. Bobcats are very tolerant of
humans. They are very abundant and go through areas of man-made
structures like small culverts. They seem to be the least
sensitive to constraining development. Deer, on the other hand,
are the prey of mountain lions so they utilize the slopes when
mountain lions are down on the bottom or the drainages. In
designing a wildlife corridor for both deer and mountain lion,
both the slope, the base of the slope and the rim are needed.
Dr. Mock pointed out the various corridors. Corridor #5, the
Otay River Valley is basically the main river valley and all
three species utilize it as a main thoroughfare. Corning off of
the Otay River is O'Neal Canyon to the south, the main regional
corridor which connects the Otay River Valley to the BUl Otay
Mountain lands to the east as well as East Otay Mesa and that is
used by all of the mammal species.
Corridor #6, corning off O'Neal Canyon is another route out from
the BLM lands to the southeastern part of Otay Lakes.
Corridor #5, also continues up the spillway canyon that connects
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
12
to the dam area and along the east side of the lake and is used
by all the mammals.
Corridor #9, is a major drainage that comes off a cove of the
lake and is primarily used by deer and bobcats for watering. The
Otay Lakes area is a resource to which animals must have access
to during the dry time of the year. Deer especially are very
dependent on a water source the year around much more so than the
bobcat and mountain lion.
Corridor #8, is a corridor coming off the Otay Mountain area into
the Delzura Creek drainage. It is a connection point to get
animals across from the San Ysidro Mountains to the Jamul
Mountains.
The most significant regional corridor is the Little Cedar
Canyon, Corridor #11, with big Cedar Canyon, Corridor #10,
partnering it. However, Cedar Canyon stops at the Thousand
Trails Recreational Vehicle Park and the animals go over a small
saddle back into Little Cedar Canyon and then cross. Delzura
Creek is the focal point for those two corridors to get animals
across that drainage and into Delzura Mountains.
Either Corridor #1 or #7 on the Jamul Mountain side are used by
the animals after they cross Delzura and Jamul Creek to get to
the Jamul Mountain. As well as another corridor directly on the
south side of the Jamul Mountains which also supports animals
movement. Development where these crossroads occur would
constrain several corridors and not just one. That fact must be
considered.
Proctor Valley will be a difficult area in which to can plan a
wildlife corridor because of the lack of topography which focuses
the animal in the right direction. This is where the designers
have to be subjective in deciding how wide this wildlife corridor
needs to be. In the second phase of study, other constrained
corridors in the County will be researched for guidance in
setting a proper corridor across Proctor Valley.
Ultimately, there will be just one wildlife corridor going across
from Proctor Valley to the Sweetwater Reservoir which is the
corridor coming off from #1. Proctor Valley is essentially a
corridor in a north-south direction which follows the drainage
that is the center of the valley.
Commissioner Leichtfuss (County) asked about Corridor #3. Dr.
Mock replied that #3 was just another corridor coming off the
Jamul Peak going down to the lower portion of Proctor Valley used
by the animals to reach the Upper Otay Lakes for water.
Commissioner Decker (City) referenced the Sunbow population which
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
is said to be isolated. He asked if there is a problem with
diversity when a population is isolated like that? Dr. Mach
replied that this is a significant population but it is small
from a long-term viability point of view. The fewer number of
individuals in a closed population, the higher incidence of
inbreeding, loss of genetic diversity and the negative biological
effects. OVer time and the stochastic processes occurring due to
weather or just bad luck, the population is often lost. In
response to a question, he explained that a stochastic process is
a random process, such as weather.
13
Commissioner Decker referenced some song bird studies made in
England that indicated that the birds would not interbreed within
the same species from one field to another or in a relatively
close geographical area. He asked if such a problem existed with
the gnatcatcher? Dr. Mock replied that the data from the gnat-
catcher indicates they have a good dispersal distance from two to
six miles. That kind of data is not available for the cactus
wren.
Commissioner Kreitzer (County) asked what were the survival
chances of these mammal species with the kind of intrusion
probable with this project? Dr. Mock said there were mountain
lions in the Penasquitos Canyon area, which is the corridor
system being studied and analyzed to guide their recommendations.
There are mountain lions still in that system. Mountain lions
are fairly resilient, it is just a matter to allow for that
connectivity to keep them there. They have very large home
ranges.
Commissioner Kreitzer (County) asked if it were known how many of
the three animals were there now. Dr. Mock replied that deer
could usually be seen during certain times of the day, especially
dawn and dusk. Mountain lion and bobcat are nocturnal animals
and are not usually sighted unless where they are resting during
the day.
Commissioner Casillas (City) asked what specific measures could
be taken to enhance the viability of the Proctor Valley corridor?
Dr. Mock replied that since the Proctor Valley area has a long
history of grazing and other agricultural activities; vegetation
restoration. The type of vegetation or, at least, topographic
relief that they could hide behind or feel, psychologically, that
they are not detected when they are passing through these
corridor areas. Replying to the Commissioner's next question,
Dr. Mock said the initial assessment, without the benefit of the
offsite studies, recommended a 1,SOO-foot width at the current
location of Proctor Valley Road.
Chairman Wright remarked that the design of corridors is an art
as well as a science. He asked if, at some point, Dr. Mock would
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
14
provide the Commissioners with some criteria that can be used in
laying these corridors down? He stated his realization that more
specific information would be available at a later time. Dr.
Mock said they had introduced an interim document that discussed
the criteria. It is being finalized and printed.
BREAK: 4:30 - 4:48 p.m.
Chairman Wright reconvened the meeting and thanked Dr. Mock for
his interesting presentation.
Anne Ewing noted that Dr. Mock's work would
Research Management Plan (RMP) and the EIR.
Commissions to the handout entitled RPO for
the RMP.
be in both the
She referred the
the presentation on
Ms. Ewing said that the orlgln for the RMP comes from the
Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO), the citation to the Otay
Ranch and to the Management Plan being called for in the Article
*5 on Exemptions. Item 9 says that any project located within
the area called Otay Ranch, "if determined to be consistent with
a Comprehensive Resource Management and Protection Program which
has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the 'Otay
Ranch'" will be exempt from further RPO review. In the County,
General Plan Amendments and Specific Plans are not subject to
RPO. However, the equivalent of an RPO is being created in the
Resource Management Plan (RMP) at this GPA. It will carry
through the subsequent SPAs, maps and permits to follow.
Ms. Ewing explained that the intent is that the resources be
recognized and protected in such a way that protection equal
or greater than that provided in the RPO will be provided.
will be carried out on each subsequent permit or map but not
RPO analysis since the contents of the RMP are the resources
usually protected in the RPO. There will be conformance between
the policies of the RMP, and the mitigation in the EIR. The
policies of the RMP will be found in the Conservation Element
Chapter of the GDP. These documents will be interlocked by the
placing of the policies in each of the documents. The RMP will
create a preserve and detailed management plan for the owner-
manager of the preserve to identify and protect resources.
to
CEQA
an
She requested the Commissioners to review the contents of the RMP
to familiarize themselves with its material and organization
before the public review period. The Preface deals with the
specific conformance of the RMP with the sections of the RPO and
the Introduction explains its purpose and function, describes the
planning context and how RMP will be implemented in phases.
Phase I is being carried out during the GPA. Phase II will begin
with the submittal of the first SPA.
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
15
Chapter 2.0, describes the on-site character and key biological
resource areas. The surrounding areas are discussed because
preserve design must consider conformance between what is being
protected and what is contiguous and has a flow onto the
surrounding properties.
Chapter 3.0 deals with the goals, objectives and policies.
Chapter 4.0 is very important and deals with the implementation
guidelines; namely, the order of the conveyance of parcels into
the preserve to the owner-manager. The size of the parcel and
order of conveyance have not been resolved. The second issue is
the restoration/mitigation package which proposes the number of
acres of different kinds of habitats to be restored to offset the
amount of habitat being impacted by the project. She stressed
that if the decision makers propose an alternative, or put
together pieces of the different alternatives, the preserve area
may look different. Whatever is ultimately proposed for approval
must follow the criteria in Chapter #3 of the policy manual to
fulfill the ultimate shape and design of the boundary of the
preserved area.
Chapter 5.0 includes a description of the resources which was
given in earlier handouts.
She noted that the RMP is in draft form and is presently being
reviewed by two committees. A staff committee composed of staff
from the County and Chula Vista meet weekly to review the
contents and make any changes. The other committee is the Bio-
subcommittee made up of biologists from the Project Team, the
City, Otay Ranch, Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service.
They have been with this project for over two years.
Ms. Ewing said she would like to outline what staff feels are the
desired outcomes from this effort. One, that the RMP be approved
as the functional equivalent of the RPO and that the pOlicies be
incorporated in the EDP and a truly functional preserve with a
funding mechanism be created. Two, that the creation of this
preserve will protect and enhance the resources on the Otay
Ranch, that the effort will conform to the NCCP, the MSCP or any
HCP planning effort that might occur as a result of a listing of
a species. It is an integral part of the South County NCCP since
the Otay Ranch is the largest landholding in that effort. Staff
wishes to ensure that there is an arrangement where maintenance
and monitoring will occur, a restoration program carried out,
and research programs (under very careful observation of the
owner-manager) will be allowed. Finally, staff wants to
establish a collaborative working relationship with the Otay
Valley Regional Park when it is adopted because of the overlap of
areas in the River Valley and Salt Creek Canyon.
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing~~orkshop - May 29, 1992
16
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked how the RPO would be
correlated with the nine alternatives? Will there be e~ough data
so that if one of the alternatives is selected, it will
automatically be translated into a formula to impact the
preserve? Ms. Ewing replied that if one alternative is selected
in its entirety, yes. However, if portions of different
alternatives were selected creating a tenth alternative for
consideration, that might have impacts that have not been
analyzed and a supplemental review of that would be necessary.
Commissioner Ferraro inquired about Dr. Mock's presentation where
he indicated he was in the process of finalizing the criteria for
these corridors. Ms. Ewing replied that the width and
characteristics needed for vegetation as well as other factors
needed to ensure that the corridor would be satisfactory were
being finalized.
Commissioner Ferraro asked if the corridors given to us are then
correlated or are compatible with this corridor criteria? Ms.
Ewing replied affirmatively and added that is a policy in the RMP
that these corridors and the widths proposed by Dr. Mock will be
preserved.
Commissioner Decker (City) referenced the establishment of
preserves saying that as the order in which the development will
proceed is not known, it will be hard to recommend the order of
establishment for the preserves. How will that be resolved? Ms.
Ewing agreed and explained that the arrangement being proposed is
that certain restoration programs shall be undertaken when each
individual SPA comes in. The overall package of restoration must
be looked at to determine what will offset the impacts of the
project.
Commissioner Kreitzer (County) asked how much agricultural land
will remain in this project and will be farmed? Ms. Ewing
replied that very little of the mesa top of the Western Parcel
would be preserved. However, there is a proposal for a certain
amount of agricultural land to be preserved in the River Valley
for expedition of parks and gardens.
Commissioner Kreitzer questioned if there would be any real crop
raising? Ms. Ewing replied that grazing activities would cease
on the Western Parcel once the RMP and the preserve are approved,
however, she assumed that there would be interim agricultural use
until that land is given up.
Commissioner Kreitzer asked how much value there was in the crops
in that land? Agriculture is still a billion dollar product in
this County. Ms. Ewing explained that there is no water system
on the Ranch now which limits the amount of agriculture. However,
the potential is there. It is very excellent land.
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public HearingjWorkshop - May 29, 1992
17
Chairman Wright asked if the RMP would include offsite
mitigation? Ms. Ewing replied that it did not seem necessary
because of the 11,000 to 12,000 acres estimated to be placed in
this preserve. It seemed feasible that mitigation would take
place on site.
V. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STUDY
1
Mr. Lettieri commented that the responses made by staff are based
on draft studies and when the final presentation is made, some of
the recommendations may be different based on additional
information. Staff is presenting as much information as possible
now but it may change. That will be made clearer to the
Commissions at the next workshop when the alternatives,
themselves, are reviewed. He then introduced George Franck of
SANDAG and noted that his presentation, in fact, had been used to
assist in identifying alternative locations for the transit line.
Mr. Franck said the South Bay Rail Transit Study had been
completed a year ago. The purpose of the study was to check the
feasibility of providing additional rail transit service into the
South Bay area. The study was identified in Proposition A, in
1987, and was funded by the Sales Tax created at that same time.
The Policy Committee, was chaired by Supervisor Bilbray with
members from MTDB and Councilpeople from each of the cities in
the South Bay area and Lemon Grove. The Technical Committee
included public agency staff, community groups, major property
owners in the area, the Joint Agency Staff and Baldwin Company.
The study area included that land south of the existing east line
of the trolley, west of Sweetwater and Otay Reservoirs, and north
of the Mexican Border. He displayed a map saying that of the 26
different corridors reviewed, five were identified for more
detailed study and were shown in the colors. The cost of
extending light rail service into the area ran from $25 to $30
million per mile. That cost is similar to the Santee extension
which is now under construction. The cost increase from the $10
to $12 million per mile for the original south line is because it
is virtually virgin territory out there, whereas the south line
and the existing east line were both built on existing railroad
rights-of-way. The many hills and significant problems increase
the cost.
The ridership projected is based on the year 2010 population
projections and one of the older versions of the Baldwin
proposals for Otay Ranch property was incorporated as well as the
complete build-out of Otay Mesa Industrial area, but not the
EastLake area within the unincorporated parts of the County.
SR-125 is included in the study not as a toll road but as a free
facility. The high range of the spectrum is about 25,000
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
18
passengers per day. Based on the analysis, five corridors were
identified for further study and incorporation into the SANDAG
Long Range Transportation Plan.
The corridor starts up in National City extends east out around
54, past Bonita Plaza, south along 805, along Telegraph Canyon
Road and then through the two western villages in Otay Ranch,
through the Town Center area, the potential university site and
then back to SR-125 to cross Otay River down to the Second Border
Crossing. Part of the recommendation was the extension from the
Second Border Crossing west along SR-905 back to the Iris Avenue
Trolley Station. The recommendations from the study were that
light rail on the red corridors was feasible if specific land use
actions were taken. The yellow line was not a cost effective
rail corridor, however, it did have significant ridership and it
was proposed that it be reserved as an express bus corridor at
least to the year 2010. A route into Imperial Beach was found
not to be cost effective.
The land use work focused urban development around rail transit
stations or, alternatively, around community bus or express-bus
access points. Commercial, civic and office development to be
around the station, multi-family surrounding that with single-
family units further away. The specifically recommended density
basically would be ~60 employee units/acre within a 1/4 mile
walking distance of the station and densities averaging 12+
units/acre for residential areas, again within a 1/4 mile walking
distance of the station. Lower intensities would be located
outside of that 1/4 mile walking distance. By having those
intensities focused around rail stations, transit ridership for
the office components and employment components could be
increaseded by 30 to 40% over conventional developments and 60%
to 90% for residential by clustering higher densities closer to
the stations and providing very good pedestrian, bus and other
transit access to those transit stations. That concept was
developed with the Joint Planning Team and is incorporated into
many of the alternatives. SANDAG, itself, has been taking this
concept and developing it as part of the Regional Growth
Management strategy. SANDAG is incorporating these recommended
corridors into the next Regional Transportation Plan scheduled
for release in draft form late this year and adoption early next
year. It was suggested that the Development Board continue on
with these studies and work with the Joint Staff.
Commissioner Leichtfuss (County) said if the Commissioners did
not already have the proposed and the recommended corridor maps,
she would like to have a copy. Mr. Franck said he would provide
that.
Commissioner Decker (City) asked if the $25 to $30 million/mile
was based on the recommended light rail corridors or actual study
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing!Workshop - May 29, 1992
19
corridors? Mr. Franck said the specific engineering costs were
calculated for each of the five corridors recommended. The costs
included bridges, fills, and mitigation necessitated by crossing
wetlands. Each corridor was costed separately and the range
given was of the five corridors.
The Commissioner then asked if the light rail models being used
had been validated with figures from the trolley? Mr. Franck
answered affirmatively and explained that the model system used
to project future ridership is based on many on-going transit
surveys. They were calibrated by the model based on 1986 data
which is being updated now.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked: (1) Are all the corridor
plans for the transportation corridors compatible with the
various alternatives that will be given to the Commissions? (2)
By setting forth corridors as projected, is SANDAG not setting
forth and casting into concrete some elements of this plan? Mr.
Franck replied that the specific purpose for the work MTDB has
been doing since completion of the SANDAG study is to work with
the Joint Planning Team in developing alternatives. These
corridors were feasible if the land uses suggested were acted
upon; namely, clustering around stations, etc. If some other
land use alternative were chosen; such as, the Environmental
Alternative, those corridors would no longer be feasible and
would be removed from the MTDB Long Range Plan.
Chairman Wright stated that according to Mr Franck's
presentation, SANDAG is intending to come out with their
projection this year. He asked how SANDAG could project if they
did not know what the land uses would be? Mr. Franck replied
that the forecast was based on the current forecast of population
employment distribution with two major exceptions. It included
one of the earlier Project Team alternatives for the Otay Ranch
Project and the full build-out of Otay Mesa Industrial areas.
SANDAG wants to promote to individual cities the idea of the
Growth Management Plan structuring land use distribution around
the transit system to try to both maximize transit ridership and
increase convenience within the community. Chairman Wright
responded that it still seemed premature for any projections to
be made in the absence of a plan for the area. Mr. Franck
contended that this is an incredible opportunity for transit
planners in terms of working with local jurisdictions to develop
the land use plan and the transit plan as a unit. Light rail is
part of a progression of transit improvements that should be
considered an integral part of phasing the Otay Ranch Plan by
starting out with local buses, then express-bus connections into
the existing light rail line, downtown San Diego or Otay Mesa
employment centers.
Commissioner Casillas (City) inquired if the 1980 Census figures
Joint County/City of Chula vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
20
were used in making the ridership projection? Mr. Franck
answered that the Series 7, Projection of Land Use and Population
Employ-ment Distribution was used. That was based on 1980 Census
figures updated to a base year of 1986. The actual patronage
numbers mentioned were based on a forecast of development within
the South Bay Area through the year 2010.
Commissioner Casillas inquired further if the figures on
ridership took in the population south of the Border? Mr. Franck
replied affirmatively that a special evaluation had been done on
what Border Crossing increases could be expected. The
Commissioner then asked if any projections have been made in
terms of what will happen if the free trade agreement is
approved? Mr. Frank said not for this study.
Commissioner Tugenberg (City) asked if a substantial increase in
ridership had been anticipated if SR-125 goes in as a toll road?
Mr. Franck said some diversion from the toll road would be
expected but they had not tried to identify what that number
would be.
VI. REGIONAL PARK PROCESS
!
Mr. Lettieri stated that one of the major studies in progress is
the Otay Valley Regional Park Planning Process. He introduced
Anne Rast, a Planner with the County Parks and Recreation
Department. She, in turn, introduced Howard Greenstein of the
City of San Diego and Frank Herrera of the City of Chula Vista.
Ms. Rast said they represented three of the six members of the
Joint Staff for the Otay Valley Regional Planning Effort.
Chairman Wright apologized for interrupting but he needed to ask
which members of the public planned to speak during the Public
Comment section of the Agenda so he could set aside sufficient
time? No one indicated a desire to speak.
Ms. Rast referenced a brochure provided the Commissioners which
had been developed to acquaint the South Bay community with the
opportunity to help plan the Regional Park. The map of the focus
planning area that was adopted was displayed indicating the
active, passive and undisturbed openspace sites. The Joint Staff
is hoping to involve many people in the planning process and
bring their ideas to a Policy Committee made up of an elected
official of each jurisdiction. The City of San Diego is
represented by Deputy Mayor Filner, Chula Vista by Mayor Nader
and the County by Supervisor Bilbray.
After the focus planning area and the progress plan have been
adopted, staff will develop a concept plan. Ms. Rast said they
wished to acquaint the Commissioners with the area on the east
side where there are issues that overlap the Park and the
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing!Workshop - May 29, 1992
development of Otay Ranch.
21
Mr. Greenstein displayed the map and pointed out the riparian
area which is a major link from South San Diego Bay up to Otay
Lakes, the active and passive recreation areas, redevelopment
areas in Chula Vista which can potentially incorporate some park
uses, the buffer zone and the potential restored marshland
adjacent to the South Bay.
In reply to Chairman Wright's question if there were any natural
vegetative areas except what is called riparian? Ms. Rast
replied that the eastern section of the riparian area were areas
determined to be undisturbed. The schematic was prepared in
December, 1990. A great deal more information is now available
as a result of the Otay Ranch RMP and the map is simply to
acquaint the Commissioners with the area; not specifically to any
land use. The intent is to complete the planning process and
return to the Commissions within a year with a proposed concept
plan.
Mr. Greenstein indicated that the diagonal lines on the eastern
area represent preserved openspace to connect the plants and
biological communities already described in the RMP.
Commissioner Tugenberg (City) referenced the eastern portion on
the left side of the lake where three active areas were indicated
and asked if they were the County Park and the existing San Diego
Boat Launch site? The answer was affirmative. He then
referenced another active area on the west side of the lake and
asked what it was. Mr. Greenstein said there were very few areas
adjacent to the lake identified as potential active recreation
areas because there is sensitive biological habitat coming up to
the water's edge. These few areas indicate the ones that could
be potential. The northernmost one on the west side of the lake
is adjacent to the Olympic Training Center and is the potential
site of the boathouse.
Mr. Lettieri interjected that the Commissioners had been given a
Regional Park issue paper which is an effort to coordinate some
of the aspects of the map and the Otay Ranch planning map. More
details will be seen on that map as well as the focus planning
area and ultimate recommendations on boundaries in that report.
It will be discussed in July.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked
western section represented?
and 1-5 respectively.
what the two vertical lines on the
Ms. Rast replied they were I-80S
VII. COUNTY STUDY: PROPOSED LANDFILL ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Lettieri said this presentation on the landfill alternatives
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
22
was another regional effort that is being monitored and on which
the County and City are working. He introduced Joe Minner from
the County Department of Public Works.
Mr. Minner presented a handout for the Commission members. He
reminded them of the mandatory recycling efforts on the part of
local governments mandated by AB-939. In spite of those efforts,
San Diego County will continue to need and use disposal sites for
solid waste. In the County system there are five landfills in
the County and Miramar landfill in the City. The Otay landfill
serves the South Bay area and is estimated to reach capacity in
about 10 years. The Board has directed that a replacement for
the Otay landfill be acquired and constructed in the subregion
area. In 1988, in conjunction with the City of San Diego, a
siting study was undertaken. A criteria was developed using both
a Technical Advisory Committee and a Citizen Advisory Committee.
The criteria was developed prior to specific sites being located.
By applying that criteria, consultants identified 50 sites in the
southwest part of the County. The current project involves three
sites in the South County area and two sites in the City of San
Diego. Two of the three sites in the South County area are
within the Otay Ranch area. The third one is located at the
extreme lower right hand corner on the particular slide being
shown.
!
~
Mr. Minner referred the Commissioners to the a one-page
information sheet on each of the three sites and the map showing
the specific location of the two sites on the Otay Ranch area.
The consultant selected was Ogden Environmental who will prepare
two EIRs for these five sites. The first EIR will be for the
three sites in the County. That project description will be to
site one or more of the three sites for a replacement for Otay.
The second EIR will be for the City of San Diego and that project
description will be to site one or more of the two sites of the
City as a replacement for Miramar. After an approximate 24-month
process to secure a certified EIR, the lengthy permitting
process, briefly shown in graphic form on the last page of the
handout, will begin. It is estimated that after a certified EIR
there will be, at least, a 5-year process before all the permits
necessary to secure and construct a new landfill are acquired.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) commented that, outside the scope
of the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, the Supervisors
have adopted a public attitude toward the operation of dumps and,
yet, both of the dumpsites presented are shown to be private
dumpsites. Mr. Minner replied that the handouts before the
Commissioners indicate ownership in terms of the existing sites.
It is not meant to imply ownership or operation of the landfills
if those sites were selected.
Commissioner Leichtfuss (County) said she was curious about the
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - May 29, 1992
23
process used in selecting the final five from fifty. Mr. Minner
explained that there were two types of criteria applied to the
various sites. Using the overhead projector, he displayed them.
The first set was a pass/fail criteria which eliminated many
sites from further consideration. The next set of criteria used
in terms of ranking the remaining sites included the environ-
mental and technical criteria shown on the slide. Both sets of
criteria were developed using a Citizen's Advisory Committee and
then a Technical Advisory Committee. The Technical Advisory
Committee consisted of representatives from the various
permitting agencies including the California Waste Management
Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, APCD as well as
Planning and the Department of Health staff.
Commissioner Brown (County) said that the land sites were shown
as privately owned at present and studies are estimated to take
five years to determine which site will be chosen. At what point
is a determination made to acquire the land? Mr. Minner replied
that the land can be acquired with the certified EIR. At the end
of that 24-month period, there would be a decision process before
the Board of Supervisors to acquire that site even before all
permits were acquired.
Commissioner Decker (City) said he was looking specifically at
Site E-l-A as an example. When it is compared with the Regional
Wildlife Corridors' chart, it appears to be in the center of a
cactus wren habitat which is inconsistent with one of the
pass/fail criteria. Mr. Minner said the information was either
new or had not been considered to meet the specific factors in
the pass/fail criteria. The handout had contained a very brief
description of the criteria but the detail is in the report and
they would double check on that.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) said he had a question about Site
E-l-B which seems to be in the middle of Wolf and Poggi Canyons
earlier described as wildlife corridors. Mr. Minner explained
that the Wolf Canyon site was a north branch of the main Wolf
Canyon. It is not in the main part of the canyon nor does it go
as far north as the Poggi Canyon area.
Commissioner Leichtfuss asked Mr. Lettieri if the issue paper
would be discussed in depth? Mr. Lettieri said the landfills
would be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. All of
the information on the wildlife corridor studies and any other
environmental information is being made available to the County.
Commissioner Leichtfuss asked if when this is addressed in the
EIR, the original 50 sites and the information on what they
passed and failed would be included? Mr. Minner answered that
the information was included in the siting study. Copies have
been submitted but additional copies can be given to the Otay
Joint County/City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing!Workshop - May 29, 1992
24
Ranch staff.
VIII.
OTHER
In reply to the Chair, Mr. Lettieri said this section of the
Agenda was included in case the Commissioners had any questions
or comments. Chairman Wright reminded him that Commissioner
Leichtfuss had requested a brief overview or history of the
purchase of the site. Mr. Lettieri said Mr. Smith from the
Baldwin Company could address that now, or it could done as part
of the first presentation of the New Town Plan on June 17. The
Commissioners indicated they would prefer the June 17
presentation.
IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No member of the public wished to speak.
X.
NEXT WORKSHOP:
Wednesday, June 17, 1992, 3:00-6:00 p.m.,
City of Chula Vista Council Chambers
XI. ADJOURNMENT at 5:48 p.m. to the Joint City of Chula
Vista/County Planning Commission Public Hearing!Workshop on
Wednesday, June 17, 1992, from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the City
of Chula Vista Council Chambers.
.,E;:-'" ~ ~ ;:::::..z:- -
Ruth M. Smi th
Secretary
JOINT CITY OF CHULA VISTA/COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/WORKSHOP
3:12 p.m.
Wednesdav. June 17. 1992
Council Chambers
Citv of Chula Vista
I. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Citv of Chula Vista: Chair Fuller. Commissioners
Casillas, Carson (3:34 p.m.), Decker, Martin and
Tugenberg. "Absent: Tuchscher
Countv of San Dieqo: Chair Wright, Commissioners
Brown, Ferraro, Kastelic, Kreitzer, Leichtfuss and
Urtasun (3:19 p.m.). Absent: None
STAFF PRESENT: General Manager Lettieri, Duane Bazzel, Anne
Ewing, Chantal Saipe, Joseph Monaco, Steve Thomas, John
Sullard and Georgia Rubin
City of Chula Vista Staff: City Manager John Goss, Deputy
City Manager Krempl, Planning Director Leiter, and Assistant
Planning Director Lee
OTHERS PRESENT: Fred Arbuckle, Baldwin Company
II. APPROVAL OF JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOPS
Citv of Chula Vista: Minutes of 4/29/92 - Continued
for lack of a quorum of attendees. Commissioner
Tugenberg withdrew his motion.
MSUC (Casillas/Decker) 5-0, Carson and Tuchscher
absent, to approve the Minutes of May 16, 1992
Countv of San Dieqo:
MSUC (Leichtfuss/Kreitzer) 6-0, Urtasun absent, to
approve the Minutes of May 15 and May 22, 1992
III. PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
Chair Fuller asked if anyone wished to comment on any item
not on the Agenda at this time. Other opportunities to
speak would be presented after Items IV and V. She
requested that speaker slips be filled out.
(3:19 p.m. - Commissioner Urtasun (County) arrived.)
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
2
IV. DISCU SSION OF DEVELOPHENT CONCEPTS FOR THE OTAY RANCH
General 11anager Lettieri reviewed the Schedule of Workshops
displayed on the overhead projection for the benefit of the
publ ic.
Mr. Lettieri said that he would discuss (1) the V1S1on,
goals and objectives as defined by the Interjurisdictional
Task Force (ITF). (2) l1r. Arbuckle would then describe the
Village Concept, the heart of the urban development part of
the project. (3) Hr. Lettieri would return to speak on the
Open Space System focusing on its consistency among the
alternatives. There would be a short break and then Item
V., the Plan Alternatives, would be presented. Issue by
issue, staff would describe how the alternatives differ on
an issue basis.
Task Force Vision/Goals, Obiectives and Policies.
General Manager Lettieri said that when the Baldwin New Town
PI an \~as submitted in Octobe r, 1989, it was accompani ed by a
vision paper on the development of the property. He would
use that as a basis for discussing Baldwin's vision and then
discuss how the Interjurisdictional Task Force (ITF)
considered that in December, 1989. Then he would summarize
the present vision analysis based on all the information
generated over the past few years.
The vision for the Otay Ranch as defined by Baldwin is the
way in which they view the various elements of the project
coming together. The major components include open space,
over 9,700 acres devoted to regional open space and parks;
definition of the Otay River Valley Regional Park; creation
of a new park, the San Ysidro Regional Mountain Park;
creation of a university site and of an eastern urban
center.
Part of Baldwin's vision that has not gone into some of the
alternatives is for a Town Center on the north side of Otay
Lakes composed of professional offices, civic services,
performing and fine arts.
Regarding residential development and village centers, the
residential component of the vision was to create a
diversity of housing types. The village center concept will
be discussed by 1<1r. Arbuckle in detail. It is certainly the
mainstay of the projects and permeates all of the
al ternatives.
The last part of their vision is a new transportation system
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing~vorkshop - June 17, 1992
3
that does not put the automobile in its premier status but
recognizes its importance and creates a circulation system
that encourages alternative modes of transportation.
The Interjurisdictional Task Force, at the same time, was
considering a vision statement, goals, objectives and
policies which were different and which Baldwin did not have
the benefit of using when they developed their New Town
Plan.
The vision of the ITF is contained in the packet document
entitled "Goals, Objectives and Policies". The Otay Ranch
Project as defined by the ITF created a unique and
evolutionary type of plan. One that took another look at
the form of development and endeavored to create a project
that was not so dependent on the automobile. It also
proposed a new urban center, similar to the Eastern Urban
Center; created, again, the village concept; and also looked
at alternative modes of transportation to minimize the use
of the automobile.
For the last two years, staff has worked on eight
alternative. Their vision focuses on four different areas.
(1) The village concept to be discussed by Mr. Arbuckle.
(2) The creation of an open space system that truly
preserves the habitat and species and provides a mechanism
to manage and finance the operation. (3) The transportation
mode. (4) The creation of a regional planning framework
process. The transportation problems are regional in nature
but need to be identified and a regional planning framework
formed to respond to them since they involve the
unincorporated and incorporated areas together. With those
four areas, when the discretionary process begins, there
will be a plan and staff recommendation that resolves the
environmental issues as well as a monitoring and
implementation program for resolving some of the issues.
In the document accepted by the ITF in December, 1989, which
served as a guide for staff, there are some objectives
different from other projects the Commissions have
considered. Some are not different but may be significant
to the planning of a project this large.
1. Housing and community development - the main focus is
the village development. The citizen's committee as
well as staff has prepared policies that deal with
prov iding a diversity of housing as well as ways to put
low and moderate income housing within each village
unit. Accessory units (granny flats) and other ways to
provide a mixture of housing in an urban core have been
conside red.
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
4
2. Economic development - the need to create an economic
base to ensure public revenue. A Service Revenue Plan
(a fiscal impact analysis) is being completed which
looks at the operation and maintenance costs of both
agencies. Open-end costs as well as capital facilities
are being studied to ensure that not only those
facilities are paid for but a phasing program will be
attached for Commission review. That the retail
component of the project not be detrimental to the
existing retail in the community and that the
employment of the Otay Ranch Plan be complementary to
that which is on Otay Mesa is another policy of the
Task Force.
3. Higher Education - A four-year college or university be.
addressed. If that is not feasible, a two-year college
will be considered.
4. Open Space - will be discussed after Mr. Arbuckle's
presentation.
5. Conservation - No sewer system be developed without
reclaimed water.
6. Public and Community Facilities - Because of the size
of the project and the relationship with the County,
consideration is being given to provision for social
service needs, religious assembly, and regional
facilities for criminal justice and other health
services.
The goals, objectives and policies will guide throughout the
document. Potential changes will be proposed based on
information gathered during the last few years.
Mr. Lettieri then introduced Fred Arbuckle, the Project
Manager of the Otay Ranch Project for the Baldwin Company to
discuss the village concept.
Villaqes and Transit
Mr. Arbuckle stated that one of the goals established for
the Otay Ranch was to define a new building block. This
concept has been under refinement for over two years.
Baldwin has worked with staff, had a lot of citizen input,
held a workshop with experts from the East and West Coasts,
and have studied many of the new neo-traditional planning
efforts trying to glean ideas about the workings of new
communities. They looked at Europe and at old towns in the
u.S. for workable ideas that had been forgotten, like narrow
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
5
streets.
(3:34 p.m. - Commissioner Carson (City) arrived.)
Mr. Arbuckle emphasized that the automobile has separated
the uses in the communities because of its mobility.
Activity modes have been surrounded by asphalt positioned in
the middle of nowhere. Pedestrians have been cut off from
easy access. He used the overhead projector to show an
older community which illustrated the long distances between
the homes and the shopping areas thereby making the car a
necessity.
In the village element, the land use composition is being
reorganized. Concentric organization is the foundation. A
village core is at the center, residential lower density
surrounds that core with pedestrian and automobile traffic
focused toward the village core. The village core becomes a
community center with village greens, plazas, squares, and a
main street. Around that is higher density, housing,
entertainment activities, mixtures of commercial office,
transit and bus stations. The intent is for people to come
in their cars to one destination and be able to do many
things, to see and meet their neighbors and develop a sense
of pride in their community.
Baldwin wants to build on a pedestrian scale, start to break
down the facade of the buildings, have smaller blocks,
separate the streets from the car and retain visual access
to the stores, so important for commercial viability.
Baldwin wants to mix uses, vary setbacks with different
colors, different activities, to bring community uses back
into the village core along with churches and shopping to
create places for people to see people.
Transit is another integral part of the village concept.
The land use helps support transit. Baldwin wants to take
advantage of the transit line that will go through the
property. The right-of-way for the trolley will be
preserved either in or adjacent to the road. Bus stops will
be provided in places where activities occur.
He displayed a conceptual diagram of a possible village
layout with a soft landscape edge defining the edge of the
village. Inside that is lower density residential and all
circulation, pedestrian as well transit and automobile,
which focuses on a village core where the mixed use
activities, parks and elementary schools bring it back
together again.
In residential neighborhoods, enclosure comforts people. To
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
6
aid that will be large trees. A full range of housing will
be provided in each village. Different styles of housing
will create a village theme to provide a sense of unity
within the different villages. Circulation within the
village to reach the core will not necessitate using the
arterial streets. There will be cuI de sacs, but they will
go through to enable the pedestrian to walk downtown rather
than use his car. The intent is to encourage pedestrian
activity but recognize that the car will still be utilized.
Mr. Lettieri said that when the Commission gets into the
project they will be shown design guidelines and village-by-
village descriptions or pOlicies that will deal with the
development of those villages. This concept is a change in
the development concept from externalizing the activity
centers like commercial on two prime arterials coming
together as is common today. It changes the concept to
internalizing, bringing into the main circulation system of
the village a commercial center with either a Main Street
concept or something similar to take the parking away from
the front of the buildings and make it secondary to the
actual street scene itself.
Commissioner Kreitzer (County) asked if had any thought been
given to reinstating alleys to get the automobile away from
the front of houses. Architects have difficulty designing
houses that are really appealing with garage doors for three
or four cars. Pasadena has used alleys and the design of
the homes are much nicer. Mr. Arbuckle said that was being
considered. It will be a mix. Toward the edge, there will
be larger lots. Toward the core, there will be smaller lots
and alleys and rear entries will be introduced. Also, a new
product line that is used greatly on the East Coast is
putting the garage into the back yard utilizing a long
single drive. The feasibility of all that is being
considered to help the street scene.
Commissioner Kreitzer said that cuI de sacs, by their very
nature, are undesirable places to live. Particularly, cuI
de sacs with two-story houses where there is little privacy
and no place to park. Mr. Arbuckle replied that they have
considered opening up the ends of the cuI de saC3 3 : tat
the houses don't come completely around. That will allow
people to get on their bikes or walk through the end and go
out into another area and continue on downtown. They want a
place where the children can play in the streets without a
lot of through traffic and yet solve some of the visual
problems. Commissioner Kreitzer said there would still be
high congestion of cars unless parking in the rear is
considered.
Joint County!Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing~vorkshop - June 17, 1992
Commissioner Leichtfuss (County) said the concepts presented
were excellent. Sometimes, however, the vision of the
initial concept is lost during the actual building-out
phase. What will ensure that the village concept vision
presented today will take place in the future? Does that
involve the development agreement process? Mr. Arbuckle
explained that Baldwin is working with the Planning Depart-
ments of City and County to compile a very comprehensive
packet of guidelines concerning parking, pedestrians and
other factors. The document is being refined now and will
be presented to the Commissions. These overall guidelines
will pertain to all villages. The villages will be con-
sidered individually as well as the rural areas where there
are no villages.
7
Mr. Lettieri added that the Village Issue Paper distributed
to the Commissioners included some of that. As far as
policy is concerned, the language is coming forward into the
Subregional Plan Document itself and there will be policies
dealing with the concept as well as the specific
implementation of each individual village. Also coming
forward will be road standard recommendation changes for
implementing this concept especially in the commercial
areas.
Commissioner Kastelic (County) asked about the narrowing of
the roads in the commercial sector. From her understanding,
the narrowing of the road is contingent on pedestrian and
mass transit use. What if those goals are not achieved?
Mr. Lettieri said they were using a worst-case analysis for
traffic circulation and making sure that if success is not
achieved, traffic will 3t:11 flow through the area. One of
the ways of doing that is parking in the rear instead of the
front.
Mr. Arbuckle observed that reducing the section of the road
deals primarily with roads inside the village. Outside the
core roads, the existing cross section will be maintained.
The object is to slow traffic down inside of the village.
Commissioner Kastelic (County) asked if that involved the
commercial area only or the residential as well? Mr.
Arbuckle reminded her that the slide had shown big roads on
all four sides of the village. Those big roads are all
full-width. No regional traffic or regional destination
will be affected. The bus lines will be brought in at the
beginning so people will become transit oriented
immediately.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked how much of an area is
needed to serve a commercial center? Will each town have
its own individual commercial area? Will there be anyone
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
8
from outside coming in to shop at these areas or are they
merely a self-contained area for these houses? Mr. Lettieri
replied that commercial development does nudge the plan and
a lot of commercial features can be designed out. Each
commercial area cannot stand on its own. There has to be
synergism between villages. They need to be able to flow
closer together to make sure that the people within the
individual villages have a choice. One village would not be
able to handle a Vons Market, however, with two or more
villages there would be a sufficient number of individuals
to sustain a shopping center. When this first village comes
in, obviously Baldwin is going to need to take into
consideration what is right next door, EastLake. There
will, however, be commercial, civic and public facilities;
such as, churches and child care and some commercial
services within that area.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked how the areas will be
served by public services with the limited access concept?
Mr. Lettieri replied that these area will have direct access
into the village core. The regional transportation system
will be served by roads such as Paseo Ranchero, SR-125, Alta
Road and the like. There will be regional circulation
element roads to carry the regional traffic. The term
"limited access to the village" means that it would not be
needed to serve the regional traffic. There will be four-
lane roads going into the village branching down into two-
lane roads to serve the core itself. The Commissions will
view master plans on all the public services.
Commissioner Decker (City) referred to a concept in European
villages of having very small parking areas strategically
placed around the village. They are difficult to see except
for the small sign indicators. They are accessible within
very short walking distance to the downtown part of the
village. He asked if a concept like that been considered?
Mr. Lettieri answered affirmatively. Then he pointed out
that, on the other hand, there have been negative comments
about the Third Avenue District in Chula Vista where the
parking cannot be seen and people do not know where to go.
Baldwin's intent is to develop a balance where parking is
secondary to the street scene but is easily located.
Commissioner Decker said he would like to encourage more use
of international signs; such as, the white P on a blue
background indicating parking that is recognized throughout
Europe. He then asked about the economic viability of these
small businesses in the village core? Mr. Arbuckle replied
that Baldwin will be very careful of placing the users in
those facilities. Consideration is being given to how the
villages work together and how the shopping works together.
Local uses, community-based or village-level uses, will be
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
9
separated from more regional uses. The market and size of
these centers will be focused differently. In village one,
there might be a 5-acre site while in village two, a 10-acre
site.
Commissioner Urtasun asked if the Commissioners would have
the opportunity to review what levels of density and
infrastructure will be guaranteed? Mr. Lettieri responded
that there are two different levels - a land use section
where staff is proposing minimum density within some of the
village cores to create that intensity so that the light
rail, when it does come through, is viable. In the public
facility sections, conceptual alignments for the light rail
go through the core of the village itself. There are five
or six villages that have transit stops with the core,
including the Eastern Urban Center. As far as the
implementation and the detail for the light rail line is
concerned, staff is working with MTDB. Light rail will
probably not be a reality for 10 to 15 years. Staff is,
however, ensuring that this project is planned with bus
transportation in mind, both regional and local, so that
when light rail comes in it is a phased-in process.
Commissioner Casillas (City) asked what unique
characteristics would be found from village to village?
Mr. Arbuckle explained that in some villages the core will
be different because of the size of the commercial aspect.
Different villages are different sizes and while many tend
to be a one-mile square, they differ in size and
configuration because of land form and topography. One area
wraps around Rock Mountain so it has a very irregular edge
and tends to have an odd location for a village core. Each
of the villages vary in intensity. As the village concept
moves further to the east it will become a lot more rural in
character. If a community facility or community center is
developed, the architecture will be different from village
to village.
Commissioner Casillas said he had attended a meeting with a
representative of the University of California where a
campus in terms of 3,000+ acres was discussed. If this is
what the University wants, isn't this 400 acre site just
dreaming and are we being sold something infeasible?
Mr. Arbuckle said a lot of work had been done on how the
university could be sited in the southeast corner. He is
not certain how the University would site plan that area or
what colleges they would try to develop. It is realized
that the University is trying to garner more and more land
to use for different purposes. It is realized also that in
more urban areas and in special sites, they are willing to
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public HearingAvorkshop - June 17, 1992
10
be satisfied with less space. Baldwin is of the op~n~on
that there are some features here that are very unique and
if they did choose that site and only developed 400 hard
acres, it would be comparable to and exceed some of the
other campuses.
Mr. Lettieri added that when the villages start coming in on
the eastern portion of the project, which may be 15-20 years
from now, and if the University of California has made their
decision and additional land is needed, the issue can be re-
examined. Potentially, the village could be redeSigned,
density moved around and public facilities granted another
location. The problem staff is having is the long-term
issue and the University of California will make that
decision.
Commissioner Casillas (City) queried if the construction of
any more penal facilities was foreseen? Mr. Lettieri
replied that it was not anticipated within the Otay Ranch
Project area. As a safeguard, however, staff is looking at
an in-lieu reservation of land with the Eastern Urban
Center, not for penal facilities but for other uses.
Commissioner Casillas asked what staff foresaw as a dif-
ferential from village to village in terms of distribution
of housing by economic classes? Mr. Arbuckle replied that
there will be affordable requirements from low-range to
high-range within the project. They want to integrate and
speak to the need of seniors as well as affordable housing.
Commissioner Leichtfuss (County) said that comments on the
slides had indicated a design prOblem in enabling pedes-
trians to move through and across residential to commercial.
She asked what would be the "teeth", the enactment in the
guidelines? Mr. Lettieri answered that there are two areas
with "teeth". One will be in the formal conditions of
approval to the project and will not just be a guideline.
The other location is in the development agreement or public
benefit agreement for this project. Also, there is an
implementation section to the subregional plan that in and
of itself will be quite detailed.
Commissioner Leichtfuss inquired if it is not more expensive
to develop many small streets versus a couple of arterial
streets? Mr. Arbuckle said that different sizes of streets
would be provided within the context of the village without
getting onto the arterials. This will lessen the need for
collector streets.
Commissioner Tugenberg (City) said he had been in the Bay
area and had visited the villages there which have narrow
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing!Workshop - June 17, 1992
11
streets with no curbs or sidewalks. He asked if any con-
sideration had been given to that characteristic? Mr.
Arbuckle said that in the area on the east side of the
property Baldwin would like to eliminate curbs and gutters.
Staff is working on what the real needs are with regard to
safety and flexibility.
Commissioner Brown (County) asked what provisions have been
made to keep affordable homes affordable for the long term?
Mr. Lettieri said that the City and County are working on
the housing program. Percentages within each village are
being discussed. Affordable housing is a contract between
the governmental agency and the builder to ensure part of
the homes are low and moderate. Part of that is related to
the SANDAG Formula. It is also a design component to the
SPA.
Planning Director Leiter said that is one of the issues
being dealt with Citywide. A program is being developed to
implement 5% low-income and 5% moderate-income housing in
all of the planned communities. One of the issues is the
extent to which resales can be regulated or some sort of
equity sharing be provided so that the houses that start
affordable remain affordable. The City, the development
community and housing providers are working on that.
Commissioner Phillip asked if one of the key elements in
terms of providing affordability is the density needed to
spread the cost? Mr. Arbuckle replied that density helps a
great deal, but there needs to be a partnership between
government and the developer.
Mr. Lettieri added that even though density is related to
cost, staff wants to ensure that all the villages have a
mixture of housing. Staff does not want to suggest that in
order to have an affordable project, higher density is a
necessi ty.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) inquired if any of the options
proposed are restricted by the original development plan
between the developer, the County and City of Chula vista?
Are they able to be implemented? Mr. Lettieri said the
the village concept permeates most of the alternatives.
However, it would become confusing as the alternatives are
considered because they are so different.
Chair Fuller reminded the Commission that they were half way
through the time allotted for the meeting and should move
on.
Commissioner Kreitzer (County) asked if there were a formula
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Publ ic Hearing/Works,lOp - June 17. :S92
that could be used to prevent an imbalance of more residen-
tial than commercial can handle. Mr. Lettieri said there
was no quick answer to the question. They have used the
same standards, however, the uses themselves in the business
district have a large impact on the cars that come in.
Staff is using the Urban Land Institute Standards, the
National Community Builders' Standards and general planning.
12
Open Space Svstem
Mr. Lettieri said he wanted to speak about how the open
space system is consistent within the various alternatives.
He referenced the presentation made to the Commissioners on
the Resource Management Plan at the last meeting. He
emphasized that the plan serves as a focal point of the open
space system with the identification and preservation of
sensitive resources, the restoration and enhancement of
disturbed areas, the establishment of functional wildlife
connections in Proctor Valley, around the Lakes and between
different wildlife habitats, and the creation of management
and financial programs.
When the ITF accepted the goals, objectives and policies
regarding open space they decided the system should be based
primarily on the corridors and lake, system. The corridors
consist of the Otay River Valley, Salt Creek and Wolf
Canyon, the connection between the Jamul and San Ysidro
Mountains.
The major focus of the open space system has been to pre-
serve large spaces with that step in connection. Most of
the alternatives focus on the Otay River Valley, Salt Creek
and Wolf Canyon as open space areas. The only deviation to
that is the New Town Plan which was the first plan sub-
mitted. Its open space system is more narrow on the Otay
River Valley and the university site is located in the Salt
Creek area. All of the other alternatives focus on the
wider and much more open river valley itself. Most of the
alternatives use the San Ysidro Mountain Range and the Jamul
Mountain area as open space areas. Development is limited
to the flat lands. There will be greenbelt connections
through the urban areas to ensure connecting Wolf Canyon to
Salt Creek.
The Chair asked ::cr any pUblic comments.
Maggie Helton, 162 Mankato St., CV, Chair of the Governing
Council of the Otay Ranch Citizen Advisory Committee. Ms.
Helton said that as each of three committees, Human Resour-
ces, Natural Resources and the Infrastructure Committee,
develops recommendations in its area, those recommendations
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
are passed through the other Committees and then to the
Governing Council for a decision. This means that everyone
has seen and worked on the recommendations.
13
She distributed a document to the Commissioners and members
of the public stating that it contained the areas on which
the Council has taken a position and made a recommendation.
She said further that several members of the Committee were
available to answer any questions.
Mr. Lettieri interjected to say that anyone who had not
received a copy could contact the Otay Ranch Project Office
to receive one.
Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, El Cajon, 92020,
representing Valle de Oro Planning Group and Chaparrel
Greens in the East County. Mr. Tarr said a document had
been prepared by Jim Bell, for the ITF which had to do with
ecologically integrated planning. He commented that there
is more to a village than just having convenient shopping
nearby. People should be able to live near where they work
and this appears to have been left out. He expressed
concern that "we are coming up with the appearance of a
village rather than creating villages." Mr. Tarr noted the
unique situation of the project with the several juris-
dictions involved and asked if the term "the ITF accepted a
series of papers" means that a juggernaut is being created.
Do the Commissioners feel that they will have some input?
Mr. Tarr said that on the field trip he and the others heard
the site selected for the university described as one of the
critical habitat areas. This fact needs to be kept in the
forefront of the discussion.
Chair Fuller explained that the issue papers that have been
accepted by the ITF will be coming to the Commissioners at
future meetings for discussion.
Eugene Sprofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, 91941, Legis-
lative Analyst #580, Registered San Diego County. Mr.
Sprofera expressed concern about the following items. Who
will pay for the university? Are the costs for the regional
transportation being shared by the developer? Roadways
should be opened up so transit lines could be put in. Where
will SR-125 and Otay Lakes Road be located? What will
happen with Highway 94? What is being done to protect the
water shed from the proposed development? He said that
mention had been made about reservation of land. Such a
statement does not reassure him that "reserved" means "ded-
icated" land.
Linda MiChael, representing the Sierra Club, said the that
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
density will be higher than the general density in other
communities and will necessitate different activities in the
recreational community. She expressed concern about the
ratio of youthful, human recreational open space in relatio-
nship to the density that will be developed. Also the ratio
of protected, preserved open space for wildlife. Such
things as mountain bikes are incompatible with riparian
habitat and wildlife corridors. The Sierra Club opposes the
university site in its proposed location because it is an
extremely sensitive site of coastal sage scrub. Regarding
the Otay River Valley which is a concern to the developer
and community because of resource value. It is hoped that
area is actually dedicated not just reserved or set aside.
There are other proposed uses for the Valley which may be
outside of this project but are causes for concern; namely,
an amphitheater which calls for an intensity of use that is
not appropriate to wildlife corridors and passive recreation
use. The River Valley is land that deserves attention as
its connection of the open space system and the mountain
open space system is extremely important.
14
BREAK - 4:45 - 5:00 p.m.
Chair Fuller reconvened the meeting.
V. PLAN ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Lettieri commented that he had hoped it was clear to the
general public that only one or two items were being presen-
ted today. The policies and issues dealing with parks and
recreation, open space, public facilities and transportation
will be coming before the Commissions at the next two
workshops and will ultimately come together in a package in
December.
Mr. Lettieri said a number of alternatives were being
considered. He would introduce them in summary form,
describe how they were prepared and when, the consistent
themes among the various alternatives and, finally, the
major differences by subject area. He referenced the last
two pages of the Commissioners' packets, Key Components of
Project Alternatives. He suggested that the Commissioners
ask questions as he proceeds through the subject area to
avoid confusion.
Existinq Chula Vista/Countv General Plan
Using an overhead projector, he displayed a summary of the
various alternatives except for the very last alternative
accepted by the ITF, the Phase I Progress Plan, which was in
the packet. Mr. Lettieri drew attention to the wide range
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public HearingjWorkshop - June 17, 1992
15
of alternatives being studied in the environmental impact
report.
Mr. Lettieri stated that the Chula Vista and County General
Plans are the only adopted plans for this area. Looking at
the 23,000 acres, the combination of plans would represent
approximately 14,000 units. The net and gross densities as
well as the mixture of single- and multi-family dwellings
were indicated. The existing General Plan shows predomi-
nantly Single-family characteristics within the development.
Regarding residential acreage as opposed to open space
acreage, Mr. Lettieri reminded the Commissioners that this
Alternative, the General Plan itself, is not a good correla-
tion because until the project level is reached, the indi-
vidual general plans do not define specific open space
areas.
He noted that the rest of the alternatives are truly project
level alternatives of the Otay Ranch. The Baldwin New Town
Plan at a mid-point range shows approximately 49,000 units.
The Project Team Alternative, these four alternatives, were
the product of those goals and Objectives. The range of
densities and total number of housing units are shown. The
Phase I Progress Plan was a product of the 1990 Issue Papers
and has approximately 30,000 units. The Phase II Progress
Plan as approximately 28,000 units. An updated version of
this chart will be provided to the Commissioners.
The Progression of the Plans - how they came into being.
The Baldwin New Town Plan was submitted in 1989. After that
the Task Force accepted its Goals and Objectives. That
served as the guidelines for the four plan alternatives
known as the Project Team Alternative. They are called the
Project Team Alternative, Fourth Alternative, Environmental
Alternative and the Low Density Alternative. These four
generated other issues that the City, County or Baldwin did
not agree on and became the Issue Papers. These Issue
Papers, as well as coordinated efforts by the three partici-
pants, produced the Phase I Progress Plan which developed
additional issues dealing with anything from the university
to the regional park definition, or how to create a more
transportation-oriented circulation system on the western
parcel. The product of that was the Phase II Progress Plan.
Mr. Lettieri continued that there are a number of consistent
themes within all of the alternatives. They relate to
mixture of housing on the western parcel, the village
concept. Most of the alternatives talk about a resort on
the north side of the Lakes. The size and complexion of the
resort differs in the alternatives. The regional parks/open
space systems - the actual ownership of that regional open
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public HearingjWorkshop - June 17, 1992
18
natives since the New Town Plan. The New Town Plan was the
most intense with a different scale and form to its villa9c
but the evolution of the process developed smaller village
components. That is the major difference between it Qnd the
various other alternatives.
Phase I ProGress Plan
Phase I Progress Plan was the product of the Issue Papers
processed in 1990. Much smaller units were formed which
would have access between villages so that there would be
some synergism between them but on a scale to which people
could relate and move around.
The next issue to discuss that divides one plan from another
is Circulation/Transit. The two used for example purposes
are the New Town Plan and the Phase II Circulation. The New
Town Plan focused on the traditional way of serving
communities by a hierarchy of streets. The other fundamen-
tal difference is the trolley line along Telegraph Canyon
running down SR-125 as opposed to other iterations where the
trolley has been integrated into the community itself.
The proposed circulation system went up to the ITF. On the
New Town Plan, the City General Plan and any plan adopted
before this process, the trolley line came along Telegraph
Canyon Road and down SR-125 and was based more on the park-
and-ride concept. The current motif is to bring the trolley
line into the first village and continue with stops about a
mile apart. Staff is currently working with MTDB to expand
the use of the trolley through appropriate villages before
it goes on the Otay Mesa. The other difference between this
Alternative's circulation system and those of many others is
the absence of loop roads. The intent has been to create,
not a grid system, but a simple origin to destination
concept.
Commissioner Kastelic (County) asked if the trolley would be
going to the university site? Mr. Lettieri replied that
there are different locations proposed for the university
sites. However, they have worked with MTDB to ensure
shuttle bus service should the university locate in an area
other than Salt Creek.
Commissioner Tugenberg (City) asked if when this comes to a
vote before the Planning Commissions, is there any reason
why they could not select the western parcel from one plan,
the San Ysidro parcel from another plan, and the Proctor
Valley Road parcel from a third plan? Mr. Lettieri said
that could be done. Staff does not have a recommendation at
this point and would be bringing forth a recommendation
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing!Workshop - June 17, 1992
16
space system is not a function of this plan. Making sure
that the area is preserved is the function of this plan.
The Otay Valley Regional Park has a separate Citizen's
Advisory Committee that is looking at the actual ownership
and definition of that regional park. Our Resource Manage-
ment is also looking at the management and preservation of
that area. Most of the plans have the area adjacent to and
in the Communities of Jamul and Delzura as a rural element.
The New Town Plan does not. It shows a lower-density resi-
dential development. Urban development in Central Proctor
Valley permeates most of the alternatives. Residential
development north and east of the Lakes is proposed on most
of the alternatives. The exception is the Environmental
Alternative shows little development north and no develop-
ment east of the Lakes. The City General Plan does not go
that far. The County General Plan shows multiple rural
use. Industrial on Otay Mesa - a very small part of this
project goes onto the Mesa and is shown as industrial. The
Eastern Urban Center is a constant throughout. Transit
Linkage is a constant throughout but the exact location
differs depending on the alternative. Public Facility
Phasing is a constant. The Fiscal Impact Monitoring Program
also is a constant.
Mr. Lettieri said before he discussed the major differences
within the alternatives, he wanted to show some of the
slides of the field trips for memory refreshment. He
commented on the slides bringing up the particular issues
that should be considered at particular sites.
Baldwin New Town Plan
Mr. Lettieri said he would like to high-light the New Town
Plan which was Baldwin's original submittal in 1989. It
showed most of the urban development located on the western
parcel although the intensity and extent of development was
quite different from the other alternatives.
The commercial development was high-lighted in certain
areas. Most of the commercial development was on the
western parcel. Research/Industrial focused in the adjacent
Otay Mesa. The Eastern Urban Center, unlike the subsequent
alternatives which focused east of SR-125, was on both sides
of SR-125. Residential development was on all three parcels
including Jamul, which on the other alternatives was rela-
tively rural. The village concept was discussed in this
concept but the implementation did not come across too well.
The low residential area concentrates mostly on the edges
adjacent to the open space or on the Proctor Valley Parcel.
Low density residential is also shown quite a distance out
from the Lake in the area of Savage Dam. He summarized the
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
17
proposed land use plan saying that out of the 23,000 acres,
10,000, or 44%, was residential. This Alternative had a
higher share of research and industrial acreage. It also
showed the university as 405 acres and the Eastern Urban
Center as 300 acres. The other retail commercial would be
the commercial in the other portions of the property. Two
major open space areas to be high-lighted include the Otay
River Regional Park concept which is one of the lower
acreage alternatives comparatively speaking. The San Ysidro
Mountain Regional Park is the other, and i~ r.fjacent to or
in close proximity to Delzura. All of the alternatives talk
about that being a regional park.
Mr. Lettieri said Staff has not spent a lot of time on The
New Town Plan but has focused on Issue Papers and refine-
ments of a concept that Public Agencies can work together in
support. This has been done through the Interjurisdictional
Task Force. The New Town Plan, however, is the project for
environmental purposes. When the Commissions are presented
with the Environmental Impact Report, that is the project
that will be viewed. All of the other alternatives are
presented as alternatives to that project. The level of
review that the EIR has gone into is quite extensive.
Mr. Lettieri said he would focus in on the major differences
between alternatives and this is where the Commissioners
might want to ask questions before the subject area is left.
The Otay Valley Parcel, especially about the village con-
cept, circulation/transit, Eastern Urban Center, the number
of river crossings, the Ranch House, and the university.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) said a regional park had been
shown on the slides. He would like to have a correlation of
that acreage with what was given to the Commissioners as a
hand-out. Mr. Lettieri replied that there was no correla-
tion because it is focused particularly on the New Town Plan
at time of submittal.
The New Town Plan depicts residential development focused on
a circulation system unlike the loop system in some of the
later alternatives. As you depicted in one of the slides,
the Eastern Urban Center was the heart of that village. The
scale of it is so large that it differed from the others we
have viewed since.
Pro;ect Team Alternatives f41
The Project Team Alternative (Alternative No.4). That
Alternative focused on the village concept with smaller
units. That concept has permeated most of the other alter-
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
19
based partly on input at these hearings.
Commissioner Casillas (City) asked if there would
trolley line going to the Second Border Crossing.
Lettieri replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Kastelic (County) asked.if portions of
alternatives were selected, would not the EIR have to be
amended to consider this newly created alternative? Mr.
Lettieri said that was a good point. The City's Environmen-
tal Review Coordinator Reid and Anne Ewing of County Staff
have indicated until there is a Commission recommendation,
the issue of doing a Supplemental EIR will have to be
addressed.
be a
Mr.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) said he realized this was a
partial map but he did not see how people of Chula Vista
would be able to go from west to east. He asked what were
the proposals to accomplish this? Mr. Lettieri agreed that
the it was not a good map of the existing circulation system
within the City of Chula vista. The routes shown are
intended to be City circulation roads but not necessarily in
the configuration shown on that plan. Part of the con-
sideration was the General Plan Amendment which includes the
Circulation Element for both City and County.
Commissioner Ferraro asked if in the efforts of the Joint
Team, other considerations or routing of SR-125 through the
project had been made? Mr. Lettieri said there had been
three or four different alignments proposed. The Commis-
sioner asked why this particular alignment had been chosen?
Mr. Lettieri indicated that someone else might be needed to
address that issue as it had occurred before his time. It
was his understanding, that the alignment was the most
acceptable by CalTrans at the time. CalTrans, however, was
looking at alternative alignments and is just starting an
EIR study.
Commissioner Decker (City) asked the reason for the realign-
ment of the trolley from SR-125 to going through the middle
of a village? Commissioner Tugenberg said he could speak to
that. The original alignment had the light rail alignment
within the SR-125 itself. It was decided that would have
less ridership and pulling it away from SR-125 and taking it
through the Eastern Urban Center and to the villages would
generate more user traffic.
Mr. Lettieri said this is a conceptual alignment study and
until MTDB does the formal detail of where the alignment
will be located, it is subject to change. When the first
village comes in, staff would know where the light rail
Joint County/Chula vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing~lorkshop - June 17, 1992
20
would enter the project, not just the village, and ensure
the village design so redesign would not be necessary.
Mr. Lettieri said the Eastern Urban Center had already been
discussed; namely, the difference in the New Town Plan being
on two sides of the freeway and now the focus is on one
side. That will be one of the Issues Papers discussed on
July 31.
The number of river crossings is another issue with dif-
ferences depending on the alternatives and will be one of
the major considerations in the project. He displayed a
plan showing the existing County General Plan, the location
of the Otay Ranch property, SR-125, Alta Road, Otay Lakes
Road and La Media. He then pointed out the City of San
Diego Otay Mesa area. The County General Plan shows three
roads crossing the River Valley as well as the freeway
itself. The Chula Vista General Plan is quite different.
It does not have Alta Road or La Media coming through,
however, it does have Paseo Ranchero and Heritage Road
coming through onto the Mesa, but all the trips are carried
by SR-125. What happens between the County and City Plans
is that the County Plan is designed to carry regional
traffic over the Valley. When it is considered that there
are over 5,000 industrial acres on the Mesa, there is a real
demand. The Otay River Valley is quite sensitive environ-
mentally and Salt Creek is one of the most sensitive.- An
Issue Paper will be presented at the next meeting. Staff's
proposal was to have Paseo Ranchera, La Media and SR-125
carry the regional traffic but make sure that Alta Road
bends to the west to get away from the Salt Creek Area and
only build it if it is needed.
Mr. Lettieri commented that the East Otay Mesa Area is going
through a multi-ownership specific Plan Study with the
County and certain recommendations would be forthcoming from
that. These roads crossing the Valley generate a signifi-
cant number of trips through the Otay Ranch and beyond. The
amount of industrial traffic coming off the Mesa creates a
much larger demand and would have impacts necessitating
future regional transportation coordination between the
County, City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego. The
City of San Diego has quite a number of acres of industrial
and also has the proposed TwinPorts on the Mesa.
Mr. Lettieri referred the Commissioners to the last two
pages in the packet, "Key Components of Project Alterna-
tives". The New Town Plan showed the Ranch House area as
residential. The other various alternatives show the Ranch
House as a Special Study Area, a conference center, Agricul-
ture under the existing General Plan or a combination of
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing~vorkshop - June 17, 1992
resort uses/conference center and residential in the west.
EastLake is on both sides and the Phase II Plan, which is
the latest, shows a combination of residential on the west
and a resort facility on the east. The goal of that plan
was to preserve the Ranch House.
21
The University Site. The New Town Plan has already been
discussed. Because the Chula Vista General Plan designates
the site for the university, staff, City and County are
processing a General Plan Amendment to delete that location,
move it elsewhere, or not have a location. That Issue Paper
will come before the Commissions. The Phase I Plan did not
reach agreement on locating a university here or on the
Western Parcel when this was processed which is the reason
for the Issue Paper. The Project Team Alternative showed
the university and university related issues on the Hesa.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked if the purpose of the
Project Team bringing the university back under the Town
Center was to get it located closer to the commercial aspect
rather than being isolated? Mr. Lettieri replied
affirmatively. No alternative, including the Baldwin New
Town Plan, had proposed to isolate the university. There
would be a linkage with the trolley and other
transportation. The purpose of this Alternative was to bring
it closer and avoid environmental issues on Salt Creek.
Commissioner Wright commented that the typical university
has a minimum of 20,000 students plus employees and related
uses. That will have a major impact on transportation and
other uses. The typical university site situation is that
the university, itself, forms the basis for land uses in a
wide area. He expressed concern whether there would be a
university or not. Universities are in the process of down-
sizing allover the State. His personal feeling is that it
is infeasible to plan for a university on this project
although he applauds the effort.
Hr. Lettieri said that they recognize that dilemma and it is
the University of California that will determine where and
when they wish to locate in an area. With budget consider-
ations, the Southern California location has been postponed.
What the Task Force has accepted at this point is a process
that would that would not preclude the University locating
in the Otay Ranch should it so choose. The City of Chula
Vista with the Baldwin Company has set up a UCCD Committee
to check in that cause.
Commissioner Wright said that long-range planning is always
a risk, however, in this case, it seems that leaving the
university out of the picture would make the planning a
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public HearingjWorkshop - June 17, 1992
22
great deal easier. Mr. Lettieri replied that the process
that will be shown when the General Development Plan comes
before the Commission is that we can't design a university
plant at this point nor can we assume that it will locate in
this area, but we don't want to preclude it. There are
alternatives that will show the university and plan for it,
and there are other alternatives that don't show a univer-
sity.
Chair Fuller reminded the Commissioners of the time and that
the Chula vista Planning Commission had a regularly sched-
uled meeting starting at 7:00.
Mr. Lettieri said that because of the time constraints he
would not discuss the Regional Park and the Industrial
locations which have already been touched on.
A major issue coming before the Planning Commissions will be
the Resort Area. Most of the alternatives show a Resort on
the north side of Otay Lakes. The exception, the New Town
Plan, shows a Town Center, a governmental facility, on the
north side. The Phase II Progress Plan also shows a Resort
with residential. The differences in the alternatives
include the size of the Resort. Various alternatives show
from 500 hotel rooms, others sho.~ or; to 1,900 rooms in a
four-hotel complex. Some alternatives go further into the
hillside. This will be one of the major differences for the
Commissions to review.
Phase II Progress Plan
Combining this with the Eastern Property, the Phase II Plan
shows a village east of the Lake and a residential develop-
ment south of that. The big question is how far south
should development extend? This area is choice for
providing housing. The Commissions will have to consider
how to protect resources, determine a preserve boundary and
also provide that estate housing that is desired in the
project.
Central Proctor Valley has been discussed and the issue
there is where, or should urban development go in Proctor
Valley? If it does, what should be the northern limit of
the development? One of the Issue Papers is the proposal to
have a major arterial extending on the east and south side
of the Lake. The ITF requested that be deleted.
Commissioner Wright (County) asked if any of the alterna-
tives provide for a large greenbelt between the main part of
the project and Jamul? Is Proctor Valley represented? Or
is Proctor Valley Road truncated on any of the alternatives?
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
Mr. Lettieri replied that Proctor Valley Road is connected
on all the alternatives. There are differences in align-
ments and sizes of the road. The Environmental Alternative
has a very limited area in Proctor Valley for development.
Commissioner Wright asked further if any of those alterna-
tives would show Proctor Valley Road cut between the main
part of the project and the middle Proctor Valley area? Mr.
Lettieri said they would not.
23
The Chair asked for comments from the public.
Will Hyde, 803 Vista Way, CV, 91911, represented CROSSROADS
Mr. Hyde noted that the Otay Ranch Project is one of the
most important things that has ever happened in the
Community Chula vista and the South Bay Area in the field of
land use and development. Mr. Hyde said he was a 32-year
resident, former Chairman of the Planning Commission, the
City Council, and Mayor of the City. He serves as Chair on
the Growth Management Oversight Commission and, therefore,
brings his concerns from a wide background. He referenced
the terrible urban sprawl of Los Angeles and Orange County.
He foresees a potential of that happening in the Otay Ranch
Project. Chula Vista's General Plan was adopted in mid-
1989, the same time that the New Town Plan was submitted by
Baldwin. At no time, in his opinion, was there any effort
on the part of the Baldwin Company to take the City of Chula
Vista's General Plan and work with the City within the
existing General Plan. The key word is "intensi ty of
development". The nitty-gritty of development can be
handled once the real hard-core issues of land use are
resolved. It is far better to start out approving a plan
that has a low intensity of use character which, if found
inadequate, can easily be adjusted upward if the need is
demonstrated for that action. This plan is so far out of
scale with the community that, if approved, would be lethal-
ly economically impossible to correct by adjustment.
He cautioned the Commissioners that their approach should be
to go slow, consider the public interest along with the
private interest. Public Lakes have been developed by the
City of San Diego that are a treasure and deserve to be
preserved for the public essentially. Not to be intensively
surrounded by development that will impede general public
use.
The second problem is the joint one of the Greenbelt and the
University. The Chula Vista's General Plan calls for a
greenbelt, an open space, low-intensity development which
surrounds the City, Otay Valley, Sweetwater Valley, Proctor
Valley, Otay Lakes Reservoir, Sweetwater Reservoir and the
Bay Front. It is there right now. Little by little,
however, it is being chipped away by the ARCO/Olympic
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - June 17, 1992
24
Training Center. The City Council and the Board of Super-
visors have given their approval for a university site
adjacent to this - also in the greenbelt. This greenbelt
will be destroyed eventually if it is not protected and
preserved.
Mr. Hyde's summation was that if the Commissioners were
going to err at all on what is approved, it would be better
to err on the side of protecting the interests of the com-
munity, the general public.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Ave., CV 91910, representing CROSS-
ROADS. Mr. Watry said their President had written a letter
regarding the Otay Lakes to Mr. Lettieri, last January, to
pass to the Commissioners. Mr. Watry then read the a short
extract for the record: "Lower Otay Lakes presents a once
in a lifetime opportunity. The way it is planned can create
environment adjacent to an urban area which is unique in
California and would present the citizens of the area an
opportunity for experience unavailable elsewhere. The
concept for development around the Lake needs to be turned
inSide-out, rather than seeing the Lake and its environment
as a region to be exploited and by destroying great sections
of natural land and saving only ribbons of natural land for
wildlife corridors, it should be seen as an area to be
reserved. The corridors should be people corridors with the
development decreased and clustered and with most of the
area remaining in natural open space. The primary recrea-
tion should be the mountains and Lake which exist not
manmade imported golf courses and tennis courts. Such areas
abound in California. What does not abound is an open area
with all these natural features." Mr. Watry urged the
Commissioners to read the back of the document which con-
tains many letters urging that the area around Otay Lakes be
preserved.
VI. OTHER None
ADJOURNMENT at 6:12 p.m. to the Joint County/City of Chula
Vista Planning Commission Public Hearing/Workshop
Meeting on Friday, July 31, 1992, 1:30 to 5:00
p.m., at the County of San Diego Dept. of Planning
and Land Use Hearing Room
~.:::'...-/ L'\L:
Ruth M. Smith
Secretary
JOINT CITY OF CHULA VISTA/COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
PLANNING cor-lHISSION PUBLIC HEARING/WORKSHOP
1:37 p.m.
Fridav, Julv 31, 1992
I. ROLL CALL
DPLU Hearing Room
5201 Ruffin Road, San Diego
CONMISS IONERS
PRESENT:
City of Chula vista: Chair Casillas,
Commissioners Carson (2:17 p.m.), Decker and
Fuller
County of San Diego: Chair Wright, Commis-
sioners Ferraro, Kastelic, Kreitzer, Leicht-
fuss and Urtasun (1:39 p.m.)
ABSENT:
City of Chula Vista: Commissioners Martin
and Tuchscher
Countv of San Dieoo: Commissioner Brown
STAFF AND
OTHERS
General Hanager Lettieri, John Sullard, RBF &
Assoc.; Anne Ewing, Duane Bazzel, Chantal
Saipe, Steve Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Richard Rudolf, Deputy County Counsel William
Taylor, County Deputy Director of Planning
Bill Healy, County Transportation Specialist
Denny, Fred Arbuckle, Baldwin; Greg Smith,
Baldwin; Chula Vista Planning Director Leiter
and Deputy City tlanager Krempl
II. APPROVAL OF HINUTES
This item was postponed until later in the meeting. See
page 10.
III. PUBLIC CmU-IENT
Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Ave., Chula Vista, representing
the Otay Ranch Infrastructure Committee spoke on the in-
tegrated wate management aspect and said she had been unable
to locate the environmental zone established. [Ir. Lettieri
replied that would be addressed in the implementation plan.
Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, El Cajon, 92020,
representing Valle de Oro Planning Group said the group had
submitted their written concerns in February about Proctor
Valley Road and the Otay Valley Regional Park. The group is
concerned about the decision made by the Board of Super-
visors and the City Council for a 60-day public review
:;
---
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
2
visors and the City Council for a 60-day public
period of the EIR. They do not feel sufficient
allowed to address all the issues.
r~i~
time is
In response to a query by Commissioner Casillas (City), Mr.
Lettieri explained that at the first meeting of the Board of
Supervisors and the City Council, the 4S-day public revi~
period for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was ex-
tended to 60 days with an additional extension to be con-
sidered at their september 24 meeting. This IS-day exten-
sion necessitates changing the date for the closing of the
pUblic review period as well as scheduling an additional
meeting to recommend whether or not to extend the public
review period. After further discussion, it was decided to
meet on September 16 and on October 7, from S:OO to 9:00
p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Chula vista.
In reply to Commissioner Decker, Mr. Lettieri said the
concerns raised by public testimony on September 16 would
not be addressed at the October 7 meeting. The purpose of
that meeting would be to close the hearing period for the
EIR.
Mr. Lettieri said the Project Team had been requested by the
Board of Supervisors and City Council to aid citizen groups
in understanding the EIR. For that purpose, meetings have
been set up with these citizen groups.
IV. ISSUE PAPERS ACCEPTED BY THE OTAY RANCH INTERJURISDICTIONAL
TASK FORCE
Mr. Lettieri pointed out that the purpose of the issue
papers was based on the New Town Plan. After the Inter-
jurisdictional Task Force (ITF) accepted the New Town Plan,
it requested a series of alternatives which formed the basis
for Project Team Alternative. This created the need for a
conflict resolution process on the two plans, basically a
circulation paper or on the pros and cons of the issues.
Mr. Lettieri remarked that the constant themes in most
alternatives had been revi~ed as well as the issue paper
process and the resultant Phase I and Phase II Progress
na~.
North/South Transit Corridor. What is the preferred
alignment? As the light rail transit comes on the Otay
Ranch, should it parallel and go down I-80S or into the
villages? The recommended solution was to move the corridor
from the freeway into the villages to be at the location
where the public could use it. The villages have now been
redesigned with that in mind so that the light rail transit
will go through the villages rather than on the outside.
~
...
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
East/West Transit Corridor. Whether the light rail transit
should go along Telegraph Canyon Road to serve regional
needs with a park-and-ride approach, or should it go through
the west and east Poggi Canyon villages? The result was to
bring the light rail transit into the villages to promote
ridership.
3
Otav Valley Road Aliqnment. What is the preferred alignment
for the easterly extension of the Otay Valley Road? Using
the overhead projector, Mr. Lettieri pointed out the three
alternatives. Alternative #1 was shown on the New Town Plan
on the south side of the river valley. Alternative #3 was
the Project Team Alternative but would necessitate bridging
Wolf Canyon. Should the Otay Valley Road be north or south
of Rock Mountain? The considerations were environmental
because of the proximity of the river valley. However, most
of the land on the north side had been farmed and because of
that, the ITF accepted staff's recommendation and directed
the major roadway be Alternative #2. subsequently, as a
result of a resource analysis the proposed road was moved
just east of Rock Mountain.
Paseo Ranchero Road Aliqnment. It is a planned arterial in
the study from the existing limits of Chula Vista west to
the Otay Mesa. This is one of two roads on the General
Plan. Alternative #2 is very similar to the existing align-
ment but would be more destructive environmentally. The ITF
considered this with the Otay Valley Road alignment. It
doesn't have a major impact on the plans of either the
Project Team Alternative or the New Town Plan but would
affect the potential amount of commercial to be located in
the area.
South Dam Road. The New Town Plan showed a major road
crossing Salt Creek on the south and east edges of Otay
Lakes Road. The Project Team did not have this to consider.
Their analysis of the project was that the long-term impact
of this road on the Plan would be bad environmentally, would
carry additional traffic and change the complexity of the
south/east face of the area. It will be needed if the New
Town Plan is accepted but staff doesn't recommend that South
Dam Road be planned on the general development map. Mr.
Lettieri showed another slide of the basic resources at the
request of Commissioner Decker. The decision of the ITF was
to delete South Dam Road from the Plan and planning of the
local road and land use in such a fashion that it would not
render such a road connection infeasible in the future. The
South Dam Road has not been used in the planning of other
alternatives and may become an issue during the process.
Millar Ranch Road. Should a road connect Proctor Valley
~
~
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
4
Road with SR-94 west of Jamul? This road was an issue on
another project, Hidden Valley Estates. Should the model
for the traffic analysis include it or not? ITF directed
the model run for the traffic analysis to include this road.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked what other function
Millar Ranch Road serves other than connection of a public
road to SR-94? Mr. Lettieri replied that from the Project
viewpoint, that is its function. Transportation Specialist
Deney (County) reported that it was a 4-lane public road to
provide local access as well as regional access.
Proctor Vallev Road. To discuss alternatives and alignment.
The ITF accepted Alternative #2 which avoids some of the
resources and grading issues connected with Alternate #3 and
does not impact Jamul. Commissioner Decker asked if we had
a definition of these resources.
(Commissioner Carson arrived at 2:17 p.m.)
Using the overhead projector, Mr. Lettieri displayed the
major regional wildlife corridor coming through. The
Commissioner asked about the SANDAG Ridership Study of the
north/south transit corridor. Mr. Lettieri replied that
this had been presented at the village discussions and
consisted of an alignment analysis with a South Bay working
group and Baldwin to determine where a light rail transit
would enter the project.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) tendered his observations that
(1) it looks like the cumulative effect on the corridors is
centered on the west side of the project, comes together on
the east side of the project and the accumulation of all of
these corridors will increase the density in such a manner
as to make it uncontrollable. (2) He is concerned that the
accumulation on the west side of the project will have a
great impact on the Chula Vista Plan when they establish
their jurisdiction there. At the same time, it almost
bifurcates the project with a heavy load on the west side
and the slighter load on the east side.
The Chair thanked the Commissioner but requested that
questions be asked rather than judgments be offered.
Commissioner Ferraro replied that, in his opinion, these
could not be considered one at a time.
Commissioner Kastelic asked if only one alternative had been
considered for South Dam Road? Mr. Lettieri replied that
all the issue papers discussed occurred before he started on
the Project. The Baldwin New Town Plan had included South
Dam Road as an access road and was the only development to
~
----
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing~vorkshop - July 31, 1992
5
require that. The road goes through the City of San Diego
property.
The Chair asked if the proposed site of the Proctor Valley
Road had been pointed out during the field trips when Daley
Ranch was viewed. Mr. Lettieri replied that the tour had
looked in that direction.
Commissioner Casillas (City) referenced the Paseo Ranchero
graphics, saying that the graphics in his packet were not
the same as shown in the exhibit. He asked if what was
missing was where it ties into I-90S? John Sullard replied
that is the existing Heritage Road which will remain as it
is now between Otay Rio Ranch and Bird Ranch. It is
envisioned they will ultimately be closed with a bridge.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Barbara Gilman, 733 Second Ave., Chula Vista, representing
the Citizen Advisory Committee of the Otay Ranch, said many
of the suggestions they have made have been incorporated
into the Plan. The Committee believes that the South Darn
Road should be eliminated completely from the plan because
the environmental issues such as the wildlife corridor. The
road remaining south of the Lake is very important to them.
Eugene Sprofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, 91941, claimed
that the plans had been fixed in concrete prior to public
comments. He asked where SR-125 would corne through? He
spoke against a road into Jamul and said he had previously
spoken against Millar Road during the Hidden Valley Estates
consideration. Mr. Sprofera claimed the developer had
already selected the road alignment but the public had not
been informed. He said that the public deserved to know
where it was planned to put the traffic. Tecate traffic
will also utilize Millar Ranch Road.
Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, El Cajon, 92020, said
his group will be paying particular attention to the Proctor
Valley Road and the effect on the wildlife corridor.
In response to various questions from Commissioners, Anne
Ewing explained that the Phase I study dealt with identi-
fication of the local and regional wildlife corridors. Phase
II addresses what the width should be, the buffering ele-
ments, vegetation and the like. Using the research in
Penosquitos Canyon, the raw data is being analyzed to
formulate a set of recommendations on the width and location
of the corridors. These will be incorporated into the
project design and the density. The identification of the
corridors will be in the EIR, the information in Phase II
~
---
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
6
will be utilized in the project. Refinement will take place
with each SPA and staff is trying to be very conservative at
this stage.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked why
alternative to the Millar Ranch Road?
that the issue was whether to consider
private road in the traffic analysis.
The Chair asked if any of the Proctor valley proposals had
suggested eliminating the flow from Chula Vista to Jamul
particularly in the corridor. Mr. Lettieri replied nega-
tively.
there was no
Mr. Lettieri replied
it as a public or
Mr. Lettieri said that the purpose of these issue papers was
to take a look at alternatives to the major alternative
plans that were adopted. When it is said that the ITF
accepted an issue paper, it should be understood that they
did not have the benefit of the EIR, they were not stating a
formal action but in a set period of time, based on the
information they had, they made a recommendation. Ulti-
mately, the whole picture will be presented. The traffic
analysis is one of the most comprehensive traffic analyses
done on a regional level. It considers all the impacts and
judges them based on each alternative of the Plan. Staff
recommendation will be based on information obtained from
the Planning Commission as well as direction that the
Planning Commission wants to see placed on the Agenda for
future consideration, the EIR, the Resource Management Plan
(RMP) and the traffic impacts. This will ensure a com-
prehensive recommendation to the Commission.
Commissioner Decker asked if consideration had been given to
the fact that the plans are for 50 years in the future and
that technological advances; such as, electric cars, may
affect changes? r-Ir. Lettieri said that new technology is
not being considered. Existing methodology is being util-
ized but SANDAG is projecting a worst case scenario. It is
a comprehensive analysis, a build-out analysis, to reveal
the ultimate impact of the project as \vell as adjacent
projects. It looks at all the development from the Hesa
from SR-54 to the north, SR-94 to the east and I-80S to the
Vlest.
Eastern Urban Center Location: The question was .That \vould
be the appropriate location for the Eastern Urban Center
(EUC)? On the Chula vista General Plan, the EUC was shown
on both sides of SR-125. The Project Team Alternative
showed it on the eastern side of SR-125. The New TOVln Plan
showed it on the western sice with a small portion on the
east. The ITF accepted the concept of the Center on the
-;7
-
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
7
eastern side of SR-125 which would be consistent with the
light rail transit alignment. The logic was that much of
the intensity of the project was west of SR-125 and it
seemed the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) would balance that on
the eastern end.
Eastern Urban Center Land Use Intensitv: The question was
whether we were talking about simple high density or a true
urban center with high-rise development. Two alternatives
were presented to the ITF regarding the intensity of the
EUC. The first alternative considered residential up to 15
stories, commercial very compact, vertical regional mall,
level development, office complexes between 8 to 15 stories
with garage parking and a full range of public services.
The second alternative proposed 2-story townhomes up to 6
stories, automobile-oriented, regional mall, 2- to 6-story
office structures and a full range of public uses. The ITF
recommended the first alternative with the stipulation that
traffic analysis would need to show that kind of intensity
would work on the western parcel. It was felt that the type
of development, even if it was of an intensity that does not
exist in the South Bay, would provide the focus for jobs and
potential social and regional services to be provided in the
Otay Ranch.
Character of Villaqe Commercial Centers. Mr. Lettieri noted
that this had been one of the subjects of the last meeting.
A number of alternatives regarding commercial development
had been discussed. One of the foundations of the project
was that commercial development would be internalized
instead of at the corners of prime arterials. The Task
Force reinforced that with a caution about the need to
monitor each SPA as it comes in to ensure the economic risk
is balanced.
Road Interchanqes on SR-125: The New Town Plan showed four
interchanges. The Project Team Alternative showed three.
The major question was would it be acceptable to space these
interchanges with less than a one-mile separation between
them? The input from CalTrans has been that it would be
acceptable to have an interchange at Otay Valley Road to the
south with one interchange on the south and north end of the
Eastern Urban Center plus one at Orange Avenue. The ITF
accepted this. Once the number of interchanges is decided,
that controls the circulation system on the western parcel.
Water Availabilitv: Should planning continue without an
assured water supply? Water supply covers three areas, the
long-term supply being the imported source, terminal storage
and pipe line capacity. This question dealt with the long-
term water supply issue. The project will comply with
g
---
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing~~orkshop - July 31, 1992
8
storage and delivery requirements to make sure there is
water for the otay Ranch. Where water will come from, the
imported source and the guarantee was addressed by the ITF.
It was considered important, at this point, to plan so that
the 23,000-acre project would comply with all requirements
of the City and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
regarding terminal storage and delivery but that the issue
of water supply on a regional and Statewide level was beyond
the capacity of the Project. Based on Baldwin's original
submittal of 50,000 units, the project would consume approx-
imately 1% of Mv/D's current water supply, or approximately
4% of the County Water Authority's current water allocation.
Based on regional growth projections, in the year 2010, the
Otay Ranch would consume .6 of 1% of the ~TI~D's supply or 3%
of the County Water Authority's allocation. Based on the
ultimate impact of the project, the ITF felt it important to
plan the property and place stipulations regarding water
reclamation and conservation but not to stop the project.
Commissioner Leichtfuss (County) asked if the ITF initiated
any discussions with rn~D regarding water availability? Mr.
Lettieri said that staff had discussions but the ITF had
not. The discussions included the figures just quoted and
technical studies which are in the technical appendices of
the EIR. Mr. Lettieri indicated he would provide the
Commissioner the technical report.
Chairperson Wright asked if that included an analysis of
what the project would cost other water users? Mr. Lettieri
said he would have to investigate the process of completing
that analysis.
Commissioner Fuller (City) asked if the technical study or
the EIR would include a comparison of the projects in the
eastern territory of Chula Vista that are on-line or corning
on-line regarding the availability of water? She said the
Planning Commission had recently reviewed a project whose
EIR had a good analysis Showing other projects on-line.
Some of these projects had been approved a long time ago but
were still waiting for permits. She said it was not an
issue of regional water availability entirely, in some cases
the project was permitted go ahead if plans contained water
restoration storage. Apparently this is a negotiable item
between the developer and individual water agencies. She
indicated her wish that this type of information be addres-
sed if it is not already included in the technical report or
the EIR.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked what was the procedure
for the San Diego Water Authority to bring water to this
area? Is that entirely within their jurisdiction or does it
9
----
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
property is within the County Water Authority boundary. The
District supplying most of the water is the Otay \'iater
District and it is up to the developer to prepare the plans
necessary to provide the terminal storage and delivery for
the proj ect.
9
Commissioner Leichtfuss (County) stated that she did not
agree with the type of planning which plans for all this
acreage and does not figure out water availability until
later. She wanted the statement on record that the planners
should contact the Water Authority first to discover the
impact on the present users and the agricultural industry.
Commissioner Casillas (City) said that with each project it
becomes more clear that the water provider cannot guarantee
that the water will be there. There is only a statement
that the terminal storage facilities and the distribution
system would be provided. He wondered if we would soon stop
asking for an iron-clad guarantee that the water would be
available and just settle for storage and distribution
points. Mr. Lettieri replied that on August 19, the Commis-
sion will be hearing an implementation plan on water and
they would endeavor to get someone from HWD to attend.
The Chair said the Commission should take an aggressive
stand on water availability.
Commissioner Kreitzer (County) said it concerned him when he
sees a statement that says, "... the pr oj ect w ill consume
only approximately 1% of the ~'iD water supply or approxi-
mately 4% of the County Water Authority's... ". These
figures become cumulative. It should not be played down as
"onlyll.
PUBLIC Cmll'lENTS
Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Ave., Chula Vista, said she had a
problem with the representation on the map of Alta Road
which connects with the Otay River Valley. Mr. Lettieri
said that would be discussed later in the presentation.
Eugene Sprofera, 3311 Fainvay Drive, La Nesa, 91941, spoke
of his concern regarding water pointing out that, "If we run
out of water, we may not be here. The water up-State
belongs there. A game is being played with the roads, the
people and the \Vater."
Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, El Cajon, 92020,
representing the Valle de Oro Planning Group said they had
been surprised to see such a small issue paper on water as
it was in the purview of the public decision-makers to
/v
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing~1orkshop - July 31, 1992
10
it was in the purview of the public decision-makers to
determine the long-range water issue. Such action does not
hold up the planning process, it really is the planning
purpose. His group will be looking at the EIR for issues
of, not only water supply, but how it is being used, con-
served, reclaimed and recycled.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 22, 1992 FIELD TRIP (CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ONLY), MAY 29 AND JUNE 17, 1992 JOINT PLANNING
COmlISSION WORKSHOPS (Taken out of sequence, see page 1.)
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that instead of
approval of the Minutes of May 22, it should be the Minutes
of April 29 which have been postponed from the two prior
meetings. Also, there was an error in the Minutes of June
17 which showed a meeting of the County on May 15 and a
meeting of the City on May 16. Both are referring to l1ay
15. He called for the Minutes of June 17 to be amended to
Sh~l this correction.
Ci tv of Chula Vista
MSUC (DeCker/Fuller)
29, 1992 as mailed.
absent.
4-0, to approve the Minutes of April
Commissioners Martin and Tuchscher
MSUC (Decker/Fuller) 4-0, to approve the Minutes of May 29,
1992 as mailed. Commissioners Martin and Tuchscher absent.
MSUC (Decker/Fuller) 4-0, to approve the Minutes of June 17
as amended. Commissioners Martin and Tuchscher absent.
Countv of San Dieqo:
MSUC (Leichtfuss/Kastelic) 6-0, to approve the Minutes of
May 29 as mailed and those of June 17 as amended. Commis-
sioner Brown absent.
BREAK: 3:21 TO 3:47 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 3:47 p.m.
Otay Ranch Road Svstem: Prime arterials, major roads and
collectors maximize circulation efficiency. The location of
housing and commercial is secondary. Working with the
transit people of Chula vista and MTDB, an east/west system
was developed through the center of the system. Using
Telegraph Canyon Road, Orange Avenue, Paseo Ranchero and SR-
II
-
Joint County/Chula vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing!Workshop - July 31, 1992
11
125 created a road system going through the villages which
the transit people would find complementary. There was a
point of access and egress within the village and the inten-
sity of the village would be at the core.
The primary network includes a north/south road. A new
roadway was potentially proposed beween the Otay Valley and
Orange Avenue with the Otay Valley Road reduced from a 6-
lane to a 4-lane road. Also proposed was a direct connec-
tion from the EUC to Hunt Parkway, limitation of access from
the villages and reduction of through traffic through the
villages.
Commissioner Kreitzer (County) asked if any mitigation
measures had been taken to reduce the freeway impacts? [.Is.
Ewing replied that there had been a concern about the noise
level along the corridors as well as setbacks. These become
a project design issue.
Commissioner Urtasun (County) asked if the circulation
system was based on the Project Team Alternative. [.Ir.
Lettieri replied that this had been the circulation system
on the Phase II Progress Plan. The Commissioner asked if we
would take it a step further regarding what main arterial
the light rail transit would go through? Mr. Lettieri
replied affirmatively that there are transit stops at both
villages in the eastern parcel.
Commissioner Kastelic (County) asked if traffic was being
reduced in the village by allowing a less than "C" level of
service (LOS) through having two lanes within the village?
[.Ir. Lettieri answered that one of the considerations of the
village design was to ensure the character of the develop-
ment within this area so that people would want to walk.
Once the village is accessed, the roads would be reduced.
That, however, needs to be brought to the Planning Commis-
sion.
Mr. Lettieri explained that the higher capacity on the 4-
lane road would cause a loss of character in certain areas.
The Commission questioned that people would want to walk in
a LOS "D" area. [.Ir. Lettieri replied that alternate routes
were being proposed for people who want only to traverse the
village. It \vas asked if all the density alternatives
required the same less than "c" LOS? Hr. Lettieri replied
that the alternative circulation system did not require a
less than "C" LOS, the intent was to change the road stan-
dards in the heart of the village.
Commissioner Ferraro (County) asked Mr. Lettieri to share
the thought process of why traffic should not go north of
"
I/.
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
12
Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr. Lettieri remarked that there are
several locations where traffic does go north; such as,
Southwestern College. Open space buffering was planned
along Telegraph Canyon Road since it is a scenic highway.
There might be connections to the villages from Telegraph
Canyon Road. Commissioner Decker remarked that the connec-
tions to Telegraph Canyon Road are not shown because they
come out of the small streets.
PUBLIC COm'IENTS
Barbara Gilman, 733 Second Ave., CV, representing the Otay
Ranch Citizens' Committee, said that the Committee had made
a separate request that all the wildlife corridors remain
functional in some \qay. It was f el t that beca use of the
environmental concerns, no roads should be closed in the
Salt Creek area.
Mr. Arbuckle spoke of the LOS, saying Baldwin did not intend
to create villages with a less than "CO LOS. The point of
ingress and egress are being designed as four lanes to
e::pedite the exits from the village. The ITF identified the
roads crossing the Otay River Valley because of the existing
Chula Vista General Plan and the County General Plan.
Considerations included the number of roads to be provided,
the number of river crossings, traffic impacts, SR-125 as a
toll road and park planning issues. The exhibit of the Otay
Ranch on the western parcel impacts all through trips. The
Chula Vista General Plan shows only SR-125 coming through
and the only other connection into the Mesa would be Paseo
Ranchero. The City of San Diego circulation does not
address SR-125 on the ranch but shows east/west circulation
element roads, La Media, SR-125 and Paseo Ranchero. The
County of San Diego does show Paseo Ranchero and Otay Lakes
Road coming through Salt Creek north to EastLake. Also
another road south of the Otay River on the south side of
the River. The Baldwin New Town Plan showed a road coming
through that the ITF felt was unnecessary. The proposal
taken to the ITF included SR-125 coming through (same as
Alternate #2 Plan).
The concern regarding Alta Road was the environmental
resources near Salt Creek. The corridors would remain open
but Alta Road should be moved west. This was one of the
most controversial issue papers. Alta Road should be shown
as a potential transportation corridor whose need would be
determined as part of future studies. Returning to the
exhibit, he said that one of the issues with SR-125 is
alignments. One considered as less environmentally damaging
because of it would not need grading studies was located
west of Brown Field. CalTrans is in the process of
/3
Joint County/Chula vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing~qorkshop - July 31, 1992
13
objection as long as it did not interfere with the villages.
It was felt that Alta Road could cause environmental prob-
lems but it was needed because of the traffic off the Mesa.
The other question was the toll road on the project which
was modeled as a freeway and as a toll road. If Alta Road
were removed, the north/south as well as east/west impact
would be significant.
The Chair asked if the Commission would know whether or not
Alta Road should be included by the time it was necessary to
make recommendations? Mr. Denny answered that the transpor-
tation forecasting for the Otay Mesa is underway and infor-
mation on the impacts of other facilities is known. The
Chair asked what would happen to La Media and would it be
moved further west if Caltrans goes with the university from
the Otay Valley Road itself? Mr. Lettieri replied that
there were three alternatives. La Media was accommodated
through close proximity and if the traffic patterns change
then all the north/south circulation is forced to move. It
was felt this was a preferable alternative. Mr. Thomas
interjected that the road went underneath the freeway.
Commissioner Decker (City) commented that he assumed the
north/south distribution had been envisioned to bring
corridors into the Hesa so that they would not have to go to
SR-125. If SR-125 comes in as a toll road, frugal truck-
drivers may not use it. In response to Commissioner
Kreitzer, Mr. Thomas said a toll road of approximately 10
miles was proposed.
Commissioner Casillas (City) asked how wide Alta Road would
be if it were moved to the west to protect the transporta-
tion corridor? The answer given was a 4-lane major road.
The Commissioner then noted that it was a sensitive area and
the corridor might be wider, six or eight lanes, given the
sensitivity of the wild life. Hr. Lettieri acknowledged
that was a good point, however, since there is no develop-
ment, the corridor could be any width needed. He added that
this was probably one of the most sensitive areas of the
entire project.
Commissioner Casillas requested a new graph showing what the
total impact would be and the total resources. He said he
did not know, at present, how one area related to the next.
Mr. Lettieri said that would be done. Ms. Ewing interjected
that the Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) contained a map
which was quite comprehensive.
Commissioner Kastelic asked if SR-125 could exist as a non-
Ii!
---
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
14
toll road? Mr. Lettieri said he did not have the answer.
The City of Chula Vista has met with the developers in the
area to finance an interim road. The information on finan-
cing could be brought back to the Commission.
PUBLIC Cmu,tENTS
Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Ave., CV, stated that Alta Road
was not necessary and should be planned as an open corridor.
She remarked there were alternatives being looked at outside
that boundary that she would like to see. The Chair asked
if staff could come back and discuss that matter. Hr.
Lettieri replied affirmatively.
Barbara Gilman, 733 Second Ave., CV, said the only dif-
ference the Otay Ranch Citizen's Committee had was the road
exchange. The Committee felt Alta Road should be deleted
entirely because of the severe environmental sensitivities.
They are considering a regional park in the area and are
trying to keep it as cohesive as possible.
Greg Smith, Baldwin, stated that Baldwin has never been
overly concerned about Alta Road. It really gets tied into
the land use. CalTrans awarded four toll projects in the
State. One of the agreements was with CTV, California
Transit Ventures for an eight-year commitment from CalTrans
to build that IO-mile stretch as a toll road. Chula vista
has an interim road of four lanes in the same right-of-way
and alignment as SR-125 from the north to Orange Avenue.
South of Orange Avenue is not part of Chula vista. SR-125
can be built as either a toll road or not. Baldwin's
official position is that the road will be built as a free
road in absence of comments from CTV.
Otav Vallev Reoional Park: The question is what criteria
should be used to set the boundaries and how much acreage
should be provided for active and passive park uses? The
purpose of the issue papers was to determine the boundary
between open space protection and development. This was
needed because of the boundary of the focus planning area of
the park. If this boundary was intended to be the park
boundary, directions were needed from the ITF as to how to
plan the remainder, to determine, based on the sensitivity
analysis, what should be the line between development and
open space projection. The ITF stated that the open space
protection area should be the river valley, Wolf Canyon,
Salt Creek. The area around the Lakes was not discussed
because that was on an issue paper.
PUBLIC COm1ENTS
Ii"
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
15
Barbara Gilman, 733 Second Ave., CV, said the Otay Citizens'
Committee totally agreed with the boundaries set forth. The
uses they had proposed were set forth on page 1 of the
Citizens' Advisory Papers previously distributed.
The Chair said the active versus passive recreational use is
certainly important.
Commissioner Decker referenced a notation on page 32, last
paragraph, fifth line, If..including the park.." saying he
was of the opinion that what was meant was "...land fill..."
Development Around Lower Otav Lake Reservoir: The basic
issue is where development should occur on the north, east
and south sides of the Lake? It was requested by the ITF,
based on Phase I, that the issue mostly related to the east
and south side of the Lake. Water contained in the River
provides drinking water for the City of Chula Vista.
The Governing Council of the Citizens' Advisory Committee
recommended a 1/2-mile buffer on the north side and open
space on the east and south sides of the project. Their
concern was the significance of the environmental resources
and visual impact on the east and south.
An Opportunities and Constraint Study was completed. Using
the overhead projector, Mr. Lettieri pointed out the east
side of the Lake where several areas of potential devel-
opment can occur. One of the alternatives showed develop-
ment in this area. The predominant characteristics include
coastal sage scrub, other biological resources, as well as
steep slope areas. On the north side of the Lake, he
pointed out the steep slopes, the coastal sage scrub, other
areas that are not so impacted and an area of potential
wetlands. On some of the exhibits this remains as a study
area since vernal pool studies will have to be completed
before the exact impact can be determined.
The Project Team proposal as it related to the development
around the lake included three different areas. The Ranch
House was shown as open space on all slopes facing the upper
and lower Otay Reservoir. The Ranch House could be a
specialty conference center or part of the resort itself.
There would be 250 acres of residential area, out of which
would be the vernal pool grassland and vernal pool needle-
grass study areas. On the east side, there would be a
village cluster with the commercial adjacent to Otay Lakes
Road, a residential area east and one south of that. The
boxed area is a very sensitive area environmentally and the
ITF was unable to decide whether it should be included or
not. A recommendation as to whether or not that area should
/6
-
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
16
not. A recommendation as to whether or not that area should
be developed will be brought back to the Commission later.
The area was indicated on the overhead projection.
Commission Urtasun (County) said that the ITF had discussed
the location of the potential university site as being below
the EUC. Then the Council and Board of Supervisors voted on
a different site which he believed was closer to the Otay
Lakes. He asked to be shown the location. Mr. Lettieri
said the Council and Board of Supervisors had voted to
support the Wueste Road site. That coincided with the 400
acre site being offered by Baldwin on the New Town Plan.
Commissioner Fuller (City) commented that the map shows the
tan area as owned by the City of San Diego. On page 46,
under the Proposed Land Use Concept South and East of the
Lake, is a statement saying, "Those properties owned by the
City of San Diego adjacent to the Lake may eventually be
used for golfcourse or other purposes. However, until
decisions have been made addressing the Cleanwater Program
as it applies to this area, no land uses are being recom-
mended for these properties. Therefore, the Project Team
proposes that these properties remain as natural open
space." She asked if the land is owned by San Diego, what
impact can the Joint Commission, as Planning Bodies, have on
whatever decision the City of San Diego makes regarding the
use of the land around the Lake?
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explained that the City would
control the use of its own property. Regarding the over-
lapping of jurisdictions in the planning area, it is an
unknown area. There would be the opportunity to review the
EIR and to make comments.
Commissioner Fuller asked if the statement ".. . may
ally be used for golfcourse..." was hypothetical.
Lettieri replied affirmatively.
eventu-
Mr.
Commissioner Decker (City) referenced the steep slopes off
the mountains and said it might be a good place to experi-
ment with slope homes that take advantage of south-facing
slopes and not totally restrict them at this point in time.
Commissioner Leichtfuss (County) asked why there wasn't an
issue paper done on the university site? Also, was there an
issue paper done on the whole iinancial situation, the
feasibility and benefits, because today the discussion has
been about projects which would require infrastructure?
When will there be a discussion to ensure that the project
pays for all the demands on infrastructures, services and
service areas? Hr. Lettieri replied that Ralph Anderson &
17
.~
Joint CountyjChula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
17
Associates is completing a Service Revenue Plan (a fiscal
impact analysis). Ci ty and County staff are very involved
in the input into all of the components of the Service
Revenue Plan. A macroanalysis has been completed. This
takes a look at the wide range of alternatives to see if
they pay for themselves in operations and maintenance. A
more detailed O&M study including phasing, capital facility
expenditures and financial options is the next phase. That
will be part of a package presented to the Commission with a
staff recommendation.
Commissioner Kastelic asked if the open space area belonging
to the City of San Diego would be used in any calculations
or trade-offs? Mr. Lettieri replied negatively.
Commissioner Kreitzer (County) said that since the open
space is on City of San Diego land, there actually \-lOuld not
be any protection to keep that as open space and the wild-
life corridor could be disrupted. Mr. Lettieri replied that
a number of regional studies are going on in which Project
Staff is endeavoring to participate. They include the Clean
Water Program and the Multiple Species Conservation Program
as well as the Project's Resource Management Plan. The
Clean Water Program, which includes the entire City of San
Diego service area, is being studied and mapped. Staff is
monitoring this, however, they have a much more cumbersome.
effort to work with Fish and wildlife Service. The initial
impression is that the area will be open space.
Chairperson Wright said the Commission will undoubtedly
receive more concrete information before a formal decision
needs to be made
PUBLIC COHHENTS
Barbara Gilman, 733 Second Ave., CV, said the Otay Ranch
Citizens' Advisory Committee had made a recommendation that
the whole area around the Lakes evokes strong emotional
output from everyone \-lith whom it is discussed. It is the
last area with a reservoir close to the Ci ty that is util-
ized by many people. It is important that the south por-
tion, the San Ysidro Mountain portion, be preserved as it
is. Beyond the major environmental issues of the wildlife
corridors, the need for the deer, cougar and other ,dldl ife
to access the Lake, this space, this whole vie~ shed, is
needed by the community. The San Ysidro Mountain south side
of the Lake should remain undeveloped entirely and the
buffer on north side should be 1/2 mile in order to protect
this resource for everyone to enjoy.
Eugene Sprofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La [,Iesa, 91941, said
/1'
-
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
18
there is no diversion system on the Lake, no protection
whatsoever. Residents are currently paying an extra fee to
cover the cost of a water source, the big pipe, to provide
the water for this reservoir. To allow a project like this
to come and pollute this reservoir is wrong. That reservoir
is what will save the City of San Diego and the County of
San Diego in event of an earthquake and the big pipe fail-
ing.
Mr. Lettieri stated that the Otay River Reservoir was
treated in the EIR. This issue paper is one of the most
important issues associated with the Otay Ranch. He then
stated that if there was anything else the Commission would
like staff to do in preparation for the hearings to inform
him.
The Chair said one of the Chula Vista Commissioners had
suggested the Commission go out on the water and get a
feeling for the area from the water. Hr. Lettieri replied
that August 19 was the last workshop and there had been talk
about potential field trips. Staff would meet with the
Chairs and then return to the full Commission to endeavor to
schedule those in September because with the knowledge now
accrued, the Commission may have specific areas they want
viewed.
Julie Dillon, representing Helix Land Company, Ltd., said
Helix owns 480 acres in the south ,portion of the reservoir
which they plan to develop. Many of the alternatives show
open space around that property which, in effect, creates a
wall-off around the property. Helix wanted staff and the
Commission to be aware that development plans will come
forward later and there is a need to look at compatible land
uses to avoid a "taking action" of that property. Helix is
also concerned about the road system and all the public
facilities that they be sized accordingly looking at other
properties beside the Baldwin property south of the reser-
voir.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Ave., CV., representing CROSSROADS,
spoke about Otay Lakes saying the way it is planned can
create an environment adjacent to an urban area which is
unique in California and which presents the citizens in the
area an opportunity for experiences unavailable elsewhere.
Rather than seeing the Lakes and its environs being devel-
oped except for wildlife corridors, the corridor should be
people corridors with the development decreased, clustered
and most of the area remaining in natural open space. The
Otay Ranch Citizens' Committee had recommended the following
uses be prohibited: motorized vehicles, improved parks,
golfcourses, camping, grading infill and improved roads.
/9
---
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
19
The issue paper for this subject was circulated among many
agencies and what is seen on the screen does not seem to
reflect what those agencies said. Mr. Watry then read
quotations from many of these agencies.
Commissioner Kastelic (County) remarked that there appear to
be several properties in-holding in the area. She asked if
staff could make the Commission aware of privately owned
properties than are in-holding. Mr. Lettieri said he had
promised the Commission the Task Force input. A presenta-
tion had been made to the Task Force on the Helix Land
Company property and they had asked staff to consider Helix
in the planning on the east side The Task Force also said
that one of the other considerations would be to go with the
County General Plan densities of 4, 8 and 20, Multiple Rural
Use. The Commissioner asked if a map could be prepared to
identify the location of the areas. Mr. Lettieri replied
affirmatively. He then pointed out that about 18 months
ago, the ITF had given direction to consider those parcels
but not to include them within the EIR.
Susan Wolfe-Fleming, 11524 Fuerte Pines Road, El Cajon,
representing Chaparral Greens, said she had been waiting for
the last issue paper Central Proctor Val lev. The Chair
explained there would not be sufficient time to consider
that item until August 19 but she might make a comment if
she so wished. Ms. Fleming said that Chaparral Greens was
an organization in East County which acted as an environ-
mental watch-dog. They had been represented at every work-
shop since April and the field trips as well. She said the
Baldwin Company had requested citizen input but some deroga-
tory remarks were made at yesterday's meeting with the Board
of Supervisors that seemed to imply that a sudden rush of
residential input was inappropriate. Ms. Fleming said she
would like to go on record saying that citizen input is
needed on everything that is going on and the more minds
that work together to solve problems, the better. Chaparral
Greens does have problems with all the proposals on the line
at this point. One is the water issue. Not having a sure
source of water is a very serious issue. Also, there is no
sure source of employment even although there is industrial
space already available. These spaces need to be utilized
first.
Ms. Wolfe-Fleming claimed that one of the primary issues was
whether there is an actual need for any development at this
time. If there is no need for a business, it will not
succeed. There is a need to focus on the problems that
exist in our local cities and in the County. Other problems
include affordability of housing, land-fill problems, air
quality impacts, sensitive habitats and vernal pools. She
~o
Joint County/Chula Vista Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Workshop - July 31, 1992
20
emphasized that 60 days is not an adequate time to review
the EIR.
Chairperson Wright said everybody is in the position of
working hard to make certain all issues are addressed.
Mr. Lettieri commented that they are trying to work with
Community Planning Groups to set up interim meetings.
Chaparral Greens is part of the South County Environmental
Working Group and a meeting has been set up for August 19.
Mr. Arbuckle stated that Baldwin wishes to be on record that
the process is open and always has been open, they welcome
input and have made many changes to the Plan as the result
of input. They would appreciate receiving any input as
quickly as possible.
ADJOURNMENT AT 5:19 p.m. to the meeting of August 19, 1992, 1:30-
5:00 p.m., in the City of Chula Vista Council
Chambers.
-~.-/L'if
Ruth M. Smith
Secretary
),/
-
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 30, 1992 at the Chula vista
Council Chambers, 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA from 9:00 a.m. -
12:00 noon.
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 18, 1992
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
"I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerl\ and that 1 posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin B~ard at
the Public rvi ~s Bu:lding and atf'<:1af'~. -
DATED: . d-/ "A SIGNW?5:' ~ .~
\~