HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/07/12 S.D. County Supervisors
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 July 12, 1993 at the City Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula vista, CA, at 3:00 p.m.
SAID PURPOSE OF THE MEETING is for a
deliberation on any or all portions of
Environmental Impact Report on the otay Ranch
public hearing and
the Final Program
project.
DATED: July 8, 1993
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
III declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in tha
Oitice of the City Clerk and that I posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
the PUb?~~c7s Bu:lding and at City Hall on
DATED, SIGNE~~#--
.,(: ._~ ..
AGENDA
JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS /
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
3:00 P.M., MONDAY, JULY 12, 1993
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
1. ROLL CALL
. Tim Nader, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
. Brian Bilbray, 1st District
County Board of Supervisors
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 2, 1993 AND JUNE 16, 1993 JOINT
BOARD/COUNCIL HEARINGS
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may address the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council on
any subject matter under the jurisdiction of either the Board of Supervisors or City
Council not otherwise on this agenda. However, pursuant to the Brown Act, no
action can be taken by the Board of Supervisors or City Council on such an item not
listed on the agenda.
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - OTAY RANCH
During the public hearing, the County Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council
will deliberate on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report and the Otay Ranch Project.
It is anticipated that the public hearing will be continued to the Joint Board of
Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council hearing of July 21, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the
County Administration Center Board Chambers - Room 310.
V. ADJOURNMENT
. Chula Vista City Council to its meeting on July 13, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
. County Board of Supervisors to its meeting on July 13, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. at
the County Administration Center.
,--_.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) - The Otay Ranch Project Office,
in complying with the American With Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who may need special
accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a city meeting, activity or service contact the Otay Ranch
Project office at (619) 422-7157 for specific information on existing resources/or programs that may be available
for such accommodation. Please call at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for
scheduled services and activities. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
. .
~
;.....~...
a'TR....... ,=<RnCH
JOINT
PLANNING
PROJECT
C:OUNT't' Of SAN DIEGO' ClTI" Of CHUI..A VISTA
JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CITI COUNCIL
PRESENTATION ORDER
July 12, 1993
I. CONTINUE PUBLIC TESTIMONY
(A) Continue with Request to Speak Slips submitted on June 16, 1993 (Overview
Statements).
(B) Other Public Testimony - Speaker Slips submitted July 12, 1993 (Overview
Statements)
(C) Applicant response to Testimony (Overview Statements)
II. SPECIAL REOUEST TO SPEAK
(A) Organized Presentation by the Valle de Oro Community Planning Group (20
minutes)
(B) Applicant Response to Valle de Oro Presentation
III. ISSUE AREA # 1: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADEOUACY
~_(A) Staff Distribution of one page summary of a Final Program Environmental
Impact Report (FPEIR) and its applicability to the Otay Ranch.
Tina Thomas, Special CEQA Counsel to the Otay Ranch Project, William
Taylor, Deputy County Counsel, and Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney,
are available for questions.
Hearing Binder contains detailed memo (dated May 25, 1993 from Remy &
Thomas) on this subjed: Tab 4A (2nd insert)
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157 . FAX: (619) 422-7690
.
(B) Staff presentation of the FPEIR.
Hearing Binder contains the FPEIR Executive Summary: Tab 4.A (3rd insert)
Order of Presentations:
(1) Staff Presentation:
Tony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager
Valerie Randall, FPEIR Project Manager, Ogden
Dan Marum, JHK & Associates
Steve Lacy, Ogden
(2) Planning Commission Chairperson comments
(3) The Applicant
(4) Public Testimony: Organized Groups
(5) Public Testimony: Individuals
(6) Applicant Response to Testimony
(C) Tentative Action (Staff Recommendation)
............................. -.-.-.-............,......._...,................ ...........................................,...... ......-.-.-.-....-....'.
.,;~,i .......'III;;::;I:li;;:.I~il~,lllil~lijliilll!lll~illlililliiii".:t!iIl...................................
:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...........:.:.:.:"...~.':';,:';.::,::~..., ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:,:;:,:;:;t ::;::::::::::::::t::::::;::::::::::::;::::::::::::~:;::::=;,:,',':::;:::::.'.:.:......'... ..
..-...'.-.....-......,....'.-.,..............
.....-.-...-...............
.... ............
.....,...........-."....
""""'.""""""""""""'''':'':':
":""-",-:"""""",,.:,,._.::,...,,:.
.-.-................-.....................
..,................,--.
-.....-....-.-...-.........................
....'............---...
::'::;::::':"':"':':':':':'.:':':':':::':':
................."...
..............,.....-......................
................-.,...
,,:.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.:.,.,.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
.,.,.,-,.,.:.,.,.:.,.".;.:.:.:.:.;.;......
...................
...............
.....--...........
............"..--
--...............
.."..,...--.......
...............
.................
'...'...........'...............'..
...................
................
....-.............
..."."...,--.--
....-..-.-..-...-..-.-.......'...,...,..........,........-,-...,....-......,
:::"':::::':"::::::::':'::":":":"':';"':';':':':':::::':':':':::::':::::':;::::::::::::::':::'::::=:~ ..,.
......,............. ......,.......,.
.........................'.-...-...'............,.............................................'.-....,......
............--..................."....--........
.................,................'.-...............,....................................
...-.................... ...........-..
...................'.......-....,......-.'........,...,._...........
"."........................
................................-.'.-...-.......
................,..
...-'....-...-.......................................................................'..............-.'................_'-.....-.....-..............:.:-:,:.....................,.....,,=':""':':"':".;.:.:.:.:.:,:,=,:,.,.,...,.;.:::,:
Input: The County Planning Commission, City Planning Commission, and
Joint City jCounty Project Team Staff recommend that this action be taken.
~
~.....~.....
OTR~ PRnCh
JOINT
PLANNING
PROJECT
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. CJ1Y OF CHULA VISTA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE!
July 12, 1993
DATE
TIME
PURPOSE
LOCATION
7/12/93
Continue Public Testimony
Valle de Oro Presentation
Final Program EIR Presentation
Begin Issue Area Deliberations
Issue Area #1: EIR Adequacy
Applicant/Public Testimony
3:00-6:00
7/21/93
3:00-6:00
Endangered Habitats League Pres.
Continue Issue Area Presentations
Issue Area #2: Otay Valley Parcel
Board/Council Tentative Actions
7/22/93
3:00-6:00
Continue Issue Area Presentations
Board/Council Tentative Actions
7/26/93
3:00-6:00
Continue Issue Area Presentations
Board/Council Tentative Actions
TBA
TBA
Continue Deliberations
Board/Council Tentative Actions
Possible Final Deliberations
Staff to prepare CEQA Findings, etc.
Chula Vista
County CAe.
County CAe.
Chula Vista
County CAe.
These are reserved dates. The Board and Council may revise
and/or add dates, if necessary.
315 Fourth Avenue, Sune A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157' FAX: (619) 422-7690
.
COUN~Y O~ SAN CIEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, ~993
MINUTE ORDER NO. 6
SUBJECT: Notioed Publio aearingl
Joint Hearing with the Chula Vista city couneil on
General Plan Amendment 92-04, otay Ranch project,' and
Realassi~iaation R92-003; otay and Jamul/Dulzura
Subregional Planning Areas
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Background Report (Attachment 1) and the Joint Project
Team's presentation on the si te characteristios, publ ic
participation program, the process for the Board and Chula Vista
city council deliberations on the otay Ranch General Plan
Amendment, an overview of Plan recommendations, and the applicant's
(otay vista Associates, formerly Baldwin Vista Associates, L.P.)
presentation.
Continue the hearing to June 16,1993, at 3:00 p.m., in the City of
Chula vista council chambers for a presentation by the Otay Ranch
Joint Project Team Manager, Anthony Lettieri, of the County and
Ci ty of Chula Vista planning Commissions t recommendations, the
applicant's recommendations, public testimony, and to begin
discussions and deliberations of major issues.
PRESENT:
County of San Diego:
Supervisors Bilbray, jacob, and Slater;
Supervisors Williams and MacDonald being absent.
city of Chula Vista:
Mayor Tim Nader; Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Moore, and Rindone.
DOCUMENTS:
Chief Administrative Officer's Report, Board of Supervisors'
Document No. 755764.
Slides displayed by Anthony Lettieri, Joint Project Team Manager,
Board of supervisors' Document No. 756023, ~xhibit No. 1. ~
DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
Supervisor Bilbray and Tim Nader, Mayor, Chula vista, provided
opening remarks regarding the nature of the project.
Greg Smith, Baldwin Company, commented that probably 90 percent of
the people agree with 90 percent of the Plan, judging by an
analysis of the votes by both Planning Commissions. . He reviewed
No. 6 (Otay Ranch projeot)
6/2/93
ACG
Page 1 of 4 pages
'~',:';"':", .'
\ '
;
i
:d
the history of the planning process and the - innovation of .the.
village concept, the resource management plan, and facility plans.
Anthony Lettieri, Joint project Team Manager, orally presented the
background report and the Joint proj.ect Team's presentation on the
site characteristics, public participation program, and the process
for the Board and Chula vista City council deliberations on the
otay Ranch General Plan Amendment, and an overview of the plan
recommendations. He defined the planning process; the site
features of the property; and the planning analysis involving
staff, the. Interjurisdictional Task Force and Planning Commission,
and their goals and objectives, with the aid of various slides,
Board of supervisors' Document No. 756023, Exhibit 1, and Board of
Supervisors' Document No. 755764. He also defined various
supporting documents: resource management plan, facility
implementation plan, village phasing plan, and the service revenue
plan (fiscal impact analysis). He highlighted the major issues
identified by the planning commissions.
Robert Kelly, "open-spacers," stated a concern regarding becoming
land locked from their property, and requested an appointment with
the Chula vista city Attorney to voice concerns.
Daniel Tarr, Valle de oro Community planning Group, requested'a
copy of the binder containing Community planning Group
recommendations, and stated they would be prepared to discuss their
differences on June 16. on behalf of the.Group, he requested the
status of negotiations with the ogden Environmental consultant and
the other deposit accounts. It was advised that both the City and
county deposits were current and were being closely monitored.
Patricia Gerrodette, Land Use Committee Chair, Sierra Club, stated
that the Environmental Impact Report has information missing, which
ultimately affects decisions. She stated that the wildlife
corridor studies focUS on key species and, by not including smaller
animals such as amphibians and reptiles, there is a flaw' in the
studies.
Supervisor Jacob asked if the Board would meet with the council
before the land use decision-making phase. Mr. Lettieri explained
that each body acts independently, the county will be amending its
General Plan, the city will be amending its General Plan and
adopting a General Development Plan.
Supervisor Bilbray pointed out that the project must remain
flexible, considering the present unstable economic climate. Mr.
Lettieri noted that is why there are mechanisms that provide for
annual review and the necessary reserves.
No. 6 (Otay Ranch Project)
6/2/93
ACG
Page 2 of 4 Pages
I
I
~
-
I
,:,,i.
"""",,
;:-:::'
~.,
,
I,
\
I
"-..-,......... --..
,
zoning and
quality,
supervisor Slater noted there was a distinction between
land use decisions and sewer, involving water
health/safety and sanitation deoisions.
supervisor Jacob asked when the fiscal model would be available for
analysis. Mr. Lettieri responded that he hoped it would be given
to the County by the end of the month, as it needed further review.
councilmember Rindone asked for clarification regarding who was in
support of the road north of otay Lakes being moved. Mr. Lettieri
noted that both planning commissions and the applioant were in
support. '
councilmember Moore asked if the recommendation included what
happened to traffic once it orossed otay Valley. Mr. Lettieri
stated the recommendation was at a policy level, the location of
the road was deferred to the East otay Mesa Planning process in
order to coordinate with that ciroulation system.
councilmember Moore requested that a comprehensive explanation be
provided regarding the definition and requirements of a Program
Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Lettieri noted that the request
would be relayed to the attorneys.
supervisor Jacob asked whether city and County legal counsels had
reviewed the' environmental documents. Deputy County Counael
advised that there had been involvement from inception of the
Planning commission proceedings, the hearings had been attended,
and he was aware of the issues; however, the extensive
Environmental Impact Report documents had not been reviewed.
supervisor Jacob stated that, before making a decision whether the
document was complete and in compliance, she wanted to be sure it
was reviewed by legal counsel and prOfessional staff.
ACTION:
Evidence being on file that due and proper notice of the hearing
had been given as required by law; there being no motion and no
Objection, the Board continued the public hearing to June ~6, 1993,
at 3:00 p.m.
No. 6 (otay Ranch Project)
6/2/93
ACG
Page 3 of 4 Pages
l
1
i
=J
:>!'lIII
,
state of California)
County of San Diego) ss
I hereby certifY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of the original entered in the Minutes of the Board of
Supervisors.
ARLINE S. HULTSCH
Assistant Clerk of the Board of
supervisors
By ~~DeputY
No. 6 (Otay Ranch Project)
6/2/93
ACG
page 4 of 4 Pages
..
~
~
.,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WEDNESOA1, JUNE 16, 1993
MINUTE ORDER NO. 4
SUBJECT: continued Notioed Publio Hearinq;
Joint Hearing with the Chula Vista city Counoil:
General Plan Amendment (GPAl 92-04, otay Ranoh Project,
and Reolassifioation R9Z-003; Otay and Jamul/Dulzura
Subreqional planning Areas
(carryover Item From 6/2/93, Agenda No.6)
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors
take the following actions:
A. Take tentative action as follows:
1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Memorandum of Understanding with the city of Chula
vista, dated August 1, 1989, take the following actions:
1) recommend that the Chula Vista city Council certify
that the Program Environmental Impact Report is complete
and in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and; 2) certify that the Board
of supervisors has reviewed and considered the
information contained in said Environmental Impact
Report.
4.
5.
No. 4
6/16/93
ACG
Page 1 of
2.
Amend the Regional Land use Element Map as shown in
Appendix A.l of the County Planning Commission Final
-Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the
Board of Supervisors/Chula vista City council otay Ranch
joint hearing binder).
3.
Amend the Regional Land Use Element Text as shown in
Appendices A.2-l and A.2-2 of the county Planning
Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report
(TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula vista city
Council Otay Ranch joint hearing binder).
Amend the otay Subregional Flan Text as shown in
Appendices A.3-1 through A.3-4 of the County Planning
Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report
(TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City
Council otay Ranch joint hearing binder).
Adopt the Otay Ranch General Development/Subregional Plan
as Volume 2 of the Otay Subregional Plan Text as amended
by the Planning Commissions' actions as shown on Table 1,
the JOINT PLANNING COMMISSIONS' DECISION TRACKING SHEETS.
Attachments 3 and 8 of this report (TAB #3, and Exhibits
8 Pages
--
,
1
I
, 1, 2 & 3, TAB#4G of the Board of supervisorsjChula vista
City counoil otay Ranch joint hearing binder) .
6. Amend the boundaries between the otay and Jamu1/Du1zura
Subregional Plans as shown in Appendices A.4-1 and A.4-2
of the County planning, commission Final Resolution,
Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of
supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint
hearing binder).
7. Amend the Land Use Designations of the Jamu1/Du1zura and
otay subregional plan Maps as shown in Appendix A.5 of
the County Planning Commission Final Resolution,
Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of
SupervisorsjChUla vista city council Otay Ranch joint
hearing binder) .
8. Amend the Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan Text as shown in
Appendices A.6-1 through A.6-10 of the County planning
Commission Final Resolution, Attaohment 5 of this report
(TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista city
council otay Ranoh joint hearing binder).
9.
Amend the sweetwater community plan Text as shown in
Appendix A.7 of the County Planning commission Final
Resolution, Attaohment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the
Board of Supervisors/Chula vista city council Otay Ranch
joint hearing binder).
~j
-~
10. Amend Circulation Element Sheet 6 as shown in Appendices
A.8-1 through A.8-5 of the County Planning Commission
Final Resolution, Attaohment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of
the Board of supervisors/Chula vista city Counoil otay
Ranch joint hearing binder).
"
.:~
11. Amend Circulation Element Sheet 9 and the ~ecreation
Element Park Map as shown in Appendix A.9 of the County
Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of
this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula
Vista City Counoil Otay Ranoh joint hearing binder).
12. Amend the Recreation Element Text as shown in Appendix
A.10 of the county Planning commission Final Resolution,
Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of
supervisors/Chula vista City Council otay Ranch joint
hearing binder).
13.
Amend the Conservation Element Text as shown in
Appendices A.3-3, A.3-4, A.6.S and A.6-9 of the County
planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of
No. 4
6/16/93
ACG
Page 2 of
8 Pages
i
I
I!
.
th,is report (TAB ~5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula
vista city Council otay Ranch joint hearing binder).
14. Amend the Conservation Element Map as shown in Appendix
A.11 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution,
Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the Board of
Supervisors/Chula vista city Council otay Ranch joint
haaring binder).
15. Amend the PUblic Facility Element as shown in Appendix
A.12 of the County Planning Commission Final Resolution,
Attachment 5 of this report (TAIl #5 of the Board of
Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council Otay Ranch joint
hearing binder).
16. Adopt revised zone classification for those
villages/planning areas shown in Appendix B of the county
Planning Commission Final Resolution, Attachment 5 of
this report (TAB #5 of the Board of Supervisors/Chula
Vista City council otay Ranch joint hearing binder).
17. Repeal Board Policy I-l09, Planning Guidelines for the
Development of the united Enterprises, Ltd. Land
Holdings, and adopt in its place as Policy I-I09,
Appendix C, entitled Plans to Guide Development of the
otay Ranch Project, the County Planning Commission Final
Resolution, Attachment 5 of this report (TAB #5 of the
Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City council otay Ranch
joint hearing binder).
B. Continue the hearing on the above matter, and refer to the
Planning Commission for review and recommendation the proposed
Findings concerning mitigation of significant effects required
by Section 15091 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines, the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
any proposed statement of overriding considerations all
addressing the project proposed to be adopted by the Board.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive the San Diego county Board of Supervisors and city of
Chula vista Council otay Ranch Joint hearing binder
containing: the Major Issue Summary Table, the Joint Project
Team Staff Report, the Joint Planning Commissions Decision
Sheet/Unit Summary, background material on each of the Major
Issues, the County of San Diego staff proposed General Plan
Amendment and Zone ReClassification, County Planning
Commission Final Resolution, and letters from the otay Ranch
Citizen Governing Committee, crossroads, and County letters
from planning groups.
No. 4
6/16/93
ACG
Page 3 of 8 Pages
,J
.;a
I
i
.
Receive the otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional
plan, Resource Management Plan, Faoility Implementation Plans,
Service Revenue plan, Phasing Plan, and the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report.
2 .
3. Continue the hearing to June 10, 1993, at 3:00 p.m. in the
Board of Supervisors Chambers. At that meeting, the Board of
supervisors and City of Chula Vista City Council are
tentatively scheduled to take testimony from the
Jamul/Dulzura, Valle de Oro, sweetwater and Spring Valley
Planning Groups, other organized groups, and members of the
public, and hear the applicant's rebuttal.
PRESENT I
County of San Diego:
supervisors Bilbray, Jacob, Slater, Williams, and MacDonald
city of Chula Vista:
councllmembers FOX, Horton, Moore, and Rindone
Mayor Tim Nader being absent
DOCUMENTS I
Chief Administrative Officer's Report, Board of Supervisors'
Document No. 755916.
Viewgraphs, Oli-57 through OH-72, submitted by Anthony Lettieri,
Joint Project Team Manager, Board of Supervisors' Document No.
756057, Exhibit No.1.
Article entitled Planning Guidelines for Protecting wildlife in
Fragmenting Systems, submitted by Dan Silver, Board of
Supervisors' Document No. 756054.
Letter from cintra Cunningham expressing opposition to the projeot,
Board of Supervisors' Document No. 756055.
Daniel Tarr, valle de Oro Planning Group, list of eight major
issues, Board of Supervisors' Document No. 756056.
DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
Anthony Lettieri, Joint Project Team Manager, outlined the six
major issue areas: Environmental Impact Report adequacy; Otay
Valley parcel; the Lakes; Central Proctor Valley; Jamul/Dulzura;
and other text, i.e., housing, air quality; reviewed the
environmental review procedures; reviewed the definition and
purpose of a Program Environmental Impact Report versus a Project
Environmental Impact Report, and project summary of total dwelling
units and open spaoe, with the aid of viewgraphs, OH-57 through OH-
72, Board of Supervisors' Document No. 756057, Exhibit No.1.
The Chair of the County Planning Commission, David Kreitzer, and
the Chair of the city Planning Commission, Susan Fuller, presented
statements regarding the history of the process and their issues of
concern.
No. 4
6/16/93
ACG
Page 4 of 8 Pages
1
The question was raised regarding how funding would occur for the
light rail system. It was noted that there was no funding at- this
time. councllmernber Rindone stated that it was his understanding
that the majority of the cost assooiated with construotion of the
transit system would be condemnation proceedings, which included
right-of-ways. Mr. Lattairi concurred, noting that there are
conditions placed on the project that require ultimate dedication
for the light rail transit line, including the area necessary for
transit stops.
There was discussion regarding the various recommendations for the
density level, which varied between 16 to 25 per acre. Mr.
Lettieri stated that light rail system issues and- development
concerns will be addressed in detail with the Metrpolitan Transit
Development Board. Supervisor Williams cautioned that funding for
construction will be an issue, as the federal government is backing
away from financing transit.
Greg Smith, Baldwin company, spoke on the depth and scope of the
project analysis, the 10 alternative plans, and oommended the broad
citizen participation. He presented the history of how the various
phases were forthcoming, noting that the six substantive areas
would later be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company, explained what is occurring with the
various implementation plans: facility implementation plan,
resource management plan, otay Ranch Service Revenue Plan, and Otay
Ranch Village Phasing Plan.
The follo~ing people addressed the Board/Council in support,
generally, of the project:
Maggie Helton, Chair, otay Ranch Governing Committee; Mark Montijo,
Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Group; Patricia Gerrodette, Land
Use chair, Sierra Club; Doug Perkins, Executive Director, south
County Economic Development Council; Rod Davis, Chula Vista Chamber
of Commerce; Barbara Brown, president, South San Diego Bay cities
Association of Realtors; and Chuck Peter.
.J
~
Their various remarks/concerns included:
Favorably impressed with the system and process. Commended
the exemplary planning and the amount of public participation
solicited and incorporated.
. Project presents an unusual opportunity to oonserve open space
in a planned manner; has the potential for more good than any
other development in history or can do damage if not done
properly; great opportunity to decide the community character;
No. 4
6/16/93
ACG
Page 5 of 8 Pages
Pleased by the housing balance: look at housing in regard to
area transportation needs: need housing to attract businesses:
. Projeot is likely to damage resources and habitat;
Encouraged a higher density in areas that will support transit
rail.
Most important are the economic impacts to the County and
region: the south region is out of balance, has more
industrial than needed: needs commercial, office space and
housing; will need a pool of workers to draw from in the
region; will result in 46,000 much-needed jobs: helps to
encourage manufacturing:
. Impressed by conclusions of the service and Revenue Plan, that
it will generate sizeable tax surpluses;
. Excited about the village conoept, resort, and golf course:
area will be pedestrian friendly and less dependent;
. Impressed by sensitive land planning to preserve 62 percent of
the Otay Ranch property.
. Revenues of $180 million over a 30-year buildout period will
benefit the county and city.
. Concern that restrictions placed on the project will make it
financially infeasible and the developer will back out:
. Traffic concerns in terms of threshold standards.
The following people addressed the Board/council in opposition,
generally, to the project:
John Hammond, Chair, Sweetwater Community Planning Group: George
Kost, Sweetwater Valley civic Assooiation: and Dan silver,
Coordinator, Endangered Habitat League, submitted article entitled,
Planning Guidelines for Protecting wildlife in Fragmenting Systems,
Board of supervisors' Document NO. 756054.
Their various remarks/concerns included:
. Recognize the traffic impact is significant and unmitigable.
Concern about loss of Otay Lake as a resource: it will not be
available for people to enj oy: no buffer zone is being
provided: projeot will close the lake, psychologically, to
people who want to fish:
No. 4
6/16/93
ACG
Page 6 of 8 Pages
.
~ ;\
;!!!
.
.
COhcern that they will build but will want to work elsewhere;
.
Industrial jobs Will not be there;
Disappointed plan was not done better;
.
Concern with health and general welfare;
.
Transportation issues: COncerned with effect on Bonita and
Chula vista; every road will be widened because of the
building that will occur; extensive paving will wreck parks;
main concern is that State Route 125 will be 10 lanes; Highway
125 should be east of the Sweetwater Reservoir,iwith no turns
into Bonita; not certain mass transit will obtain fUnding;
.
Concern for
areas 'Ind
incompatible
the gnatcatcher; first, identify core habitat
their connections; staff recommendation is
with reserve goals;
This is an opportunity to establish a model that integrates
conservation and development;
.
Hold taxpayer costs to a minimum;
Design desired features around biology and not in conflict
with them; fragmentation does not work; are there other areas
where it is possible to build estate homes, i.e., north of the
lake which have southern views of the lake; estate homas
cannot bo build south or east of the lake;
AnalysiN of fiscal issues will be required.
Article by Professor Soule, Board of Supervisors' Document No.
756054, outlines elements of design, in simple terms, of what
is needed to gain maximum certainty of success; have applied
five principles to this project.
Supervisor Bilbray said his major concern was lack of appropriate
phasing-in, which neads to be integrated with the proposed
circulation. Councilmember Rindone stated that each phase should
be balanced.
Supervisor ,lacob asked tor the estimated amount of revenue from
property taxes. Mr. Lettieri replied approximately $180 million.
Supervisor Jacob stated that was an issue because of the state
currently taki ng a sizeable amount of property tax revenue and
Shifting it to schools. She stated that it is significant to this
development and the region, and urged people to immediately
communicate to the legislature opposition to this tax Shift, in
order to pr~s~rve the monies for future development of this region.
No. 4
6/16/9:3
ACG
Page 7 of 8 Paqos
r--'-- .
1
.
\
\
<!
,
On bahalf of the Board and Council, chairman Rindone expressed
appreoiation to the commissions., groups, and individual citizens
for their input.
Daniel Tarr I Valley de oro planning Group, presented a document
outlining eight issues of concern that impact the area, Board of
supervisors' Documont No. 756056.
councilmember Rindone acknowledged that the Endangered Habitat
League will speak at the July 12 meeting.
Chairman Rindone noted that persons who submitted slips and were
not allowed to speak today because of time constraints will be
called on first to speak at the next meeting.
ACTION:
Evidence being on file that due and proper notice of the hearing
had been given as required by law; there being no motion and no
objection, the Board heard the presentations; and continued the
public hearing to June 30, 1993, 3:00 p.m., Chula vista council
Chambers.
~ state of california)
county of San Diego) 5S
:1
the foregoing is a full, true and correct
entered in the Minutes of the Board of
ARLINE S. HULTSCH
Assistant clerk of the Board of supervisors
By aua~l77-t~ ~
Adair Gomez, De uty
....J
I
I
No. 4
6/16/93
ACG
Page 8 of 8 Pages
/'
OTAY RANCH
LIST OF SPEAKERS TO BE HEARD ON 6/30/93: NOT HEARD ON 6/16/93:
JIM CARTMILL
_MARGARET GILPIN
_-ALFRED HlLAWATSCH
EUGENE J. SPROFERA
-"~MELVIN ROBERTS
BARBARA GI~ ( h~}ftJ )
-----r1ARVIN H. FINCH ~~ r
_"__--a'OSE R. DORIA
KAY DENNISON
KATH ANN J. FETTERS
DAYLE MICHELSON
BOBBIE MORRIS
DOUGLAS G. FULLER
DAVID WARD
THOMAS V. DAVIES
PAM SMITH
MARK MARCHAND
TOM SPINDLER
PATTY DAVIS
SUSAN A. HERNEY
MICKIE BEYER
ROD DAVIS
JAMES MAYBERRY
JOHN M. DORSO
I: \WP51\GLOBAL\OTAY.SPE
',< -
~
u
~
go ~
& ~
.( ~
~ ~ 0
..... 'i;!
.-0 ~
~ ~
e ~
o Q"
U
e
o
CI)
"t:S
CI)
-
ta
>
..
QJ
~
rLl.
QJ
=
rLl.
rLl.
~
-
Q
.,..
=
~
.
o
00 ~
~ .s
"'0
'S ~
o f;l;;:l
U ~
<
1:$ >
CI) I-(
e ;:;J
CI) 01
> ~
o ~
~ 0 00
"'0 Z ~
a a :::s
_ 0
-:: ~ 00
+::s CI)
.~ +J ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ == e
o :?J ~ ~
o r;.... ....-4 Cd
~ ~ - =
~ 0:9 Cd
~ ~ ~ ~.
00 f;l;;:l~ CI)
< 0 0 ~
f;l;;:l ~ 00 :::s
~ = 00 0
u Cd 0 ~
~ a:: ~ ~
00
CI)
>
.~
+J
Co)
CI)
>c .~
~ .J::J
I-( 0
00
Z .Qd
f;l;;:l 00
~ -
Z Cd
~ 0
= d
.~
=
~
o
00
+J
.~
~
o
o
\I')
.s
-
e
.a
-
:::s
Co)
'i::
bI)
<(
~
o
00
00
o
~
~
CI)
:::s
bI)
. ...-4
~
=
Cd
(/)
~
_ CI)
e .~
1:$ ~
o ~
Co) .B
Cd
t
CI)
CI)
~
(/)('d
~~
Z
o~
I-(.~
~::a
<-
~.~
z~
~=
~~
~~
~
-
Cd
=
o
.~
+J
Co)
.~
"'t:)
00
'i::
:::s
. ....,
f;l;;:l
~
<
I-(
~
o
~
<
Z
~
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
~~~~~~~
CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI)
:::s :::s :::s :::s :::s :::s :::s
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
.~ 00 00 00 00 00 00
1-01 1-01 1-01 1-01 1-01 1-01 1-01
.~
,/.
'-.-/
~~~~
rl-l N f;l;;:l f;l;;:l
",,",I-(~~
Cd~~~+J
=Z;:;EOO0-4
OOOf;l;;:lCl)
5E:~~g
.~ u ~ 0
.~ < S u
~~o(Sz ~
~o(S s CI)~
,9 .~;> ~
'--' < .~ >
ooe>~ g.
.t;j ~ Z E .. 5
Cd<~CI)e8'
.J::J ~ 00'::: ~
Cdf;l;;:l~Cdooii:
~Q.oazf
f;l;;:lOOCd_O~
~~a~E:()
<~ -~o
;:;J ~ Qd ~ :?J ~
gas~~~
~ +J Cd rl-l 00
<="'0"""'<
~ ~ J~ 0= f;l;;:l
00 0 c+:: 00
....-4 0-4 e :::s ~
e=]~8~
~ I I I I
. .
00
=I:t:
CI)
:::s
00
00
1-01
/.-
,/? -
'-----
CI)
~ r;I)
~
Q ~
=
> = "'0
= Q,)
~ ... ~
= ~
~ ~
00. Z r;I)
Z = :5
> ~
~ =
..c=- ~ ~ r;I)
~ ~.o
.....= ~ Q ~ Q) +-l
Z ... 00. < =:
CI)~ ~r;I) 0
~ . CI) $..! Z
Z ~~ ~ ~.~ ~ - ~
-e t:::5 ~ e ~ g
~
~ ~e > ~ <
z ~
~bO <!l
~ ~O ~ ~ ~ .g
00. ... ~ =: .5 Q .8 c:
Iii
< ~ Z ~= ii:
= Q
~ "'0- ~ ~~ Z . ,..-4 ~
-= ~ :>
=: <~ =: E
=e ~ >Q ~ 8
U 0." 00. ~~ ~ =: ()
z ~.5 < ~-= ~ 0
0 0
~ =e ~ ~Q,) ~- G>
Z,,; ~ ~ 't:l
=: e j!
00. = 00. ~ 1il
~.~ >
~ -..c= U ~=
~..... z =:& O~ ~ ~
0 ...
~~ . . =:~ 0 ~
~ bO ~ Z~
..... = ~+ 0
= ~ ~ o .,;:l z
=: = 0 Uo .,..-4
0 Q,) 0 ~ r;I) 0 ~
0 Q,) 0 ~=
Z U r;I) lr') ~ 0" uQ,) ~
00.
~ r;I) 0 OCf") ~r/.) Z ~
..... . ,..-4 +-l Z~ >
= -= ~B ~
~ 0.5 ~
~ ~ r;I)"'O ~ ~
$..! 0 ~<
$..! 0 0 =: ~ ~
. ....
= - Cf") ::> ~ ~ Q
~
U ~ . . . .
.
rJ1
~
>
=E:
uu
z~
<~
~o
~~
~rJ1
O~
<
o
C-'
==
t::...:I
~~
.. ffi ~
~ Eo-- Eo--
~ Vl Z
Eo-- - ~
U Vl U
< ~ <
~ u a
~ Vl <
U ffi ~
~ Eo-- Eo--
_ Eo-- ~
Z < 0
::> ~ ~
~ ffi~
U f ~
_tV 0 Eo--
~ ...:1-
o ~ ~~.
~ ~ ~ ~
::> ~o~
~ SU ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~
o Q)~~
Q) . :: ::r: Ou
CI:l ...... Eo--
~ g
~~
jO
.
~o
~~
Eo--~
5<
, Eo-- .
~o ~
::>~E=
~~o(
~Z~
OO~
~t;iVl
~~Z
.. E: ~ 0
~ ~~<~
. ~:: ~
C'I) 0 0(
~ ~ Eo-- ~
~ ~ ~ ~
0( ;:Ja~
~ Vl~a
-- ~ == ~
; 0( u ~
"; 5 ~ ~
c3 ~~o(
= 0( ~~
.9 ~5
~ ~e:3t>
~ ::> e:1 ~
~ VlEo--O
5&j~8:
U
.
~~
i5Vl
.~o
~8
~~
VlO
Z~
.. 0==
~ ~~
Vl 5~fIi
G;. ~g ~o(
Z -Eo--
o ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~
Eo-- U ~ t::
~ _~Vl
~ ~z Z
Vl ~o~
~ ~~ ~
E-t ~~~
__ s~ Eo--
; ~a~
,,;~f2~
o ..~o
O~ae=
= Q)~>
.g .~ ~ ~
= ~
- "'"
::s .~
.~ ~
U
.
~~
."-
~
<'!i
.~
j
~
'E
'"
E
6
(.)
8
~
!R
~
.~
~
,:Q
~ ::J
~
0
m
m
~
rJ'l m
~
~ ~
~ m ~
U < <
~
~ m
~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 -
~ ~ ~
~ ~
c:
= ~ j
0 ~
u u
c:
Z ~ ::>
m E
-< ~ g
0 (,)
~ ~ 0
0 0
~ CD
. . 't:l
~ . . ~ Cf"') ~ CD
l.r') . 'ii
-< . Z ~ >
-< ~ .
~ ~
0 e 0 e ~~
~ Q,) >m
Q.) ~ O~
~ ~
~
Q,) ~ = ~fa
u ~ 0
. ...c
-~ ~ ~>
~ . ea
V) ~ ::<~
-~ ~~
= m< Q.) ~m
r.f.)
~ ~e; = ~~
0
0 U
. .
C"
.._~
~ ~
z
-
-< ~
=
~ 0
~ .~
e
0
=- Q
~
~
~ ~ Nt/)
t/)
-< ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ 5::: ~;::=
~ ~ <.g ~
== -< 19 Z.~
-< <~ C!l
== U .~ .~
~ ~ - c:
~ E-ia,) lii
~ ::z:: ~
0 O~ -Q O~ c:
~5 Z~ "
~~ ~
rJ'l OS .9~ a,) ~
u
rJ'l ;~ ~Z bO.~ S
0 ~ > ~
~ - ~~ rna,) G>
t/) a,) ~.~ ";;~ ~
~ >
13.g U~ +ole.>
t/).~
U~ ~4-i
t+::~ O.~
.~ 0 z=- u+ol
5
d~ "t:)~
a,) ,"t:) C+-; . ~
"t:)a,) =~ o e.>
.~ = ~ "' rn
"'
t/) = ~~ ~~
~ ~ uO
eQ..
rnz
< ~ ~::s
'"
. '"
.
.
"
a.>
-5
~
. ....
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ U
00- ~ ~ -< ~
~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ 0
~ Z
~ ~ ~
;:J ~ ;:J ~ 0
~ 0 00- 0 U
00- ~ Z
=~ U ~ ;:J U Z
Z Z ~
Uo ~ ~ c:: ~ ~
z~ ~ 0 ~
~ 0 ~ E
<~ 0 tf.) 8
~~ Z ~ a.> ~ ()
tI.) Z c::
t":S 0
>~ -< ~ a.> 0
;:J ~ a.> e -8
<0 ~ eoo- ; .9!
00- :::s 'iii
~U ~ Z t":SZ 0 >
tf.) 0
o~ ~ ;:J sgo c:: ~
0
~ < e o~ . .... 1
~ .~ 00- ~
~ ~ t":S ~;:J ~
~ ~ tf.) ~~ c:: -
~ c:: a.>~ ~
~ 0 eU e g
~ . .-l '0
~ tI.) eZ e.~
tf.) :::s a.>
a.> - 00 o e .~
. .... 0 o~ J:
~ c:: Ou
E 0 ~ ~
tI) u .
.
. .
.
-
<:
00
...
~ ...
~
;S ...- eo
00 =
0 . .... Q
> . ....
Z U ...-
~o ~ 00 Q)
< ~ . .... .s
0 -= ~ lI<
~ ;S ;S Q) ~
-- ..c::o
~ -- < = 0
..... uu
= ~ . ....
.r-..
~ c::IJ ~ ~ "'t:S Q)
Z - c2c2 ~ Q) u
~ 00 c.;:: a
=~ ~ Q) Q) . .... . .... ~
... = = t:l.4 = ~
= 0
u:?J Q) ~
o 0 ~ Q) C)
l:r E;
z~ I I "'t:S
c::IJ . .... "2
<:
<~ 00 0 .s!
U D..
- ~ Q) ~
~< ~ "t:S Ja ~ "'t:SQ
<:
Z = ::>
c::IJ ;S a~ E
~< 0 00 00 s
. .... 0
... 0 00 Q) ::-Z u
<:?J ..... 00 0
CJ Q.. ~ ~ j::
~ = 0 - =- CD
~ ~~ Q)~ 'tl
0 ~ cE .. ~ CD
Q.. e~ 'iii
u ". ~J: >
". ~Q
~ 00 Q) ZQ)
c::IJ ~ ~ ~z
;;;;J -= ~ ;S O..c:: a;;;;J
0 ..... 0 00"'-
00 ...-= ~.~
CI"l ..... ~ u.....
~ 0 c::IJ .B"'t:S .~ Q)
~ = ..... ~ e a ..c::j::
00 ~ 0 ~ Q)
..... 0 .. - ~.s Q) 00
~~ ~ Q) t:l.4~ = ~
Q.. ~ ~"'t:S ~t:l.4
c::IJ
CI"l ~ 0
. . . . .
<'.
.
r.I':l
~ ~
0 ~
-
r.I':l ~ =
r.I':l
0 00
00 - ~r.I':l
bO~
~ ~ I:: -
U ..= . ...c
.... --
~ ea~
~ =..- u_
0 ~ =. v.l =
r.I':l(l) (I)'::
00 r.I':l e 'u =
~ ~~ . ...c ~ g
~..9 -.- 0
~ 0_ ~
Cl
-(I) ~e!l .~
~ ::s > (I)~ c
o (I) c
~ III
-< U~ ii:
~ e!l !
~bO ..= =~. ::l
~ ~.E ..= .- Z E
g
.- ..-..=~
~ ....(1) Or.l':l ()
~ ~..- ~.== 0
= v.l
~ Gl
_ ::s 8.e~ 't:l
~- Gl
U ....u ~
~ -~ ~:a~
~ -<~
'-' =~ ~c..o
.-< ~....c ]Oz
_0
~ ~v.l t':S=....
-
0 -e o.s 0
~.a =~ =
00 -- ::S~c..
00 ~ ::s o....~
= u U 0 I
0 ~.i:: (1)-
~ '-'00 ..=Q..
t':S
< ~
.
.
(
~ =
~ ~ ~
-
0 ~ ~
u -
=: -< e
~ Q)
z ~ = a
'fJ'J. Q)
0 ~ 0 =
u > C 0
= .
~ -< ~
::s u
-< ~ 0 =
z ~ u Q)
Q) 0()
0 = .s < e
~ U "'0 ~
~ Q ~ c::
U ~ Z Q) j
~ 0 ~ D..
Q ~ ~ ~
~Q) :a ::>
'fJ'J. E
~ Qu -< = 8
=: u
~~ ~ 0
~
'fJ'J.::s ~ 0 !
~~ 0 z oS!
~= 'ia
~ Z >
o~ "'0
~ Z -
-< ~o -< ::s<
~. ~ e u ]~
=: .~ Q) r./)O
8~
~ ~~ s s~
0 r./) r./) r./)
"'Or./) . .....t ......t ~
=: > >c.S
=~
~ ~......t ~ ~~
~ <"'0 -
-< ~a .E .E~
z 0 u u
~ . .
.
';---
=
0 Q
....-4 ~
rI:J.
....-4 N ~
~ ~ ~ Q
~...... ~ ~ ~
~= < ~ ~
'- ~ Z ~ Z ~
~e 0 ~ ~ ~
~ 00 <U
~ 0 g
rI:J.~ U U ~
~ 0
. ...-4 = < Z u
~
rI:J.~ ~ ~ <U
=e ~
~ ~ ~
~< 0 - .
~ -
. ...-I
Q Z >
== ~
Q ~ <U . .
~= ~ < > e
....-1
E-4~ ~ > ~
~ c
:>
<~ < Z ~ rI:J. E
g
~ ~ Z t)
0
~e ~ tI) - 0 0
Q <U <: ~ -8
~ tI) = ~ .m
.~ ~
~= tI) ~ ~
<U ~ s:: S
tI) =
~~ .Q ~ -
<~ ~ ~ t
a 00
~ = 00
z= -= 0 <
"'0
~= ~ u .0 ~
rl:J.O 0 ~ = 00
....-4 ~ C+-i =' ~
~
~ 0 <
~ ~ u ~
~ . . .
.
~
j
/
Q
~
N
.....
~
< 00
Z :s
0 e
..... C1)
E-i e
U :s
< ~ =
~ 1-c
o~ c.S
~ 00
'" 5
'" tlj
~ t ~ e
0 e C)
00 ~ .g
e ~ 00 c:
Q C1) ~ c:
00 .!!!
'" > Il..
~ '" ~ ~
o~
~ C1) ...- rI) N
.s S 00 ::>
tlj g
< o~ = ~ ..c: 00
-= 0 C1)
~ = 0...-04 ~ ~ ()
o~ rI) 0
0 bO tlj 00 = 0
~ tlj = :s 00 ~ - tlj :s CIl
tlj 0 '0
Q ~ o~ Oo~ > CIl
8: ot: 00 00 'a
C+-tto) o~ e e 00
~ ~ >
rI:J tlj o C1) C1)
~ .s e ...-~ tt= tlj ~ - 00
~ =rI) ::g tlj ~
0 to) -
.8 = C1) C1) = ~ o~ tlj
- 00 bO =
~ o~ e >
rI) t'd ~ :s to) 0 <
= - ~o,= 0
~ o~ -
< - oo~ "E bO 0
tlj ~ _00 = 0 C1) to)
o~ C1) = ~
to) 0 tlj tlj - ..c:
..... C1) > C1) ..e N 0 ~ (.j...j
= ~ 0 C1)rI) t'd C1) ~
~ - ~ ~ tI: ~ <
rI) ~
.....
"'" . . . . . . . .
8
e
.....
...
JI
..
.
~
en
Z
o
-
Sz
=<
-..l
ala.
i~
c~
("Ial
("It:l
r:0
,",:I:
<llo
",0::':'
-~-
w:>~
~..lCll
<Z<
ZO~
<tiZ
("I\Il<
r:....l
,",Ollo
<alZ
alllo~
I-CO
alZI-
i:j<~
=en\ll
("I\IlZ
z::tiil
<~>
alO-
>>!:;
<~z
Sill!:!
::t!:j
t:l<
I:lti
'"'101
0..
~~
CIlIlo
ii20
<Z
Ilo
:&
o
("I
.
.
1
-
=
..
<
..
.
i:
.
I
I-
,
..
Z
~'i. !
=-.s.--
.. t- ..;;
~~.; eo!!
E..l:~;
0.---
u.U 0
~I~~{~!\~aa~~~
~I ~ ~ n~ H~
-- - - - "--'
.
.
!i
-.a
1:;
'l:e
Ilo::
..
o
U
..
.!:'E
-"
.'0
=;.
..
..
=.
..
E.
..-
=g:
<_
-'Ill
I: "
'Q'
.. "
Ilo<
o
Z
".
E .. E I
aA .au
e . O.
_-=>:I'J
. .. t-C
:=0= "'-
...-
~
:: d
llz
""
I"""""""""" "
# ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~
..
E
"
'0
;.
C; S ,., ~ ~
.,.. - ~ ." -
Pi' ,.,;
: ::t ~ ~ ~ ~
. .. ~ - ."
. f"II 011
-
ell
:1
<
III < ... Z
1II "" 1II <C <C <C <C
~
~
~ ! ~ ~ i ~ ~
~;N_N...'-'...
"'" .. "'" - ....'
8 ;; 8
~ ~ "'l <
_ 0 '" z
... - ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~
; ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.~i .~
Q: :E Q:
.5 .5 .5
... ~ '"
i. j
. '0
:E u
.5 .5
. .. .. .. ...
...
.
.
-
-
l i
..: IIIiI IIC
~ IOl IOl
.5 .5 .5
~ '" '"
j j j
~ ~ ~
.5 .5 .5
o
I-
o
...
"'
~ 1
'7l a;
;. .
! c; ~ 15 19 ] ~
"' "' 1 ~
lit lilt . . .., ~
~ ; i .!
~ .! !
;; ]- J
'" ell '"
c; .5
'"
'" '"
.5
~ .5 ;:!
...
... I 1
'" '"
! ~ !
I
..
""
15 15
"ii 1
e li
1II W
. .
a a ;.
"' '" '"
'" '" '"
1 'i
... -= u
:- -a i a. .! :
':~!igi!5i
!i1~11i~:f
.!~lllw!!:
t
..
'lI i :l; :l;
~ ~ i ~
1 J "' ";
.. J M
N "'" ... ." . ~ - 011 ~ =
I
.:;;
- ::I
'2 ...
. .S
1 .!:'
'" Ii
i -I
i :
..
'" .;
o o.
ff' ...
i5 1
~ :i
-
o
...
~
ii
J
.
;,;
~
...
.S
'3
s
"5
~
Ii 1I i
._ v
">5
v_
"'''']
0__
...."
.!I.~ II
c Ji ..
~_ v
.. 0 ~
"'v'"
~il
.5" J
-5-\1
.- Cll!.
. < !!.
Wc ~
o.~l
e-",
"!! l;'
;=~
1&..."
ll.w ~
-... lS
i ..-
!5"l!"II
viS
!l ;-
1~:i
-"8 II
'0 E 1I
- II 1:-
.! JI ~
III ;;
._~
t! foI
._ U 'a
;;~.;
G il
_ 0
<01
i. ~ l!
2~ -
~'lI-
0;' .~
zll
~ ..~
i.ll-
--
. 0
i> "II
- .. t:
IloS11
~ Il. ~ v
0'" 1I:zl
~ ..: uS
v > _
. ;; .."
u~"':I
Z i Si
~ ~ 1I "
-'" ~ .
0'" IS Q
..0_-=
jBti
~-<o.a
h~~
ai:2~
~.~~ ..
. I v ~
- >.~
Jl -.
!l ...-;
IiU . "
.=~'l! a
~ ..J! .s
~ ft V
...- .. ::I
.5 "3 .n il
~ :i ~ .K
.5
$
\I
-
lS
.
~
:I
i
l
=
~
.i
g
...
2
...
!
;
.
i
i:
~
~
.
v
Z
~
!
I
v
>
~
-
o
v
~.
i!..~
~ .
.21
.
.
.
.
.
I 24 \'
!
?
is ~
) ,-
e
e
.. ,
=
. :::
- -
" ".,
- W
II ::: Q
'" , tI ltGI . . ~
.:: e
" ,
\! - 1'1: Ul zc .,
II = II
!! I!,U I " .=
.. ::: :::
....
tl_'I", - :::
=\1 "
, I, ~
~"
. "
." t,
.
-
"
.~
....
"
... -
..."'Cl
'"
., - ~
-'" - <=>
'" C:> .~ CI <=>
""I: <=>
0 '- -- ~
0 C:> '" o~
... u '"
"'Cl ... ... ~
~o.
.,'- .... Ox ~
~ u
-'- - ell ... E
.., ... '- '" '- "'u ..
- 0 0 0 '" 0
'" "
.,.U -.... ""..... ...
'"
~~
~ .
_0
,.
<-
<=>
'"
.......
0'"
0-""
......,.
u>c'"
;;;;:;a==
0""
..",...
.."'0
"'<""
~
...
...
...
C>
"'-
..
~
rI'l
~
u
<
~
~
~
u
.~
~
~
-<
~
~
~
o
rI'l
~
rI'l
~.
~
-<
z
-<
~
~
~
~rI'l oO)==~ en ~~QrI'l
~ ~= = -5 B ~.~ ~ Z Z ~
""",.~ = ~ "'" ~ .........
= ~ .e ~ C::S';j ~; ~ V)
rI'l 0) ~ ~ en t) .5 ;;J rI'l
rI'l ~ u "'0 0 e c::s _ Q rI'l ~ ...
O = 0) u ~ 0) ~ ....
-<='>~ e> ~~Q
~ ~ e c::s as. ~ ~ joIioi rI'l ~
~ rI'l 0 ~ ~.> ~ ~ a.i 0 ~ ~
~~ ~ ~3 t:';j ~ et::=-<
~ ~ =' 0) ~ ~ a .~';: ~ ~ ~
~ c::s~ OU~ ~
joIioi Q u c::s ~ ~ ~ en ...~
< Q ] B 0) ~'~ <E ~ rI'l ~
-< d~ 0 ~-5~Zz~
rI'l $:;j 0) ';j = ~ ~ -<
~Q~ ~~ e 0) C::SZ~Q
U Z Z ~-..c: ~ &"'0 Z ~ Z
-< ~ en I ~ = 0) 0)<
~.-<~~~ "'en ~~.,~-<
,.... ~ 0) en 0 en t-c '.Jj """'" ~
~ ""-' ~ 0) ~'~ 0 = ~ ~ Q
~ lIl"""' b - ~ u 0) rI'l r~'"
~ ~ 0 en:-::= =""' "'0 ,....
~ . .., :> 0) 0 c::s'~ ~ ~
~ ~ """'" .B ... ~ '.Jj e ~Z ~ ~
r~'" Z ~ c::s 0)'" Q),.:g c::s - ~ 0 ~
,....~>e_~='~O) ~
> Q ~ '.Jj ~] ~ u ~ ;;J Z Z
~~Q"3 e ~'u'g,&oo-<
~ ~- eC1)~"""",;;J
~ ~ ~] 0):-::= ~ ~ "'0 rI'l ~ !""OW
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ .g, C1) c::s == -< ~
~~ B ~ 8-5];;J~~
~;;J ~ ~ ~ C'-. ..c: rI'l < ==
o~~,s ,~~ ~o~~z
~o-<~d:-::=O)oa=::9~
~ ~- C1) u..c:J3 c::s joIioi~
~ ~rI'l e ~~f--4 ~ u~~u
Co
~
o
~
<!l
~
'2
j
0..
~
<::
~
E
8
u
o
CI)
'C
CI)
=
as
>
00
~
='
~
00
-<
~
~
.z
o
~
~
-<
~
~
~
~
~
u
~
~.
~
-<
='
~
='
~
~
~'O-=B~
~(1)~~
<: ~ t:= . t:: "'"
~ e ::s ~U
~.~ u e 0
~ u (1) 8:~
uS-5~(1)
~eo -5
~~ 0
C+-l ~
o CI.:l=~
u'O (1) (1)
=~~eu
Or..... ~ .~
.~ = e e i::
S u.~ 8 ~
=~_ (1)
e(1)~~~~.
~.~ ~
r" ~ ....
(1)""~ = -
- I (1)~~
a~ 0 a &
.... ~ ~ ~
_ 00 (1) 0.0
\oJ! ~ .~
;~~~~
ceO =
-= ~.~ ! 's
(1) .... -= (1) =
e (1) (1) =.~
~u~ ~
o ~.~ e
- =
~=.so.s~
~.~ 5'~ 5~
(1) (1)'~ o'~ ~
~ 0.0::S ~ 0.0 r"
~ ~ _ ~.~ rJ)
.= ~ """'~....
:.~ > e 'e~ ,....
::: >(1)~ rJ)
~
Cl
,
j
Q.
f
E
g
u
S
-8
.9!
iil
>
c::
0
.~
"'C ~
~ t)1)
.~
~ +-
.~ .~
;;> (.) e
0
l-I ~ ~
~ ~ cE
~ (/)
< ~ "'C "'C~
Z +- ~
(.) c:: _U
=: ~ ~ ~ =<
~ ~ l-I ~ o~
+-
~ ~ .~ (/) ~::s
.~ l-I c::~
~ Q - ~ =u Q)......
~ >
< ~ c:: l-I ~~ .~~
~ 0 Vl ~~ ~
Z .~ Z
Z t)1) ..EO .g
< e= 0 ,BU c::
~ (.)(/) c::
~ .!!l
~ :a~ <e; Q.
Vl t)1)Q) ~
~ ~ .El e Vl c::
~ c::Z ::>
=: "'C"'C O~ E
~ c:: c:: =: ~O ~
< ~ SQ) (.)Z ~...... ~
~ e Q ~< -(/)
=: ~ ~
Q)< l-I .~~ e~
~ 0 o~ ~~ .Sl
"'Cc:: Q)(/) ~
z z c:: ~ ;;>~ 50 c::o
~ =- o~
~~ ::~ +-~
~ cEta <~ ~~
_ ..-4
. .-4 ~~
~ Vla> ~ta c::~
~ l-IC:: ~ c:: 5:&S <z
z VlQ) Q) 0 ~......
<0 ~.~ -~
~ ot)1) c:~
~-5 'Q)e eo
0 Q)~
. .-4 >f+.< o~
U O~ ~~
Q) 0 ::J
z ~ 0
. . . .
.
t
~
u
z
o
u
~
~
-<
~
~
~
>
..s:=
~
e
~
~
=
eo
......
V:J
cu
~
:::
~
~
(/)
..
..
V:J
d
'\j
~
S
~
.
V:J
....
U
d
~
. .....
<+-4
o
-
CU
~
-
eo
=
. .....
u
.g
~
~
tS
V:J
. .....
V:J
to::!
.,D
V:J
d
=a
CU
~
CU
~
~
'\j
CU
V:J
~
.
....
=
CU
e
cC~
......-
....cu
~ >
.~ CU
O'\j
....:::
o =
~~
~~
CU ~
~Z
0..
(".l"
'\j0
CU~
V:J......
::s~
5:=
~~
UO
(/)..s:=
u
CU =
~~
(/)
.
~
.,D
'\j
~
d
B
u
=
::s
~
-
~
...
.....
=
~
"C
...
fI.l V:J
~ ~
~=
= cu
~u
"Q";
a,.......
~~
cu
~e
.5 e
_0
~ u
~-
a,.-
Q..d
oo~
~
~
(/)
~
I
~~
0......
~&
~~
~.9 Q
-< = ~
U d~ Z
~-
~~ .~
o e .~
~cu~~
~ 5 ~~
;o~~
~"; ~
V:J...... ~ ~
...... eo::S
....=~~
frd=o
u~''''''Z
= >,. V:J
o c+-;- cu
u...... uOO
.... ...... c:......
":fit:=:
~ ~ cu r~"
U (/)~
z.9=u
~'\jdZ
~~ilO
~::s::>u
~
~
~
o
I
. 8
o
(!j
.g
c:
lii
~
. c:
::>
E
6
u
o
~
Q)
~
tI:l tI:l
~ ~ b()
0 I::
- .-
- ~ ~
~ 0 -
> .-
~ ~ =
~ 0 .,!:J
-
t) ~ 0 0
> t =
e 01
.. z ~ ~ ~ ~
E-4 B ~~ 0 .,!:J
0 ~ 0 ~ - = tI:l
Z ~ ~ 0 00
rJ'j .- ~~ .;3 ~tI:l
~ rJ'j = tI:l
~ Q ~ E-O ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ <= 0 u,,;
>~ - ~ 5
~ Q .~ - tI:l ~=
~ ~> ~ ~ e
Z Q > o 0 Cl
0 =:~ 0 .~
~ ~ ~ ~ cld ~ 8 c:
u ~t) u= c:
E- o as
Q ~~ ~ ~O ii:
~ ~ Z 0 ~ ~.= ~
~ ~ =' '"
z ~ ~ V)~ E
<0 0 8
< ~ E- tI:l =0 0
Z E-.-.. ~ ~~ = E- .~ b
~Q .- ~.:J
Z o~ ~ z G)
~ t =.- 'Q
< ZO =:~ o ~ G)
Q ~ 0 ~ 'ill
~ E-~ tI:l ~ e~ >
00 ~I:: ~u ~
~ =.- 00 ~~
o e ~~ ~
< Z~ ........ ai=
~ e;.::: ~Z 0 0
~ ~o o~ ~Z ~ ~ >~
.gE-
0 o~ .~~ 00 ~
-- 0 ~<
Q 0 ~u 0 >
~ 0 t::.- ~~
< > o tI:l ~E- ~ ~ .~~
~~ tI:l~ -
0 Q
- ~O
=;.:: ~ = ~O 01)
~> o ~ 0 0 .-u
.C '-' ~rI) ;.::z =
0 ~ Z Z ~
~ V)
. . . .
. .
0.
='
o
(5
e.o
=
.~
-
~
>.
.....
.-
=
~
e
o
u
e
o
Q)
"0
Q)
-
-
~
>
~
u
Z
<
~
~
<
E-1
o
t':S
00
t':S
o
~
&.J
.g=
t':S0
.s .g
"'t:)=
c:: 0
t':Se
~<
0=
-t':S
0-.-
e~
0-
to> ~
.5 0
ooC::
...... 0
~O
~13
00
~&
~e
t':S0-.
-So
o-S
=
...... ~
SeE
~.~
o 00
02
..
rr;
Z
o
,....
~
-<
~
Z
~
~
~
o
u
~
~
.
~
~
c:: r-
~ e
00
~...... 0
U V) ~
e c:: 0-
...... 0 0 ~ t':S
"'t:) U..d 0-. c::
_V)~oo
'oJ...... O..d......
~~~~~
t':S 0 4-1 ~
-= -S.~ 0 0
o "" ~ OO..s:::
e .......... U ~
:> 00......
"'t:)...= = ~ 00
= t':S ~.~ ~
oS ....t':S
e o.~ ~ .~
~ .::= ~ ~.~
'l.ct':St':S;..ce.J
= ~..d t':S U
t':S U ~ ..s::: "'t:).o
_0 r-Uc::S
~ .S ~ "'t:) t':S ~
"';;~^"C::oo~
~ O-.~ tlj 0 0
ot':S-oooo..s:::
c:: ~OOO~
o~oueo
o t':S c:: ~:g ~
"'t:) & r ~ 0 t':S..!2
O;..c'-'OO .0
~~~e~.fi
~.s-=- t::s
e ~ 6 ~ ~~
~ .fi U eO 0-. t':S
..dOOo
~ ~..d c:: ~ !l
~~~o..s:::u
c:: C::..d. == ~ t':S
o s.~ ~ "'t:) ~
o to> ~ 0 ~.5
.
N
g-
o
(!;
g
c
C
<Il
ii:
~
c:
::>
E
6
o
o
c5
CD
'0
CD
'iij
>
,
Q..
='
8
o
b()
=
....
~
-
~
>.
....
....
=
='
~
o
u
8
o
Q
'0
Q
-
ca
>
~
U
Z
<
~
~
<
~
o
~t) "0
.~ ~ ~
>o~t'd
eu~c::~
.~ a) S ~ .8
- > o~ u
.0 .,;: ~ c:: ~
~ t'de t'd.9 .s
~ "0 ~ ~
cE~~i::~
Qt'd ....Qt'd
'is Q c:: ~.~
"3 ~.9 0 e
~.o~UcE
. ~ t'd ~ CI.):':::
uQt::Q~
"0 ~ cE .u U
C::"'-~Q
t'd CI.).~ ~.8
Q.g CI.) rI) ...-
~ ::s ::s..!.t ~
~_ g.:= 0
Q,) u .... ::s CI.)
~c::~~~
~.~ 0 ~ .t=i
B]5.8~
~...-"O...-"O
Se=~8~
CI.) ~ Q.f! c::
>... ...- \0\1 t'd
1='ij ~~ ~
::s ::s e. ~ ...-
ot:ro~C::
UQ ....Q
"'-CI.)uou
U.oC::U~
Q,) ::s.~ ....
.!:: CI.) Q .s Q
'" ~c::~
~ t'd ...- . ~ ...-
..
rJJ
Z
o
~
~
-<
Q
Z
~
::E
::E
o
u
~
~
.
~
O\~
-
oo~"OQ
0\ Q,) c:: ~
...... ~ t'd ...-
...- 8 ~
CI.) ~ ~.~
~ e::= Q,)
::s.~.~ bO
~ .0 c::
~ CI.).~ t'd
~ t'd ~~
o~ 0 U
bO~ ~"O
C::C::CI.)Q,)
:.a::se~
c::OQ,)~
SU-5.8
~Q,)~~
Q,) ~ ...- CI.)
...... ~ CI.).~
IJ .~ ~
c:: . > ...-
~~t'd~
~Q,)-cE
ou::s
eo~~
~u....-c
::s ~ ~
"0 CI.) ~ .
C::.~ 0 Q,) c::
e -5 ~-5 ~
o ~.~ >...~
eo u c.+-t'-
. .-4 t'd
~]~~~
.88BBO
...- "0 >... CI.)
"0 Q,) Q,) +- '....
c:: ~ ~.C ~
.u .s bO 0 c::
~"O~.;i 6
~~.g;lu
~
~
(!:l
g>
Oc
fa
ii:
~
"
E
8
u
o
o
CD
'tl
..!!l
iil
>
.
~
John A. Willett
97 Montebello St.
Chula Vista, CA. 9191
Tel: 619-420-1607
;71~\'n
II I ..
Chula Vista / San Diego County Joint Planning Commission Members
Otay Ranch General Development Plan / Subregional Plan: Comments
I have been a member of the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Commission (7yrs),
Chair of both the Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee (3 yrs) and the
California Transportation SR-I25 Citizens Advisory Committee (1 yr).
I have been monitoring the efforts of the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force
since its inception, the "Otay Ranch New Town Plan" (10130/89), the Goals Objectives
and Polices (12/11/89) and the subsequent Otay Ranch General Development Plan for a
"Masterplanned Community". The development and refinement of nine on-site alternative
plans, each building on the "lesson's learned" of the previous plan is indicative of the
massive thought effort that has been put into the planning of this project.
I concur that planning the entire 23,000 acres will provide a more efficient
infrastructure, which will result in long term improvement of regional growth management
goals such as housing, jobs and transit. With respect to transit, I view with concern, that
density within the villages must be increased in order to support a light rail system
Ultimate success of this project requires development of an adequate transportation system
which does not impose hardships on existing communities which surround the planned
development.
I concur with the development of a comprehensive innovative "Resource Manage-
ment Plan" which will provide for large blocks of open space to be tied to other open
space systems through wildlife coorridors, creating means to restore degraded resources
that provide varied habitats that offer refuge, food and shelter to numerous species of
plants and animals, and permanent open space between communities.
I support the Otay Ranch Implementation Plan with respect to Parks and Recreation
Facilities Plan, its Goals, Objectives, Policies and Standards. I believe that this plan
provides for exceptional parks, recreation and open space which exceed the current
requirements of both the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. With respect
to development around the lakes area, I strongly encourage and support contour grading
to follow the topography, and encourage development of form and scale of structures to
blend into the natural area and to preserve view corridors from the Otay Lake and other
Natural Features. Further I recommend considering reducing the building along the south
and east side of the lake and provide for more general public access.
In closing, I recommend that the Joint Planning Commission Members adopt the
General Plan. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend both the
Interjurisdictional Task Force, the Joint Planning Commission Members and the Otay
Ranch Citizens Governing Committee on their efforts to ensure the viability of this project
no~y for today but for years to come.
.~,/'-, 0. ddhJL
John A. Willett 28 June 1993
Jon Diego Board of Supervisors
Brian Bilbray, Chairman;
City of Chula Vista
Tim Nader, ~ayor;
Joint ~eeting, at Chula
City of Chula Vista 276
June y, 1')')3
Vista; OtclJ I<ancl-] Frn,j0ct
Fourth Ave. Chula Vista Ca. 91910
This letter serves as a Public Out Cry on this large project.
During these past years, we the public,:'lad a say,after oany lone
hours of hearings . We state here that we were ignored by the force
that drove this project. Namely the Developer and the city of Chula
Vista.
j;'rom the beginning There was and today the DISPUT.i~ still arises that
the L~AD AGENCY, has not given us the PU3LIC a Fair evaulation of
our concerns with the size and complexity of this TAKE of the Public's
iUGHTS to plan what we want in this particular area of the COUNTY.
We the publiC of the UN-INCORPORATED AREA, have been in a no win
pos i tion with the City of Chula Vista as Lead AGENCY. The record
shows that there was many disagreements durine; discussions with the
words of the public and the COUNTY PLANNING COMIV:I.3SION, The record is
established , State laws governing California Environmental Qualiiy
Act has been breached oy manipulation and wrong doings. This letter
gives some of the concerns;
That the EIR on this project is challanged as not acceptable, NDW.
Many subjects have been vague in scope, and overlooked.
County of San Diego's, General l'lan
Facilities Element
Water shed Protection act
Resources Protection Act
And r~anagement
Avaailability of Sewerage
Beyound the Urban Limit Line
Wild Life Protection
There is no Trans~tation in this area to serve this large project.
--- At the last meeting it was mentioned that the project intensity
of housing was to coinside with the LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM. IT IS
stated here that this light rail transit system of the public in
other areas are to be the first priority, and this project should not
be on the premiss that this amount~of money of the PU~LIC is there
for this DEVELOPERS PROJECT!!!! !.The use of the public money was pre-
planned for this project , We had to put upfront monies for the LARGE
NateI' Lines to otay Reservoir, the extension of the High Pressure Gas
Line from the north. All of the SCK'ARIOS have been played at a cost
to us the PU~LIC!!!!! .While the E:nvlroTI'nental H8zards of thls prcject
Wlli cause t.he rublic HARM.
We hold the City and the County Responsible for this plan so far.
CE~A has not been satisfied ,under the LAWS.
.3incerly,
~ugene J. Sprofera, Legi31ative Analyst U5g0,
3311~;C-;;i~'~--
LaMesa, CA. 91941
Registered at San Diego
County
hR.. 1h~ Rhltc.
~
, ,
~1
OTAY RANCH NEW TOWN
A Summary of the Proposal and Public Review Process
Prepared By Baldwin Vista
January 1990
OTAY RANCH NEW TOWN
An Executive Summary of the Proposal and Public Review Process
Last October, ~'Umulating a review process started
in 1984, Baldwin Vista submitted the Otay Ranch New
Town proposal to the City of Chula Vista and the
County of San Diego for processing a General Plan
Amendment for the 23,297 acre Otay Ranch property.
The Otay Ranch New Town proposal is being
reviewed by the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task
Force which consists of leaders from the City of Chula
Vista, the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego
and community representatives. The Task Force was
established to provide a coordinated review of the
proposal and to better enable the public to be involved
in the process of creating the Otay Ranch New Town.
The Interjurisdictional Task Force has drafted a
"Vision Statement" by which to judge the Otay Ranch
New Town. The "visionft states, in part, the following:
. It is envisioned that the Otay Ranch Project will provide stature to the South
County area in the national and international communities. .... A mallnificent
array of communi amenities such as 0 n s e networks. trails bi 'cle h
recreationa P ,nrnvidl'd that is unsurpassed in Southern
a I ornia. Most imponantly, development will include new, unique, and evo-
lutionary techniques which can lead California. American and world commu-
nities into the 21st century. ... Otay Ranch. if developed in the manner laid out
above, will reap immense benefits for the South County. The opponunity is
there; we must meet the challenge. .
The Otay Ranch consists of three large parcels of
property surrounding the Otay Lakes in the southwest-
ern portion of San Diego County. The western edge of
the pmperty is located about 3.5 miles east of down-
town Chula Vista, and 14 miles southeast of down-
town San Diego. The international border is about one
mile south of the southern boundary of the project area.
With the exception of about 350 acres, the entire
property is in the unincorporated area of San Diego
County.
The western parcel (9,400 acres) is gently rolling
terrain. The northern parcel (8,300 a~Tes) contains the
relatively flat Proctor Valley area and the rugged
Jarnul Mountains. The eastern parcel (5,600 acres)
includes the San Y sidro Mountains and is more rugged
than the other two parcels.
The Otay Ranch New Town Plan proposes the
creation of a new community with residential villages,
resorts, a commercial and civic center, a research park,
a site for a new university, and two regional parks.
These varied uses are intended to be tied together
through a balanced transportation system which em-
phasizes alternatives to the automobile, including
bicycle paths, and bus and trolley systems.
If the Baldwin Vista recommendations are ap-
proved, 15 villages would be built throughout the
Ranch over a 50 year build out period, providing about
49,000 new homes, related service and employment
opportunities. Each village will offer housing within
walking distance to a village center and to public
services. Villages are planned to be woven together as
a cohesive whole.
As embodied by the village theme, the project is
anticipated to incorporate the most recent planning
principles. In particular, the villages will employ new
approaches in building and community design to cre-
ate a friendly, small town atmosphere and to end
excessive reliance on the automobile for local jour-
neys.
It is also envisioned that new technologies will be
considered for public transit, water conservation, water
reclamation, energy conservation and recycling. The
Otay Ranch New Town is proposed to be a demonstra-
tion project in these areas as well as through the
implementation of innovative strategies to protect,
preserve and enhance the environment. The corner-
stone of the resource protection program is the pro-
posal to set aside over 9,975 acres for active and
passive parks or as permanent open space.
RESlDE:'IiTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
All types of neighborhoods and homes will be
offered in Otay Ranch. Small efficiency apartments,
townhomes, retirement villages, and traditional single
family homes associated with America's small towns
will be provided, as well as large exclusive estates. It
is proposed that about 44% of the land be set aside fur
residential uses. As described below, a majority of the
new homes will be single family detached homes.
OTAYRANCHNEWTOWN
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
J.QIl,{ (L) 0-3 units per acre. This land use category represents about 5.178 single family detached
homes. Two homes per acre is targeted for this area.
LOW-MEDIUM (LM) 3-6 units per acre. This category is planned for about 21.096 single family
detached homes on 5.000-7.000 sq. It. lots. Four and one half homes per acre is targeted for this
area
MEDIUM (M) 6-11 units per acre. Homes in this category include detached dwellings such as patio
homes. and attached units such as lOWnhomes. About 14.208 homes are planned under this cate-
gory. Eight and one han homes per acre is targeted for this area.
MEDIUM HIGH (MH) 11-18 units per acre. Development allowed in this category includes about
4.970 multi-family townhouse and garden apartments. Thirteen and one half homes per acre is
targeted for this area.
J:ililli (H) 18-27 units per acre. This category represents about 3.014 apartment and condominium
units. compatible with the proposed Eastern Urban Center. Twenty-two homes per acre is targeted
for this area.
RURAL ESTATE PLANNED COMMUNITY (REPC) This area. located at the edge of the eastern
portion of the Otay Ranch. is proposed to be pianned as a separate village. About 825 acres of
this 2.007 acre area will remain as natural open space. Between 1.182 and 3.007 large lot homes
are proposed for this area.
PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF
RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
High 1%
Low 36%
Low-Medium 44%
Medium 15%
Medium-High 4%
Page 2
PARKS, OPEX SPACE AXD RECREATlOX
As proposed, 9,975 acres ofland will be devoted
to regional open space, and regional, community and
neighborhood parks. This amounts to 42.8% of the
total project. Additional land will be set aside for golf
courses, school grounds and an intra village green belt
system. Overall, this comprehensive network will be
the largest open space system in San Diego County.
Most of the land will be under the control of the only
multi-disciplinary Resource Management Plan in San
Diego County. The purpose of the Resource Manage-
ment Plan will be to provide long-term, comprehen-
sive management and protection of natural resources.
Natural Open Soare: About 6,900 acres of natural
open space will be provided in the Otay Ranch New
Town Plan. These areas will protect sensitive biologi-
cal and cultural resources, including the J amul Moun-
tains, Poggi Canyon, Wolf Canyon, Hubbard Creek,
and Tecate Cypress stands.
Regional Parks: Two regional parks will be
provided as part of the open space network. The Otay
River Valley Regional Park will be an U1ban park with
active recreational facilities. The San Y sidro Moun-
tains Regional Nature Park will be more rugged and
rustic, providing activities for those who enjoy the
natural environment. Trails will connect the two
regional paries to the rest of the open space system,
such as the Jamul Mountains.
Community and Neighborhood Parks: Commu-
nity and neighborhood parks are planned based on the
standards of three acres per 1,000 population. Seven
community parks are envisioned averaging approxi-
mately 20 acres each. They will include multi-pur-
pose playing fields, tennis courts, and swimming
pools. Additional neighborhood parks of tive to
tifteen acres are also planned for each village area
PROPOSED MAJOR
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Reoional Open Soace
~
Otay River Regional Park
San YSidro Mountains Regional Park
Jamul Mountains Natural Open Space
Olher natural open space/greenbelt systems
Open space in REPC
860
900
4,162
2,760
825
Subtotal
Community & Neiohborhood Parks
Otay River Area (4 Parks)
Proctor Valley Area (2 Parks)
San Ysidro Mountains Area (1 Park)
Neighborhood Parks (ot 20 Parks)
Subtotal
9,507
107
76
28
25Z
468
TOTAL
9,975
The 9.975 total does not include planned goIfCOUNS6S, school ground$. or the ;ntr. village greenbelt sy.em.
Page 3
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL, I:-iDl'STRIAL, A."D Pl"BLlC USES
TOW:-l CEl\'TER
Taking advantage of a unique location, the Town
Center will overlook Otay Lakes and will afford an
opportunity for unobstructed views of the lake. The
Town Center will generally be limited to three story
buildings containing professional oftices, specialty
retail shops, facilities for performing and tine arts,
entertainment establishments, and civic services such
as a post office, fire station, library and administrative
offices. Pedestrian trails will link medium density
residential uses to the town center, enhancing public
access to the lake.
VILLAGE O:NTERS
The Otay Ranch proposal envisions eight village
centers, each slightly different in character but unitied
in scale and concept. The village centers will integrate
a mixture of uses including neighborhood commer-
cial, small offices, entertainment establishments, and
public uses including schools, churches, town squares
and parks. The village centers will provide the central
fucus fur the residential neighbOlhoods of Otay Ranch.
The centers will be larger and more diverse than the
typical 10-20 acre shopping center. Each village will
be precisely planned in separate Specific Plans.
RETAIL (bMMERCIAL IVISITOR (bl\IMERCIAL
The retail-commercial category is the most com-
mon commercial designation. It will include neigh-
borhood commercial uses, service commercial, retail
and automobile oriented uses. The visitor-commer-
cial oc~'Urs in two places, adjacent to the Town Center
and east of Proctor Valley in the J amul Mountains.
The Town Center site is planned to contain hotels,
restaurants, and other amenities. The Jamul Mountain
location is expected to be a rustic secluded corporate
retreat.
RESEARCH A.'I,D LiMITED 1'l,l)I:STRIAL
This land use is located at the south side of the
Otay River. It includes research and development,
light manufacturing, small scale warehousing and
flexible-use buildings.
EASTERN URBAl" CE:\'TER
The Eastern Urban Center will serve the commer-
cial and business needs for Otay Ranch. Located
along SR-12S, the Eastern Urban Center provides for
the development of a truly urban area, including
corporate offices, a 100 acre regional mall, and com-
mercial parks. Higher density residential is also
permitted in this area. The center will provide the
regional commercial support services for the remain-
der of the Otay Ranch New Town, and the South
County area.
RESORT/Low
This designation, limited to a 100 acre site in the
Proctor Valley, provides for a visitor oriented resort
and recreational facilities. A five star resort is envi-
sioned, with restaurants and a variety of recreation and
sports facilities. A residential component is expected
to take advantage of the resort's quality image.
PtllLIC AND (~(TASI-PlllLIC
University: A four year university is an exciting
opportunity for the Otay Ranch New Town. It is
proposed for a 40S acre parcel overlooking Otay
Lakes, adjacent to the Olympic Training Center. The
university will complete the urban portion of Otay
Ranch. Greenbelts and pathways as well as major
roads will link the university to the rest of the commu-
nity. The close proximity will allow easy pedestrian
and bike access to the Eastern Urban Center.
Page 4
PROPOSED LAND USES
Percent 01
Sxm!lQ! Cate90rv Agu Total Acres
l,L.M,M,MH,H* Residential 10,365 44.5%
p,OS. Parks & Open Space 9,975 42.80/0
RI Research & Industrial 823 3.5%
None Major Roads 809 3.5%
PO Universijy 405 1.7"10
RC Retail Commercial 331 1.4%
EUC Eastern Urban Center 303 1.3%
RL ResorVLow 100 0.4%
TC Town Center 94 0.4%
~ Visitor Commercial .ez 0.4%
Total 23,297 100%
.. For the purposes of this chart the acreage in the Rural Estate Planned Community (REPC)
category was allocated to other categories which better describe the actual planned uses; 825 acres
WfJf'8 identified 88 additional open space and 1.182 acres 8S residential.
FL'TURE PLA.:'iS
The Otay Ranch planning process is just
beginning. The proposed New Town General Plan
Amendment requires the preparation of many addi-
tional plans and regulations, including the folIowing:
Growth Mana~ement Plan - This document
will implement the growth management component
tying the provision of public facilities with the devel-
opment of housing, commercial and other uses.
Villa~e Plans - These documents will be
implemented as Specific Plans.
Resource Management Plan - This document
will implement the Open Space Recreation Park!
Conservation element of the Otay Ranch New Town
Plan.
Public Facilities Plan - This document will set
forth the master plan of public facilities, their tinanc-
ing and construction. The overriding goal of the Plan
is to ensure that the Otay Ranch New Town "pays it
own way", and is not a burden on existing taxpayers.
THE PuBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
Since the Otay Ranch New Town proposal
covers an area roughly the current size of Chula Vista,
the applicant, Interjurisdictional Task Force and proj-
ect team are mindful that the Otay Ranch New Town
is an extraordinary project that could have many
imp3.l.'ts, both positive and negative. The project area
contains habitat, archaeological sites and other fea-
tures that warrant preservation. The timely provision
and equitable financing of public facilities must also
be carefulIy considered, as welI as the phasing and
location of specific land uses.
To ensure that these and other issues are
thoughtfully studied, the Otay Ranch New Town
proposal will go through a number of review stages
including a full scale environmental analysis. The
initial draft plan was formally submitted for process-
ing in October, 1989. The Interjurisdictional Task
Force has approved for public review a series of goals,
objectives and policies which will direct the Otay
Ranch review process. It is anticipated that the Inter-
jurisdictional Task Force will host public workshops
early this Spring, with full public hearings starting this
Summer. Ultimate consideration for the proposed
General Plan Amendment is tentatively scheduled for
late fall, 1990. Thereafter, more precise Specitic
Plans will be ready for public review.
Page 5
hTERJCRISDlCTIOl\'AL TASK FORCE
Due to the size and complexity of the Otay Ranch
project and the need to provide coordination with
other jurisdictions, in 1987 the Board of Supervisors
established the Inter jurisdictional Task Force. After
two years of extensive preliminary studies, the Board
of Supervisors authorized Otay Ranch to apply for a
general plan amendment. Thereafter the County and
the City of Chula Vista entered into an agreement to
establish a joint planning process for the application,
including a City/County Project Team. This level of
coordination between adjacent jurisdictions is unpar-
alleled in the history of San Diego County, and retlects
an elevated commitment to regional planning and
cooperation.
! Chula Vista City Council County Board of Supervisors
---
Interjurisdictional Task Force
(Provides Policy Direction)
Brian Bilbray, County Supervisor Robert Tugenberg, Chula Vista Planning Commission
Greg Cox, Chula Vista Mayor Frank Urtasun, County Planning Commission
George Bailey, County Supervisor Mark MontijO, JamullDulzura Planning Group
Gayle McCandliss, Chula Vista Councilperson Frank Scott, Crossroads
Bob FUner, San Diego Councilperson Claudia Troisi, Baldwin Vista
Executive .Staff Committee
Key CitylCounty management staff organized to help implement Task Force policy direction.
I
City/County Joint Planning Team
Vem Hazen, General Manager
The City/County Joint Planning Team is a group of professional pianners and analysts
specially assembled to review and process the Otay Ranch New Town Plan ir
conformance w~h policy direction provided by the Task Force. The team Is comprised of
city and county staff members and supplemented by consu~ants for a combined group of
nine persons.
PcBLlC PARTICIPATIO~
In conjunction with the public planning and
review process, the public is encouraged to attend a
series of workshops and hearings sponsored by the
Interjurisdictional Task Force. These forums will
provide the public an opportunity to learn about the
Otay Ranch New Town proposal and to provide their
input and ideas. For more information about these
meetings please contact the Otay Ranch Project Team
at 422-7157.
In addition to these meetings, the applicant,
Baldwin Vista, is forming a number of citizen task
forces to provide input to the company on all aspects
of the Otay Ranch New Town. If you would like to
participate in these task forces, please contact Helen
McDanid at 259-2900.
For More Information: The planning effort for the
Otay Ranch New Town is being carried out through
the Interjurisdictional Task Force. For further infor-
mation about the proposal or the planning process call
the Task Force's Otay Ranch Project Team at 422-
7157, or the applicant, Baldwin Vista at 259-2900.
Page 6
!
II
<Oi
,.l1
Lr
..
1M
1M
10.
Z
-
...
CD
..
C
CD
(,)
c
... 01 CD
CD_.a 0
1:.!:5_ as
CDO CD Co
(,) ~ C'C rn
e..... C
C !"''''CD
:a e ",:I... Co
~8~~cfo
(,) rn
~(,)iiLQ,o
1M
i
(.)
'"
>-
..
c
g
~ g
e (,)
01 'C
u.. CD
II) i!: i
~ cf~
rn >- CD CD
>-:= >- e -; >-
~e=o_ _
:!!CDe:I:OI Ql
CDLl.ca W__
QCDIt.!iiil5~
:.aE.a"'ic
"'c:so:s__
.3i:i)~~a:a:....
~
w
~
...J
(,)
Q,Q,
u..:I:w
9ll;~~a:a:::l
00
4t~
AN IN VITA TION
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO INVITE YOU
TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING ON THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
OF THE OTA Y RANCH
WHAT: A PUBLIC WORKSHOP
WHERE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CHULA VISTA CITY HALL, 276 4TH AVE,
,CHULA VISTA, CA. 92010 .
WHEN: MARCH 10, 1990 ,FROM 9:00 AM UNTIL 12:30 PM
WHY: TO OBTAIN YOUR CONCERNS, COMMENTS AND IDEAS
ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND.
YOU WILL HEAR:
1. a brief overview of the planning process;
2. a summary of the developer's proposed plan; and
3. a City/County critique of the proposed plan.
YOUR PARTICIPATION CAN INVOLVE: .
1. providing written and verbal comments during the early stage of
developing an alternative plan;
2. membership on citizen advisory committees.
THE RANCH OCCUPIES OVER 23.000 ACRES IN SOUTHERN
SAN DIEGO COUNlY. YOUR PARTICIPATION CAN MAKE
A DIFFERENCE IN HOW THIS AREA IS PLANNED.
SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE: WATER TRAFFIC LAND USE
PARKS AND RECREATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
069L-<211 (6~9) :XV~ . LS~L-<211 (6~9) . O~OC:6 "10 'e15!A eln40 'V allns 'anua^V 4l.1no~ s~e
sa~JeJq~l pue SlJV LeJnlLnJ
(6u~sno4 aLqepJojje 6u~pnL~u~) Sa~~AJas JO~Uas pue Le~~os
luawdOLaAaa ~~wouo~3 pue sqor
(UO~leAJaSUO~ ^6Jaua pue JaleM pue uO~leweL~aJ sapnL~u~) JaMaS/JaleK
uO~leLn~J~J pue uO~lelJodsueJl '~~jjeJl
uO~leaJ~aM pue s~Jed 'a~eds uado
spuel aA~nSUas
)
:sMOLLOj se aJe pa4s~Lqelsa MOU aJe le4l saall~WWo~ a41
.paALOsaJun ljaL aso4l pue
paALOSaJ aJe le4l sanss~ a4l 'lJOjja 6u~uueLd aA~leJoqeLLo~ a4l jO SlLnsaJ a4l
uo lUawwO~ pue Ma~AaJ Ol pa~se aq LL~M saall~WWO~ palep~Losuo~ a41 .saall~WWO~
a~Jo~ ~sel Leuo~l~~pS~JnrJalUI a4l 4l~M saall~WWO~ u~MPLea a4l alep~Losuo~ pue
au~qwo~ Ol SeM s~4l 4S~Ldwo~~e ol ^eM lsaq a4l le4l pue 'ssa~oJd aA~leJoqeLLo~
a4l u~ aLoJ e ^eLd Pln04s saall~WWO~ uaz~l~~ a4l le4l pap~~ap Ja41Jnj SeM l!
.SUO~S~AaJ u~MPLea a4l pue a^~leUJalLV weal
l~arOJd a4l 6u~sn padOLa^ap aq ueLd a^~leJoqeLLo~ e le4l pal~aJ~p pue l~aroJd
a4l uo lJodaM pedwI LelUaWUoJ~^U3 a4l u~ papnpu~ aq Ol sa^HeuJalLe Jnoj
a4l palda~~e a~Jo~ ~sel Leuo~p~ps~JnrJalUI a4l '6uHaaw 0661 '9 ^Lnr Sl~ lV
.ueLd aA~leuJalLV
weal l~arOJd a4l se LLaM se uo~s~^aJ ^uedwoJ u~MPLea a4l jO luawdOLa^ap
a4l u~ aLoJ lUelJodw~ ue pa^eLd saall~wwO~ uaz~l~~ a4l WOJj pa^~a~aJ lndu~ a41
aA~leUJalLV 4lJnO~
aA~leUJalLV LelUaWuoJ~^U3
a^~leUJalLV ^l~SUaa MOl
aA~leuJ8lLV weal l~arOJd
:^lJadoJd a4l JOj sueLd a^~leUJalLe Jnoj padOLa^ap
se4 weal paroJd a~Jo~ ~sel Leuo~p~ps~JnpalUI a4l 'pO~Jad aWH s~4l 6U~Jna
.s4lUOW aA~j Ol Jnoj lseL a4l JOj s~seq
JeLn6aJ ^LJ~ej e uo 6UHaaw uaaq a^e4 saan~WWo~ asa41 .SLe50dOJd luawdola^ap
4~ue~ ^elO 84l uo luaWWo~ Ol saall~WWO~ ^JOS~Ape uaz~l~~ pa4s~Lqelsa
4loq aAe4 a~Jo~ ~sel leuo~l~~pS~JnrJalUI a4l pue ^uedwoJ u~MPLea a41
:^auJaH .sW Jeaa
OIOZ6 VJ 'elS~^ eln4J
a^~Ja aldew pa~ (011
^auJaH uesns
0661 '8Z ^lnr
VlSlA YlnH::l .:10 .ui:> . (Y-)3IQ NVS ,dO ..uNno:)
""-
'DNINNY'ld
...Nlor
~)1t
I
HOLJl:::Il::lI ,..,1:::1...1-0
~~
~
~.
J.03rOl:fd HONW AYJ.O
UO~lJ~pS~JnrJalUI
:P.::2L::;~
'lSIl-ZZ~ l! puog !PU~l lJ!lUOJ as!atd 'suo~lsanb AU! aA!4 nOA JI
'4JU!H A!lO a4l JOJ SU!Ld aA~l!UJalL!
SnO~J!A a4l ssnJs~p Ol aJa4l SlJadxa JO Lau!d ! aq LUM aJa4l . LL!H Al~J
!lS~^ !Ln4J l! 0661 'II lsn6ny uo d04S~JOM A!P LL! U! Ol pal~Au~ OSL! aJ! nOA
'lJ~LJuOJ 6u~Lnpa4JS ! aA!4
Ja4l0u! uo aWOJ A!W nOA !AJ!SSaJau lOU s~ s~4l lnq 's6u~uaAa
JO 4J!a uo laaw saall~WWOJ paw!u a4l l!4l palsa66ns s~ 1I
00100/06000 JdK
nOA H 6u~uaAa
pal!u6 ~ sap a4l
SaJ~AJas Jo~uas PU! L!~JOS
sa~J!Jq~l PU! SlJY L!JnlLnJ
l~awdoLaAaa J~WOUOJ] PU! sqor
:puall! Ol paLnpa4Js saall~wwoJ
E PU! Z swooH aJuaJaJuoJ 'anuaAY 4lJno~ 9lZ 'LL!H Al~J !lS~^ !Ln4J
'w"d 00:6 Ol 'w'd OO:l '0661 '6 lsn6ny 'A!pSJn4l
JaMaS/Jal!K
UO~l!LnJJ~J PU! UO~l!lJodsu!Jl 'J~JJ!Jl
:puall! Ol paLnpa4JS saall~wwoJ
E PU! Z swooH aJuaJaJuoJ 'anuaAY 4lJno~ 9lZ 'LL!H Al~J !lS~^ !Ln4J
'w"d 00:6 Ol 'w'd OO:l '0661 'l lsn6n~' 'A!pSanl
uO~l!aJJaH PU! S~J!d 'aJ!ds uado
SPU!l aA~usuas
:puall! Ol paLnpa4Js saall~wwoJ
E PU! Z swooH aJuaJaJuoJ 'anuaAY 4lJno~ 9lZ 'LL!H Al~J !lS~^ !Ln4J
'w"d 00:6 Ol 'w"d OO:l '0661 '9 lsn6ny 'A!PUOH
:0661 '9 lsn6ny JO ~aaM a4l pa4s~Lq!lsa
uaaq aA!4 s6u~laaw aaJ4l 'SuO~S~AaJ U~MPL!8 a4l PU! SaA~l!UJalLY weal
lJafoJd a4l lUasaJd pue ssaJoJd Mau a4l JO saall~WWOJ a4l WJOJU~ Ol JapJO UI
Z a6!d
0661 'sz ALnr
.
.,
t
o
~
(j)
~
-
rJJ
~
(j)
N
.~
~
.~
U
~~i
:!~~-----
-'
.
.i =0
~ 0
j~
. ....
. 0
:2.0
=...c:
i 0.0
~ .0;
1Z
.
'"-
E a1
'3"0
".....
1 0
~...c:
(lE-<
.
~
...
~.~ . . .
..,
o ",' ~
, .
"_; '"i
;\~.: : <.
.~_.~. . I .. '
I"~ \\~ :', :e' ,
,. .
, .
:' '. "'. .
\: 'J'"
'. "
. .
'. ".
,. .
'. .
.. ....
_, ~',.l( :'
'r
'~:.~,~ ;:
.. '. \,~' ..
.j .. /~~
.,.f~. ',;" f;
.:.t~ . ~ ..~
t:G ',_ i
...... t
'. , lot'" ,-
~:r1J t' i.
d f;- ~.
.J ,',
.t-.:..-:-.;.:
. ,
~y
00
(1)
U
~
~~
S~
10'" 00
~~
~~
.fSC
00
00
(1).......
-:S~
6<
~~
~ .~
o ~
fr;:j
~~
o
U
o
0\
0\
....
~
>>
"3
-..
~
.c....'..iIB--7"
'-"'-'~
___.CO. . :~:5;'~.;:),'... i:;1::'.::'.'--:'''f.-;.",.~f
".. - ' ;/;.:; ,;:.'~' - - -- -- "~':::-->"':\:~::.::~';~-'~'-'::
~..
_~-v.,:"
~',.,
Join your neighbors
and planning experts
from across the nation
to review the most
recent plans for
Otay Ranch. .
The County and the City of Chula Vista are jointly
reviewing a general plan for Otay Ranch, the area
immediately east of Chula Vista. On Saturday,
August 11, 1990, a panel of six planning experts
from across the nation will join you in a workshop
to share ideas and opinions about the future of the
Community of Otay Ranch.
4ts
The workshop is in the ChuIa Vista City Hall Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue on Saturday, August
11, 1990. Workshop registration is from 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. The workshop will last until 4 p.rn.
Optional lunch will be provided for $5.00. Please ca1l422-7157 to pre-register. Registration at the
door is welcome, pre-registration is strongly encouraged.
Otay Ranch Workshop
Saturday, August 11, 1990
Chula Vista City Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
- Agenda -
8:00 Registration
8:30
Welcome, Introduction
Welcome
Introductions
and Background Briefing
Greg Cox
Mayor of ChJda Vis/a. Member, Inrerjurisdic:lionaJ Task Force
Brian BUbray
First District Supernsor: Chairman, /nlerjurisdicliOfUJl Task Foru
Roy Potter
Motki-tuor
George Krempl
Assistant City MDtloger, oty oj ChuID Vista
John Sullard
Consulltl1ll fl,. ,he Ory oj Chula Vista and ,he Counry of San Diego
Fred Arbuckle
Otay Ranch Project MlDUlger
Backe,orou...r:d
EIR Alternatives
Baldwin Plans
Presentations
Dr. James Qapp
Professor oj Plmuting, San Diego Slau Univemry
Bill Woollett
First City Manager of [1"'Vine. Executive Di~Cl0" Orange Cowary TransportaJion Corridor Projecl
Dr. Eva Lemer-I..amm
TrQlUponanon Commissioner, SI"'e oj New Je13ty
Morning Break
Presentations
Robert McNulty
President. PDT1Nnforlivabk Places. Washington D.C
Alton Scavo
\fiet! Pnsiilml, 1M Rbwe Company, Columbia Mtuyland
Roy Potter
Modntztar
12:00
12:30
Questions From Audience
Lunch Break
Panelist Discussion Concerning Outstanding Planning Issues
Five Break-Out Sessions Lead by Panelist
Report From Panelist Regarding The Break-Out Sessions
Concluding Comments By Panelist
3:55 Adjournment
Lari Sheehan
AsslstGIII ClrUf Admininraltw Oifte.... Co<uuy of Son /M,o
Otay Ranch Workshop
August 11, 1990
-:tP(p
- Comment Form-
In the future planning for Otay Ranch please consider the follo\\ing:
o Please contact me concerning arranging a group presentation about Otay Ranch plans.
o Please send me more information concerning participation on Otay Ranch citizen committees.
o Please put my name on the mailing list to keep apprised of the status of Otay Ranch plans.
Name:
Phone:
Address'
City:
State:
Zip:
,
co '"
~ '"
OJ 0 (oJ
'" <P-
o ::;:
::;: 01 ~ <
0 '"
{f> >R. -< -<
'" 0
~ 0 b r
<0 - ~
01 s:: ::;:
0 '"
~ c.
p;'
2-
~
~ ~ 0
p;' lI) -l
" lI) )>-
~ c:;; 0 -<
:;- {f> 0 Ul
(") '" >R.
0 ~ 0 )>- :tI
3 co - ~ Z )>-
'" 01 0 '-l 01 Z
0 OJ >R. 52 >R. (")
" 0 r 0 0
0 8' >R. 0 b m r J:
~ 0 ::;: C'l 0
OJ {f> S. ::;: 0 ::;: J:
" (oJ 0
III .?' s:: (") c
~, ~ '" 0 !!!
0 c. C
-< 0 p;' Z
S. ~ 2- z C'l
-l
" -< 52
0 J:
<:: Ul
~ 0 -l
5' CD C :tI
(f) Ul OJ
(f; 0 m
OJ >R. J: C
" (oJ 0 -l
0 .?' 8' 0 0
~ r
ffi' 0 ~ s:: 0 z
co 0 '" 8.
0 8' 0 '" Z ~
0 >R. '" ~ 01 II>
0 ~ >R. (") <P- OI
0 {f> s. OJ 0 0
<:: 01 - ~
'" s:: s::
" .'" s:: 3: '"
~ 0 m 8. .a
'" '" c. c
OJ c. '" '"
~ 0 p;' ~ 52 ~ ~
~ OJ OJ '"
2- m ~ - Q.
(oJ '"
<0 :tI ~
0 Ci
0
~ C
-
-l ::T
); <5 It
0" Z "'CI
); ~ iii
'" )> :J
0" 0" ~
0 ~ S! (oJ
< '" co
'" 0 '" >R.
{f> >R. 0
01 0 s:: )>
.!" 0 8. 0"
- S!
'" s:: '"
OJ ~ '"
.s '" ~ s::
c.
p;' 8.
2- '"
OJ
m
~bJ'ft/l
^ < z < -t
II> II> 0 II> 0
'< -< -< -
< !!!.
0 r II> !) <
e: 0 -<
II> ::E ::E II>
'" r -<
-
0' III 0 III r
::> ::> .::E ::> .~
0. 0.
-t ::E r !) r
g.Z~:::;; ::E ~ 0 ~
COaO'>:J ::7 ::E ::E
OO'oS 0 !!l.
~ ~ ~
6)::1 0_. "0 00' UI '" .,.. III
0
'< e!..S::I '" :::!! ~ 0 ::>
:c()o"Q '" - ~ ~ :::!! 0.
::7
W -.CD l>> C' II> III ~ 1:
5-:<3'< CD ::> ::> 8.
II> 0.
::T(1)COJJ III II> 1: II>
"'2.8 ::5~ ::> 0. O!
'" 8.
D)": n ::E - -
0 II>
::> z::7 II> ~ II> III
-,::E o' ~ ~ II
?! < III :l>
cno_:E II> co 0 c>>
rn Ci1 _.::T -< -t ..... Z
r:::: CD :::J CD ~ :l>
:g 2. z m "" ~ 6" Oi -< :::!! c
~ 0 in
0::> 0 ::E ::E 0
'" '" ::l--' ~ :c "
CD ::r= ~ OJ III III II :l> 0
0.11> - "Olll 3' ::>
x () 0 ~ '" 0. ..... z
6' Cii" 0 :E 011> 6" (') (')
W !:!'. C Q) g-o. iil 0 J: 0
3::> ::>::> 0"0 ~ ::E ~ c: en
II>"'-<!o. ,<::> - :;' J: Z c:
8'::70"< - 0 0 0 -t
3::7 0 -< 3:
... g r:::: CD 011> :r 3 c: 3:
!. rJ) -.-< ~-<! II> II> ~ J:
~ :j"S 5" 11>"0 II> ::7 Z 0 ):0
'" 1Il::E _II> x 0 " c: :D
o 0 ::70 00' e: III <
o c S' lll- <:!" '" C m
::>-,
::>-0 0 ::> :;' in J:
0.::7 0 ...0" '" '" 0
a-: OJ 3 0'" -t
o III II> ?f!.'O 0 :;' :c .-
~':< ::T 0 0 iii c
~O" e:
. _,0 II> ::> ~ c: Z
n =' ~ 0 -<! -t (')
011>-' ~ :c (5 0
::> x ::> II> 0.
eo _.co III 00' III Z ~
m!e.::l co - ::> m
~ 3'(0 0. ~ 0
crcc ~ C' ::7
:;' S. ,..,
~::I 0 en 0 0'
D) ~cc ~ ::>
::> _II>
o.SD~ ~ :l> :l>
:c 0" 0"
<~ 0 S1 S1
Q) _.0) III ~
=i'~ m ::>
0 ~ II> II>
.cF'Q. ::7 1: 1:
~cnO"
=:0)'< 8. 8.
-<!::>O II> II>
: -< S' ~ O!
III
11>",'< - -
x -, II> II>
lllo.:c II II
o ~ III
=..0 :J CO Co)
'< 0 0 CO
::E ::7 :::!! :::!!
::7 0' 0 0
III 0"
- '"
t
Job Generation
Phase One Progress Plan
Subtotal Total
Land Usa Quantity Factor Jobs Jobs
Business Park - Village 3 (Acres) 101 25.00 Jobs/Acre7 2,525
Olay Mesa Industrial (Acres) 220.3 25.00 Jobs/Acre 5,508
Freeway COmmercial (Acres) 106.5 18.20 Jobs/AcreS 1,938
Corr.mercial. Non EVC (Acres) 105.4 18.20 Jobs/Acre 1,918
Golf Courses (excluding Resort) 3 90 Jobs/COurse9 2i0
Schools Ell'.ployees
CVES (students) 11,641 0.0938 Jobs /Sludent1 0 1,092
Sweeiwaler (students) 6495 0.0938 Jobs'Studentll 609
Schools Subtotal 1,701
Local Government (Population) 86,456 0.0058 Jobs/Capita 12 .. .503
Resort .
Hotel (rcoms) 2000 1.25 Jobs/Rooms 13 2.500
Commercial (acres) 10 18.20 Jobs/Acre 182
Golf Course 1 90 Jobs'Course 90
Resort Subtotal 2,772
Eastern Urban Center (Sq. Fl)
Reg. COmmercial 1,500,000 300 SF/Job 14 5,000
VISitor COmmercial 500,000 300 SF/Job 1,667
Office gg(]()OOO 238 SF/Jo~ 16525
EUC Subtotal 23,192
Universitv EmoIovees ISludentsj 15000 2.25 SludentslJo~ 6869
Total Jobs Created 46,996
Based on this analysis, it is estimated Otay Ranch would
generate about 46,996 jobS17. Accordingly, Otay Ranch
would generate job opportunities in surplus of the demand
for jobs created by Otay Ranch's residential land uses.
Job Demand Vs. Job Generation
Phase One Progress Plan
..
Demand For Jobs
Total Jobs Generated
Difference
Alternative I
33,286
46.996
+13,710
Alternative II
35,073
46.996
+11,923
.. ..
,
I
I
.
VALLE DE ORO COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP
PRESENTATION TO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OTAY RANCH
JUNE 30. 1993
JACK L. PHILLIPS, CHAIRMAN VDOCPG
DANIEL F. TARR
ISSUES VIEWGRAPH CLOWER LIGHTS)
MANY OF YOU MAY WONDER WHY THE VALLE DE ORO PLANNING GROUP IS SO
INTERESTED IN THIS PROJECT WHICH APPEARS TO AFFECT OUR AREA ONLY
THROUGH ITS CONNECTION WITH MILLAR RANCH ROAD.
INDEED, THAT PORTION OF THE GPA IS WHAT GOT OUR ATTENTION.
UPON CLOSER EXAMINATION, WE FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTY GENERAL
PLAN WAS BEING DISCARDED IN THIS REGION RESULTING IN THESE MAJOR
ISSUES WHICH WE WILL COVER TODAY.
VIEWGRAPH. INTENSITY
MANY ASPECTS OF OUR COMMUNITY PLANNING HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN, AND ISSUE #1, THE PROPOSED 300% TO 500%
INCREASE IN INTENSITY IS THE REAL SOURCE OF ALL OF THE PROBLEMS.
ACTUALLY, THE PROPOSED INCREASE IS EVEN GREATER WHEN YOU FACTOR
IN THE EXTENSIVE COMMERCIAL AND OTHER USES NOT CURRENTLY
PERMITTED.
USING TRAFFIC-GENERATION STATISTICS AS A CONSERVATIVE INDICATOR,
THESE USES ADD AN ADDITIONAL 23,000 (C/B 37K) EQUIVALENT DWELLING
UNITS TO THE PROPOSED 28,- TO 30,000 DWELLING UNITS.
VIEWGRAPH. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
MR. TARR WILL NOW TALK ABOUT ISSUES 2 THROUGH 6 AND I WILL RETURN
FOR 7 AND 8 AND OUR BOTTOM LINE RECOMMENDATIONS.
DAN TARR
MANY OF THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES "ACCEPTED BY THE
INTERJURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE AND INTENDED TO GUIDE PLANNING FOR
THIS GPA ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE FINAL PRODUCT.
WITH REGARD TO THE JAMUL/DULZURA COMMUNITY PLAN ISSUE, THIS
PROPOSAL BECOMES "CONSISTENT" WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN BY
REWRITING THAT PLAN AND REDRAWING THE COMMUNITY BOUNDARY.
VIEWGRAPH. OTAY RANCH POLICIES
NOW YOU SEE TWO POLICIES ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE TASK FORCE TO GUIDE
THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
NOT ONLY HAS THE PROJECT TEAM FAILED TO DESIGNATE MANY IMPORTANT
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AS NATURAL OPEN SPACE, IN SEVERAL CASES THE
TEAM HAS PLACED MAJOR ROADWAYS DOWN THE MIDDLE OF WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS.
REGARDING VERNAL POOLS, THE POLICY CALLS FOR ALL POOLS AND THEIR
WATERSHEDS TO BE PRESERVED ONSITE, THE STAFF HAS PLANNED A RESORT
AND GOLF COURSE IN ONE AREA; A VILLAGE IN ANOTHER; AND SEVERAL
AREAS OF ENCROACHMENT BY DEVELOPMENT BUBBLES AND ROADS.
YOUR BOARD SHOULD NOT BE COMFORTED BY THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN
THE "GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES". THEY HAVE NOT BEEN
CONSISTENLY FOLLOWED.
VIEWGRAPH. LOSS OF HABITAT
VALLE DE ORO HAS DEMONSTRATED EARLIER IN THESE HEARINGS THAT
AREAS IDENTIFIED AS BIOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT ARE NOW PLANNED FOR
DEVELOPMENT.
BY COMPARING THE VERNAL POOL STUDY, THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR STUDY,
AND THE RAPTOR HABITAT/FORAGING STUDY TO THE VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT
PLANS, IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT TAILORED HIS
PROJECT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THESE STUDIES.
IT MAKES GOOD PLANNING SENSE TO ENSURE THAT THE OTAY RANCH, GIVEN
ITS LARGE SIZE AND IMPORTANCE TO REGIONAL HABITAT PLANNING,
SHOULD BE MADE TO CONFORM TO STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE MSCP AND NCCP PROGRAMS.
THIS IS CRITICAL TO ANY FUTURE PROJECTS IN THE AREA.
POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS MAY FIND THEMSELVES CONSTRAINED BY EXCESSIVE
"TAKE" GRANTED TO BALDWIN NOW.
VIEWGRAPH. WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
WE FIND SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE CONCLUSIONS AND THE USE BEING
MADE OF THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR STUDIES.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT MUST BE STRESSED THAT WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BECOME A SUBSTITUTE FOR WILDLIFE
HABITAT.
THE PENASQUITOS CANYON STUDY REFERRED TO DOES NOT PROVIDE DATA
RELEVANT FOR EVALUATION OF THE OTAY RANCH SITE.
THE TWO AREAS ARE NOT COMPARABLE.
RE: INTEGRATION OF THE CS RECOMMENDATIONS INTO THE PLAN.
PAGE 2
THE EIR CALLS FOR INCORPORATION OF ALL REGIONAL WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS INTO THE PRESERVE AND THE INCORPORATION OF A MAJORITY
OF THE LOCAL CORRIDORS INTO THE PRESERVE.
INSTEAD, WE FIND ROADS CROSSING AND SOMETIMES RUNNING RIGHT
THROUGH CORRIDORS; WE FIND DEVELOFMENT ENCROACHING AND GOLF
COURSES INTRUDING.
IN SHORT, WILDLIFE CORRIDORS ARE ONLY INCLUDED IN THE PRESERVE
WHEN THIS IS CONVENIENT TO THE DEVELOPER.
FOR EXAMPLE: THE CORRIDOR STUDY STATES THAT RESIDENTIAL
DENSITIES GREATER THAN 1 DU/10 ACRES ARE AN INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE
IN AREAS ADJACENT TO WILDLIFE CORRIDORS. (WCS PAGE 4-4)
NONE OF THE PLAN ALTERNATIVES MEETS THIS RECOMMENDATION.
THE CORRIDOR STUDY ALSO STATES THAT "ROADS SHOULD NOT BE ALIGNED
WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO CORRIDORS, AND ROAD CROSSINGS SHOULD BE
MINIMIZED. ALL ROAD CROSSINGS SHOULD BE BRIDGES UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED" .
THE PLAN IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION.
VIEWGRAPH. OTAY RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
THIS "PLUM" RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS BEING OFFERED TO MAKE THE
PACKAGE MORE ATTRACTIVE TO DECISION-MAKERS - THIS PLUM IS FULL OF
WORMS.
TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE RMP IS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT
OF THE COUNTY'S RPO WOULD REASONABLY REQUIRE THOROUGH STUDY AND
COMPARISON OF THE TWO.
THE EIR AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS PROVIDE NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR
ANALYSIS.
THE RMP WOULD ALLOW WETLANDS TO BE TAKEN, THE RPO WOULD NOT.
THE RMP WOULD ALLOW GOLF COURSES ON WETLANDS, THE RPO WOULD NOT.
WIiH REGARD TO SENSITIVE HABITAT LANDS, THE RPO GENERALLY
PROHIBITS DEVELOPMENT; THE RMP PRESERVES SOME, BUT ALLOWS SOME TO
BE LOST.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WILL BE TWO RMPs AND PERHAPS TWO PRESERVES
- ONE IN THE COUNTY AND ONE IN CHULA VISTA.
THIS DOES NOT PROVIDE THE COHERENT AND COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT
PRESERVE PROMISED BY THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES.
RE: RESOURCE ANALYSES UPON WHICH THE RMP IS BASED
THE RESOURCE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST.
PAGE 3
HABITAT MAPPING FROM AERIAL PHOTOS AND LIMITED FOLLOW-UP FIELD
SURVEYS COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE PROVIDED COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES AS
CLAIMED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
NUMEROUS EIR COMMENTS FIND FAULT WITH METHODS AND ANALYSES USED
TO EVALUATE THE EXISTING RESOURCES AND TO CATEGORIZE THEM AS LOW,
MODERATE, OR HIGH VALUE. FOR EXAMPLE:
AREAS DEGRADED BY HISTORIC GRAZING HAVE BEEN CATEGORIZED AS LOW
OR MODERATE VALUE AND THUS SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT - WHEN IT MAY
BE TRUE THAT IF LEFT ALONE, THESE AREAS COULD RECOVER THEIR VALUE
AS FUNCTIONING HABITAT.
AN UMBRELLA HABITAT ANALYSIS DOES NOT SERVE TO ESTABLISH BASELINE
DATA AND THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MANY SPECIES.
SO MANY SPECIFIC STUDIES ARE PUT OFF TO THE SPA LEVEL, IT WILL BE
IMPOSSIBLE TO MODIFY AGREED UPON DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WITH NEW
BIOLOGICAL DATA.
AS STATED BEFORE, THE FIRST STEP IS TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY -
SCIENTIFICALLY - THESE IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS.
THE OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT (AND CONVEYANCE) OF THE PROPOSED
PRESERVE IS LEFT UNDEFINED IN THE PROPOSAL.
THE RMP (PAGE 90) ALLOWS THAT "THE PRESERVE OWNER/MANAGER MAY BE
A LOCAL GOVERNMENT,......
THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE O/M SHOULD BE A NONPROFIT THIRD
PARTY WITH EXPERIENCE.
ACCORDING TO TABLE 4.10-11 IN THE EIR, NOT ONE OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT PLANS CONFORMS WITH THE OTAY RANCH RMP.
VIEWGRAPH. LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
THE COUNTY AND LAFCO, AS WELL AS CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO, ALL
HAVE POLICIES ENCOURAGING PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURE.
THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT WILL CONVERT AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF ACRES
FROM AG. USE TO "VILLAGES" THEREBY PAVING OVER SOILS IDENTIFIED
AS BEING OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.
A GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE COULD CLUSTER UNITS AND IN THIS WAY
LESSEN THE LOSS OF THESE DIMINISHING AG. SOILS.
VIEWGRAPH. INAPPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL CONTROL
WE ARE IN THIS HALL TODAY UNDER CONTINUING PROTEST.
NONE OF THE 23,000+ ACRES OF THIS PROJECT LIES WITHIN THE CITY
LIMITS OR THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF CHULA VISTA.
PAGE 4
CHULA VISTA IS NOT THE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY FOR CHANGES TO THE
COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND NO MOU CAN ALTER THAT FACT.
ALLOWING CHULA VISTA TO BE THE LEAD AGENCY IN THIS COUNTY GENERAL
PLAN PROCESS IS AN ABDICATION OF THE COUNTY'S GOVERNMENTAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO ITS RESIDENTS.
BACK TO FIRST VIEWGRAPH
PHILLIPS
~
ISSUE #7, THIS PROJECT'S FRAGMENTATION OF A MAJOR WILDLIFE
ECOSYSTEM, IS A DIRECT IMPACT TO OUR AREA THAT HAS NOT BEEN
ADDRESSED IN THE EIR.
THE PROJECTION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT INTO PROCTOR VALLEY AND THE
CREATION OF A MILLAR RANCH ROAD/PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR WILL EVENTUALLY ELIMINATE THE FREE
MOVEMENT OF WILDLIFE THROUGH THE SAN MIGUEL\JAMUL MOUNTAINS AREA.
THE MAP ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE EXISTING LARGE ECOSYSTEM COMPRISED
OF THE SWEETWATER RIVER, OPEN SPACE, AND THE SAN MIGUEL AND JAMUL
MOUNTAINS RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREAS.
IN THE UPPER LEFT, THE SWEETWATER RIVER, IDENTIFIED IN BLUE,
PROVIDES A HIGHLY DIVERSE WETLAND FOR THE WILDLIFE POPULATIONS IN
THE SAN MIGUEL/JAMUL MOUNTAINS COMPLEX.
ON THE RIGHT YOU SEE HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF VILLAGE 14
AND THE CONNECTION OF MILLAR RANCH ROAD TO PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD
WILL ISOLATE SAN MIGUEL MOUNTAIN AND THE SWEETWATER RIVER
WETLANDS FROM THE JAMUL MOUNTAINS.
ONCE CONNECTED TO THE SOUTH BAY AREA, MILLAR RANCH AND PROCTOR
VALLEY ROADS WILL ATTRACT TRAFFIC VOLUMES OF 36,000 ADTs.
TO PUT THIS INTO PERSPEeTIVE, THAT WILL BE MORE TRAFFIC THAN YOU
CURRENTLY EXPERIENCE IN THE WORST SECTIONS OF CLAIRMONT MESA
BLVD.
THIS WILL COMPLETELY DESTROY ANY SEMBLANCE OF RURAL CHARACTER FOR
WESTERN JAMUL.
THE MILLAR RANCH/PROCTOR VALLEY CORRIDOR WILL BECOME A SIX-LANE
KILLING FIELD FOR THE AREA'S WILDLIFE.
LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE OF FRAGMENTING A MAJOR WILDLIFE AREA AND
THE FACT THAT THE EIR DOES NOT EVEN ADDRESS THE PROBLEM, ONE HAS
TO WONDER WHAT EARTHLY GOOD THE 4,000-PAGE DOCUMENT ACTUALLY
SERVES?
PAGE 5
-- r ---
DOES IT PROVIDE THE ACCURATE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR YOU TO
MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION ON AMENDING THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
AS PROPOSED?
WE CAN TELL YOU EMPHATICALLY THAT IT DOES NOT! AND THIS IS AFTER
CAREFUL STUDY OF ALL DOCUMENTS.
AS NOTED UNDER ISSUE #8 ON THIS VIEWGRAPH, THE EIR CALLS FOR
DELAYED ANALYSES AND USES INCOMPLETE AND INVALID INFORMATION.
VIEWGRAPH. DELAYED/FRAC
THROUGHOUT THE FINAL EIR, AND PARTICULARLY FOR THE ISSUES SHOWN
HERE, ANALYSES OF PROJECT IMPACTS ARE DELAYED TO A LATER TIME AND
ARE SPLIT UP TO OCCUR WITH THE PROCESSING OF INDIVIDUAL "SPAs" OF
WHICH THERE MAY BE 11 OR MORE.
WITH THE PROJECT DIVIDED INTO THESE SMALL PIECES, NONE OF THEM,
TAKEN SEPARATELY, WILL PRODUCE "SIGNIFICANT" IMPACTS REQUIRING
REGIONAL MITIGATIONS.
BY ALLOWING ANALYSES TO BE FRACTIONALIZED IN THIS MANNER, THE
PROJECT TEAM HAS DISQUALIFIED THE FINAL EIR AS A LEGITIMATE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN.
WITH THE VERY PROBABLE LIKELIHOOD OF IMMEDIATE ANNEXATION OF SOME
OR ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES INTO CHULA VISTA, THIS MAY BE THE ONLY
OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND SCHEDULE
MITIGATIONS.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN THE CASE OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS THAT WILL
BE CREATED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN.
VIEWGRAPH. TABLE
THIS TABLE WAS PLACED IN THE FINAL EIR TO ADDRESS OFF-SITE
TRAFFIC PROBLEMS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE TABLE DOESN'T ADDRESS MANY OF THE IMPORTANT
ROAD SEGMENTS UNDER QUESTION.
FOR COMPARISON OF THOSE IT DOES ADDRESS, I HAVE INSERTED TRAFFIC
VOLUMES FROM RECENT PROJECTIONS RUN BY CALTRANS.
THESE PROJECTIONS, LISTED PARENTHETICALLY TO THE LEFT OF THE
PROJECT TEAM'S DATA, WERE RUN WITH THE SAME BASIC ASSUMPTIONS BUT
WITH BETTER DETAIL IN THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES.
THE COMPARISON DATA CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE VOLUMES SHOWN ON
THE ORIGINAL TABLE GROSSLY UNDERSTATE THE FUTURE CONDITIONS ON
THESE ROADS AFTER PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.
THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE HERE THAT THE TRAFFIC MODEL IS BEING
MANIPULATED TO MAKE SPECIFIC PROBLEM SEGMENTS LOOK BETTER.
PAGE 6
WHEN THIS TYPE OF DATA IS PUT FORWARD IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC EIR
COMMENTS, THE OBJECTIVITY AND VALIDITY OF ALL TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR
THIS PROJECT MUST BE BROUGHT TO QUESTION!
VIEWGRAPH. MAP
THIS IS THE FORECAST DATA WE USED FOR THIS COMPARISON.
I HAVE CIRCLED THE SEGMENT AREAS UNDER QUESTION.
THIS CALTRANS DATA HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED A MAJOR UNDERSTATEMENT OF
TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN THE MILLAR RANCH/PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR.
INSTEAD OF THE 24,000 ADTs USED IN THE EIR, TRAFFIC WILL BE 50%
HIGHER OR 36,000 ADTs IF THESE ROADS ARE CONNECTED.
IF SR 125 THROUGH THE PROJECT IS A TOLL ROAD AS PLANNED, THE
VOLUMES WILL BE EVEN HIGHER DUE TO TOLL DIVERSION INTO THIS
CORRIDOR.
VIEWGRAPH. EIR QUOTE
BASICALLY, THE PROJECT TEAM'S ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS BOILS
DOWN TO THIS STATEMENT FROM THE FINAL EIR.
THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT, THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ADDRESS
TRAFFIC IMPACTS AT THIS STAGE, IS FALSE.
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY IS REMARKABLY ADVANCED IN THIS FIELD AND THE
MODELS ARE VERY CAPABLE OF SHOWING WHERE AND TO WHAT EXTENT ~
IMPACTS WILL OCCUR FROM ANY COMBINATION OF VARIABLES FACING THIS
PROJECT.
PLEASE NOTE THE LAST SENTENCE WHERE TRAFFIC ISSUES ARE PUT OFF TO
THE SPA LEVEL.
VIEWGRAPH. EIR QUOTE
THIS IS HOW THE FINAL EIR DEFINES THESE FUTURE STUDIES AT THE SPA
LEVEL.
THE KEY WORDS HERE ARE SITE SPECIFIC AND LOCAL SYSTEM .
THIS NEW TEXT IN THE FINAL EIR WILL ALLOW FUTURE SPA DEVELOPERS
TO AVOID CONSIDERATION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES.
COMPREHENSIVE AND ACCURATE TRAFFIC ANALYSES MUST BE PERFORMED
NOW -- PRIOR TO AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN.
WITHOUT THESE ANALYSES, THE EFFECTS ON OUR PLAN AREA AND OTHER
NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES CANNOT BE DETERMINED.
PAGE 7
FROM CURRENT TRAFFIC MODELING PERFORMED IN OUR AREA, WE ARE
CERTAIN THAT THE PROPOSED MASSIVE INCREASE IN INTENSITY IN OTAY
RANCH WILL CREATE UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF TRAFFIC IN THE VALLE DE
ORO, SPRING VALLEY, JAMUL, AND SWEETWATER CIRCULATION NETWORKS.
VIEWGRAPH. GP
THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF
WHAT THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICIES
PROVIDE FOR THIS AREA.
INSTEAD OF STARTING WITH THIS AS A BASELINE AND WORKING ON WHERE
CHANGES COULD BE MADE WITHOUT AFFECTING SENSITIVE RESOURCES AND
SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN REVERSED.
BALDWIN'S "NEW TOWN" BECAME THE BASELINE.
THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN INTENSITY IS SO DRAMATIC IN COMPARISON TO
THE EXISTING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN THAT THE PROJECT TEAM HAS
AVOIDED COMPARISON OF THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IN ACHIEVABLE
INTENSITY.
IN THEIR COMPOSITE GENERAL PLANS ALTERNATIVE, THEY INCLUDE AN
INTENSIVE CHULA VISTA PLAN WITH NO ACTUAL STATURE AND THE COUNTY
PORTIONS IGNORE THE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE EFFECTS OF RESOURCE PROTECTION LAWS AND ORDINANCES.
THE COMPARISON OF IMPACTS AND RESULTANT MITIGATION COSTS
ASSIGNABLE TO THE DEVELOPER CAN THUS BE REDUCED DRAMATICALLY.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE NET ACHIEVABLE INTENSITY OF THE EXISTING
COUNTY GENERAL PLAN IS LESS THAN HALF OF THE PROJECT TEAM'S
COMPOSITE GENERAL PLANS ALTERNATIVE (=9,000 UNITS VS. 20,470).
VIEWGRAPH. VILLAGE
A MAJOR ELEMENT USED TO PLAY DOWN THE EFFECTS OF THIS TREMENDOUS
INCREASE IN INTENSITY IS THE VILLAGE STRUCTURE.
THROUGHOUT THE FINAL EIR THE "VILLAGE" STRUCTURE OF DEVELOPMENT
IS OFFERED AS A FUTURISTIC DESIGN APPROACH THAT WILL CREATE A
LIFESTYLE DIFFERENT FROM THE CALIFORNIA NORM.
THIS "NEW" VILLAGE CONCEPT IS USED REPEATEDLY AS THE BASIS FOR
REDUCING THE LEVEL OF IMPACTS TO BE EXPECTED FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THIS CONCEPT.
THE TEXT READS NEARLY IDENTICAL TO A SCRIPT THAT WAS GENERATED 20
YEARS AGO TO JUSTIFY THE INTENSE RANCHO SAN DIEGO "NEW TOWN"
DEVELOPMENT IN OUR PLAN AREA.
PAGE 8
ONE NEED ONLY TO VISIT RANCHO SAN DIEGO TO OBSERVE THE RESULTS OF
IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED VILLAGE CONCEPT - SPRAWLING URBAN
RESIDENTIAL PUNCTUATED BY SMALL RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTERS.
WE CAN ASSURE YOU FROM DIRECT EXPERIENCE, .THAT ALL OF THESE
VISIONS OF A. DIFFERENT CALIFORNIIA LIFESTYLE ARE NOTHING MORE
THAN RHETORIC TO JUSTIFY DRAMATICALLY INCREASING THE INTENSITY OF
THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN.
VIEWGRAPH. PC
THESE ARE KEY ISSUES WHERE THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGREED
WITH OUR PLANNING GROUP, THE JAMUL PLANNING GROUP, AND RESOURCE
AGENCIES.
THEY AGREED THAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A RESORT/GOLF COURSE
AND SEWER SERVICE SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED INTO PROCTOR VALLEY.
THEY AGREED THAT MILLAR RANCH ROAD SHOULD REMAIN PRIVATE AND NOT
BE CONNECTED TO PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD.
AND THEY AGREED WITH LIMITING DEVELOPMENT BELOW THE LOWER OTAY
LAKES AND IN SALT CREEK CANYON.
VIEWGRAPH. REC 1
WE FIND, HOWEVER, THAT MORE IS NEEDED.
WITH THE EIR YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND
THE EFFECT THAT THIS ENORMOUS INCREASE IN GENERAL PLAN INTENSITY
WILL HAVE ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES AND REGIONAL WILDLIFE.
THEREFORE, WE ASK THAT YOU DETERMINE THAT THE EIR IS INADEQUATE
AS A BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN.
SINCE THE EIR IS INADEQUATE, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT CANNOT BE APPROVED.
FROM THERE, A NEW PROJECT ALTERNATIVE SHOULD BE FULLY DEVELOPED
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, SENSITIVE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, AND THAT PROPERLY ADDRESSES THE REGIONAL
IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT.
VIEWGRAPH. REC 2
A NEW OR SUBSEQUENT EIR SHOULD BE PREPARED THAT CORRECTS THE
ERRORS AND LACK OF COMPLETENESS.
IT SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PLAN AND
THE NEW STATUS OF THE CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER.
FINALLY, WE ASK THAT YOU RESCIND THE AUGUST 1989 MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING AND RETURN CONTROL AND AUTHORITY OVER THE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN BACK TO COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
PAGE 9
WITH THIS 23,000-ACRE PROJECT YOU ARE AT THE THRESHOLD WHERE YOU
. CAN SAY YES TO DUPLICATING THE URBAN SPRAWL OF LOS ANGELES ON A
LARGE SCALE,
OR YOU CAN SAY NO.-- YOU CAN STICK BY THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN FOR
THIS PROPERTY AND SAVE THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES FROM THE
OVERWHELMING UNPLANNED GROWTH. THANK YOU.
GIVEN OUR CONFLICTING MEETING SCHEDULES, WE WILL BE AVAILABLE AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR FINDINGS ON
THIS GPA.
PAGE 10
.
.
.
~~.
~.bl!
The Baldwin Company
Craftsmanship in building since 1956
July 12, 1993
County Board of Supervisors
Chu1a Vista City Council
Otay Ranch project Team
315 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91913
Re: Baldwin Company's Response to Valle de Oro planning Group
Letter of June 7, 1993
Dear Board and Council Members:
Attached is the Baldwin Company's response to the June 7,1993
letter to the County Board of Supervisors authored by Jack Phillips
on behalf of the Valle de Oro Planning Group.
This response incorporates comments provided by various technical
consultants who have reviewed, on our behalf, the GDP/SRP, the
Program EIR, the Resource Management Plan, the Facility Implementa-
tion Plans, and all the related technical documents.
Since many of Mr. Phillip's assertions are based on inaccurate data
or misunderstandings about the project, we regret that neither we,
nor the project Team were afforded an opportunity to meet with the
full membership of the Valle de Oro Planning Group before the
letter was sent.
Had there been open and complete dialogue, many of the issues
raised by Mr. Phillips could have been resolved.
Sincerely,
Attachment
KJK/cc
cc: Valle de Oro Planning Group
11975 El Camino Real, Suite 200 . San Diego, CA 92130 · (619) 259-2900
.
.
.
BALDWIN RESPONSB TO JACK PHILLIPS COMMENTS
FRACTIONALIZBD ANALYSIS
CnmmAut: The letter claims that requiring further analysis
at the SPA level will result in fractionalized analysis.
ResDonse: The Otay Ranch Program EIR contains an exhaustive
cumulative impact section (Section 6) and a section evaluating
the growth inducing impacts of the project and project
alternatives (Section 7). Combined, these two sections
contain over 50 pages of data and analysis, the most thorough
cumulative impact analysis ever performed for a general plan
amendment, to our knowledge.
Furthermore, both the EIR and the GDP/SRP contain precise
thresholds and standards which must be met through the
implementation of the plan. This is entirely consistent with
the purpose of a general plan document and a program EIR.
with respect to the role of the general plan, Government Code
Section 65300.5 provides:
" . . . the Legislature intends that the general plan and
elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated,
internally consistent and compatible statement of
Dolicies. .." (emphasis added)
with respect to program EIRs, CEQA guidelines provide that the
purpose of a program EIR is:
"To allow agencies to examine broad policy ques-
tions and programmatic mitigation measures at an
early stage when an agency has flexibility to deal
with basic problems and/or cumulative impacts
(Guideline !U5168 (b) (4)) ."
The Otay Ranch EIR and GDP/SRP provide a greater level of
detail and analysis than any other general plan level EIR ever
prepared in this region, if not the state.
"INADBOUATB" DATA BASB
Comments: The letter claims several times that an inadequate
data base has been established for the proposed General Plan
Amendment.
ReSDonse: The biological and cultural resources data base
established for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is by far more exten-
sive than any other general plan amendment in the region. The
data base includes applicant-initiated studies; peer review of
1
.
study protocols prior to initiation of studies and study
results following completion; critical review of all appli-
cant-prepared studies by the EIR consultant; and new studies
by the EIR consultant. The biological data base includes the
following:
Biological Resources Inventory Report for the Otay
Ranch Property (RECON 1989, with 1991 update) .
Biological Resources Survey Report, Otay Ranch -
Proctor Valley Area, San Diego County, California
(Michael Brandman Associates 1989).
Sensitive Plant Species Survey Report, Otay Ranch -
Proctor Valley/Jamul Mountains Area, San Diego
County, California (Michael Brandman Associates
1990) .
Botanical Resources Report for the
Property, Rare Plant Survey Results,
(RECON 1990) .
Otay Ranch
Spring 1990
Report on the Hydrology and Flora of the Otay Ranch
Vernal Pools, 1990 San Diego County, California
DUDEK 1992)7
.
Baldwin Otay Ranch Wildlife Corridor Study (Ogden
Environmental Services 1992).
Baldwin Otay Ranch Raptor Management Study (Ogden
Environmental Services 1992).
Response to "Data Gaps" Identified by the Otay
Ranch Biology Subcommittee (DUDEK 1991) .
These technical documents were reviewed in exhaustive detail
during over 60 meetings of the biology subcommittee estab-
lished by the Otay Ranch Project Team. The biology subcommit-
tee was comprised of state and federal resource agencies and
Chula Vista and County staff.
.
Where data gaps were identified, new field work or research
was initiated and documented. The "Data Gaps" report refer-
enced above was prepared at the express direction of the
biology subcommittee to ensure that an adequate biological
data base was available for analysis of the proposed GPA.
With respect to cultural resources, the data base includes a
ranch wide records search and walkover completed in 1990 by
RECON and augmented in 1992 by a systematic survey of 5,766
acres by Ogden. A Cultural Resources Management Plan has also
been prepared and is included in Appendix B of the RMP.
2
.
The available data base for other resource categories within
Otay Ranch is summarized below:
Landform - completion of GIS-based slope analysis.
paleontological Resources Identification and
mapping of potential paleontologically sensitive
formations.
Agricultural - Identification, mapping and quanti-
fication of prime agricultural lands and soil.
In combination, all of the studies completed for Otay Ranch
comprise a more than adequate data base for decision making at
the GPA level, and a level of detail unheard of at this step
in the planning process.
VERNAL POOLS
Comment: The letter references a pOlicy statement that all
vernal pools and their watersheds shall be preserved and
claims that the resort site golf course will be located in the
identified vernal pool study area.
.
ResDonse: RMP policies do not require that all vernal pools be
preserved. Rather, Policy 2.9 of the RMP requires preserva-
tion of a minimum of~5% of vernal pool habitat containing
sensitive species and requires obtaining all necessary state
and federal permits for any disturbance to vernal pools. A
vernal pool preservation and management plan must be prepared
with the Phase 2 RMP, prior to or concurrent with the first
SPA. A 330-acre vernal pool preserve must also be estab-
lished, the largest private vernal pool preserve in the
County. policy 2.9, Standard 6 of the RMP also requires
preservation and enhancement of K-6 vernal pools where "little
mousetail" occurs. This is in the vernal pools study area in
the vicinity of the resort site. Thus, it is inaccurate to
state that "the vernal pool study area will become the golf
course." Rather, the golf course will be situated to accormno-
date vernal pools.
HABITAT RANKING
Comment: The letter claims that the reference to habitat
ranking is flawed.
ResDonse: Chapter 2 of the RMP describes the resource protec-
tion framework that forms the basis for the preserve design
and resource protection measures.
The resource protection framework consists of 4 tiers:
1) the resource data base described in detail above;
.
3
.
.
.
2) the identification of key biological resource areas;
3) the regional context as established by the character
of the surrounding area; and
4) available literature on preserve design theory and
practice.
The 4-tiered resource protection framework reflects the multi-
disciplined nature of regional resource planning. The
biological data base and identification of key biological
resource areas are empirically based, not arbitrary as implied
in the letter, and may not be altered during the review and
approval process for subsequent developments within Otay
Ranch.
WETLANDS
Comment: The letter claims that inadequate wetlands data
exists for the Ranch.
ResDonse: Quite the contrary is true. Table 13 (Page 191) of
the RMP clearly quantifies existing wetland habitat types on
the Ranch and notes acreages within and outside the Preserve
based on the composi~ plan analyzed in the July 31, 1992
draft of the RMP. In addition, vernal pools, a unique wetland
type on the Ranch, are specifically delineated and described
in the Vernal Pool Report. Furthermore, drainage areas that
may be defined in future wetland delineations as "waters of
the u. S ." are shown on Figure 11 of the RMP. The RMP (policy
2.10) requires compliance with all state and federal require-
ments with respect to wetlands disturbance and requires
completion of wetlands delineations for each SPA. A wetlands
delineation is a project level analysis and is not appropriate
at the GPA level. The broad-based wetland habitat mapping
completed for the GPA provides a more expansive picture of
wetlands on the Ranch than would be provided by a wetlands
delineation.
RMP/RPO
Comment: The letter states that the RMP is not the functional
equivalent of RPO and that the RPO/RMP comparison included in
the Preface to the RMP is inadequate because the data base is
not complete and because the RMP would permit disturbance of
sensitive resources that would not be disturbed under RPO.
ResDonse: Neither statement is correct. As noted above, a
very thorough data base has been developed for the Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP. Pages p-6 and P-7 of the RMP describe Resource
Protection Ordinance study requirements and the ways in which
4
.
.
.
the RPO
ments.
Exhibit
Exhibit
analysis for Otay Ranch responded to these require-
A reduced map of the RPO analysis is included as
1 in the RMP Preface. A full-scale copy of the
is available for review at the Project Team office.
As described in detail in the Preface to the RMP, a direct
comparison of the RMP to RPO is not possible since the RPO is
intended for project-level analyses, while the RMP is a
regional resource planning document. Pages P-3 and p-4 of the
Preface highlight the major differences between the RMP and
RPO that make an acre-for-acre comparison of possible protec-
tion/disturbance under the RMP and RPO scenarios impossible.
Such an acre-for-acre comparison is not necessary since the
RMP is proposed to be the "functional" equivalent of RPO.
Pages p-4 - P-15 of the RMP describe in detail the functional
equivalence of the RMP to RPO. Of special importance is the
fact that the RMP provides more functional massing of open
space/preserve than the RPO "spot" preservation approach which
yields smaller open space areas. The RMP provides for active
management rather than forgotten articles of habitat subject
to degradation.
FLOODPLAINS
CommAnt: The letter -states that floodplains have not been
adequately mapped in accordance with RPO requirements.
Resoonse: The RPO requires mapping of FEMA and County mapped
floodplains. All existing FEMA and County mapped floodplains
are documented in the RMP and EIR. (EIR Page 3.9-10).
RMP IMPLEMENTATION
COIlll1'Ant: The letter states that assurance has not been
provided that the RMP will be implemented.
Resoonse: Requirements for implementation of the RMP are
incorporated in both the GDP/SRP and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared as part of the Final EIR
for Otay Ranch.
PRESERVE CONVEYANCE. MANAGEMENT
Comment: The letter claims that a plan for conveyance of the
Preserve to the Owner/Manager has not yet been determined,
that management of the Preserve is not assured.
Resoonse: The RMP identifies specific criteria which shall
assure a conveyance schedule for the Preserve during the
Phase 2 RMP.
5
.
.
.
Preserve management and maintenance requirements are presented
in policies 5.1 through 5.12 of the RMP. Assurance that RMP
policies will be carried out is provided in the GDP/SRP and
the MMRP. The qualifications and selection criteria for the
Preserve Owner/Manager are presented in Policy 5.1 of the RMP,
as well as Chapter 10 of the GDP/SRP.
RAPTORS
Comment: The letter claims that key raptor foraging areas are
not proposed for inclusion within the Preserve.
The Final Program EIR concludes that key raptor foraging,
nesting and roosting areas are included within the Preserve.
RESTORATION
CommAnt: The letter claims that areas identified for poten-
tial restoration have no scientific basis and that restoration
proposals and pre-impact mitigation proposals presented in the
RMP are unclear.
ResDonse: potential restoration areas identified in the RMP
are completely based on maps prepared by the EIR consultant
for the Otay Ranch Program EIR. Potential restoration areas
identified on the maps were field checked by County and
resource agency staff. The RMP recognizes that removal of
grazing may be sufficient to permit habitat restoration to
occur while in other cases, active restoration techniques will
be required. Appropriate restoration techniques in specific
areas will be determined on a case by case basis.
Coastal sage scrub restoration activities must begin prior to
or concurrent with the first SPA within Otay Ranch and shall
have achieved success based on performance standards outlined
in the RMP prior to or concurrent with approval for any
development resulting in significant impacts to coastal sage
scrub habitat occupied by California gnatcatchers on the
Proctor Valley or San Ysidro Mountains parcels.
PHASE 2 RMP
Comment: The letter claims that the content of the phase 2
RMP is vague and confusing.
ResDonse: Table 12 on Pages 178-180 of the RMP precisely
summarizes Phase 2 RMP requirements.
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
CnmmAut: The letter makes numerous assertions regarding the
validity of the wildlife Corridor Study.
6
.
.
.
Resoonse: The focused "Corridor Study" for the Otay Ranch
project goes well beyond the range of field work normally
required for a GPA. "Corridor Studies" are not a part of the
typical environmental review process; there are no standards
or guidelines by which they should be conducted. The study
was not intended to be a rigorous scientific experiment. It
is primarily descriptive, correlational and anecdotal. The
observations and results presented in the study are consistent
with scientific literature.
The terms and definitions used by Ogden are articulated
clearly in Section 1. Although differences of opinion exist
regarding terms such as "corridor" and "habitat linkage,"
Ogden clearly defines the terms, objectives, and target
species used in the context of their study. The survey
methodology is completely described in Section 2. Several
literature citings are provided to support the validity of
their methods.
In a strict sense, corridors are linear features that provide
an avenue for direct animal movement; they do not necessarily
represent habitat. In contrast, habitat linkages are narrow
habitat features that serve to connect two large patches of
habitat. Habitat linkages do not necessarily provide an
avenue for direct anImal movement (although they may). The
Ogden study examines corridors for mountain lion, mule deer,
and bobcat, and habitat linkages for the California gnatcatc-
her.
The only way to determine if corridors continue to function in
an urbanized landscape is to evaluate wildlife corridors that
are currently within an urban context. This approach is
highly logical and thus the study of Penasquitos Canyon was
entirely appropriate. It asks the simple question "Do animals
continue to utilize "natural" corridors following development
of the surrounding area?" This approach was developed and
implemented with input from the resource agencies.
Small animals typically require less habitat. Hence, a five-
acre patch of coastal sage scrub may actually support several
populations of a butterfly species. Granted, this example
represents the extreme, but it does illustrate the point that
for some species corridors are not required. Inbreeding is
not always a bad thing; it helps expose deleterious recessive
alleles and helps maintain co-adapted gene complexes. For
most species, extremely limited gene flow is all that is
required to eliminate the potential of inbreeding depression.
The GDP/SRP requires the
important local corridors
Standards and Guidelines.
incorporation of regional and
into the Preserve - Policy 4.1
7
.
.
.
PROCTOR VALLEY WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
Comment: The letter claiJIIS that none of the wildlife corri-
dors in the northern section of Proctor Valley have been
preserved.
ResDonse: The Wildlife Corridor Study, RMP and GDP/SRP all
preserve wildlife corridors in Proctor Valley (R-1 and L-4)
sufficient to ensure linkages between the Jamul Mountain and
Mt. Miguel areas.
MAXIMUM DENSITIES SOUGHT
Comment: The letter claims that the GDP/SRP seeks "maximum
densities."
ResDonse: This is not an accurate representation of the plan.
Typically, general plans establish a ranae of potential
densities. This uncertainty leads to confusion and conflict
at the SPA and subdivision stages. To create a more precise
planning document, and to avoid later conflict, the Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP identifies an absolute number of dwelling units that
may not be exceeded. This is a more accurate and forthright
means of planning, made possible by the more precise and
detailed level of information available in the plan for Otay
Ranch.
TRAFFIC MODELING
Comment: The letter asks that additional, more specific
traffic modeling be performed.
ResDonse: The computer programs used for travel forecasting
are only as accurate as the assumptions for land use and the
street or freeway systems. Even if the land use and street
assumptions put into a model were estimated PERFECTLY, model
accuracy typically is plus or minus 15-20% at the general plan
level. It is impossible to accurately forecast land uses,
streets, project access, etc., 10, 20 or more years in the
future. Consequently, the planning and modeling process is
established to incrementally refine assumptions and modeling
results through the general plan, specific plan and project
levels of analysis. Also, once projects are built, annual
monitoring of cumulative impacts through the Otay Ranch Growth
Management Program assure problems do not develop without
timely mitigation. Due to the numerous uncertainties of the
future, the suggestion to complete more detailed planning and
modeling at this time is impractical, and not normally
required at this level of planning.
8
.
.
.
TRAFFIC DATA CONSISTENCY
Comment: The letter claims that the Otay Ranch BIR is
inconsistent with data and conclusion presented by CALTRANS.
Resoonse: Travel forecast models are designed to compare one
alternative with another. Different travel forecasts that
have different sets of assumptions that yield different
estimates for future traffic for a particular facility are not
uncommon. Comparing traffic model results without clearly
stating the assumptions is likely to lead to erroneous
conclusions.
The CALTRANS model and South Bay/Otay Ranch traffic model
yield similar results when similar alternatives are compared.
For example, on Millar Ranch Road, the Ranch model projected
25,000 ADT south of SR-94 for the Phase II Progress Plan and
the CALTRANS model projected 26,000 ADT when a similar
alternative is compared. The models are essentially in
aareernent when similar assumotions are cornoared.
The mistake made by the Valle De Oro planning Group was to
compare a CALTRANS forecast where Route 54 was assumed to be
a 6 lane expressway connecting 1-8 via a high capacity
facility. The traff~ model diverts trips to Millar Ranch
Road, increasing volumes from 26,000 to 36,000 ADT. This does
not mean that the Otay Ranch traffic model is invalid. Quite
the opposite, it confirms the validity of the Otav Ranch/South
Bav traffic model.
MILLAR RANCH ROAD
Comment: The letter claims that the traffic model does not
analyze the impacts of (A) not completing SR-54 to I-a and (B)
SR-125 as a toll road.
Resoonse: (A) The planning group claims that the impact of not
having an SR-54 expressway connection to 1-8 was not evaluated
for Millar Ranch Road. The fact is that the Phase II Progress
Plan analysis did not assume an expressway connection to 1-8
for Route 54. The modeling results are therefore valid and
consistent with assumptions the planning group thinks are most
likely.
(B) The impacts of a toll/no toll on Route 125 were determined
through modeling. (Draft EIR Technical Appendix IX, Transpor-
tation Technical Report, Page 10-7 to 10-11.) Based on this
analysis, there is sufficient technical data to evaluate
reports on Millar Ranch Road.
9
.
.
.
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Comment: The letter claims that the EIR fails to consider
"over-all" traffic impacts.
ResDonse: The Otay Ranch EIR traffic modeling is extremely
comprehensive. The analysis assumes build-out of the entire
South County, not a 20 year planning horizon typical of most
other analyses. The analysis assumes build-out of the 6,000
acres of industrial land in Otay Mesa, and construction of a
university within Otay Ranch. The analysis did not allow any
credit for the trolley system or village design. Finally, the
model area was defined and evaluated to ensure Otay Ranch
impacts were below a level of significance outside the study
area.
10