HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/07/22 S.D. County Supervisors
NOTXCE OF A SPECXAL JOXNT MEETXNG OF THE CXTY COUNCXL OF THE CXTY
OF CHULA VXSTA AND THE SAN DXEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVXSORS
NOTXCE XS HEREBY GXVEN that the City Council of the City of
Chula vista will meet on July 22, 1993 at the county Board
Chambers, Room 310, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA, at 3:00
p.m.
SAXD PURPOSE OF THE MEETXNG 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 13, 1993
Beverly A. Authelet, city Clerk
"I declare under penalt f .
employe" by the City o~ ~h perJu!y t~at I am
Office of the City Clerk a d ula VIsta '" the
this AgenJa/Notice 0 n that J posted
the pUb,~~ et S~i::.e Bulletin Board at
DATED. Ing an at Clt Ha'lf on
. . SIGNED
"\
AGENDA
JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS /
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Ril!lliIII;.I_~I{,~.I;~(i!]~~g
!~!~.tlf!"~~!rR
BOARD CHAMBERS - ROOM 310
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
1. ROLL CALL
. Brian Bilbray, 1st District
County Board of Supervisors
. Tim Nader, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
II. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 30, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
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 26, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the City
of Chula Vista Council Chambers.
V. ADJOURNMENT
. County Board of Supervisors to its meeting on July 26, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in
the City of Chula Vista Council Chambers.
. Chula Vista City Council to its meeting on July 26, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
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.
",,~._,,~- .' -
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF TIIE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND TIIE COUNIY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Wednesday, June 30, 1993
3:15 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CAlL TO ORDER
1. ROll. CAlL:
PRESENT:
Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Rindone, and Mayor Nader
ABSENT:
Councilmember Moore and Supervisors Bilbray, Jacobs, McDonald, Slater,
and Williams
2. PUBUC COMMENT - None
3. CONTINUED PUBUC HEARING During the public hearing, the County Board of
Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council will deliberate on any or all portions of the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report and the Otay Ranch Project. It is anticipated that the public hearing will be
continued to the Joint Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council hearing of July 12, 1993 at 3:00 p.m.
in the County Administration Center Board Chambers - Room 310.
Mayor Nader stated the purpose of the meeting was the continuation of a joint public hearing on Otay
Ranch. He had received word late in the afternoon that the County Board of Supervisors had cancelled the
meeting. The County Board of Supervisors did not have jurisdiction to cancel a meeting of the Chula Vista
City Councilor vice-a-versa. The meeting had been publicly advertised and he felt it should be held as there
were no final decisions scheduled to made, it was an opportunity to take public testimony, and there could
be members of the public that had not received the County's unilateral action or who might be unable to
appear at a different time to give their comments. The meeting was being taped and he had been advised
that testimony taken could be incorporated into the County's hearing process by motion at a later time. The
Supervisors would be provided tapes for their review. His intent in going forward with the Council's portion
of the meeting was to make sure no member of the public was deprived of an opportunity to testify because
of an eleventh hour decision by the Board of Supervisors.
Councilmember Rindone agreed that the purpose of the meeting was to assure that the public would be
allowed to testify, especially Chula Vista residents. He felt it important that members of both governing
bodies be present to hear such testimony and was disappointed that the action by the Board had eliminated
their participation in the meeting. It was also his understanding that when the misunderstanding occurred
on the part of the County, the applicant anticipated that to be the action that would be taken and had made
every effort possible to mitigate people from attending.
Kim KiIkenney, representing Baldwin Vista, responded they understood the meeting was cancelled and took
the liberty of advising people with an interest in the project that the next meeting would be on 7/12/93.
There were many people not at the meeting that would otherwise have been because of their action.
Councilmember Rindone stated the meeting had been unanimously agreed upon by the two governing bodies
and that it would be held in Chula Vista. Therefore, he felt the 7/12/93 meeting should also be scheduled
in Chula Vista due to the situation. He felt that would afford the citizens of the City and the thirty-five
speakers remaining from the last public hearing to attend and express their comments.
Minutes
June 30, 1993
Page 2
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened.
Mayor Nader noted that the thirty-five speaker slips from the previous meeting were not provided to the City
but retained by the County and were therefore unavailable.
. Ian Gardner-Smith, 4450 Otay Valley Road, Chula Vista, CA, representing Best Western Otay Valley
Inn, spoke on behalf of the Otay Ranch project. When the property was purchased they felt they were in
the path of progress but progress had been slow resulting in financial problems. He urged the
Council/Board to do everything they could to expedite a final plan.
. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, representing Crossroads, stated they were
interested in the impacts around the development rather then the project itself. . They were disappointed on
how little the Chula Vista General Plan had been utilized. Their principal area of concern was with the Otay
River Parcel. (A series of transparencies was utilized during the presentation.) The staff recommendation
for development was 90% greater than the target range of CV General Plan and 40% greater than the
maximum. He expressed their concern with the maintaining of Level C thresholds for traffic with the
proposed density. They felt the EIR contained dramatic assumptions, i.e. 1-5, I-80S, SR 125 were widened
to ten lanes and included several pages of streets that had to be widened. The GDP specifically stated the
interior roads would be allowed to operate at Levels of Service D, E, or F. In the staff plan the trolley was
an integral part of the plan but there was no single condition that required the trolley in the Otay Ranch
project. If the plan was adopted, the entire Otay River Parcel could be built without a trolley. They
recommended that no more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000.000 sq. ft. of commercial use within the
eastern urban center shall be approved for the Otay River Parcel until such time as the funding is approved
and construction assured for the light-rail transit system through Villages 1, 5, 6, 9, and the Eastern Urban
Center. In the absence of a light-rail system, it would keep the densities closer to the CV General Plan which
did not assume a light-rail system and which tested out a Level of Service C without herculean assumptions.
It would also give the developer an incentive to develop the trolley line when/if it was needed to build out
the Otay River Parcel. As for the Eastern Urban Center, the General Development Plan stated it could be
as high as 6,000,000 sq. ft. They recommended the Eastern Urban Center be limited to 4,000,000 sq. ft. in
the absence of a trolley line. In every case of a large development in eastern Chula Vista there had been a
caveat that the developer would be allowed to develop X number of units until SR125 was built. They felt
there should be some limit as to how far the Otay River Parcel could be developed without SR125. He urged
the two agencies to put a limit on how far the Otay River Parcel could be built out without the light rail
system it was designed for.
Councilmember Fox questioned how Crossroads had reached their proposed figures. He felt the argument
could be made that the funding for the light-rail system was in the hands of another entity, i.e. something
the developer could not control.
Mr. Watry responded 15,000 was the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the CV General Plan
which tested out for the Level of Service C. The General Development Plan for Otay Ranch called for a
maximum of 6,000,000 sq. ft. They had arbitrarily chosen one-third, 4,000,000, and then tried to put that
into perspective. The 4,000,000 sq. ft. was equal to the three largest shopping centers in San Diego County
which seemed a generous allowance. Councilmember Fox was correct that Baldwin could not control the
funding for the trolley but they also could not control the funding for widening of the freeways or SR125.
Mayor Nader stated the transparency utilized for Levels or Service or Traffic Levels was for Phase I Progress
Plan and noted the staff and Planning Commissions had recommended the Phase 2 Progress Plan. He
questioned whether the same categories and conclusions applied to the plan before them_
Mr_ Watry responded the Phase I densities were slightly higher than Phase 2, I.e. 1,000 units difference_
Minutes
June 30, 1993
Page 3
Councilmember Rindone felt everyone would like to see the light-rail transit built. He questioned whether
Crossroads had explored the concept of not limiting the dwelling units to 15,000 or the sq. ft. for commercial
to 4,000,000 but to fully build-out the transit villages so they would have sufficient densiry to break the log
jam so there would be an incentive to build the light-rail.
Mr. Watry stated there could be a problem in allowing full development and then have transit not fund the
light-rail.
. Jim Mayberry, 987 Lorna View, Chula Vista, CA, stated much of what had been said regarding the
depth of the Planning Commission's review of the EIR and nature of proposal in general was vesicated by
the fact that much of the proposal was altered by a substantial degree in important respects. At the second
to last hearing there were many text amendments introduced which were not discussed and changed the
project radically. One change was allowing the County or City to be the manager of the Wildlife Preserve
creating a situation where the ownership and trust responsibilities were separate from the responsibilities
of management. He felt conflict was inevitable.
Mayor Nader stated he was concerned that there were a number of text amendments at the end of the
Planning Commission hearing process and questioned where the amendments were located in the
documents.
Tony Lattieri, General Manager for Otay Ranch, responded the text amendments were in Section G of the
binder and were very specific by page in the General Development Plan. There were a number of hearings
dealing with text amendments and the item was discussed at both Planning Commissions and their summary
recommendations were also included for the text amendments.
Mr. Watry utilized a transparency of the area around Otay Lake and stated the road hugged the lake shore
which he felt was one of the most beautiful in southern California. In the Otay ranch plan the public road
was moved back witH development between the road and the lake obstructing the public's view. They felt
the moving of the road was appropriate due to the proposed heavy traffic but recommended that a very low
speed 'gawkers' road be left along the edge of the development with turnouts which would allow public
viewing.
Councilmember Horton questioned whether Crossroads would support something private, Le. bicycle or
pedestrian paths.
Mr. Watry felt it would provide limited access and there should be a provision for vehicles.
Councilmember Horton felt it would allow public access and also protect the environment.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was continued to the 7/12/93 meeting at 3:00 p.m.
4. COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS:
. Councilmember Rindone stated that because there were over thirty-five speaker slips from the
previous hearing and that Baldwin had made a concerted effort to notify interested parties that there was
a meeting on 7/12/93 he would like to see the location of that meeting in Chula Vista.
MSC (Rindone/Nader) since there was unanimous agreement previously by the Board/Council that the
meeting of 7/12/93 be at 3:00 p.m. in Chula VISta to accommodate the express need agreed upon at the
previous meeting. Approved 4-0-1 with Moore absent.
"~, ,"~".' ,.')'.'-.
\
Minutes
June 30, 1993
Page 4
City Manager Goss stated it was his understanding that the Chair of the Board of Supervisors understood
that request.
. Councilmember Rindone stated when he chaired the last meeting direction had been given that the
thirty-five speaker slips were to be given to Mayor Nader for the 6/30/93 meeting. He requested that the
thirty-five people be sent written notification of the next meeting on 7/12/93 at 3:00 p.m. in Chula Vista
and all upcoming meetings.
. Councilmember Rindone questioned the tentative dates set for future joint meetings.
Mr. Lattieri responded that meetings had been scheduled for 7/12/93, 7/21/93 at the County, 7/22/92 in
Chula Vista, and 7/26/93 at the County. All meetings had been scheduled for 3:00 p.m.
5. MAYOR'S COMMENfS:
. Mayor Nader stated there had been a substantial amount oftime put into the project because it was
a broad and complex project which raised a number of issues. He was frustrated that the timeline seemed
to be run by the County staff and Board considerations. The applicant and the public had the right to a
timely consideration of the item. If a meeting was called the public had a right to have that meeting and
be given an opportunity to appear. He reminded staff that Council meetings were called or cancelled only
by the Mayor or a majority of the Council. He referred to past comments he had made regarding the ElR
and felt they had been more of a response to comments than with the main body of the EIR document. He
hoped the EIR consultant would take advantage of the time that would transpire until a final vote was taken
to examine all comments and make sure they used all the existing data they developed to fully address those
comments.
. Mayor Nader reported that the University of California Chula Vista Task Force had met and adopted
a position concerning the response to the UCCV Task Force's comment in the EIR. He requested that the
City Attorney's secretary make copies of the UCCV statement for Council/Board members and EIR consultant
prior to the next meeting.
6. ADJOURNMENr AT 4:13 P.M.
. Chula Vista City Council to its regular meeting on July 13, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers
. County Board of Supervisors to its meeting on July 12, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. at the County
Administration Center
by:
~-.~." ..~" .
Remarks by Crossroads
Public Hearing - Otay Ranch
June 30, 1993
Otay Ranch re: OT A Y RIVER PARCEL
My name is Peter Watry and I am speaking on behalf of Crossroads. Crossroads is a small
group of citizens who are interested in developmental issues in Chula Vista and the surrounding
area. The principal concern of Crossroads is how a particular development will affect the rest of the
community around it, rather than details about the development itself.
We have been disappointed in how little the Chula Vista General Plan has been referred to in
the planning for Otay Ranch. Chula Vista's General Plan was adopted in July of 1989 and it was
the first new one in some 20 years. It was several years in the making, involved the use of outside
consultants and so forth, and reflected considerable input from citizens as well as professional
planners.
Our principal area of concern tonight is the so-called "Otay River Parcel," the area west of Otay
Lakes which coincides with the Chula Vista General Plan as well as the County's General Plan.
The Otay River Parcel contains 77% of all the residential units in Otay Ranch as well as the Eastern
Urban Center.
(please see Attachment #1) This Attachment shows you the comparison of the CVGP densities
for the Otay River Parcel versus the staffs recommendation.
In the Chula Vista General Plan, density categories come in ranges. The "midpoint" or "target"
range is what a really first-class development is entitled to. A development is only entitled to the
something over that, up to the maximum density, if it does something extraordinary for the
community at lar~e -- that is, beyond the borders of the development. The Olympic Training Center
in conjunction with EastLake is one of the rare examples that has occurred so far.
As you can see, the staffs recommendation for Otay Ranch is 90% higher than the midpoint or
target range -- and even 40% greater than the maximum allowed under the CVGP. Of course it
exceeds the County's General Plan by an even greater margin.
Now in developing the Chula Vista General PLan over several years, many traffic studies were
done. The plan that was finally adopted stood the test that traffic would not exceed Level of Service
'C.' The General Plan assumed just a standard subdivision, it did not assume any trolley, and it did
not make any Herculean assumptions.
You can imagine our initial shock when the staffs recommendation came out that almost
doubled the density. What would that do to traffic? Which category is grid-lock??
There are two basic reasons why the staff will tell you there will not be gridlock:
1. The staff will point out that the Otay Ranch E.I.R., in fact, assumed no trolley or light-rail
either and yet it shows that the traffic will work. How could that be?
One reason is that the E.I.R. includes some Herculean assumptions: it assumes that 1-5,
1-805, and SR-125 are all widened to 10 lanes (Please see Attachment #2). In addition, the EJ.R.
lists two pages of streets that would have to be widened from 2 -> 4, or 4 -> 6, or 6 -> 8 lanes
(Please see Attachments 3a-c). In addition, the "interior roads" of the Otay Ranch plan before you
are specifically allowed to operate at Levels of Service D, E, or F (Please see
Attachment #4).
1
The staff may also tell you that in any case the Chula Vista Threshhold standards will ensure
that traffic does not exceed LOS 'c.' We dispute that. First of all, if this property does not annex
to the City of Chula Vista, then there would be no enforcement mechanism of Chula Vista's
threshhold standards in any case. Secondly, even if the property was annexed to Chula Vista, the
threshholds explicitly do NOT apply to the "interior roads" of Otay Ranch, as I mentioned, nor do
they apply to freeways or to freeway interchanges. And even with whatever is left, the-
"threshholds" do not automatically do anything -- they only require the Council to hold a meeting to
consider a moratorium -- but they do not require a moratorium on continuing development.
2. But the principal explanation of how one could expect such an increase in density not to cause
gridlock is the design of the Plan itself -- the so-called "Village" concept. The "Village" concept
concentrates much of the density into highly concentrated cores along with some commercial and
community uses with the stated objective of getting people out of their cars -- the design of the Otay
Ranch Plan appears to make a determined effort to get people into a life-style that relies much less
on the use of the automobile. It does this in a variety of ways, but the most critical and obvious part
of the plan is the creative use of light-rail transportation. And the "creative" part seems to revolve
around making the use of light-rail convenient for people. The design of the Otay River Parcel
demonstrates this well.
(Please see Attachment #5). The Trolley or light-rail system goes through the middle of
Villages 1,5,6,9 and through the Eastern Urban Center itself. Those villages include 55% of all
the DUs in the Otay River Parcel. Probably 40% of all the DUs in the Otay River Parcel will be
within easy walking distance of a trolley station -- plus the giant Eastern Urban Center.
So in the Staffs plan the trolley is not just an afterthought but an intregal part of the plan -- and
the only excuse for exceeding the densities of the CVGP by such a huge amount. Mr. William
Lieberman, Director of Planning and Operations for MTDB has testified that these are the absolute
minimum densities required to have a trolley line.
BUT -- there is not a single word in the plan before you about the light-rail system ever being
a required condition of approval. If you were to adopt this GDP as it is, the whole Otay River
Parcel could be built out without a trolley system.
All of which leads us to our recommendation (Please see Attachment #6):
"That no more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial
use within the Eastern Urban Center shall be approved for the "Otay River
Parcel" until such time as the funding is approved and construction is assured for
the light-rail transit system through Villages 1,5,6,9 and the Eastern Urban
C "
enter.
In the absence of a light-rail system, this would keep the densities closer to the Chula Vista
General Plan which did not assume any light-rail system and which tested out at LOS 'C' without
any Herculean assumptions. This condition of approval would also give the developer an incentive
to help develop the trolley line when and if it was needed to build out the Otay River Parcel to its
maximum.
As for the Eastern Urban Center, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan states that it may
be as large as 6 million square feet. Our recommendation is that the EUC be limited to 4 million
sq. ft. in the absence of the trolley line -- 4 million sq. ft. is still almost equal to the three largest
shopping centers in San Diego county combined (as shown on Attachment #6)!
We hope that you will agree with the Chairman of the County Planning Commission that these
are very generous limits indeed.
2
The City Council members, of course, will know that in every case of a large development
being approved in eastern Chula Vista, there is always a condition of approval that they can only
develop X amount of units before SR 125 is built. In the draft version of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, we looked for such a condition of approv2.l for SR 125 -- this is what we found:
(Please see Attachment #7)
Now that is an extreme condition of approval -- no development allowed before SR 125. When we
brought it to Mr. Littieri's attention he said it was a mistake and that it would be changed. That's
reasonable, of course, but there will certainly be some sort of limit on how far the Otay River Parcel
can proceed before 125 is built.
Now some feel that our recommendation is somehow not fair to Baldwin because they cannot
control the trolley. Of course they cannot, but they also cannot control SR 125, nor can they make
Cal Trans widen all the freeways, etc., etc. In any case, we hope you are ~ interested in what's
fair to the residents of Chula Vista and the surrounding areas.
Some also say that the trolley will not build a line unless the need has already been
demonstrated and gridlock is well established, so this becomes a bit of a chicken-and-egg question.
But the protection of the quality of life of current and future residents of Chula Vista and the South
Bay should come fIrst!
We urge you to put a limit on how far the Otay River Parcel can
be built out without the light-rail system it is designed for.
Thank you.
3
Otay Ranch
Otay River Parcel
Dwelling Units
C. V. General Plan
Midpoint
or
Baseline Target Maximum
6,475
14,995
11,031
.
II Attachment #1
It
I
Otay Ranch
20,982
Vista General Plan Update, and the Otay Mesa InteIjurisdictional Task Force. In each of .
these separate transportation modeling analyses it has become apparent that all north/south .
freewa facilities in the Southba -5 1-805 and SR-l25 will uire, at a rmnunum, the
equivalent of at least 10 lanes of freeway carrying capacity with an equlv ent
carrying capacity of 200,000 ADT. Thus, all of the modeling work conducted for the Otay
Ranch transportation analysis has been based on the coding of 10 lanes of carrying capacity
on each of these north/south facilities for every land use alternative analyzed. This
mitigation measure of increasing freeway capacity would involve a significant amount of
capital expenditure above the expenditure contemplated in the year 2010 Caltrans Route
Concept for the 1-805 and 1-5 facilities. The capacity requirements on SR-125, if the
facility is operated as a toll road, will be addressed as an element for the Franchise
Agreement between Caltrans and the operator. Thus, additional freeway capacity will be
provided on this facility based on actual demand.
.~.
Another concern that has been expressed by Caltrans is that the freeway system
infrastructure to the north of the Southbay Region may not have the capacity to adequately
handle the forecasted volumes under some of the more intense land use plans which have .
been proposed for the Southbay. It is for this reason that additional mitigation measures
may be required beyond freeway capacity increases as detailed in the following discussion.
Implement Tran~rtation System Mana~ement ITSM) Strate~es
The goal of a successful Transportation System Management (TSM) strategy is the
acco=odation of future growth in traffic on transportation facilities without increasing
congestion. The Caltrans District 11 Long Range Operations Plan (LROP) proposes a
strategy to maximize the existing capacity of the major highway corridors in the
metropolitan area. The key items in this strategy include ramp metering, Traffic Operations
Center (TOC), signal timing and coordination, and HOV facilities. The LROP calls for
ramp meters to be installed at approximately 170 additional locations throughout San Diego
County in the future. The TOC element of the strategy calls for a complete traffic
management plan for San Diego County. It will aid in the rapid identification of incidents
and other non-recurrent freeway congestion, and will issue appropriate information to
motorists through the use of changeable message signs and highway advisory radio, and
possibly through in-vehicle computers. Signal timing and coordination strategies will also
provide for the most efficient movement of traffic along signalized arterials which operate
independently of freeways or intercept freeway interchanges. Finally, HOV facilities will
encourage ridesharing and ultimately contribute to increasing the average vehicle occupancy
rate within the region.
Provide Parallel Arterial System
The land use and network alternative plans which have beeri evaluated fortheOtay'Ranch
project have focused on the need for parallel arterials to aid in relieving the freeway
facilities of local, non-regional trips. The focus of this parallel system analysis for the Otay '. .,.
Ranch project has been the network of circulation facilities crossing the Otay River Valley. ..
A discussion of the travel demand across the Otay River Valley is provided in Section B.4 ....
of this appendix. In snmmllry, it is recommended that the Otay Ranch project implement as
many arterial river crossings parallel to SR-l25 as environmentally and financiall y feasible~
The precise recommendation for the future circulation system crossing the Gtay River
Valley and providing access r~ r\+~.. UA'~;~~~+~;~A..l ;~ +loA "Roads Crossing Otay Valley.... .
,,= P_" p<=n<aUn API II AttaOhm,'" #2 II 'J'Ortacinn T~hnioal Ropo<<- He <c"
B-7
~
en
Z
o
....
t:
~
en
~f2
z~
,,;:l
....en
~~en
~:;.....
[olZZ
"o[ol
<....:;
........"
"'<[ol
...."en
~ >-...
::: ~..... <
'" <S1E2
-: ~ ~ [ol
~ <ga~
..... ~ S ~
Z CI[ol
~ga.....
enl':.U
~O~
, >< :;
~~-
en:;
~~
"en
o
~
~
-
[ol
en
<
::c
~
.
.
.
- ~
o ~
.. ;
~ ~
~c
...l]
'"
:z:
o
!=
-<
"
!=
i
Ii:
~ !::::.,So..
::; . Cl ... ...
,,~s!-.;
~ t; -... ~
Vl=t"~~
tIo -~~
o
:z: ~.
o ~i:.!!~
s:-sp1€
_ ~... i! ~
e == ~ r~
13
~
~ ...-
~il;;
.!:;~
~
~
n~\
~ I!"C
~ t";
_U'l~
'-- /
:z:
o
!=
-<
"
!=
i
Ii:
~
2
'"
-'l
~
E
!j
u
33
53 ~'?s
'.::1 ~ 9.g.g".1:2
3' "::-::J U U ..
>C s~ '0=5 =as
";ggggg::..gg";:"~~::
"~"'a"'a"'a"E"'a 0 !'E 'E f330
'7 e-e.e.e.5-5 . e-e.. ~rj.5 ~
-Vjv.lVJVJV) ~3Cf)V}---
ZuuuuuiiO uuZ.uu
~"O""CI"O"Q"'OU ""CI"'C;.Jt:!:~.~
~e e e e erl'.le.e e::!:.ii5ii5"'~
~t:",,,OO ~ ~oo ~11""
~~~~~~,~~~~~~~,~
::::..1:.1:.1:.1:.1:::;;::::..1:.1:::::.::::.::::.::;;
333
::!:.:!-::!-
~ ~ ~
000
. 33'"''''
333g$:!.3~~~ 333~
\0 \0 \0 \0 ~ ~ \0 ' ,.. ~~ ~. ~_ :.z
'iI'iiIiI333 "i~,i~.
.~..c....t:!.t,!.C;!. c e
~~Clr.,:s--::s........ ~~""'~
....33.~~~ ""
333g::-::-3~:H 3333
~::!:.::!:.::!:.~s::!.uuu ::!:.~:e.~
.~ ,~ .u. ,di .~ 1111 .~.u,~
:i i i ~ 8 1:3 ~ ~. ~ oS _ :S i ;f: :S
:::- :::- :::- :::- :::- ::::- :::- =:::- ::: :::- ::: ::' :::- ~::'
--------------
Nt"IMMM------MM--
~
~~~
_____________M
~~~~~~
~~
~~~~~
~
~~~~~
~~~
~~~~~~
><~
M';:;" M
~ fo ~
.... ..
~~ ~
><>< ><
><><><><><~~><~><><><><~~
- . ~
~ 1 il ~
V,l~<_",
." ~ h ~~
aE:3~~~
t:lG ~ u c ~
..>.u.....
"2 ~ d . '" .
,gJ.1.:.1
~ .. 'tI '" .e =:.
5:.S~.g~~
. '" ~ .;J e .!
~]s=-ji
..:.c..EJ:<5ucn
u ..c; d ...:
! .i: ~ ~ .. ct) ~
"''''deli:; .
S,s.goB <
q~'8.~~'" ~
~u~we"~!'
! "" _ ..~. ". ..: 0
0:: t: 1XI . u;.L[ Q . ,
>._Q.u'U. >~
.Uu.~~.,;:g~o
!";'EC':'='e"O::
<!~s~~:;t:l5:3~
.'" Ern ul-
a~i.a_ ~.
CI'\'~5C,1...>.~a~
g;O!usJlSJl:zS
--- -
____M__M__
MMM....N..MM
uuuM-MuMuu
llQOOOO~~~IlO~tlOtlO
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
~~~CI)Vlv)~u)~~
><><><;:(x;(><;<><><
~
~
><><><
~ ~~
~i~...1111111gee~]]! llg~~ II ~
. .",,,,,,,...; &-5-5.:::1: .-e"'-.::J""I::l~1J:l15 6 >.>-",..1>!r
~=~~~~~~~~5S~~~~~!~J~&u=~55>~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~..Cjj=~
~JJI~~~~~~~~~~~~111111~588211]~
~~w~~~~~d~~~>>~~~=~=lXI=lXIuuuuwww=
H <0 U ci. :.,~,:.:," II Attaohment#3a II" > N' ~
~
-d 8~-Q
'" ..: 5 '"
u ~ l u :; -,::I >. t5 ~ .~.
=,2, ~~. o;8,gUs ""
5~uVJ5u.s"'-:'::.12 ~
<:;"~p,~ ,a..-<~= ll:
........... ... ~~ ii1
~ag~ ~~ =-3'?":'~j-~Ul
o ''''lO'~' ~~1i8oa::>
i ~.i=i ~~I~~!':i.~
.;; >~ ~'" ~ t's8 to... :t::;;i
:;~:;:3 =~~~~~ t!,~~:.
!j ill ~B ~~d ='=-~"'Q.E
~otH;~o~.::S!~~~ll:u
E
o
.::
_.~ ....-,~--~---~"'~.~ -,.
........
)
.
.
.
- .
o .
"ii Iii
. .
:i~
'"
Z
o
!=
<
"
!=
ii1
!z
"' '" 0-
~~-.i:~
C : i E-o.:
f:l n-~ 'i
~-~....:lu
o
Z o.
o .'ll~._
- - . i';;
~}.!E~
'" '" 0 _ ;;
u ~u
i:l
~""tiii;
. ~"
\~~5
'-
.
~ ~:::
-ii",
!:;:Vi
Z
, 0
!=
<
~\ , "
E
i ,.
...r./ .~.. !l:
.. ~
S
'"
~
o
.
~
g
u
3 3 3 .... 3 3' 3' 3' 3' 3' ~
C .::!.~ .. - ceo::!. cc~
5 '-.~5 --: ~ss~ ~~~
19119 911113193339999111199111
8~~~~ ~~~uu~~~eee~~~~uuu8~~888
'..ot:=\:; t:=t::, 'E=.~~~\O\O..o\O'" ''0\0'"
- -';Ii';O e !S e,'ii';; - -......;; _....,.......~ - - - - - - - - -----c
~ .~ is d .~ .~ .~ d d ~ ~ ~ d .~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~
."ceo. !to.e"i! -~35::<13330.0.0." _ _ _ _0.::<1 -.-
I~II~~~IIII~~~~~~~~~~IIII~~III
u::!.~~ee~~~uu~~~ooo~~~~uuuu~~uuu
":/ ~ ~ ~.<:>. ~ ~"R"R. e~1!1!1! ~ ~ ~ ~"R"R"R"R~ ~":/":/":/
~!ii!t!II~~~I!~~~!!!!~~~~!!~~~
--~~-~-~~---~----------------~
_ _..:;..c; _ Q.o _..c; .c4 _ _ _..:; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ ___
--NMM-MNM---M-MM--------------
xxxxxxx
x
xx
.
xxxxxxx
x
xx
~
--('1"\ --
_ t""I . fO"I M
uuMuu
eoo OCI ~ 0fI0 0(1
~ .=J .:! ~ .:!
~~tI)t!.5:2.
xx;;;xx
xx
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxx
x
~..; . e . "1l 1.
<" ~~."o U ...
. S U <1.1 ~~." ..~ ~u.
ii ~ ~ .~ ~ U,~. 1..U q ~
z""io ,,< ~;]';';-5.... "'....~].ll ~<o:
~ il;IJ~J~~~II~~t ~ii!~1 e...l~~J-
.:: ~. III ~.; ~ ~ !I i .a ~ ;2 ~ ~ ::<1 I "S ~o <!l e ':; !Iii i ~ ~..."ll . ~
s" 'il~"'6<'~ ,.~",O''''8<~ .. !!a"~
~ ~ i ] III .: -03 ~ .11 ] i i l t~ ~ ~ l i ~ ~ :; ~ 8 .~:< ~ ~ ~ 0:
-~ Do. =' ~ . to) u ~ ~ us 05 .5 Ii.! ~'~ 1:.. =: u . u oJ i:Io. u
~s~=~~~l~=~~~O~ 8~O~~~0.0.=&::<1 s~
~~j~~~=6~~~~~~~~~~~~0:~~~~~8S~~
I] ~
o . e
'll &!I ."... 11 111 :. 11 ...... 11 t. l ~
~1~~iJ~"'''''''''''''rrl~~~'''u!!~~~8S~11~t~
~5<>:~D:~~~__5sstt~=:>>Q ~~~>~O
ti1~~~~~~~~~..!!~~~~~aa~111oii~~~
%~i~~~~~~~g~gs3s-Ba~~56~ d ~~~~~
~6oggSSSSS~0:~~~~~~gS~~~~~u~~1ll1ll1ll
d~UQI>l":O="'''';''..l:.-11 Ilo:iUQI>l":
zo<<<<<<<<<<~ =====
4.2.11-23 Attachment #3b
"
~
CIl
Z
o
-
Eo<
~
~
CIl
CIlCll
<ga
Z;:;.
C,:!CIl
tii<
~~CIl
Q::E~
~Z~
~ ~8::E
1l ,...l Eo< C,:!
= ,...l < ~
.5 -C,:!CIl
C j>~,.J
c ~ Eo< <
8 <~Eil
~ ~ ~ ~
~ < ~ ~
~ Q S Q
:E ~ g~
.. Eo< ~ Eo<
Eo< CIl,. U
~-<
~o~
~~~
CIl::E
~~
C,:!CIl
o
~
~
-
~
CIl
<
::c
~
.
.
.
~ ~
C u
- =
~ .
. u
~c
,..l-
.!l
=
~
E
Ii
U
33_
~~3
--
u U
o 0 '"
" " u
U U 0
= =.
.0 0 .
uU::l;
gg'
c:!. C;!.~
... :s q
.g 'ti'ti
U u u
'il'il'il
UUU
]]]
u
.
j
"-
Q
"
,.g g
- ..
.. ..
u ~ u
:00:0
. ... .
.2 .~.!:i.~
t ~ .e. ~
:= ~ 5 'Z
~ZQZ
""CI"'CI-~
~ ~ ~ ~
_ __ u _
ilPil
~~~~
: ~,?6U?
. _ N ~
><
'"
.~
'"
U
'"
e,
..
U
Q
g
] "-e ~
'3 ~ .~
3'" ~ &.
~.s~
.~] e.
o e ..
Qd
S oX g
''8 ~ "'0
~ "e ~
.!l u
. .;; ~ :s
-8 -8 '"
e . .!l
'i' C;; $
- - "-
<<oX
;/;/
IIi
OJ OJ"
, , ,
- '" ~
u u u
" " "
" " "
. ~ ~ v.I
.
~~
- --
--
- - ~
><><><
{!.
.
i:!
~ t-
o >;i
:3::
gli:!
, , u
",..,>;i
a a>
'" '" u
'5.q
~ ~"-
S s';'
55~
u. u. OJ
><
..J
=
u
~ ~ ~
]~.:e
." '0 3 ,1!
,s ll. ;:. .
~n=1J
ldi!
B ~ :; ~
'J ~ .. ~
. '5 u
.5 :a ,s
u u ~ g
'" .. S
~ 5." 8
l~~ ~~~~
.5 0 0 c.f:!: :; .2.
- = '" "'0 :I ~ _
!~'5'5J il[~!-
'l!~~'5 H~:;;t
C-\l"'I!J U~.:
!!! u 8 'l2
zUU. (jI"J4j:a:.
... ~ '7i EI .
.:: IV:l fI) ~..
"I .. !
dt:'C:C...azu
ZOca==
z
o
r.::
<
"
r.::
Si1
!e
;}
13
'"
~
.:;
4.2.11.24
;;
u
~
~
.
:s
u
~
'"
u
Jj
u
'"
."
tl
ll.
.5
u
~
.!cO
~
..,
~
~
~
;;;
.
If
~
~
u
,s
""
u
"8
5
u
,s
'0
>-
;/
Ii
~
~
.
il
n
l!!.
~
..,
,'j
.
"-
.5
.
.
;;
u
~
~
>-
.
~
..,
.
2
:g
'1S
S
."
.
u
!Z
Ii
:ll
u
,s
e'
u
=l!
g
~
;;:
.
"3
o
-
C
>-
ei
~
II
Attachment #3c
II
j
..
~
~
u
~
5
u
~
'"
,;
}
8
.,
- . ~.
Streets/Roails
, .
Each village will provide a c=plex: integrated system of roads. cart
and bJke paths, and pedestrian ways. The syst= is defined below.
by ind1vidual road types that may be found in all villages except for
the rural standard. However. the actual patt= of roads varies
within each village In response to site features, circulation element
roads. topography. land use organization. etc. The following is a
description of how these roads are located functionally within the
village setting. While circulation el=ent roads must adhere to
Page 212
)ber 5~7"}992
Otay Ranch GDP /SRP c Part II_
prescribe levels of service. these interior roads are permitted to *"
operate at less than established LOS. This is done to further
encourage use of altemative modes of transportation.
Village Entry Streets
These divided roadways provide the "gateways" into the villages
and are typically two lanes on each side of a median. They provide
the only ingress and egress from the village to the arterial and/ or
major roads. One or more of these roads will visually focus on the
village core/mL"'\:ed use area. These roads extend from the-
Circulation Element Road to the Village Collector street. "altemate
route" through the village. These roads always provide for
pedestrian and altemate modes of transportation outside of the
roadbed. In some villages these roads also reserve space for the
future trolley.
.....-.
.'..
....-.
Village entry streets should Incorporate medians
and be landscaped to reinfOl:ce-village character and
Identity.
Direct driveway access shall be precluded on.
primary village. promenade. or collector streets
e."'\:cept for commercial and multiple family parking -
areas.
Policy: Selected streets should. provide direct visual access - -
to the village core.
Policy: Design streets to give balance to the needs of the ._
various modes of transportation using the street. -
Intersections should be designed to encourage
~4r14Qh';~~ Tnovement and - reduce vehicle speed
II Illg public safety and providing for
_ Attachment #4 _ _ tide access.
Policy:
Policy:
..::.-: .
.'C;,",.."._
Attachment #5
I
.J
re: OTAY RIVER PARCEL
..... '.'
.... .
. .
. " -: '"
. .... .',.,"'.... .
. .
Crossroads' Recommendation #1:
No more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 square feet of
commercial use within the EVe shall be approved for the
"Otay River Parcel" until such time as the funding is approved and
construction is assured for the light-rail* transit system through
Villages 1, 5, 6, 9, and the EVe.
Mission Valley Center
1.500.000 square feet
Fashion Valley Center 1.400.000
"
"
University Towne Center + 1.370.000
"
"
4.270.000 square feet
*Busses will NOT be considered a substituted for light-raU.
-
. ---. - .
o. .....
...-..,-_.-:-..-::---..:.,.,.,-_._~ -r .
. .. . -." '..,
.' '.
..' .
.' _."
.... -...
Attachment #6
~
""
'"
=
=
=
'"
u
~
::i:
<
c::
c..:l
o
c::
J:l.
"
Z
-
c::
o
I-
-
Z
o
::i:
z
o
-
I-
,~ ~
"'- -
, I-
~i
~ ="\
u
z
<
c::
><
<
I-
o
... ,
01.:: r:::
B'c.g
~ iU ::'0
o>u
'0 ' c:
~ 0
~ c:::.~
"'UO"
o ""5.
~ C
.0 0
"C;;; "..:::I
c::: ~ ..s
0..9~
~ 'C
~ >
~..
..9
c
" 0
E'':
eB
u..g
" ~
E>
E=
"
;e a
'" '':
C ~ '"
8...9 .g>
'" .-
~ ::i:
"c
~.~
u....~
".-
E::i:
'-...
1-0
to:
..9
...
u.l
""
.5
~
9
'"
o
::i:
~
~
::i:
=
o
'':
'"
""
'::I
~
-
-
O;.:~'
v';
a -..
''''
~.;:~ .
CI:l,'
IX:
-~
~';;
~:a
~j
"0 'u
3 EU
"" c":::E
.5 J,.g ~ a
~ 2 ~ c.::
a... ~ 8.8 ~
...
o
~
's 0;
.oc
::I '"
"'""5.
c<
8.e>..
;::>""
~
u
<:.:
e>..iS:
""'"
... '
0'"
0-.;3
-be..
a '- <(
'C Eo..
e>.. "'''''
~
'" 13
2 5
'"
"" '"
,5 ~
"" e
2~.o
-",,,,
-5~~
= ,.. =
.0 e.g
::I Co u
.g 1't5
"5 ~ ~
>158
~ ]
8",o:.n
c..,- ~
c.. "" '"
~,5';;
~],g
0.... U
="5
'a-5:g
~ ~ 0
c:;uu
.!::IE""
g.,,'::I ~...;
<..c:",,~
c.. U iLl I
CI:I ~ >0=:
__-e~
........ -:: 0.....
:.- 5 ft~
~ " u
'" .. ~8."'u
""t::,....."",
cO ;;""
._ c..;,> '" ~
5 "'Q ~ 0
ca2a5:;:r
Q::; <='': E 3
.....
o
~
's 0;
.oc
::I '"
"'""5.
c<
8.e>..
;::>""
~
u
<:.:
e>..iS:
""'"
'- '
0'"
0-'; a
-60..
~~<
.90.."
~ c..-
"",,,,,,,,
u
~ E
::I ",,,
u".:-511
II ~~1a~=~
_bQcnoc..~2g
-.; ,S -.; ~..( :g '" 0-
..c: 0---" 0""'''
en 00- - - ',= 0.. -0
",cll"""",!-'"
~O(,l')-5o..a..cd
:: bQ-,c to:J ul",;;,
~'E.cS,"":i;$13
3: ~ -g,- ~~ 3:
5 0'- ::I ~ ~ 0
,g':;: g e'8'~~':;:
t- ~ e oS p..._ 0 ~
c
o
C '::I
'~o5 g
- :::':3,
"'0",
,e- 5 ""
u 0',:1
',:; i5:e
!,E_
,- e
:::~lU
111ai'i
~bOo.Q
~c;'"'
H
<"
""=
;j,g
5",
U ""
0'::1
=::i:
o
'':2
ig
. '" .
a
Q::;
'"'5
,5.!l Co
~ CI) .,...
..= >. . ...
""'~ . 1-..
~,~'5 _ ~
Q::; ~~';;:&
o_CI:l
0.00
Attachment #7.
.. .
~;If
'"
o
''''
'u
!,'
'"
u:
>.
'"
3:
'. ~
''''
:J 'u'
'::I' !,
'Q, a,
g.. =
u 0
1,1
~ .s
~ ~:
5 ~
0' u
..s .s
_I:.
.
~
'50
5 B
~ .~
~ CI:l
= ..'0
0.' !:l
'::I ~ =
~'Co8
c...!l.u
I:fJcQt::
~~~
-5-
555
5 !;l,5
""5.~Q.
.s::i:.s
I _ .,
./
..~
OTA'T' ."<AnCH
JOINT
PLANNING
PROJECT
CQUNTI' Of SAN DIEGO' CIW Of CHUI..A VISTA
JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CITY COUNCIL
PRESENTATION ORDER
July 22, 1993
I. ISSUE AREA "A. 1": ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADEOUACY
A. Recommended Tentative Action
(1) County Board of Supervisors
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, recommend to the
Chula Vista City Council that no FPEIR revisions or additional
mitigation measures appear necessary at this time.
(2) Chula Vista City Council
Input: The County Planning Commission, City Planning Commission, and
Joint City/County Project Team Staff recommend that this action be taken.
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157' FAX: (619) 422-7690
II. PRESENTATIONS ON ISSUE AREA "8": OTAY VALLEY PARCEL
Staff Presentation
Staff will focus on the concepts put forward with the staffrecommendation on
the Otay Valley Parcel. As a part of the overall concept presentation, Fred
Arbuckle, The Baldwin Company, will present slides on the Village Concept.
Following that, staff will highlight the major issues identified through the
Planning Commission public hearings. Detailed presentations on those major
issues will be made only when requested by the Board and/or Council.
There may be other items addressed by the public. However, the following
are the Major Issue Areas (Hearing Binder Tab "B") which are identified in
the Board/Council Hearing Binder and assumed to be the subject of
testimony:
B.l: Should Village #3 develop residentially or industrially?
B.2: How many roads should cross the river valley to Otay Mesa ?
B.3: Should transit core densities be increased from 14.5 d.u./acre ?
B.4: Should development on the Otay Valley parcel be tied to transit
funding assistance ?
B.5: What area should be designated for the potential university site?
B.6: What should control the phasing of the university site designation?
B.7: Should Salt Creek remain as a site for the potential university use?
B.8: Eastlake Landswap area.
Planning Commission Chairpersons are available for questions:
City - Chairperson Thomas Martin
County-Chairperson David Kreitzer
Applicant's Presentation
Organized Group Testimony
Public Testimony
Applicant's Response to Testimony
III. TENTATIVE ACTIONS ON ISSUE AREA "8": OTAY VALLEY PARCEL
Procedurally, staff is proposing that the Joint Staff Recommendations serve as the
baseline since , in all but two cases, the recommendations of the city and county
staffs are identical. That is, staff will assume Board/Council concurrence with all
other parts of the staff recommendation directly affecting the Otay Valley Parcel
unless specifically "pulled" or identified as an issue by the Board and/or City Council.
Regarding the following issues, staff has identified these as issues because there is
~ ..
disagreement amongst the staff, Planning Commissions, and/or Community Planning
Groups. Staff is again requesting that the Board and Council use the staff
recommendation as the baseline and identify, by tentative action, the direction of the
Board/Council.
B.1: Should Village #3 develop residentially or industrially?
Tentative Action
B.2: How many roads should cross the river valley to Otay Mesa ?
Tentative Action
B.3: Should transit core densities be increased from 14.5 d.u.jacre ?
Tentative Action
B.4: Should development on the Otay Valley parcel be tied to transit
funding assistance? (Cross reference Issue Area G.3)
Tentative Action
B.5: What area should be designated for the potential university site?
Tentative Action
B.6: What should control the phasing of the university site designation?
Tentative Action
B.7: Should Salt Creek remain as a site for the potential university use?
(Cross Reference Issue Area G.2)
Tentative Action
B.8: Eastlake Landswap area.
Tentative Action
IV. NEXT ISSUE AREA: DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE LAKES (HEARING
BINDER - 4.C
V. NEXT OTAY RANCH MEETING DATE: MONDAY. JULY 26. 1993. 3:00 P.M..
CHULA VISTA COUNCIL CHAMBERS
i
I
I
.
......., ,~
<:,"""r
.- --f
},
~l:'
!t
,
~ hk:.
, '
,
,
'96L"t:l... .<>
C:;:-"lla~:;~
~'<<l ......
... <>"t:l <..l '" <..l
'~-'l'" a
~ 0........ .
.... ~"t:l...c
~ '" c '" .
",,",>.4)00
=.:.:<> 8.a<>
.... ij:;!"t:l c:>. ~
ii> c:l 0 0Il.c
",-.131/')
<>....\0
"". 5>-c:>.>~",,"
;;:il= ~Q,)cn~
>< <>"t:l2:lo
'(
~,-,..~.... .....
""iI/
;
~.
o
"
.~.
,~~. ",
"
I ~ . .....--. --~-
1\,:, t....!.,..."
, (
.
N
~
N
')
~j' 12.a
" 1;l OIl
~ . '3.13 [(j
..... ~"3e
. . !'I 0
.. "l:t t:..c:I
::: ~~ e~
'E<l:: 1;l.3
1'. ~ e- "a :a
;r e ... '0 1il
F.l 5 rJ\O r----1
>c..>-8s~
I. ,7:
"
\~
.
.
~
j
68.a
1>>.8 OIl
=- C
" e-'l:!
c..>... "3
;g!'l .
:tl<>t:",
0'0 i!l a
~ !loS 0
0I12.c
'~al~
(::!O
:fg~
u't: 12 <..l
~ ~ ~.a
:>o_la
i~ .~~ $'~ ~
Q) <<C =.~.....
'0 c:>.~:a o:i
..a ~ 1il ~ ~
~ Q) d 1:$ I,'
....~ aur <>
I c:>.12~~
",'0 oS ~ e,Q
Uc:l ~"d; ~
>~",-8~~-8
r
c-o""'"
,<
/
o'
. ..
~
,
>e.=.... ~...,..
{!)."=. .
"', /'-; .
~k-,._
The Baldwin Company
Craftsmanship in building since 1956
July 21, 1993
.,
Board of Supervisors
Chula Vista City Council
Otay Ranch Project Team
315 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91913
Re: village 3 Industrial
Dear Board and Council Members:
The GDP / SRP presents village 3 as an "industrial" option area.
City Staff has recommended that Village 3 (165.7 acres) be
designated for industrial uses. County Staff has recommended that
the area adjacent to Otay River Valley Redevelopment Area be
designated for industrial use, but the remaining area which is
topographically separated, be planned as a residential village
containing 799 homes.
The Baldwin Company supports the County Staff and Planning Commis-
sion recommendations for several reasons.
o
South County has a 143 to 179 year surplus of industrial-
ly-zoned land (see discussion below) .
o
Paseo Ranchero will ultimately serve as a gateway into
Otay Ranch for many people traveling from the South.
Surrounding this gate with industrial (and potential
strip commercial) will produce a negative visual cue
consistent with past poor planning rather than heralding
the advent of a new approach to land use zoning.
o
Excessive amounts of industrial land located along a
major arterial could evolve into strip commercial
detracting from the viability of the planned Otay Ranch
village cores.
o
Locating industrial on the east side of Paseo Ranchero as
a bluff overlooking Wolf Canyon will create a poor
viewshed for the large lot homes across Wolf Canyon in
Village 4.
1
11975 El Camino Real. Suite 200 . San Diego, CA 92130 . (619) 259-2900
The table below summarizes key industrial market statistics.
Industrial:
Inventory 1991 (sf)
Vacant 1991 (sf)
Vacancy Rate 1991
Absorption/yr 1991 (sf)
Absorption/yr (sf)
Projected - 2000 (sf)
County
121,000,000
15,100,000
12.5%
3,100,000
3.2M to
4.0M
South County
16,000,000
2,100,000
13%
370,000
800,000 to
1.2M
Chula vista
7,200,000
1,500,000
20%
125,000
200,000 to
250,000
...,~
Of the 16 million square feet in the South County, Chula Vista
contains 7.2 million square feet. In 1991, the South County
absorbed 370,000 square feet compared to 1.2 million square feet
the prior year.
Currently, there is 2.1 million vacant square feet in the South
County. Assuming 1991 absorption levels, this is a 6 year supply
just to absorb vacant space. Within Chula Vista, there is a 12
year supply of vacant, space assuming 1991 absorption rates.
Existina Industrial Acreaae
Existing supplies of zoned industrial/business park acres total
over 7,000 acres as indicated below:
Otay Mesa/City of San Diego
Otay Mesa/County of San Diego
Chula vista (1)
Total
Existina
Industrial
3,800
2,500
762
7,062
Acres
(lJ
Chula Vista Vacant Zoned Industria Area
Otay Ranch laB
692 acres
...1Q acres
762
Pro;ected Future Suoolv and nAmAnd
Industry experts forecast further decreases in new Industrial
development throughout the county. Build-to-suits and owner/user
segments are anticipated to be the only active market consumers,
but market conditions should improve over the long run as demand
improves.
Forecasts for future market absorptions indicate the County will
absorb 3-4 million square feet per year, the South County will
absorb 800,000-1,000,000 square feet per year and Chula vista will
absorb 200,000-250,000 square feet per year beyond 2000. This
represents an increased market share for Chula Vista from 4% of the
County in 1991 to 6% in the future.
2
Translating into acres, at a .45 FAR, the annual South County
demand is approximately 40-50 acres of land. Similarly 200,000-
250,000 square feet represents a demand in Chula Vista for 10-13
acres per year beyond the year 2000.
The excess supply is demonstrated as follows:
South County Chula Vista
Est. Acres of Vacant Bldgs. @ 0.45'?AR
Vacant Industrial Land
Total Supply
Total Demand/Year
Years of Supply
107 ac
7.062 ac
7,179 ac
76 ac
762 ac
838 ac
40-50 ac
143-179 yrs
10-13 ac
64-83 yrs
Obviously there is an extreme excess supply of industrial land in
South County. Excess supply causes declining land values as
projects compete for the limited demand. Development of village 3
in Otay Ranch as industrial presents a serious concern of economic
viability for the land use and the potential for zoned land
remaining vacant at a low tax base for a long period of time.
ijin erely,
.';. ..(1\
lT
red'A~buckle
Vice President
FA/cc
3
UNIVERSITY ACRES Be STUDENTS
Acres Students
University of Southern California 150 38,374
University of Arizona 327 36,676
University of California, Los Angeles 419 36,366
San Diego State University 271 32,950
California State University, Long Beach 322 32,339
California State University, Northridge 355 30,441
San Jose State University 140 27,650
California State University, Fullerton 225 23,588
California State University, Sacramento 288 23,337
Harvard University 380 18,500
Southern Methodist University (Dallas, Texas) 164 8,746
Georgetown University 104 5,700
University of the Pacific 167 5,454
California State University, Stanislaus 236 4,910
University of California, San Francisco 136 3,756
Rice University (Houston, Texas) 168 3,050
California Lutheran University 285 2,879
Ref: American Universities & Colleges; 14th Edition; American Council
on Education; 1992
j
I
,J
,
l
,
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE (EHL)
ESTIMATED ACREAGE AND UNIT LOSS
(Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council Hearing
July 22, 1993)
19"p PRIOR.ITY PRIORl'I'Y 2 I SUBTOTAL I
Ii co I
AC DU AC ... OU AC DU
1 - - 99.0 390 99.0 390
2 - - 172.0 632 172.0 632
4 - - 219.6 338 219.6 338
13' 128.83 346 92.73 655 221.56 1,001
14 129.17 310 54.5 67 183.67 377
15"
County: 213.5 993 - - 213.5 993
City: 436.0 1,384 - - 436.0 1,384
Total
County: 471.5 1,649 637.83 2,082 1,109.33 3,731
City: 694.0 2,040 . . 1,331.83 4,122
*
Loss does not include 3/4 of Resort Site (approximately 180 acres).
County and City figures differ due to County recommendation for open space option
area on western portion of Village 15.
**
.'
Page 7a
EXAMPLE #1
~z
.
.
t h j
I j!d
. z!"
! i .,i1
;
~ J
.
0;
z"
..
O.
w. ~
-.
. C D
.
.
-
~~
! .
.
vS <:is
c
:
.
c
i!
:;
s
1I
~
"
.
.
......\.c' ..
! II
.
d nJa;.{ b4'_ o;J Ph; II; ps,
EI
~
~ !
i ~
S
L
...
z
.I
.!!
S
.1
Page 7b
EXAMPLE #2
Ell
VS~
~tt1~il'j
:;''Y"';::-'':?:::::::-::::::l
&~m. ,.$."
t.:::::::1:*':: .>>:
(It..~'~~
:::'::'~'~~':::::%:':';';"';':':
@~;::':?::-~Wl:'~~:
::,;,*'::B::::::m=:~.;:::;.:::-:
II
::f::;:~::::'" ~':;=1@:
~z
...../
. . j ~
u ...
. r ~I . a
o- f; ~J ..
. -
z. 0:-
. i 8
..- u
.0 .- . ~.I!: ::
~- 10:
. c 0 : .u..2i 1:1
. ~~ ; III
. ~ J ~
~ if
J
I\
.\
..-
,~
.:: 0
.
0
J
N .
N .
~ .
..
~ :;; .
> t
. . :::
i! c .
.'
,
i
,
... ! 11 Ii
-I fJ - fJ II II II II - II fJ fJ 'S .- ..
. =-~.s
. . .... .. '" - .... .... .. 0 '" '" ... "3
. .. - on - - - ....1
l -.i S
l:- - 0__
" 0 ;,.!! :I
i'~ .. . . Ii II
- E '" .... .. = lrD = .... $ OIl .... = ~ c'" -
.. ~= OIl .... ... .. on .. ~ - ...
.. " .., ... ~ - on on - on .. Ii- ..
.. o ~
~ ;; .. .. ... ..; ..;
< > - .5 "'.....
~ r-. r-. r-. .. "111
~ ~ 0 ::i ~l.:
:i~ 8 ~ "
.. III "" III < III < < - oS-it,
. o' z . '-b.
'" . . i4" e? 0.... IS iJ < i.
Z .. ~ -:;c 6 iJ !:c
..
0 ! oS .~...
- ~l ~ ~~ ! !\ !I :~ ~ ~i ~{ ~'" i
5z I- .. :l
~ ~E iIi .. 5--
=< .. -" - .. II '! ~ r;-
z .'1 .... .. - .... .... ..
-..l Q> 5.
=ll. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U! l! ::il!~
~~ ;1 0 ~~ 0 .. .....~
~I 0 0 . _.iII
Q~ 'j ~~ 5
I.l= 0 0 iiJ.-
. ~
I.l~ 0 0 2"il
!i:0 LO C\I ... " .i c:
'"''' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . !II ; '-
.. ~ 1~~
<ll. E
r.f.l"":' i
-1-- 8 8 ~, ~ 8 8 8 8 ;; 8 < .,; -1 :l
"'>1Il > .. - "l. ... on - .. '0 E 11
.; ... ... on .... = ..; z !l
>..l'" - ... ..; ,.: - - IIi
..lz< .... ... .... - ... ... ::i .! :I
<0- iJ 111 ;;
z t Ii
<ti: ._~
. ';"
:!:.l< i . . ..
.- ...."
'"'....l 11 r= 'S
'"'0110 ~, ~ ~ 8 8 ~, ~ 8 ~, ~ a ~ ~ . g
... <=z ... .. .., if _ 0
.II =1Io~ ~ ~ i .... ,.: .... ~ .... i!: ii ii .. <01
~ 1-=0 ... ... N N Z
. -01
I- =Zl- .. .t.. .!
iii<~ oS l--
! -a-
:"'1Il 0> .t
I.lIllZ ~"il.. ! ... I Z11
Z~iil .
i j j j iJ
<:l> = is -: - .& .:.~
=..l_ c: _ c: . - - "i
~~i eO!! .~ .~ .~ .l ..
>01- :a .a, 5. -8 l.1t-
. '0 ;; .. '0 --
<>< ~ d~l .. .. .. 0
~ :::E ~ 1.1 1.1 1.1 :::E 1.1 :::E 101 III c Ii>"il
kZ 1.1.1.1 - .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 l ...
elllffi I: 1.1 .5 ;
'" ... '" ... .. ... ... ... .. '" '" i 5. oj
~~ .;; o '" ~:z;
~< - ::i ~ .: II S
tit ... 1 ... .. . -
. 'S iJ1I.:S
... 1 "iJ'"
'"'Ill .It ... ~ Zi.s!
.
0.. -a iil '" 8 .& if ::i i
!i~ > a
! . .i _"'11.1
.. ~ .;; 0- IS
"'110 I- ~ ... c!l 0 ..0-. .
;Co . .5 ~ ~ ;:l S .. 5. .eJtj
<z I I .. 1 - . i ~
... .. ~
110 ~ .5 .. '" '" .. ... .. .5 .. lli~~
~ 1 '" .. Ii ... '" .:
g ~ ~ . .. lit - .&.2~
0 ... III ~ ! - '" ~
I.l .. ... 1- . . ... .. .. Ii ...~
.. .:: E l! ! E ;:l is Ii
8- 0 .: II ..
~ ~ ~ 2 - .. - ~ Ii - iJ i .. :
.. ~ .. :s
.. .. '" iJ '" '" '" '" - ~>...
'" ::E III III '" '" '" '" '" '" - - J -.!
0 0 I ..."
... .. U-fi
... 'i 1 ~ - ....~.l! "
11 0 ~.
. '" .. . ill ~ .."'.5
~ 'i .It . .. 'i i ~ ~
. " 8- 6 . 6 .g ...5 S i
. 0 0 Ii is i 0 ! .. -5 ii
... .. III 1 r;- '" g J .5 "g:;:;- ..
! .. oj ~ .:: .. i . 0 ,,!" 6 :i ~ .2
1& ~ ~ '" if 1 '" '" ll.
~ ~ ! 'i .I ..
Ii '" 0 e Ii 11 .
< III .:: 1Il oil . .
- '" - - . . .
I:- ~
=d = -
-z - .. ... ... on '" ... .. ... - - t
i z
VALLE DE ORO COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP
PRESENTATION TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1993
OTAY RANCH PROJECT/EIR
STAFF HAS INDICATED TO YOU THAT OUR PLANNING GROUP IS MISTAKEN -
WE DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THESE COMPLICATED TRAFFIC THINGS.
WELL, BEAR WITH ME AND I WILL SHOW YOU WHO IS MISTAKEN.
WHAT IS UNDER QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE EIR PROVIDES
YOU SUFFICIENT ACCURATE INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE EFFECTS OF
DRAMATICALLY INCREASING THE INTENSITY OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN.
(GRAPHIC FROM THE DRAFT EIR SHOWING THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE.)
NOTE THAT SR 54 IS SHOWN AS A SEPARATE ROADWAY FROM ITS SOUTHERLY
CONNECTION WITH SR 125 TO WHERE IT EXITS THE STUDY AREA IN THE
NORTH.
THIS INDICATES THAT THE SOUTH BAY MODEL HAS CODED SR 54 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN - A SEPARATE EXPRESSWAY.
WE VERIFIED THAT THROUGH CALTRANS' USE OF THE SAME MODEL.
THE LARGE DIFFERENCES IN TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS ARE NOT THE RESULT
OF THE CODING OF THIS ROAD, AS STAFF AND BALDWIN CLAIM; THE
DIFFERENCES RESULT FROM INCOMPLETE DETAIL IN THIS AREA OF THE
SOUTH BAY MODEL.
ALSO NOTE THE LEGEND FOR LEVEL-OF-SERVICE "F" TRAFFIC ON THE
LOWER RIGHT.
LOS "E" AND "F" DEFINE UNACCEPTABLE CONGESTION.
(SECOND GRAPHIC)
WHAT REALLY GOT OUR ATTENTION WAS THIS SAME LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
GRAPHIC FOR THE PHASE II PROGRESS PLAN.
THIS SHOWS A LARGE NUMBER OF OFF-SITE ROADS DRIVEN TO LOS "F" BY
THIS PROJECT.
THIS ALSO SHOWS SR 54 CONNECTED AS A SEPARATE ROAD.
(NEXT VIEWGRAPH)
IN THE FINAL EIR, STAFF RESPONDED TO OUR COMMENTS ABOUT THESE
TRAFFIC IMPACTS BY PROVIDING THIS GRAPHIC MINUS OUR UNDERLINES
AND PARENTHETICAL ENTRIES.
YOU SAW THIS IN OUR PREVIOUS PRESENTATION EXCEPT I HAVE NOW
HIGHLIGHTED THREE ROADS TO SHOW YOU HOW INADEQUATE THE FINAL EIR
IS REGARDING TRAFFIC.
BANCROFT
TROY
BROADWAY
STAFF'S PROJECTION - ACTUAL
STAFF'S PROJECTION - ACTUAL
STAFF'S PROJECTION - ACTUAL
IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT SOMETHING IS DRASTICALLY WRONG WITH THE
TECHNIQUES OR THE SOUTH BAY TRAFFIC MODEL WHEN THEY COME UP WITH
RESULTS LIKE THIS.
WHAT IS FRIGHTENING IS THAT THE PROJECT "EXPERTS", WHO PRODUCED
THIS DATA IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC EIR COMMENTS, COULD NOT OR
WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM.
CALTRANS WAS ALSO USING THE SOUTH BAY MODEL IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT
OF THE ALTERNATIVES REPORT FOR SR 125 SOUTH.
THEY FOUND, JUST AS WE DID, THAT THE SOUTH BAY MODEL WAS NOT
CAPABLE OF ACCURATELY PREDICTING IMPACTS IN THE NORTHERN AND
EASTERN NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES.
FOR THE SR 125 SOUTH PROJECT, CALTRANS ENGINEERS ARE USING THE
MORE VALID DATA THAT WE PRESENTED EARLIER.
THIS DATA SHOWS THAT THE IMPACTS FROM THIS GENERAL PLAN INCREASE
ON TOP OF NORMAL BUILDOUT WILL CREATE SEVERE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
IN THE NEIGHBORING UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES.
THERE IS NO CONFUSION IN OUR MINDS OR MISTAKES IN OUR ANALYSES OF
WHAT HAS GONE INTO THESE TRAFFIC STUDIES.
PAGE 2