HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/09-20 (3)
MINUTES
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
5:47 p.m.
Wednesdav. August 30. 1995
Conference Rooms 2/3
Public Services Building
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at
5:47 p.m. by Chair Tuchscher.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Salas, Tarantino, Willett,
Ray, Thomas (5:56) and Davis (6: 14)
STAFF PRESENT:
Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska, Assistant
Planning Director Ken Lee, Senior Planner Rick Rosaler,
Senior Civil Engineer Bill Ullrich, Planner Julia Matthews
and Planner Beverly Luttrell
OTHERS PRESENT:
Kent Aden and Ranie Hunter of The Baldwin Company,
Dexter Wilson and James Peifer of Wilson Engineering,
Glen Van Peski and Dave Hammer of Hunsaker &
Associates, Dan Marum ofBRW, Inc. and James Peasley of
Otay Water District
Mr. Jerry Jamriska called attention to the schedule of Planning Commission hearings which
indicates close of the review period for the SPA One Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on
November 8 and close of the SPA One hearings on November 15 with a special meeting on
November 17 to take action only.
II. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 9, 1995 MINUTES: The minutes were approved as
submitted with an amendment that Commissioner Ray had an excused absence.
m. OTAY RANCH SPA ONE -- OVERVIEW OF FACILITY-RELATED ISSUES:
Mr. Bill Ullrich stated that all the master plans that will be discussed are required by the
General Development Plan (GDP). There will be some revisions as the plans develop
because grading, street alignments, etc. may change. At this point, there are no
outstanding concerns that have not been addressed in the plans. The Policy Committee has
reviewed and approved the documents.
1. Sewer Master Plan: Mr. Ullrich stated that SPA One will drain into two separate
sewer basins: the Telegraph Canyon Basin and the Poggi Canyon Basin. The
Sewer Master Plan addresses impacts to the existing facilities, new improvements
required and cost of those facilities. The development of SPA One will require
installation of on-site and off-site sewer mains. The existing Telegraph Canyon
system will be metered at critical locations to determine when improvements will
c:{
Planning Commission Workshop
- 2-
August 30. 1995
be needed. There are segments of the eXlstmg Poggi Canyon system that are
currently overloaded and will require replacement prior to any development.
Funding of required improvements will be determined in the future.
2. Water Conservation Plan: Mr. Dexter Wilson (Wilson Engineering) gave a brief
presentation on the Water Conservation Plan. He stated that this plan is the least
project specific of most of the other master plans. Required items of water
conservation are: ultra low flush toilets, low flow faucets and low flow shower
heads. Recommended items are: soil moisture sensors, use of reclaimed water,
drought resistant plants and effective irrigation design and management.
3. WaterlReclaimed Water Master Plan (SAMP): Mr. Ullrich stated that water
and reclaimed water operations are controlled by the Otay Water District;
therefore, City staff focused on water application rate, locations where reclaimed
water will be used and meeting the requirements of the GDP and EIR. Water will
be provided by two pumping stations; one is currently in operation. Additional
reservoir capacity is required for SPA One and two storage facilities are proposed.
Adequate terminal storage is available for SPA One.
Mr. Jim Peasley (Otay Water District [OWD]) stated there are three storage
facility sites available. OWD is meeting with EastLake and Baldwin to determine
where a facility will be constructed.
Commissioner Willett asked about the supply of excess reclaimed water.
Mr. Peasley indicated that OWD is treating 1.3 million gallons a day. Half of that is
being sold on an annual basis. As the demands increase for reclaimed water, OWD
will increase the capacity. The flow that OWD does not treat goes to Metro.
Commissioner Salas inquired about the terminal storage facilities and contaminated
water?
Mr. Peasley indicated that OWD is meeting the 10-day criteria. As soon as
contaminated water is sensed by CW A, it will be known before it reaches the
treatment plant in Riverside and the valves in the aqueduct will be shut off before
the water arrives.
Mr. Ullrich presented the reclaimed water layout that is proposed. The system will
be put in under a contract between Baldwin and OWD so as the streets go in, the
pipes will go in. Reclaimed water would be utilized in some open space areas and
common areas of condominium complexes.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if reclaimed water would be used on golf courses
and parks?
a: \llb:\linda: \spa: \pc8309 5 .doc
.3
Planning Commission Workshop
- 3 -
August 30. 1995
Mr. lamriska answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Salas asked if the water provider issue had been solved?
Mr. Peasley indicated that OWD's staff and attorney and the City Manager and
Attorney have been preparing and negotiating a Franchise Agreement. The intent is
to enter into that agreement prior to LAFCO taking action on the sphere issues.
Mr. lamriska indicated that the City is negotiating to allow OWD to be the
provider.
4. Drainage Master Plan: Mr. Ullrich stated that this plan addresses the adequacy
of drainage facilities and improvements necessary to meet City criteria The plan
includes proposed facilities and methods to reduce the post development I DO-year
runoff rrom the site to a level equal to or less than that which occurred prior to
development of SPA One and also addresses methods to reduce siltation. The
northerly portion of SPA One is within the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin and
has been improved within the SPA One area. The southerly portion is within the
Poggi Canyon Drainage Basin which is unimproved and in its natural state within
SPA One. A detention facility will be built in both basins.
Commissioner Willett asked where the first detention basin was planned for east of
I-80S?
Mr. Ullrich indicated that Baldwin will not be increasing the flow going through
the Poggi Canyon Drainage Basin; therefore, nothing will be done on the east side
of I-80S. There will be one detention facility at La Media for the Telegraph
Canyon Drainage Basin.
**** Break rrom 6:52 p.m. to 7:01 p.m. ****
5. Parks Master Plan: Mr. Rick Rosaler stated that the Parks Master Plan presents
the Otay Ranch park system with its recreation facility requirements including
plans for open space, trails and community gardens. Also, phasing, funding and
maintenance of the parks. A system of public parks is planned through the
provision of town squares, neighborhood, community and regional parks.
Pedestrian parks are going to be a major policy issue that the Planning Commission
is going to be asked to make a decision on within the next couple months. He
asked that the Planning Commission pay particular attention to park acreage and
facility requirements; recreation, open space and trails; policies dealing with
community gardens and phasing of the community parks. There are two park plan
alternatives: 1) Alternative A is based on direction by the Policy Committee, and 2)
Alternative B is Baldwin's proposal. The Planning Commission will be asked to
make a recommendation to the City Council on either Alternative or a
combination. One of the major issues dealing with parks in SPA One is location,
a:\llb:\linda:\spa:\pc83095.doc
/.!
Plannin~ Commission Workshop
-4-
August 30. 1995
size, credit and maintenance of pedestrian parks. Baldwin proposes they receive
credit for pedestrian parks and the parks be maintained by assessment district.
Other concerns include deferment of community park, private ownership of and
credit for town squares, timing of park needs analysis, recreation facilities in each
type of park and community gardens maintenance and credit.
Mr. Kent Aden (The Baldwin Company) passed around pictures of small parks in
Coronado to show how small parks are being used. Baldwin feels that pedestrian
parks are a critical link in providing the full recreational spectrum within the
Ranch. He went on to describe Alternative B.
Commissioner Willett voiced his concerns against having community gardens.
Mr. Aden indicated that Baldwin is not in favor of community gardens because of
all kinds of potential problems. The concept of community gardens is being
pushed, primarily, by the City Manager's office.
Commissioner Davis asked if any community gardens had been designated?
Mr. Jamriska confirmed, but they are proposed at the end of cul-de-sacs rronting
onto large amounts of open space and, perhaps, on the community purpose
facilities sites. He indicated that the Parks & Recreation Department was not
present to present their side of the story.
Mr. Rosaler indicated that the Parks & Recreation Department's main concern was
the maintenance of pedestrian parks.
6. Regional Facilities Report: Ms. Julia Matthews stated that there are no current
issues related to regional facilities. The report identifies forecasted demands for
regional facilities generated by development of SPA One and addresses how that
demand will be satisfied. Capacity of the landfill will be included in this report after
the County reviews this report.
Commissioner Tarantino asked when the projected closure is for the landfill?
Mr. Jamriska indicated the projected closure is 2005.
Ms. Matthews stated that this Regional Facilities Report was prepared before the
City adopted it's current Child Care guidelines. Those guidelines will be met and
addressed in the SPA document at the SPA level and in the Regional Facilities
Report dealing with the regional level.
Ms. Ranie Hunter (The Baldwin Company) indicated that the Child Care Master
Plan has been revised, but is not out for distribution because there are still some
pending issues.
a:\llb:\linda:\spa:\pc83095.doc
~
--
Planning Commission Workshop
- 5 -
August 30. 1995
Commissioner Davis questioned why Otay Ranch was provided such a small
correctional facility.
Ms. Hunter indicated that the present County facility can accommodate SPA One.
There is no need for a new facility.
7. Annexation: Mr. Rosaler stated that the City has a Sphere ofInfluence Update
Study on file with LAFCO. LAFCO has come back with six issues that they want
staff to address which includes the Otay Water District and the County landfill.
Staff is in the process of addressing those issues. To enable this whole thing to
happen, we have got to have the property in the City. The Sphere is the first step;
the Annexation is the second step. Staff believes a comprehensive annexation of
the Planning Area One (Otay Valley parcel), Planning Area 3 (Inverted "L",
Watson, Clarkson and Turner property) and the Ranch House property is in order.
To assuage the fears of the County, the City has agreed not to annex the Resort
Site at this time which is in the City's sphere.
Commissioner Ray asked if the landfill should not be included as part of the
annexation?
Mr. Rosaler indicated that the City Council has directed staff to include the landfill
in the annexation. In discussions with LAFCO and the County, we may be able to
create a County island.
Commissioner Willett asked if the County was still going with the San Bernardino
Meridian line going down through the center of Otay Lakes?
Mr. Jamriska indicated yes and no. SupelVisor Cox docketed a Board letter asking
the Board of SupelVisors to modifY their position on the San Bernardino Meridian
line. He requested keeping the current sphere, remove the City of Chula Vista from
any consideration of the Resort Site and go with the City ofChula Vista's proposal
of permitting the entire Western parcel to be annexed. The County Board of
SupelVisors Subcommittee agreed to present these recommendations to the Board
of SupelVisors. The Otay Landfill should be reviewed as being a potential County
island as well as pursue a legal agreement that would be financially detrimental to
the City of Chula Vista to ever take steps to abandon or close the landfill. Any
effort that the City put here to changing the zone to only landfill, any future
Council can undo that by zoning it where landfills are not permitted. The Board of
SupelVisors decided to create a finger up to the Otay Landfill so the County could
have assurance that the landfill would always stay in the County. They agreed to
annexation of the entire Western parcel. The City ofChula Vista is not happy with
that because by creating a finger it makes for poor planning. This will come up for
final action by the Board of SupelVisors on September 20th. '
a:lJlb:\linda:\spa:\pc83095.doc
o
Planning Commission Workshop
- 6-
August 30. 1995
8. Prezoning and Public/Quasi-Public Zone: Ms. Beverly Luttrell stated that there
are several parcels that will eventually be within the project area that are not
owned by Baldwin but will be annexed, and they are required by LAFCO to be
prezoned. Parcels that are 50 acres or more will be prezoned Planned Community
(PC) to provide orderly planning and long-tenn development of large tracts of
land. An amendment to the PC Zone is currently under review to allow parcels
under 50 acres in size to be zoned PC. A Public/Quasi-Public Zone needs to be
created to apply to the Landfill site, the City of San Diego water reservoir site and
Otay Water District sites.
9. Street Sections: Mr. Rosaler stated that all of the City departments have bought
into the street sections for SPA One. The transit run will be in the median of the
village entry streets. On the major streets, 8-foot parkways with trees are planned.
The current proposal for residential neighborhood streets is to have monolithic
sidewalks. The Project Team would like to see parkways in the residential
neighborhoods. The property owners would be responsible for maintaining their
parkways.
Mr. Ullrich stated there are several reasons why monolithic pours are desirable in
residential streets: 1) people were not maintaining their parkways, 2) it prevents
differential settlements and upliftings, and 3) it kept people ITOm planting trees in
between. It's not popular with developers because it costs more, but it's beneficial
to the City because the maintenance costs are lower.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the Fire Department had any problems with the
proposed street sections?
Mr. Rosaler answered in the negative.
Chair Tuchscher asked for the difference in maintenance costs of parkways versus
monolithic.
**** Break 8: 15 p.m. to 8:21 p.m. ****
10. Traffic EIR: Mr. Ullrich stated that traffic studies were accomplished after
receiving direction &om the Transportation Technical Subcommittee on the
assumptions, methodology and scope of the analysis. The County (a member of the
Subcommittee) has changed personnel and have asked the City to add things.
Mr. Dan Marum (BRW, Inc.) stated that traffic studies were based upon the
SANDAG Series 8 traffic model. The study area extended from the 805 on the
west, the 54 on the north, EastLake/Salt Creek on the east and Orange Avenue on
the south. Some impacts were traced down to Heritage Road. BRW, Inc. used the
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) guidelines even though none of these are
CMP facilities. Four alternatives were tested in the Traffic and Phasing Analysis:
a:\lIb: \linda: \spa: \pc8309 5 .doc
"/
Planning Commission WorkshoD
- 7-
August 30. 1995
1) no project, 2) proposed project, 3) Alternative 1, and 4) Alternative 2.
Alternative 1 was the preferred local access plan for Villages One and Five. The
four alternatives were analyzed for impacts to: on-site circulation system, study
area fteeway segments, study area arterial segments, and 49 study area intersection
capacities, study area fteeway interchange/capacity, transit operations, bicycle/
pedestrian facilities and trip reductionlland use design assessment. The analysis
was performed for: existing conditions, interim conditions (year 2010) and full
Southbay buildout.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the timing of signals to different jurisdictions
would be addressed?
Mr. Jamriska answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Marum stated that the phasing analysis indicated that the on-site system will
work without a third access point. For safety issues, the Policy Committee has
required a third access be provided for each village. Traffic analysis shows many
streets operate below the level of service considered acceptable by the City and
County with buildout of SPA One in the year 2010. The study revealed that the
majority of these impacts occur with or without the project. Several road segments
below acceptable level of service have a small percentage of traffic contributed by
SPA One. The City is trying to work with the County to set up some type of
structure where the City could take DIF credit for work they do on facilities that
are on the border line between the City and the County, but are actually in the
County. One such project is Central Avenue in Bonita. The traffic analysis for SPA
One indicates which roadway segments and/or signalized intersections are to be
mitigated. Traffic signals are proposed to be installed as mitigation for
development of SPA One. With the project in place, there is relieve on Telegraph
Canyon Road because the project will be providing Palomar Street and Orange
Avenue. The importance of a Palomar/80S half diamond cannot be over
emphasized with the buildout of the Otay Ranch project. Worst case, and without
SR-125, there will be some big problems regarding the fteeway system by the year
2010. The levels of service on 805 and 54 will degrade to levels of service that are
unacceptable. There were 15.53 road miles with unmitigated significant impacts at
buildout when the General Development Plan was adopted. The key thing that
came out of the phasing work is that it told us when Palomar Street and Orange
Avenue need to come on-line and when other improvements are triggered. Many
of the improvements are already in the CIP. The City should be doing annual
incremental growth assessment runs with the model which will tell where "hot
points" are going to be so the City can avoid moratoriums in the traffic monitoring
program.
Commissioner. Willett would like to see CalTrans Series 8 model figures next to
the Cities figures. .
a :\llb: \l inda:\spa: \pe83 09 5. doc
q
Planning Commission Workshop
- 8 -
August 30. 1995
Mr. Marum indicated that CalTrans has given approval to make use of the Series 8
model information that they have run for year 2015 toll way. City staff is going to
provide that as a column next to year 2010 without toll way. There is going to be
a comparative analysis of volumes on all these streets with the toll way which will
show the relieve the toll way will provide the majority of the arterials.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if the Olympic Training Center would be a
significant impact?
Mr. Marum indicated none that has not been included in the model previously and
that was not known about at the General Development Plan level.
Mr. Ullrich asked if there was anything the Commissioners would like staff to
come back with at the next workshop?
Commissioner Willett stated he would like a summary of the issues.
Mr. Ullrich indicated that a significant issue will be mitigation in the Bonita area.
Staff proposes to use for a threshold about 800 trips on a roadway before we even
consider mitigation. That goes along with the program that staff is proposing for
the regional facilities.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9: 16 p.m.
?~..c'4/ Wd-X,L...
Lirida Bond, Secretary
Attachment: Revised page of the August 9, 1995 minutes
a:\llb: \I inda: \spa: \pe83 09 5. doc
7
REVISED MINUTES
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
5:45 p.m.
VVednesday.Acugust9.1995
Conference Rooms 2/3
Public Services Building
CAcLL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CAcLL:
Chair Tuchscher.
The meeting was called to order at 5:45 pm. by
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas and
VVillett
MEMBERS i\BSENT:
Commissioner Ray (EXCUSED)
STAFF PRESENT:
Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska, Acssistant Planning
Director Ken Lee, Senior Planner Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner Duane
Bazzel, Acssistant Planner Amy VVolfe, Civil Senior Engineer Bill Ullrich,
Planner Julia Matthews, Planner Beverly Luttrell and Landscape Mchitect
Marty Schmidt
Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska introduced the Otay Ranch Project Team, Planning
Department staff and Baldwin staff to the Planning Commission.
OTAcY RA.NCH SPAc ONE: OVERVIEW OF LAcND PLAN ISSUES
Mr. Jamriska gave a brief background of the current processing procedures of the plan. There is a
Technical Committee composed of Parks & Recreation, Fire, Planning, The Baldwin Company and the
Project Team that meet one or two times a weeks. Act times, other departments are brought in when
discussing housing, etc. \\'hen issues cannot be resolved at this level, they are taken to the City
Manager's Policy Committee which involves all department heads and The Baldwin Company. \\'hat
you will be hearing tonight is that we need to do additional research.
I. Project Schedule: Mr. Jamriska indicated that the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold
three workshops regarding the Otay Ranch Project: Acugust 9, Acugust 30 and September 20,
1995. These workshops are to discuss issues not make decisions. Ac public forum is scheduled
for October 5, 1995 to discuss the entire plan. The public hearings scheduled for the Planning
Commission begin October 25 at which time the public review period for the SPA One EIR will
be closed. Acdditional hearings are scheduled for November 8 and 15, 1995. A City Council
workshop has been requested by staff for all day Saturday, October 14, 1995. Three City
Council meetings are tentatively scheduled for December 5, 12 and 19, 1995 for them to take
action.
n. Neo- Traditional Design Principles: Mr. Kent Aden, with The Baldwin Company, gave a slide
presentation of village concepts and urban designs of typical existing suburban developments to
a:\llb\linda:\spa:\pc8995. doc
/C
IT)
C'\
C'\
-
'"'
CII
.c
S
CII
...
C.
CII CD '" 0
00 '" ~ N '" ....
,. ~~2' ~'"
" .>" .
E . 81:E E');
E .
> if.~~ 8.0
0 .
U " (/)(;jU u"
~ ~ ~o~ >-,g;
11 . oz
&. .g~ ~!~ "S.!!!
o.D
:::a: ~ ffi -g&51:! .0.
.~
OlL 1:_ ~B~ O~
ClQ..=:Itl. "'A.
fdilii:oiili . . ~~
g:g~~ 8 0
0
OjOiGim '" Nici m '" aicri
'" ~ N N CD
.
x
.
. . "
. . ~ .
~ .'1:1 ,,; . w
E. o. @
E ED ~!1
8 8~ E
cE 2
~ ~~~ a5 0
~
E co.~ Uu 0
~ 1!N:ii ~~ ~~
~ ~~
... ..."'In o.I
~ ~~ Q. ~
8
_N ... ~ COM ~
.... ~ N N '"
:
\C>
C'\ ~ ~~
0- ~
z ~ ."
~ >c ~
~o ~
.... ~ <'w !2
m.
00 ~ .=:"E E
~ ~E ~
u 00
a. IU
U Q. Q.
.... 0 g
~
E- '" 0..0 ....,;-;
CD ~ N N ...
00
N en CD
'" ~ ~ N '"
.
~ m c
~ E s",g
. E i!u~
CII . 0 :::!:d\~
- 0 U ~
>0" D . ~~~
., > c
-= ~~ '" . ~'~89
" ~
u .
CII " 5 . ~o::8:::E
I
.= D ~ 0 ~ U)I::;E
.
y ~ . a. U . ~'~~E
if " > 0 O~<i>O
00 a. ~ U << !.?ccru
t)J) . . Q. n;a.c.
8 8 8 000
= o~o
'" ",""0 COh 'l')o,",,;o
,.: ... ~- ~ N- N
CII
CII
~
.=
y
=
~
~
~
... ...
0 0 ....
'" ~ N ~
:
orJ
Q\
Q\
-
I.
~
.c
a
~
....
Q.
~
00.
; 1
o 0
] ig
g ,QU)
~ "'.
-gti!!!~
&~"*-c.
"'<I>Eg
~ g au
&.0:':;;;:
~aH~~
- .
I,C)
0'1
:z:
....
00.
~
U
....
Eo-
00.
:
'"
I.
~
::a
C"j
.-
Eo-
-=
C"j
=
=
~
;...
=
....
o
B ~ ;.
~ IX: 0: U ~
i....!!; .~ ~
i'~89E-1! ~ ~
q),C::LL .... Q JIj
o,t:t:~~g.,~ ~,J
~!.eSZ8G1I"..z:..Si8
:!S_-..'E:.f.4i't:jZ'l::5E '"
:.<E1:o:tl::Gl8:e'J
~.:2,~ ~~'1I~Ez.~5!
~g&cZfE~05D.~~
(OJ u;
" N
~ ~
'"
co
-
.1!
~
a;
c
o
~.
..
H
::;15
cO
.D
~J5
~>
[:;:
&~
CO .
o -E 2
R: ';2 I/)
:5 a c>
J!! :5 :5
~ ] ]
E "iij (;j
8 ~ ~
~ -g --g
E . .
.g~g>a::Jg'u
..,Uincr:";i;u
rotQt:a::
~;;~t9~~
I,t')(LWD::mcr::",
-
.Q
"
m
c
o
~
.oM
g~
~~
~.
c"
~~
~"
O~
~o
~~
.....
u
"-
a
<o!
m
.1!
~
a;
c
o
{If;'
c~
.0
m~
~~
:gg
...."->
-
c
~O
5!~
.-
"'~
~~
~.o
.~
~E
0.8
~E
02
C<'CI.!!!
c:~~
NO<
"'''"'
",. .
>
u
~
a;
.Ev
~.
-~
a:;-e
cE
00
.g~
c'
.w
CI=
",0
_c
.,
00
<'),,-u
-
'"
'"
-
~
g
"
o
.0
.
~
~
~
.
"
c
C
"-
~;:
a. a;
~c
EO
D~
'W
"'-
,"If
_uw
-
....
<')
o
-
<')
'"
c
~ .E",~ .E
<'II NC><O N
a: NC:~ N
~ ~'~~ m
Vi Q)I$! a
~ ::$;1~ "
""'... ~E
~~~~g ~2
~8::__~2 '" QjLl:
LLLLii",--g,g.,g,!:!
~~~;; ~E~:g
~:g.g~-~~~~
o Q.o;: aU::>o
NU::JZ.....a.uQ......
'"
'" U
w 'i'
~ ~
. N
. a;
l.E
o
..
~
N
a;
C
o
. .
. ~
~~~
.0 m
"a"'
dj<riti
"t"'"U@&
'"
.
a
~
.
.
~
.~~
~~
0:1'
~!l
tie
~Q,
o:a~
'"
~ .2 gW
a m aoc
:5 a m9
x. 5 ~~
"'E-g 2,2
~~~ ~~
iiLL~U)O>Oi
~~-g~ a:5
Gn::vu-:g-:g
2::J g>.... c c:;
~..c:-Hj&&
C::ut,nltII
~Cl-2..<(>;;;;;;
Q) JJ.E~~&&
-
.2 .E
~ ~
u en a
D.. g 5
l! -g 1:
~ ~~~~
~ ~8:g ~
~I'l C 0I!:..c:
v:a: <I> c m{l)
~ g-g'.~ g']!
i5.J::~o~o
~~&.~&.~
eo 5~~~~a
-
....
-
o
<')
.E .E
m m m
a1 a1 a1 Ii">
<: <: <: a
o 0 0
"'0 "'0 ]E.E
~ ~ I3~
iii iii "'001<:
-g -g ~=~E
~ ~ g'~-g2
~u..!!'m";)l"""o
€~~~1ii3 g'~
8.~o..!2!o...-ti:c
0) ~~~~~.E&~
'" .
CO
'"
~
~
c
o
~~
-"0
.(ij~
E"
~~
Ou
:;'u
~;!
0"
~-
.-
,...a::.E
'" .
'"
'"
D
.
c
.
~
.
.
"
~
.
o
'"
'"
'"
....
'"
N g"EJ
.E ~o...2 ~ -~rf
o gOM a g.2~
i3 g..<:1!aE~ -gtD.:
-'5 g 5'- E 0 -.<:~
5~-=:S: 58 ~ g~~
~~]!u.g a IiIgo
Cu ~u <:~.:1 -ge> 5
., <:'<tGlIII<: GlI'-tj:
~u~:!::~Jl.~ g'C!1II
ti;!:GI~ti~Ea:~~U
&~5.2&~8!t~]~
g~~~~Q)
,...~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0..]
it..
"-a
~-
15
o~
i~
e~E
M!ila
~-gu
5~~
:Q";hlll
,E5~
~1ia
,,~-
",.
~
.Q
~
c
o
i~
00
0>0
"'a
ti:.S
Oa
"-"'
"',
o
~
~
'"
e
~
....
<DU
i3&!
~~
~~
~~
cc
0:0
..
~~
&&
"'"'
Z:~
&.K.
r):','
>>
~
?::
..,
~
J
~~
."
!.~
~$
t
~
~~
;~
~~
.(.
~
~~
.;~
:~
I
N
~
~
j
,1
.~
;;;:
i
i
<,
j~
-
on
<::\
<::\
....
:.. ~ ~
0
0
~ 0 .
Uo
,Q EO ".
0 o~ f
0
.... S~ >;
u ,," >
0 .
g
.Cri - ., -
- '" N ... -
~ . ;
~~
E~ .
.
Eo "
8~ .
0
1'~ ~
~
~Q W
.0. "Bi
.~
o~ 0
~o. ~
0
0
0
'" 0 t'-oOi 0
- N N '" -
.!!
0
~
.
0
"' .
I!I) 0
~
E 0
..
, "0
<; ~'ii'i
~ e:::.!!!
u ~E
:gOO ~E
00
o.r o.U
~
0
~
N Q)U:i '"
- - N N en
. "'
0 w
~ .
\0 0
:> ;;
<::\ .
go E
Z .. E
-< 8-
.... .
0 2'~
rLJ E_ 1:'2
~ E" ~S!
00
U u_ o.r
0 <i
.... g g
Eo- ~i<i ., '" ~
rLJ - - N - .,
=
. ~
0
0 0
. .
~ 0
~
.. u
r .
[iJ
0 .... ... -
- - N '" ....
"'
~
~ ~
a."
-= 0"'
jj ".
'C 0.0
o.
~ ~ ~~
~
-= ,
'" 00
U mu
rLJ ",u
0",
~ o~
= gg '" '" 0
~~
.-= en - N '" '"
~
~
~
-=
U
=
=
~
>.
=
....
0 '" N en
., - N N '"
Ir)
C'I
C'I
-
'"
~
..c
=
...
<.J
o
'"
N
c
0;;
.g.~
p
Q"
<"
_"
:g!;
"-w
N .
c
o
.
~~
QQ
<.5
'thai
00
"-"
'" .
~
.
o
.
'c
j
...
-
.,
N
-
-
-
N
"-
~"
~o
"--
o
o~
-0
0....9
~ c:>
aoc
~~"
co~
0= d>
OPE~
6~2?
:J-g~
coo
o Q~
E3~
5 <>-?1
o (H:t::....
N
...
2
"
~~
::go
0:::';::
o.
"ff
oc
>0
'ii'tl
~<
"u
~"-
.~
o~
"-
>>~
-~
~"
ocr..e
-
il.,2
~~
~~
oc
00
g]!
:"n; E
~~g
'O-go
g~~
s~&
E&.~
!!!4,o
O~~
'"
<;
~
c;;
'0
~c
_C
-.
.0
EI
~~
cw
&u
""-
~~
o~
~~
0"
r- a::.2
N
o
i3
2
~
~
c
o
~
~~
EQ
iii.!:
~"
c"
00
~"
~~
~~
o~
~~
'"
c
o
" E
-gE
00
ou
<.
~~
00
"'''-''-
-
U
"-
~
U
"-
~
;;
2
~
~
2
~
~
c
o
-gg-
c~
~~
~8
~~
N5~
-
2
~
c
o
"E
-gE
00
QU
<0
1iL6
00
"-<
'"
2
s
'"
-
~
C'I
Z - ., '"
- - N - .,
....
rI:J. ~
~ ~ ~
U .2.2 2 c
0 c 0 !
.... ~~ " . ~
~ ; ~
cc c -" .
rI:J. 00 o~ 0 2
.. 00 " .
: ~~ ~~ or "- iii
cc c. ~
00 8.~ ~
OQ
<< :':;; "-
'1ii'tii ~u ~
00
"-"- c"-U ... ... _u:
'" - - N '" ...
~
~
'& Ii:
",,-
x ~o
x
0 5&:
"'
Co
Q~
TI_
~ 00
um
U~
~ ~o '" '" c
:E2 '" - N '" <0
<.J
...
~
..c
<.J
=
0:
~
....
0:
...
0 '" N '"
., - N N '"
'"
~
~
....
~ 0
J.. I! 0
0 .0
~ . ~ ~
.c '.
f .
e > >
~ . .
0 0
~ > ~ ~
.. ~ ~
Q 8 .
Z 8
~ co ~<ri ~
~ ~ N N 0>
"
~
~~ ~
.
co .
0. 0
ijO " .
<<<< . 0
~~ 0 ~
o. 5
1lg> ~ >
(j)';:: 0
u~ " 0
~ ~
""I ~
~ . 8
0 8
0
0 r--<D "'It<ri ~
~ ~ N ~ co
~
~ ~
. 0
c <3 .
m . .g
. 0
~5 !1
.:: ~ >
. . 0
. e 0
~ "" ~
~ ~
. .
8 8
<D Miici 0..0
0> ~ N '" ....
'"
'"
\D 0 .~~
0
~ ~ ~.
Z .E "Eo .
E ~ii .g
0 .
..... u~ u'" 0
m# m' .
00. .m .m >
'<:.~ ";:,2 0
~ .. .. 0
... ... ~
U ""I ""I ~
~ ~ .
..... 8 8 8
E- ~ ~r-.: N Ohi;
co ~ N N <D
00. u " .
: u " .
.>; .. 0
<<
J> ~ ""
~ '"
~ 5.~ .~ !;:
. Ef'jW
C ;.;::; >1/) >....=
. .." IDNO
0 ~c;',; ';:;;,~
;;
. c: -g 0 -g.OQ
'" 0,",0. ~t5f
~~E
M " ~
0 8
... ~ co .0';"'; ~ "'"
.... ~ N N .,
~
-
== .
'C g
.
~ 0
.
..c: >
.
OJ 0
00. ~
~
~ .
= 8
'" 0 r--Iri
'.c <D ~ N N
~
~
~
..c: 0 .
OJ 0
= ~ "
0
~ . .
> >
. .
0 0
~ =<
.... ~
~ . .
- 8 8
0 N 0> (Ooi'i <ri
., ~ ~ N '"
on
Q\
Q\
-
>-
'"' .
c
~ .
..c '0 ~~
.
e ~ ~
~ > ~
... ~
Q "
"
z ~ ., '" ill
~ ~ N N '" ;.:.
.e ::::
~~
g ~~ .e ~~
0 ::go " .:<
0 0:::';:; ~~
O. :;;
~\1 ~. "
.I
00 5 ~~
~~ >0 .;:\
(ij.E iiiS :~
~. ~< o .
&~ "" 0""
~a. "E t
'" .~ :n~
ji!a. ~~ ::::
];: :::;
o~ ~" :~
0.>:
.~ c. ." :~
"'- oc::..Q ... .. "'~
.... ~ ~ N ~ ., f.
0: "
a. "
g :.;.
:g 0 :.::
S ::;:
>- ::~
" " . 0
c o~ r:
~ ~ Q >of ~
0 ~" ~
..
5;; 0 ... ~" ,.
0 . "'N ~~
~go . ~ .~ ~
~~ 0 .!!"
ij-;; . ~~
~
Q. ~~ ~ ::::
<I <s ~" ::::
2~ wi;; i3! ,.
o. ;;
a.w a.I '" .... 0"'''
N '" ~ N .... ... ::::
" "
.e " " " i
N ~ N
" ~ 5 ::;:
:;; "
" 0 " "
_0 P1 ~
N ~ i'j
~ 'jiE ~f:
~" ~~
",,, 00 0
0 0';::; 0 ~
;;P1~~ ~~ if
::E'i;"- oI ~
.t:8r.E ~g: .<
\C <", ~~
Q\ ~~~] ~~ 0_ ~
Z '" NU).-(J)() ",a.w a.w
., ~ N N '"
.....
00 1
~ ~
U ~
>- ~
.
- c
Eo- 0 "
0 .
00 'Ii
: .
iii :~
.;
.. ~ ., ,
... ~ N N '"
~~
~;.
""
c:;;
"" "
~"
ON
0_
~"
.~
~ifi
~5
'0::::.
o.
cI> ~~.
'"'
~ .... oD..G ...
:!2 '" ~ N N ..
U
..
Eo-
..c '~
u XII)
= .111
=
~ ~
a,z
'.~
>. ~::.;..:
= ..-
- q
0 N '" '" l~
'" ~ ~ N .... a.
\I')
CI'\
CI'\
-
'"'
~
J:I
S
~
'"
~
~
o
~
,...
iT""
c
o
.~
.
>
c
o
~
~
o
'"
'"
N
<D
~
<D
'"
c
o
~
.
o
.
>
c
o
~
~
~
~
o
U
.
o
15
~
.
6'
a:
8
0)<0
N
'"
8
N
N
'"
~
CD
~
.
.
o
u
8
15
~
.
e-
o.
c
o
~
~
>
c
o
~
,
8
CO<ci
N
...
...
~
~
N
,...
~
.
.
o
u
8
15
\0
CI'\
Z
-
00
~
U
-
Eo-
00
c
o
~
.
>
c
o
.::j
o
.
e-
o.
.
o
o
t-<ci
N
'"
o
N
'"
~
<D
U
U
.
c
o
~
0.
'"
0'
m
~
.
.
o
U
.
~
~
.
6'
a:
.
o
o
COm
N
N
"
u
.
c
2 ~
" 0.
" <!2
. <;
~~~
"NO
cr::'-S
'co
-g ou .
~f5f
g
,
o
u
Sf
=
;;
f
c~
]-s:.n
QlQI?iI
~J:r:r
>:nrc:
i:-go
OQ)~
~.lE
"-
8
NiO
~
a. i:i..
o 0
~ ~
'"
'"
~
1i
~
~
,
c
.
:I:
~
.
.
~.2
. u
c .
: g
~ u
" .
fi 'e-
o.
.
8
U)iQ
N
i
>,.:0:
E3~
. 0
Z 5
n
OJ "2
Z a.:
.
8
~
~
..
;;
-=
~
.c
'"
00
~
=
'.c
~
~
~
.c
'"
=
~
~
....
~
...
o
...
~
~
CD
~
.
'~
.
>
c
o
~
c
o
~
o
.
>
c
o
~
,
.
o
o
~
'"
...
N
~
'"
Ir)
a-..
a-..
-
...
~
..c
e
~
....
~
Q co .., 0
0> ~ N .., CO
..
~
'"
B
~
< .
00
:!'E
:iH
~N
~~ "' N 0>
'" ~ N N '"
B
!j
~r
1B
U)N
~-
_N
~.~
.'O.1!!:
Iii..!!!
OOOU ... ~ '"
'" .... ~ N N ...
g U
U
~ N
~
.E ..
0
S ~
-0
<< <
~-Z 0
.0
r;::I: ~:;
"'-<I: &~
~ ~~ <w
a-.. ~-~ ~-
O!!;
Z c>>Q.W o.W .., 0 ....
('If:-'. CO ~ N N ...,
-
00-
~
U
-
f-<
00-
:
N 0> CO
'" ~ ~ N
~ i:'
~ . Q
Q
. . .
~ . ~
~ .
0 ~ ~
<
.
'" . ~
~
U
'"
...
~ ~ ., "'
:!ii! ... ~ ~ N ~
...
..
f-<
-5
=
OS
~
;...
OS
...
0 0 .... ... ~
'" ~ ~ N '"
.._....... _......nm....~.........._:......._nn.... .....m......... .... ......n... .......n.~................... .. ...........nm....._ .....--....
5 5 is is M+ ~ M I-< 15 ~~B 6
.~.~ :~ i~ ~ g~ 1 1 \~ ~ ~ 1 1
.8 ] \]~] ~ ~] .8 .8 j] ~ + ~ .t:
f::! f::! jf::! ~f::! rn N f::! f::! jf::! rJ:I c.. S f::!
11 11 \~ ..\13 .13 .9 ~ 13 'B j] .13 "9.8 13
t:i t:i :~:Ci.i 0... t:i V) en:Ci.i B ~ 't;j
8.s 8.!'f i 8.Ef 8.!'f~ ~ 8.s 8.s 8.~ 8.!'f ''6 ~ f:! 8.s
.g ijs .g ijs i.g ij,..g ij "Co.g - .g - .g ,,:.g " " .:; .g "
" " . Ii Ii ~" ... " ~ Ii ~ Ii g, Ii g ~"~] - " ...
"" ! "" S, "" e " " " " ",," "" ", "" " ,,<0 8.~ :J g, e
<.s~.s ~<.9j<.9 ~'"O~.s<.s<.sj<.s ~O 6<.9
................:.........."!'................................................ ..........:.....................................................-
] !]!] ] ] j] ] ]
.E j.E ,.E .E .E j.E .E .E
:r,n
tnOJ:)i>-oo
.g ..3, .glJ
0: IU
0:0 ""
00 e,- e
~
~
'"
~
....
'"
;
o
<.)
'"
z
o
....
...
<.)
-<
~
o
-<
eJ
~ ~
"- "-",,
.g .s .g .s
H ~
e:!: e
~
.g
~
.a -3
...
o ...
_ S
:CI:I cciVJ
!~.s!~
:'"0 .....:"0
i tJl
~oo 8joo
""
lJ
...
~
~
"-"
.g..,
...
"
00 S
""
,3
...
::: e
- ~ :!: r-- :!: 00 io ~ 0
- j- -
-
;g r--
~ if;; 'r-- '" ~ i r::!~ r;:; !2
\C .- j;3 ~ ~ S2 _i.--.!. ::::', "1
g _ it-;' :'," ~ .... !U ",' 0.0\ ,- -
~.~ ~ j~ 1~ ~ ~ > ~ '.gi'D ~ $
_ 0 0 j~ j~ ~ i 8 ~ ~ji- :: - ~
] ~ ~ !] -5\] -5 ~ a 0 Qj.- -c .c g ~
... ': <<: 11 ,~:;!~:; -0 "" c3'~ .~ ':1~ "" ] s ,,~
I:Q ~ ~u !- o<:!- 0<: ~.!j S ... ~ !j - P:: '"' !j '-'
~~ ~.€ i:hj g ~ ~ ~ U~ ~ j:.!zi~ 1 g H 8
...... ~ ~ U ;....:1 OJ....:l 0 ~ 'Ii: 'G,.. .......... - 0 - .....
.......... ..............'!........'.... ........................... .......... .........\..................... ..................... ....... . ~
V'\ iN ~~ V'\ 0'\ t'--!t'-- ~ t'-- $
~
.~
"
o
q'
~
'"
...
""
:;
-fi
.s
-
u
...
:g
~
~
................................. IU
~
"
.8
1:>
<<:
'"
:;
s
i
...
~
0..
En
cil
8i s s
~\~ ~'E ~ .!=~
= ~ a :~:E j._~ ~~ a ~ E;j.~~ a
= P.. ;g! S j;:Q ~ 1;;; ~ . ::: 6i.~ Cti P..
':8 o~:s ~~ WI . =0 nff'l:s .0
'a M S3 ~.j ~ :- ~ ~ s .~ ~ '""~: a 13 ~
50;! ._.... +:I _ :.0..... .!"'" "":::' _ ff'I u....: = ~ on
a 1;;; u..... ""1":::1 : = ..... ~,.o::;'" .... ~ ~;U;;> 1;;;
= -d ~ ~ diIj!rJ) j 6 's &! -s ~~ rn ~-S .
U IU = ~ -0::: U a 1:1 ~ =~ ~ s~ = ~ 13
.,,_""~ ':.... !;;i. ..,," i_ 8 ""do! .;: ~ .!2 ~i'~ ~ ~
~-o ... ~ 'C. 0 L5,.Q 'W; 'C =" ~ '"".....110 -0-
='-1iie: :=::1 <!.Ie +:11101:;;_=-1:;
NU_N!U !,"",v:I j:::IN ="1"~ff'I!~Nff'I
.......... ................t..........j................ ...................... ........... ..........t.....................
: . on : I.f"I I.f"I
! 1~ on 8 ~ ~ ~ !~ g: g:
. :Oo~r.-;O\ t::: ~ .ool.f"lr-
, \~ 'X 8 ~ 8 .2 ~ ~
go
._ 0
'C0
t1;j
... .
~ "
" 0
d:::S
",g
~""
g~
~""
~~
e
E
'"
~
.~
:c
"
Po.
~
'"
;:;;
8
~~
",'"
;;::;~
- -
N-
-:::J
~
z
8
~
@
u
~
U
V'\o~ !
~ ~ ~\~ ~j ~ ~ ~ < ~
~ 0 -8!~ g: ~ ~ ~ z ~
~ ~ ~;:;; M! M "" '" ;:;;
.......... ................J...........1................ ...................... ........... ..........1..................... ...................... ........... .
~
/
~
5
en
i
~
~
~
c:>
..,
~.;;
0-'
.. ..
..
oi
.....:/
~~
e "
.!:!~
J! ~
J
en
p..
@
en
~
o
~
~
o
~
u
::1
~
--
~
u
~
o
u
~
......
u
--
6
......
en
I
u
~
...J
p..
[t ~
~ 0;;
~r: u
0- 5;i
o~ c
Ei:i5~ ~
~ l::! J:j i:! 'ii
ii!0'0~.a""
'0..... ~ ~ :I i
....z<~zu<
~!~~~~~~
~~r.1r.1r.1r.1r.1r.1
. . . . . . . .
!5
'=
"
!
!
~
N
Mt""'I'<:t~
_-....;.......0'\
27\ 9 o:;;U
uuu<
<UenU
~
~
-
~
~ ~
e:. ~ '
, "a]
0:; 0:; i! ~ rc
.!!.s~....o:::
~ ~ i:.!:!'-
Sii~~~
, ::;:J ::;:J U g'"..
r.J t.. '" ~ =
~-2".!:!'~'~
~&:~~a~
. . . . . .
~
'"
!.':!
0-
~ !
~ ' U
~ ~..~
e. ~!5'
, '01 '= 1;
1; .. "j;;
~ ~!.i
._ 'ij F.! U 8
rc~>~teI
Q ~ GI GI
= - so so so
I!~ooo
6~~~~
~
r-
~
. . . . .
so
~ .~
.. a
so ~
~~
. .
"
~
.B
o
-
..
~
~
~-
.~
15.
~
is
-
..
is
1;'=
-:0
~ so
i :a
"'" 'C 'i
!5 ~ S i!:
+:; 0 '5 !:
i:'d@'.lQc.
.. "::;:J Co
!6~so<
so 1: so..
oa~-.:=
g I I &\0
'B e; ep. <
<r.1r.1~1}J
.
'L.
tel .~
.. "
so ..
o tel
< ..
~ so
enO
i~
=en
~ ~
0_
UU
. .
'"
o
'C
..
""~
.. ~
r.1.>:
.. ~" ..
so ~ so
0..0
~:.=<
~..c~
"'d::'"
so "" so
0.. 0
.. r.1 ..
'i ~'i
.. - ..
telUteI
. . .
.,.,
~
~
1
~
'5
~
o
.
'5
~
o
.
~
'5 .~
g ~ :>!
U ~ ~
...< .
o I
. 9>
N U
-'
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
FOR THE
PLANNING, EDUCATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF THE
OTAY RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of
1995 between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego
existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter referred to
individually or collectively as Public Agencies).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS the Public Agencies are each empowered by law to acquire
sites and to plan and design public facilities and appurtenances for park and
open space purposes; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1993, the Chula Vista City Council and San
Diego County Board of Supervisors jointly approved the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (General Development Plan)/Subregional Plan (GDPjSRP);
and
WHEREAS the GDPjSRP requires the selection and retention of a
Preserve OwnerjManager (POM) prior to approval of the first City of Chula
Vista Sectional Planning Area (SPA) or County Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS the POM will be ultimately responsible for resource
management, education, restoration and enforcement of the 11,375+ acre "Otay
Ranch Open Space Preserve"; and
WHEREAS the Public Agencies desire to provide a vehicle for the
planning, design and operation of the "Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve"
consistent with the GDP (Exhibit "A", attached hereto) and by this reference
made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS it is deemed advisable for the Publi-c Agencies to coordinate
planning, design and operation for the "Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve" for
the benefit of their citizens and others by jointly exercising their common powers
in the manner set forth in this Agreement;
Page 1
JEPA-POM2.[)(X,Ijj Printed: 9!7f.)5
"/
NOW, THEREFORE, the Public Agencies, for and in consideration of the
mutual benefits, promises and agreements set forth herein, agree as follows:
SECTION 1.
Purpose.
This Agreement is made pursuant to the prOVISIOns of Article 1, Chapter
5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California
(commencing with Section 6500, hereinafter referred to as the "Act") relating to
the joint exercise of powers common to public agencies. The Public Agencies
possess the powers referred to in the above recitals. The purpose of this
Agreement is to exercise such powers jointly by coordinating planning, design
and operation of the "Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve".
SECTION 2.
Term.
This Agreement shall become effective as of the date hereof and shall
continue in full force and effect for 30 years from the date hereof or until
repealed by any or all parties hereto, as indicated in SECTION 8. Agencv
Withdrawal. This Agreement may be extended for an additional 30 years with
the consent of all parties.
SECTION 3.
Description.
The real property to be planned, designed and operated shall be generally
within the property described as the "Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve" (Exhibit
"A", attached hereto) and by this reference made a part hereof.
SECTION 4.
Policy Committee.
The joint powers authority established by this Agreement shall be
governed by a Policy Committee consisting of two (2) elected representatives one
each appointed by the governing bodies of the County of San Diego County and
the City of City of Chula Vista. An alternate will also be appointed by each of
the Public Agencies. A quorum for the purposes of conducing business will
consist of two (2) members of the Policy Committee. In the absence of a quorum,
a single member present may move to adjourn. The Policy Committee will meet
annually, or more often if agreed to by the two (2) members of the Policy
Committee, to establish policies and review all operations of this Joint Powers
Agreement.
SECTION 5.
Preserve Management Team.
The Preserve Management Team consists of the City Manager of the City
of Chula Vista and the Chief Administrative Officer of San Diego County. The
JEPA-POM2.J:X)C;jj
Printed; 9/7195
Page 2
~.{
Preserve Management Team shall assign appropriate staff representatives to
implement the goals and objectives of the "Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve"
and the daily operations.
SECTION 6.
Preserve OwnerjManag-er Staff Committee.
The Preserve OwnerjManager will consist of a minimum of two (2)
members from each agency. The Preserve OwnerjManager Staff Committee will
be responsible for operations of the "Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve" as
directed by the Policy Committee, and as describe in Exhibit "B", attached
hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof.
SECTION 7.
Administration.
Day-to-day administration of this Agreement, including preparation of
agendas, maintenance of records, minutes and meetings, and conformance to
other legally required processes pertaining to records, purchases, etc. shall be
the responsibility of the Preserve OwnerjManager.
SECTION 8.
Ag-encv Withdrawal.
Any of the Public Agencies under this Agreement may withdraw from
participation in the joint exercise of powers created by this Agreement upon
sixty (60) day's notification to the other parties. Any contributions made by that
Public Agency toward the acquisition, development, management and
preservation of the "Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve" shall be retained for
those purposes.
SECTION 9.
Governing- Law.
This Agreement shall in every respect be binding upon the parties hereto
and their respective successors and assigns. This Agreement shall be governed
by the laws of the State of California.
SECTION 10.
Provisions Required bv Law.
Each and every provision of law and clause required by law to be inserted
in this Agreement shall be deemed to be inserted herein and the Agreement
shall be read and enforced as though it were included herein, and if for any
reason any such provision is not inserted, or is not correctly stated, then upon
application of either party, the Agreement shall forthwith be physically amended
to make such insertion or correction.
JEPA-POM2.IXJC!jj
Printed: 9/7;95
Page 3
cJ.3
SECTION 11.
Partial Invaliditv.
If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person
or circumstances shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder
of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to persons or
circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, shall
not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Agreement shall be valid and
be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
SECTION 12.
Execution.
This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original
but all together shall constitute but one and the same Agreement. It is also
understood and agreed that separate counterparts of this Agreement may be
separately executed by each City and County, all with the same full force and
effect as though the same counterpart has been executed simultaneously by each
City and County.
SECTION 13.
Notice.
Any notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement
may be personally served on the other parties by the party giving such notice, or
may be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following
address:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY:
JOHN GOSS
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Phone: (619) 691-5031
DAVID JANSSEN
Chief Administrative Officer
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Coast Highway
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 531-5267
SECTION 14.
Entire Agyeement.
This Agreement contains the entire Agreement among the parties
concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes prior Agreements,
representations and discussions relating thereto.End of agreement. The next
page is the signature page.
JEPA-POM2.DC>C;.1j Printed: 9(7fJ5
Page 4
;l,L
SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized, their
official seals to be hereto affixed, as of the date first above written.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO:
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
Mayor
ATIEST:
ATIEST:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney
County Counsel
Date:
Date:
Exhibit "A"--Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve
Exhibit "B" --City of Chula Vista and San Diego County Preserve Owner
Organization Chart
Exhibit "C"nDuties and Responsibilities of the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner
Manager(s)
JEPA-POM2.DOC/ji Printed: 9/7;95
Page 5
.:{f.;
--_._-~-_.__....._"
b
~7
o
~
~
~ ! j
_ z _~
i ~ -g -
~~~~~
!~~f~
-Ii 'S .!! .., -g
I; Q. .. .! Q.
a: .z: u "
" := :s :=
>. ~ .. II ~
-g~:>~a:o
~[jJI~I~
.
OJ
~
OJ
rn
OJ
d::
OJ
OJ
. ro
< 0-
. en
+' J:: ~
.~ ~
P- OJ
0-
~ 0
"'" {J
J::
ro
p::
:>,
ro
+'
0
.
1/(
"1'\,,'__-'
f
.....
I-
~
..c:
U
=
o
..:::
~
N
.-
=
~
OJ)
I-
o
I-
CI.I
OJ)
~
=
~
~
I-
CI.I
=
~
o
CI.I
!:
CI.I
.."
f:
~
.c
=
=
o
U
o
OJ)
CI.I
.-
~
=
~
00
"0
=
~
~
.....
.."
.-
~
~
-
=
..c:
U
....
o
.c
.-
u
;<;::
.D
~
"
... C E
i:~ ~
= i! '"
-~ e [;
~Po:e
o<j
C w
Q C
.'" Q
f'ia
Q ..
1;;~
~O
,!,~~
~i!:E-<
"iiI
:l '0 'C
[;'g [;:.(
.. '" C
'" j;;::
"iiI
...t'~-C~
",:;;.~ "'~
O>ijiPo..,
is
C ...
Q E
"'" !;j
f ;
Q...
1;; C
~~
o<j
o<j ~
... ..
~ ~
~Po
.!i !;j w
'" ; 'E
'3E~
E ~ [;
~~OO
Po
..
~~j
..s~-=
t ~ [;
j::I~=
Po
~ ~
ie"
.sPo
"5 e
~ .. "5 .~
i~ .~ s ~
z 5 "E ~ ).1
GU .. -a
=
Po
Exhibit "C"
Duties and Responsibilities of the Otay Ranch Preserve Ownerj1V1anager(s)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RESPONSIBILITIES
Education
Development of educational facilities and interpretive programs. Implementation
and/or coordination and accommodation of research programs. Provision of
controlled opportunities, consistent with resource protection needs, for the public
to learn about and appreciate the natural and cultural diversity of the area
including:
. its biological diversity and cultural heritage;
. the inter-relationships between sensitive species and natural habitats;
. the opportunity to observe biological and cultural resources in their natural
setting; and
. the importance of preservation of natural areas and understanding challenges
to the survival of remaining natural ecosystems.
Provide a unique and multi-faceted living laboratory for research related to:
. habitat, paleontological and cultural resource protection and management;
. experimental approaches to enhancing and restoring degraded habitats; and
. understanding species and habitat needs and conditions that adversely affect
sensitive plant and animal species.
Institutions such as the City of Chula Vista Nature Center and the Natural
History Museum are non-profit agencies providing such services.
Research and Monitoring
Ensuring no reduction in habitat values and no adverse impacts to biological
resources are included within the Preserve by the following:
. Monitoring the resources to identify changes in the quality and quantity of
sensitive resources and habitats to assure compliance with the adopted
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
. Implementation and monitoring of restoration activities, as appropriate.
. Establishing a comprehensive monitoring program for the biota of the
Preserve in conjunction with the Phase II RMP.
. Developing and implementing an annual monitoring program designed to
identify changes in quality and quantity of on-site biological resources
including sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant species and sensitive
habitat types.
JEPA.POM2.DOC/H Printed: 9(7,-95
Page 8
;,(
Active and Passive Recreational Programs
Development of plans and programs for the location and design of active
recreational uses, overlooks and a passive trail network within the Preserve.
Coordination with the Otay Valley Regional Park JEPA, or subsequent park
planning entity, regarding issues associated with Otay Valley Regional Park.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES
Law Enforcement
Enforcement activities as necessary to control and protect the resources of the
preserve within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the "Otay Ranch
Open Space Preserve". Development of a law enforcement program that will
protect the visitor from the environment, protect the environment from the
visitor and protect the visitor from other visitors. Create a uniform code of
regulations for all cooperating agencies and an annual review by law
enforcement and resource agencies of their appropriate roles.
Maintenance Operations
Maintenance and enhancement of all resources through the prevention of further
disturbance, including controlling access to the Preserve, prohibiting off-road
traffic, enforcing "no trespassing" rules and curtailing activities that degrade
resources, such as grazing, shooting and illegal dumping. Implementation of
maintenance activities including removal of trash, litter and other debris,
maintenance of trail systems, removal and control of exotic plant species (weeds)
and control of cowbirds through trapping efforts. Develop a plan for the
controlled burning, erosion control and replanting to enhance the natural and
scenic values of the preserve. Preparation of a grazing, crop production,
integrated pest, insect and disease management control or other appropriate uses
if they do not result in conditions that are adverse to eventual recreational or
agricultural uses. Development of a restrictive area plan which prohibits public
access to sensitive wetlands, vernal pools, restoration areas and sensitive wildlife
habitat.
Resource Protection and Management
Providing large, connected natural areas with varied habitats that offer refuge,
food and shelter to multiple species of native plants and animals; protecting
scenic, paleontological and cultural resources; and providing management tools to
assure that Preserve resources are not adversely affected by urban development
located adjacent to the Preserve.
JEPA.POM2.DOC,1j Printed: 917;95
Page 9
A9
JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Develop a management plan for preservation that facilitates effective, long-term
management of the Preserve consistent with the goals of the Phase I and II
Resource Management Plan and the "Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve".
Develop a Preserve Area Handbook which contains policies and procedures in
managing and evaluating the activities of the Preserve. The handbook should
include the purpose of the preserve, areas within the preserve including maps,
trails etc., the preserve area organizational structure, park system hierarchy,
land administration, financing, resource administration, facilities, public
relations, etc.
Develop a fire prevention program to protect human life, prevent modification of
park ecosystem by human-caused wildfire and prevent damage to cultural
resources or physical facilities.
Coordinate with the appropriate agencies involved with the Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP), or other adopted subregional habitat planning
programs, to assure consistency with regional conservation efforts and plans.
Regional preserve management agreements may be used to ensure working
relationships are established between other open space preserves. Coordination
with local jurisdictions, resource agencies and adjacent ownerships.
Implement the Phase I and II Resource Management Plans. Review proposed
preserve boundary adjustments, infrastructure plans. Comment on plans for land
uses adjacent to the Preserve and other activitie&fstudies.
Formulate performance standards for the City of Chula Vista and the County of
San Diego, in their respective areas of responsibilities, to ensure that the "Otay
Ranch Open Space Preserve" achieves the goals and objectives of the Preserve.
JEPA.POM2.DOC:;.1j Printed: 9(11"J5
Page 10
.56
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Manaoement. Convevance. Fundino
II. ACTIVITIES RELATED TO PRESERVE
MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
The goal of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan is to establish
a permanent preserve dedicated to the protection and enhancement of
the biological, paloentological, cultural and scenic resources of the
ranch, maintenance of long-term biological diversity, and the
assurance of the survival and recovery of native species and habitats
within the preserve.
The Phase 1 RMP requires the City of Chula Vista and the County of
San Diego to perform three tasks necessary to initiate the
Management Preserve prior to the approval of the first Otay Ranch
SPA. They are:
1. The selection of a Preserve Owner/Manager;
2. The adoption of a conveyance and restoration schedule; and
3. The identification of a funding plan.
These three tasks are reviewed in this chapter.
Page 37
9/6;95 .,3/
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Conveyance. Funding
A. Preserve OwnerlManager (POM)
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan and the
Phase 1 Resource Management Plan contain the following policies:
Policv: Select a Preserve Owner/Manager who is acceptable to
the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Advice
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game will be sought prior to final
selection of a Preserve Owner/Manager. (GDP/SRP Page 372-
373; RMP Policies 5.1, 5.2)
Policv: The Preserve Owner/Manager shall be selected prior to
or concurrent with approval of the first SPA in the Phase 2
RMP. (GDP/SRP Page 372-373; RMP Policies 5.1,5.2)
Policv: The Preserve Owner/Manager may be a local
government, a public resource agency, a non-profit
organization, or any other entity or entities acceptable to the
landowner, City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego.
(GDP/SRP Page 372-373; RMP Policies 5.1, 5.2)
Policv: The Preserve Owner/Manager may be an entity or
entities working in a cooperative arrangement to fulfill the
duties of the Owner/Manager. (GDP/SRP' Pages 372-373; RMP
Policies 5.1, 5.2).
The Preserve Owner/Manager (pOM) will oversee the day-to-day and
long-range activities within the Management Preserve. The POM will
take an active role in the maintenance and enhancement of biological
resources, the development of educational programs, and the
implementation of Phase 1 and 2 RMP policies related to management
of the Preserve. The POM will participate in the decision-making
processes for all activities and amendments to the GDP or RMP or
both that potentially effect the integrity of the Preserve.
The duties and responsibilities of the POM may include, but not be
limited to, the following:
Page 38
9/6/95 .3 )
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Fundino
. Maintenance and enhancement of all resources through. the
prevention of further disturbance, including controlling
access to the Preserve, prohibiting off-road traffic, enforcing
"no trespassing" rules, and curtailing activities that degrade
resources, such as grazing, shooting, and illegal dumping;
. Monitoring of resources to identify changes in the quality
and quantity of sensitive resources and habitats to assure
compliance with the adopted mitigation monitoring and
reporting program;
. Implementation and monitoring of restoration activities, as
appropriate (it is understood that some restoration activities
may be carried out by individual Otay Ranch developers in
coordination with the Preserve Owner/Manager);
. Implementation of maintenance activities including removal
of trash, litter, and other debris, maintenance of trail
systems, removal and control of exotic plant species (weeds),
and control of cowbirds through trapping efforts;
. Development of educational facilities and interpretive
programs;
. Implementation and/or coordination and accommodation of
research programs;
. Coordination with local jurisdictions, resource agencies, and
adjacent ownerships;
. Coordination with the Otay Valley Regional Park JEPA or
subsequent park planning entity, regarding issues associated
with Otay Valley Regional Park;
. Enforcement activities;
. Review of RMP Amendments, Preserve boundary
adjustments, infrastructure plans, plans for active
recreational uses within the Preserve, plans for land uses
adjacent to the Preserve and other activities/studies as
identified in the RMP;
. Develop and implement a strategy that facilitates effective,
long-term management of the Preserve consistent with the
goal ofthe RMP;
Page 39
9/6/95 2 :::;
~ ~
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Manaoemenl. Convevance. Funding
. Development and implementation of management to ensure
no reduction in habitat values and no adverse impacts to
biological resources occur within the Preserve;
. Establish a comprehensive monitoring program for the biota
of the Preserve in conjunction with the Phase 2 RMP;
. Develop and implement an annual monitoring program
designed to identify changes in quality and quantity of on-
site biological resources, including sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant species, and sensitive habitat types; and
. Coordination with the MSCP, NCCP, or other adopted
subregional habitat planning program to assure consistency
with regional conservation efforts and plans.
The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego identified the
following as desirable qualifications for the Preserve Owner/Manager.
. At least 5 years of demonstrated experience managing
biological resources including listed species;
. At least 5 years of previous experience with law enforcement
or the ability to contract with law enforcement agencies;
. At least 5 years previous experience with access control;
. Demonstrated ability to interact effectively with local and
regional conservation agencies, recreational agencies and the
local community;
. Prior experience in conducting or coordinating with
individuals involved in ongoing scientific research;
. Demonstrated ability to coordinate continued monitoring
efforts of the Preserve's biota, as shown by staff experience
and existing programs;
. Cultural resource management experience;
. Demonstrated experience in long-term management of large
open space areas with numerous sensitive species;
. Demonstrated ability to efficiently manage personnel and
finances over a long-term;
Page 40
9/6/95
'" ,
-( .:.~/
,.-- ,
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
. Demonstrated experience or ability to establish and operate
environmental educational and interpretive programs;
. Demonstrated ability and willingness to cooperate with local
and regional agencies and direct experience in working with
governing boards and/or advisory committees representing
such agencies; and
. Demonstrated ability to conduct community volunteer and
community outreach programs.
1. Background
Starting in January of 1995, the County of San Diego and the City of
Chula Vista pursued a "Request for Qualification" (RFQ) process to
identify a Preserve Owner/Manager. The City of Chula Vista City
Council approved a draft RFQ on February 14, 1995. The County
Board of Supervisors approved a similar RFQ on March 7, 1995. Five
entities or coalition of entities responded to a joint RFQ. In May 1995,
representatives from the City of Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego conducted candidate interviews. The State Fish and Game
Department and Federal Fish and Wildlife Agency, the Otay River
Valley Citizen Advisory Committee and representatives from the
property owners participated in the interview process.
After the interviews, the City and County jointly concluded that the
role of the Preserve Owner/Manager needed to be better defined and
that the cost of operating the preserve needed to be more precisely
calculated. It was further concluded that none of the candidates,
acting alone, demonstrated the range of skills and experience
necessary to permanently perform the POM function. Additionally,
many of the candidates expressed discomfort at being asked to make a
long term commitment to a 11,375 acre preserve without better
definition of the preserve and attendant POM responsibilities.
In response to these issues, the City and the County agreed that it is
desirable to select themselves as an interim preserve owner/manger
until greater information is known about the scope and nature of the
preserve.
Page 41
9/6/95 /J ~
0'-"
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Managemenl Plan
II. Preserve Manaaement. Canvevance. Funding
2. POM Management Structure
The following are the elements of the Otay Ranch POM Management
Structure.
. The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego jointly
name each other as the interim Otay Ranch Preserve
Owner/Manager,
. The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego execute
a joint powers agreement to delineate their respective roles
and responsibilities (Appendix 12).
. Property conveyed to the interim POM be conveyed to the
City and the County with an undivided interest,
. The City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego jointly
exercise responsibility and authority to review and comment
on the various tasks, plans and programs identified in the
RMP,
. The Board of Supervisors designate the Chief Administrative
Officer to exercise the review and comment authority
described above,
. The City of Chula Vista designate the Chula Vista City
Manager as authorized to exercise the review and comment
authority described above,
. The responsibility for the various RMP tasks be generally
allocated to the City and the County according to the
following broad classifications:
. Environmental Education - City of Chula Vista
. Research and Monitoring - COUIity of San Diego
. Resource Protection and Management - County of San
Diego
. Recreation - City of Chula Vista
. Law Enforcement - County of San Diego
Page 42
9/6/95 ..3 (C
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
. The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego would
retain independent authority to contract with other parties to
perform their respective allocated tasks.
Exhibit 7 below contains an organization chart illustrating the
relationships between the City of Chula Vista, the County of San Diego
and th~ various POM functions.
Exhibit 8 below delineates and allocates the responsibilities consistent
with the categories listed above, according to specific GDP/RMP
identified POM tasks.
Page 43
3/6/95
"'...,
-< '
v.
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
Exhibit 7.
POM Organization Chart
Page 44
9/6/95
.:JS
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Fundino
Exhibit 8
Preserve Owner/Manager Tasks
Resource
Re.eal'cb Protection
GDP Identified Environmental .ad .ad L....
POM Task Ed ucatioD Monitorinrl M.n....ement Recreation Enforcement
Policv 3.2 RestoratioD Coordinate
programs are intended to Restoration
mitigate (or disturbance of With POM
sensitive habitats aS80Ciated
with development of Otay
Ranch shall be funded and
designed by the landowner in
coordination with the
Preserve OwnerlManager and
the appropriate jurisdiction.
Implementation of such
restoration programs sball be
by an appropriate entity
acceptable to the Preserve
OwnerlManager and the
appropriate jurisdiction.
(RMP. Page 82)
Policv 3 3, Restoration Restoration
programs may be Banking
implemented for purposes Governed by
other than compensation of POM
impacts associated with
development of Otay Ranch.
Such programs shall be
funded. designed and
implemented by the Preserve
OwneriManager or other
entity acceptable to the
Preserve OwnerlManager.
ffiMP. Pa.. 821
Policy 5 2. Standards: Prevent
Responsibilities of the Degradation of
Preserve OwnerlManager Preserve
shall include. but not be Resources
limited to, the following:
Maintenance of existing high
quality resources through tbe
prevention of further
disturbance, including
controlling acceae to the
Preserve. prohibiting off. road
traffic. enforcing Mno
trespaaeing" rulel. and
curtailing activitiell that
degrade rellOurcell, such as
grazing, shooting, and illegal
dumping.
Monitoring of resources to Monitor
identify change. in the Resource
quality and quantity or Pre.....
sensitive resources and
habitats.
Ps,:e 4.5
9/6/95
:?</
v.
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Manaoement. Convevance. Funding
Re.ource
Research Protection
GDP Identified Environmental and and La..
POM Tuk EducatioD Monitorin.. Man...ement Recreation En(orcement
Implementation and Implement Coordinate
monitoring of restoration Monitoring Restoration
activities, aa appropriate (it is
understood. that some
restoration activities may be
carried out by individual Otay
Ranch developers in
coordinatioD with the
Preserve OwnerlMana"'er\.
Implementation of Maintain
maintenance activities Preserve
including removal of trash.
litter. an other debris.
maintenance of trai1systems.
removal and control of exotic
plant species (weeds), and
control of cowbirds through
trannin... efforts.
Development of educational Develop
facilities and nature Educational
internretive nro'""ams. Pron-ams
Implementation and/or Accommodate
accommodation ofresearth Research
uroll'Tams.
Coordination with local Coordinate With Resource Agencies
jurisdictions. resource
agencies. and adjacent
ownershins.
Coordination with the Otay Coordinate With JEP A
Valley Regional Park JEP A.
or subsequent park planning
entity, regarding issues
associated with Otay Valley
Revional Park.
Enforcement activities. I Provide Law
Enforcement
Review of RMP Amendments.
Preserve boundary Review RMP Amendments
adjustments. infrastructure
plans, plans for active
recreational uses with the
Preserve. plans fur land use.
adjacent to the Preserve and
other activities/studies as
identified :\the RMP. (RMP.
PaKes 93.94
Poliey 6 1. Standard.: Direct
Re.ponsibiliti.. oCthe Interpretive
Preserve OwnerlManager Center
shall include. but not be
limited to. the following:
1. Under the direction of
the Preserve
OwnerlManager. 88 an
interpretive center(s)
shall be constructed to
display and interpret
the biological.
paleontological, and
cultural resources
"resent on Ota" Ranch.
Page 46
9/6/95
LIe
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
RelDuree
Research Protection
GDP Identified Environmeatal and and Law
POM Tuk Education Monitorin- Manal'ement Recreation Enforcement
2. Construct a native plant Construct Native Use Materials
nursery and/or botanic Plant Nursery in Restoration
garden to be used for
public education of
native plants and plant
communities and for
restoration activities.
3. The sale of educational Educational
materials. books. and plants Materials
shall be allowed. (RMP. Page
103)
Policv 6 2. Standards: (1) Consult With
Siting and design of active JEPA
n!creational use. shall be Regarding
subject to review and Recreation
comment by tbe Preserve Design
OwnerlManager in
consultation with the JEP A of
the Otay Valley Regional
Park and shall be consistent
with plana for the 018Y Valley
=~ Park when adopted.
, Pal'e 103)
Policv 6 3 Standard: A Construct Trail Construct
qualified firm ,hall be hired Design Trail Design
to design and implement
construction or a trails system
through the Preserve,
following review and
comment by the Preserve
OwnerlManager and resource
allencies. mirP, Palnl 104)
Poli~ 6.5. Identity restricted Identify
use area within the Preserve. Restricted Use
Standard: Public access may Areas
be restricted within and
adjacent to wetlands, vernal
pools, restoration areas. and
sensitive wildlife habitat (e.g..
during breeding season) at
the discretion of the Preserve
O:~erlManager. (RMP. Page
10 .
Policy 6 6. Guidelines:
Infcastnlcture planA and their
implementation shall be
subject to review and Review Infrastructure Plana
comment by tbe appropriate
jurisdictions in coordination
with tbe Preserve
OwnerlManager. (RMP, Page
\071
Page 47
216/95
,,j/
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Manaaement. Conveyance. Funding
Resource
Reuarch Protection
GDP Identified Enviroomental and and La..
POM Talk Education Monitorinll' Manalf'ement Recreation Enforcement
Policy 6.8 Ecologically Authorize
necessary controlled burning Controlled
may be permitted within the Bums
Preserve.
Standard: Where and when it
is deemed appropriate Cor the
enhancement ofbiologica1
resources by the Preserve
OwnerlManager. and subject
to review by the County of
San Diego and the City of
Chula Vista with advice from
the resource agencies
(USFWS. CDFG), controlled
burning shall be conducted
within tbe Preserve. (RMP.
Palle 113)
Policy 7 1 All development
plans adjacent to the edge of
the Preserve shall be subject
to review and comment by the Review Edge Plana
Preserve OwnerlManager, tbe
City of Chula Vista. and the
County of San Diego to aaaur8
consistency with resource
protection objective8 and
Policies. I1>MP. Pa- 114)
Policy 8 3 Construction
activities aasociated with
infrastructure neceaaary for
implementation of an
approved development plan
shall be allowed 3a an interim Review Facility Construction Plana
activity.
Standard: All construction
activities shall take place in
accordance with standards
and criteria outlined in the
conceptual infrastructure
improvement plana u
required in Policy 6. The
improvement planlsball be
subject to approval by the
appropriate jurisdiction and
review by the Preserve
OwnerlManager. (RMP. Page
116)
Page 48
9/6/95
/ /;-('
L..--.,'
,
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Manaoement. Convevance. Fundino
Re.ource
Ruearch Protection
GDP Identified Environmental and and ww
POM Talk Education Monitorio. ManaIFement Recreation EDlor-cement
Policy 8 4 Develop a Range
Management Plan
Standard: A Range
Management Plan. which will Review Range Management Plan
depict the allowable
interaction between grazing
activity and sensitive
resources. shall be developed
as part of the aubmittal of tbe
first SPA in the Phase 2 .'
RMP. Under this plan. the
most sensitive are.. (i.e..
areas that support sensitive
speciea) _ball have re.tricted
accesa either by fencing or
other appropriate method..
The plan sball be subject to
review and comment by the
Preserve OwnerlManager. the
City ~~he County. (RMP,
Pa"'e 11
Policy 9 6 Establish a
procedure for amending the
RMP.
Standard: Following notice of
public hearing, the RMP may
be amended by the legislative Review RMP Amendments
body having juriadiction over
the use of land dected by the
amendment. provided that all
such amendmentli ahall be
subject to review and
comment by the Preserve
OwnerlManager. by the City
of Chula V1.8ta. and by the
County,~~San Diego. (RMP,
Pall'e 119
Policv 9 8 Standard: All
amendments to the RMP that
would reduce the size or
substantially revise the
location of the Preserve Review Changes To Preserve Boundaries .
boundary, or that would in
any way delay the conveyance
ot all or portions ot the
Preserve to the
OwnerlManager, shall require
written approval by both the
City of Chula Vista and. the
County of San Diego. (RMP,
Pa"e 12l)
Page 49
9/6/95
//3
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Mana ement Plan
11. Preserve Mana emenl Conve ance Fundin
B. Preserve Conveyance Plan
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan and the
Phase 1 Resource Management Plan contain the following policy
language:
Policv: Develop and obtain City and County approval (in
coordination with the owner/manager) of a plan for the orderly
conveyance of dedicated parcels of land to the Preserve.
(GDP/SRP Page 376; RMP Policy 9.6-9.8).
The Phase 1 RMP outlines the standards and criteria that will guide
design of the conveyance schedule, as follows.
. First priority shall be given to conveyance of highest quality
resources (such resources may include vernal pools on Otay
Mesa, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat in the Salt Creek
area, gnatcatcher population areas in the western San Ysidro
and central Proctor Valley areas, or potential wetlands
restoration areas in the Otay River Valley [depending upon
the status of regional park plans and wetlands restoration
plans at the time Otay River Valley parcels are conveyed]).
. First priority shall be given to conveyance of most vulnerable
areas (Le., those most subject to potential or ongoing
disturbance) ;
. Conveyance shall occur in an orderly manner beginning with
an identified "keystone" parcel (e.g., vernal pool areas, Salt
Creek area, Otay River Valley, central Proctor Valley,
western San Ysidro) and proceed to the next logical block of
land;
. Areas with restoration potential shall be conveyed early in
order to begin long-term research and restoration activities
early in the process (e.g., Otay River Valley, vernal pool
areas, potential Diegan coastal sage scrub/maritime
succulent scrub restoration areas north and south of the Otay
River Valley);
Page 50
9/6195
/
LI'
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Manaoement. Convevance. Funding
· Cumulative acreage conveyed shall be greater than or equal
to the cumulative acreage of the proposed SPA/Specific Plan
development;
· General guidelines regarding in-kind mitigation and no net
loss of wetlands shall be considered in the development of the
conveyance schedule, particularly in the context of applicable
State and Federal regulations (it is understood that in-kind
mitigation may not always be the preferable approach to
achieve the goal of establishing a functioning manageable
Preserve);
· Applicable State and Federal regulations regarding
protection of sensitive habitat and species shall be followed
in the development of the conveyance schedule;
· The Preserve Owner(s)/Manager(s) shall participate in
preparation of the conveyance schedule.
1. Conveyance Issues
The purpose of the Conveyance Plan is to identify policies for the
orderly conveyance of Otay Ranch land to the Preserve
Owner/Manager. Creation of the plan requires the resolution of three
Issues:
· How much land must each village convey to ensure the
eventual conveyance of the 11,375 acre preserve to the
POM?
· What governmental approval triggers actual
conveyance of land to the POM?
· On a village by village basis, where will land be
conveyed?
Page 51
90.'95
!./~
,
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
2. Conveyance By Village
On the surface, the question of how much land each village must
convey is deceptively simple. The obvious answer is that each village
should convey its proportionate share of the preserve. The GDP
permits 11,524 acres ofland to be developed and requires 11,375 acres
of land to be conveyed for the preserve. Thus, it appears reasonable to
conclude that for each acre of development, roughly one acre of
preserve land should be conveyed (actual ratio is 1:0.9871 acres).
However, this conclusion assumes that all land development in each
village should have an equal obligation to convey land. Such is not the
case because some villages contain lands for facilities which will serve
more than the residents of that village. Such facilities include local
parks, schools, arterials, SR-125 and lands designated as a public use
area (Otay Valley Water Reuse Site). This analysis refers to the lands
as "common uses".
The common use problem is solved by deleting common use acreage
from village development totals and apportioning the obligation to
convey land for the development of such areas to all the villages.
A second allocation problem must also be addressed. Two villages
contain "Limited Development Areas" (LDA) (Village 16 [370 acres]
and Village 17 [795 acres]). LDA is a GDP land use designation within
which "removal of native vegetation would be prohibited except as
necessary for construction of roads and utilities." "Buildings or other
structures, agriculture, landscaping, livestock, grazing, trash disposal
or fences" are not allowed within these areas. However, the GDP
provides LDAs may be included within private lots.
Page 52
9/6/95
t'/&
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
Thus, while these areas are restrictive natural open space, they are
deemed to be areas subject to development by the GDP acreage
calculations. It would be unreasonable to require the conveyance of
land to the preserve, upon the subdivision of LDA area into private
lots, since the mere inclusion of open space in a private lot does not
cause an impact necessitating mitigation.
The LDA problem is solved by deleting the LDA acreage from the
village development totals. This increases the preserve conveyance
obligation for the remaining development areas of Otay Ranch.
Deleting LDA lands and common use lands alters the obligation to
convey land from 1 acre conveyed per 1 acre of development to 1.188
acre conveyed per 1 acre of development. Under this approach, land
would not be conveyed upon the development of "common use land" or
the subdivision of LDA land into private lots.
Based upon the GDP land use designation, application of the
principals discussed above would result in a conveyance obligation on a
village by village basis as shown in Exhibit 9.
Page 53
9/S!95
II7
I I
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
Exhibit 9
Preserve Land Conveyed - Forecasted by Village
Total Conveyance
Developable Obligation,
Villa"e Acres Acres
Village 1 904 1.039
Village 2 775 864
Village 3 318 373
Villalle 4 607 705
VillaO'e 5 493 555
Village 6 365 407
Villalle 7 412 377
Villalle 8 343 385
Villalle 9 364 409
Village 10 334 316
Village 11 455 458
PA 12 EVC 439 464
Village 13 (Resort) 783 914
Village 14 (Proctor Vallev ) 829 960
Village 15 (San Ysidro West) 800 934
Village 16 (Jamul) 1,117 884
Village 17 (San Y sidro East) 1.611 968
Planning Area 18a 216 256
Planning Area 18b 70 83
Planning Area 19 20 24
SR 125 182 0
Public 20 0
lArterials 69 0
TOTALS 11,524 11.375
Page 54 , I,' ~
9/6/95 L/ (?
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Manaoement. Conveyance. Fundino
Exhibit 9 above, forecasts the conveyance obligation on a village by
village basis applying the acreage data contained in the GDP/SRP.
Exhibit 10 below illustrates how, based upon actual SPA One land
plans, the amount a conveyance may differ slightly from the forecasted
amount. These differences will not result in a change in the total acres
eventually conveyed to the Preserve, unless there is a change in the
amount to land actually developed (GDP-wide). That is, the GDP
permits the development of 11,524 acres. If fewer acres are actually
developed, proportionately fewer acres will be conveyed to the
Preserve. In a similar manner, if the size of an individual village (at
the SPA level of planning) differs from the size identified in the
GDP/SRP, that village's conveyance obligation will also change
proportionately from that forecasted.
As summarized in Exhibit 10 below the GDP identified SPA One area
(Village One and Five) as containing 1,397 developable acres.
Application of the conveyance methodology discussed above translates
into a SPA One conveyance obligation of 1,594 acres based on GDP
assumed acreage.
Exhibit 10.
SPA One Area Developable Acres vs. Conveyance Acres
Total Conveyance
Developable Obligation,
Villae:e Acres Acres
Village 1 904 1,039
Village 5 493 555
Total 1,397 1,594
However the actual SPA One land plan differs from the GDP identified
acreage, as depicted in Exhibit 11 below. The actual SPA One land
plan permits development of 1,061 acres, which translates into a
conveyance obligation of 1,186 acres. The differences between the
GDP acreage and those contained in the actual SPA One land plan are
attributable to the following considerations. The GDP Village One
area included the lands west of Paseo Ranchero, the SPA One land
plan does not. The actual alignment of the arterial road forming the
boundary of the SPA One land plan differs slightly from the assumed
Page 55
916/95
/ /0
---/ "
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Conveyance. Funding
alignment in the GDP. The SPA One land plan schools and parks are
slightly larger than assumed in the GDP.
Exhibit 11
Difference Between SPA One Land Plan and
GDP Identified Acreage.
SPA Conveyance GDP
ViIlalte Area Annlication Park School Net ObliO'ation Forecast Difference
Village One 585 21 12 552 656 1.039
Village Five 476 19 12 446 529 555
Total 1.061 39 24 998 1.186 1.594
West Of Paseo 264 264 313
Ranchero
Total 1,325 39 24 1,262 1.499 1.594 -95
Page 56
9/6/95
c:-/)
"--' ~
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Manaoement. Convevance. Funding
3. Conveyance Timing
The RMP provides that cumulative acreage conveyed should be greater
than or equal to SPA acreage. It is self evident that actual conveyance
cannot occur acre by acre, as development proceeds, but must occur
through the conveyance of manageable and meaningful blocks of land.
Thus, the issue becomes what is a reasonable size block of land to be
conveyed, and at what point in the development process should actual
conveyance occur?
Conveyance of larger blocks of land cannot reasonably occur upon
initial SPA approval, at the start ofland development, because there is
no revenue base from which to fund management of the conveyed land.
Conversely, land should not be conveyed at the end of the development
of a SPA because the public interest and RMP policies require that
actual conveyance roughly parallels the time of impact (development).
This analysis recommends that actual conveyance occur as follows:
50% of a villages' obligation to convey land occurs when the village is
50% developed; the remaining 50% of the land is conveyed upon 90% of
development of the village. An exception to the rule is with respect to
SPA One. Here, actual conveyance would occur upon development of
50% of SPA One and the remainder would be conveyed upon 90% of
development of SPA One.
"Development" as it applies to the recommendation alone, is deemed to
be upon the recordation of the final maps.
Based on the principals discussed above and consistent with the
adopted Village Phasing Plan, conveyance is forecasted to occur on a
year-by-year basis as depicted in Exhibit 12.
Page 57
9/6/95
c;
,~
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. FundinQ
Exhibit 12
Preserve Land Conveyed - Forecasted by Year
Acres
Year Conveved Cumulative
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 593 593
4 0 593
5 0 593
6 797 1,390
7 432 1,821
8 204 2,025
9 1,174 3,200
10 252 3,452
11 539 3,991
12 889 4,880
13 189 5,069
14 657 5,726
15 784 6,510
16 192 6,702
17 842 7,544
18 660 8,204
19 204 8,408
20 0 8,408
21 612 9,021
22 232 9,253
23 963 10,216
24 0 10,216
25 0 10,216
26 0 10.216
27 0 10,216
28 674 10,890
29 484 11,374
30 0 11,374
Exhibit 13 below, contrasts the amount of land conveyed to the
Preserve over time with the anticipated acres of sensitive resources to
be impacted by development. Because development is likely to occur
on the Otay Valley Parcel during the initial stages of Otay Ranch
development, where there are few sensitive resources, the preserve will
Page 58 r- ?
9/6/95 .:;; /\
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Manaaement. Convevance. Funding
receive substantial preserve land well in advance to any corresponding
impacts.
Exhibit 13
Contrast - Conveyance With Sensitive Resources Impact
Cumulative Land Conveyed
Cumulative Sensitive Land Compared to
Year Land Conveved Impacted Resources Impacted
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 593 0 593
4 593 71 522
5 593 180 413
6 1.390 289 1.101
7 1.821 398 1.423
8 2.025 488 1,538
9 3,200 639 2.560
10 3,452 954 2.498
11 3,991 1,272 2.719
12 4,880 1,497 3,384
13 5,069 1,715 3,354
14 5,726 1,939 3,787
15 6,510 2,111 4,398
16 6,702 2,284 4.418
17 7,544 2,456 5,088
18 8,204 2,623 5,581
19 8,408 2,784 5,624
20 8,408 2,890 5,519
21 9,021 2,995 6,025
22 9,253 3.091 6,162
23 10,216 3,186 7,029
24 10,216 3,282 6,934
25 10,216 3,354 6,862
26 10,216 3,426 6,790
27 -t[216 3,498 6,718
28 .890 3,570 7.320
29 11,374 3,642 7,732
30 11,374 3,714 7,660
Page 59
9/6/95
53
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Manaoement. Convevance. Fundino
4. Conveyance Location
The RMP provides the following guidance regarding the location of
conveyed land:
. Priority is given to high quality resources.
. Priority is given to most vulnerable areas.
. Conveyance should begin with "keystone" parcels (vernal
pool areas, Salt Creek, Otay River Valley, Central Proctor
Valley, Western San Ysidro).
. Potential restoration areas should be conveyed early.
A key additional consideration is the practical constraints imposed by
areas of ownership. Otay Ranch is currently owned by three parties
(The Baldwin Company affiliates, the Stephen and Mary Birch
Foundation (SMBF) and Greg Smith).
5MBF own portions of Villages 2, 4, 8 and 9, much of the Otay River
Valley, the western half of Village 15 and portions of Planning Area
16. Greg Smith owns the Inverted "L" area of Village 14, a small
portion of Village 13 and adjacent open space, the eastern portion of
Village 15 and the eastern edge of the vernal pool preserve area. The
Baldwin Company affiliates own the remaining areas.
Thus, preserve land conveyed should reflect the ownership of the land
developed.
Based on the principals above, the accompanying exhibits identify
areas of conveyance on a village by village basis.
t;,
Page 60
9/6/95
.5" ~I
EXH IBIT 14
PAGES 61 THROUGH 81
IS NOT AVAILABLE
CC-
'-' '-'
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoemenl Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Fundino
5. Restoration Analysis
The Otay Ranch RMP and Findings of Fact require the restoration of
1,300 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) throughout the build-out of the
Otay Ranch project. The Coastal Sage Restoration Master Plan
(Appendix FS) identifies the candidate areas that are available for
restoration.
The purpose of this analysis is to identify the obligation to restore
coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub (MSS) on a village-by-
village basis. .
a. Coastal Sage Scrub
As depicted in Exhibit 15 below, development of the Otay Ranch
villages and planning areas would impact approximately 2,105 acres of
coastal sage scrub. Another 460 acres of degraded coastal sage scrub
(dCSS) would also be impacted as well as 79 acres of coastal sage
scrub/native grasslands (CCS/NG) and 6.7 acres of CSS/MC. Thus, the
total area of coastal sage scrub (of some variety or correlation)
impacted through the development of Otay Ranch is approximately
2,644 acres.
This calculation assumes that all the area within a village shown
within a GDP "development blob" will impacted. However, some of
these areas may be preserved due to environmental or land uses
decisions made at the SPA level of planning. On the other hand, the
analysis does not include the coastal sage scrub resources disturbed as
a consequence of development outside of road or public facility
improvements of a village.
As discussed in the conveyance plan, the obligation to restore coastal
sage scrub should relate to impacts to coastal sage scrub on a village-
by-village basis. That is, for every acre of coastal sage scrub disturbed
or destroyed within a village, the village applicant should be required
to restore a compensating amount of coastal sage scrub elsewhere
Page 82
9/6/95
c/,..
'-'~
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Fundino
within Otay Ranch to ensure 1,300 acres of coastal sage scrub will be
restored at buildout.
Under this approach, for every one acre of coastal sage habitat
destroyed on a village-by-village basis, the applicant would be required
to restore 4.92 acres of coastal sage scrub elsewhere in Otay Ranch.
Exhibit 15 below depicts the resulting restoration obligation for this
alternative.
Exhibit 15
CSS Restoration Allocation By Village
CSS dCSS CSSING CSSIMC Total Restoration
Village 1 56.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.9 27.9
Village 2 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 14.0
Villalle 3 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 2.1
Village 4 70.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.8 34.7
Village 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Village 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Villalle 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Village 8 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 10.9
Village 9 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.7
Village 10 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.5
Village 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Village 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Village 13 329.2 50.8 0.0 0.0 380.0 186.4
Village 14 188.4 146.8 0.0 0.0 335.2 164.4
Village 15 463.6 0.0 42.4 6.7 512.8 251.5
Village 16 379.4 245.6 0.0 0.0 625.1 306.6
Village 17 538.5 0.0 36.5 0.0 574.9 282.0
Village 18A 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 5.0
Village 18B 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.1
Village 19 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 16.6 8.2
Total 2,104.8 459.9 78.9 6.7 2,650.4 1,300.0
Page 83
g/p 195
[;7
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Mana ement Plan
II. Preserve Mana ement Conve ance Fundin
b. Maritime Succulent Scrub (MSS)
The Otay Ranch RMP and Findings of Fact require that 56 acres of
MSS be restored through the build-out of Otay Ranch. Identical to the
rationale discussed above, the obligation to restore MSS arises when
the MSS habitat is disturbed or destroyed. As depicted in Exhibit 15
below, there is approximately 35 acres of MSS located within Otay
Ranch villages and planning areas. In order to ensure that 56 acres of
MSS are restored, each village would have to restore 1.6 acres of MSS
for every 1 acre of MSS taken within the village. Application of this
ratio results in a village-by-village restoration obligation as depicted in
Exhibit 16.
Exhibit 16
Maritime Succulent Scrub Allocation By Village
MSS Restoration
Villalle 1 10.5 16.8
Village 2 1.5 2.4
Village 3 0.3 0.5
Village 4 10.3 16.5
Village 5 0.0 0.0
Village 6 0.0 0.0
Villalle 7 0.0 0.0
Villalle 8 0.0 0.0
Village 9 1.4 2.3
Village 10 11.0 17.6
Village 11 0.0 0.0
Village 12 0.0 0.0
Village 13 0.0 0.0
Village 14 0.0 0.0
Village 15 0.0 0.0
Village 16 0.0 0.0
Village 17 0.0 0.0
Village 18A 0.0 0.0
Village 18B 0.0 0.0
Village 19 0.0 0.0
Total 35.0 56.0
Page 84
9/6/95 ~'
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Conveyance. Funding
c. Preserve Funding Program
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan and the
Phase One Resource Management Plan contain the following policy
language:
Policv: A draft funding program shall be submitted for review
in conjunction with the review of the first SPA. The draft
document shall be reviewed and adopted by the City of Chula
Vista, County of San Diego, with the advice and consultation of
the Preserve Owner/Manager, and interested agencies. A final
funding program shall be adopted prior to or concurrent with
the approval of the first SPA. The program shall include (1) all
sources of funding (not reliant on City or County general
funds); (2) a five-year management plan; (3) a five-year budget;
(4) proposed staffing; and (5) provisions for availability of
initial start-up funds upon conveyance of the first parcel to the
Preserve. (GDP/SRP Page 379; RMP Policy 5.12)
1. Funding Program Context
Upon buildout of Otay Ranch and implementation of the Otay Ranch
Preserve, the 11,375 acre preserve will be the largest urban open space
system in San Diego County. The preserve's proximity and
relationship to adjacent Bureau of Land Management land and other
open space systems provide the opportunity for the preserve to be part
of an unparalleled open space system.
It is therefore foreseeable that the Otay Ranch preserve will evolve
into a complex system within which a variety of activities will be
performed and relationships established. The purpose of this funding
section of the Phase 2 RMP is to identify forecasted preserve costs,
identify funding sources and prepare an anticipated budget for the
preserve system. The primary focus of the funding plan is to specify
the financial relationships between the Otay Ranch properties3 and
3 The phrase "Otay Ranch properties" refers to the current and future
ownerships of Otay Ranch land and land based financing derived from Otay
Ranch property.
Page 85
:;G/95
CCi
'-' .
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Fundino
the preserve and preserve owner/manger. However, this discussion
should occur in a context of the relationship between the Otay Ranch
preserve and other activities. Specifically, the plan must consider the
following topics.
. The multiplicity of interested parties.
. The relationship between the Preserve and the Otay Valley
Regional Park.
. The relationship between the Preserve and the MSCP.
. The relationship between the preserve and opportunities to
expand the preserve beyond those activities which are the
responsibilities of the Otay Ranch properties (through
enhanced services or regional benefits).
Exhibit 17 below graphically organizes the multiplicity of issues and
relationships related to the funding of the Preserve Owner/Manager
and the preserve. The exhibit examines which entity is responsible for
the performance of specific tasks and which entity is responsible for
the funding of specific tasks.
The exhibit is divided between those tasks for which there is a nexus
between the tasks to be performed and the Otay Ranch properties. In
those instances where there is an established nexus, the Otay Ranch
properties are directly responsible for the performance of the task or
responsible to provide the funding for the performance of the task by a
third party (usually the Preserve Owner/Manager).
The exhibit also identifies tasks for which there are no nexus between
the Otay Ranch properties and the preserve. These tasks are divided
into three categories: enhanced, regional park, and regional benefit.
Enhanced tasks are those opportunities that may be present in the
future to increase the Otay Ranch preserve boundaries or activities by
providing funds for greater or new management, monitoring, research,
restoration or educational programs. Enhancement opportunities
could also include increasing preserve boundaries by preserve
acquisition of otherwise developable property, or by expediting
conveyance in advance of the established conveyance schedule. These
Page 86
9/6/95 {p 6
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Conveyance. Funding
enhancement opportunities are not the responsibility of the Otay
Ranch properties but may be accomplished through, and by third
parties (the MSCP, banking, grants, or General Fund contributions).
a. Regional Park
The Otay Ranch GDP imposes the obligation to convey 11,375 acres to
the Preserve Owner/Manager on the property owners. Of this amount,
up to 400 acres may be used for active recreation use within the Otay
Valley Regional Park. Currently the City of Chula Vista, the County
of San Diego and the City of San Diego are jointly planning such a
park.
The Otay Ranch GDP has not addressed the relationship between the
Preserve and the Regional Park. However, it is anticipated that the
Otay Ranch properties would convey land in fee to the Preserve
Owner/Manager. The Preserve Owner/Manager would hold title to the
land, and permit (through a lease or some other instrument) the
Regional Park to operate within the preserve.
Neither the GDP nor any other Chula Vista or County program require
the Otay Ranch properties to fund the construction, operation or
maintenance of a regional park facility. Additionally, while the Otay
Ranch GDP requires the identification of a nature interpretive site,
neither the GDP nor any other City or Chula Vista regulation require
the Otay Ranch properties to directly construct such a center or pay for
the construction, operation or maintenance of such a facility.
Thus, an issue to be addressed by the JEPA at some future date is
clarification of the relationship between the preserve and the regional
park, and identification of funding sources for park construction,
operation and maintenance along with the construction, operation and
maintenance costs of a nature interpretive center.
Page 87
9/6/9:: (p /
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Mana ement Plan
II. Preserve Mana ement Conve ance Fundin
Exhibit 17
Preserve Funding/Performance Context
Otav Ranch Pronerties Nexus No Otav Ranch ProDerties Nexus
Task Pre- Post- Enhanced. Regional Park Regional Benefit.......
Conveyance Conveyance
Property N/A N/A Performance: N/A Performance: POM
Acquisition POM Funding: MSCP.
Funding: MSCP, Banking, Grants
Bankine:. Grants
Capital Costs Performance and Performance: Performance: Performance and Performance: POM
(trails. fences. Funding: POM POM Funding: Park Funding: MSCP.
etc) Property Owner Funding: DIF or Funding: MSCP. Owner! Banking, Grants.
HMF or Other Banking, Grants Operator General Fund.
Assessment.... Contribution
Operations Performance and Performance: Performance: Performance and N/A
and Funding: POM POM Funding: Park
Maintenance Property Owner Funding:. DIF, Funding: MSCP, Owner! Operator
H1{F' or Other Banking, Grants
Assessment
RevegetationJ Performance and Performance and Performance: None required Performance: POM
Restoration Funding: Funding: POM Funding: MSCP.
Property Owner Property owner Funding: MSCP. Banking, Grants.
(as related to (as related to Banking, Grants General Fund
impact impact Contributions
miti~ation) miti~ation)
Other Plans or Performance and None required Performance: None required Performance: POM
Studies (vireo, Funding: POM Funding: MSCP.
grasslands. Property Owner Funding: MSCP, Grants
ete.) (SPA bv SPA) Grants
.Enhanced _ Increases in preserve boundaries or activities by reducing development, expediting conveyance. providing
enhanced or new management, monitoring, research, instructive or educational programs, maximization of impact
avoidance.
....DIF . Development Impact Fee; HMF - Habitat Maintenance Fee
.....The extent to which the preserve, its improvements and programs benefit residents beyond Otay Ranch.
Page 88
9/6/95
0-1
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. FundinQ
b. Regional Benefit
As discussed throughout this document, the Otay Ranch properties
have an obligation to convey 11,375 acres to the Preserve
Owner/Manager for the purposes of establishing a preserve. The
exaction of an 11,375 acre preserve from the Otay Ranch properties
must, according to State law, be reasonably related to the burden
created by the development of the property. Conversely, there must be
a reasonable relationship between the benefits provided by the
exaction and the development.
The preserve, because of its size, relationship to other open space lands
and relationship to other developed lands, offers public benefits which
are enjoyed well beyond the residents of Otay Ranch. Thus, while the
current and future property owners and residents of Otay Ranch are
obligated to directly or indirectly pay for the creation, maintenance
and operation of the preserve, the benefit of the preserve accrues to
more than just Otay Ranch residents.
The concept of regional benefit of a large scale open space system is
thoroughly discussed in the Draft MSCP Program which recognizes the
need that all San Diego County residents be assessed a fee or tax to
help pay for the general public benefit associated with the MSCP
preserve system. A similar rationale applies to the Otay Ranch
preserve.
Accordingly, for the property owners and residents of Otay Ranch to be
treated in an equitable manner, if the MSCP program or other
comparable regional or subregional habitat conservation program is
implemented through a broad-based fee or tax for the maintenance and
operation of a regional preserve, the separate financial obligation
imposed upon Otay Ranch residents should be eliminated.
Page 89 /- 3
9/6/95 V'
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Fundino
c. National Wildlife RefUge
In June 1995, the United States Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service released the "Proposal for Wildlife Habitat Protection -
Concept Plan for San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, San Diego
County, California". The Concept Plan states that the US Fish and
Wildlife Service is studying a range of wildlife habitat protection
alternatives in the San Diego region and is considering protecting
some areas as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The
Refuge System numbers more than 504 refuges throughout the United
States, encompassing more than S2 million acres.
Within San Diego, their are two refuge complexes, the Sweetwater
Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and the Tijuana Slew National
Wildlife Refuge.
The Concept Paper proposes the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge to
include 44,SOO acres in the Otay/Sweetwater areas of San Diego
County as depicted in Exhibit IS. The Otay/Sweetwater planning area
stretches from Lebron reservoir along the Sweetwater river to the
Sweetwater Reservoir: encompasses San Miguel, Mother Miguel and
Jamul Mountains; extends along the northern franks of the San Ysidro
Mountains and portions of Otay Mesa; and runs west of SR-94 between
Jamul and Rancho San Diego.
The Concept Paper states that identification of a habitat protection
area or refuge plan area does not place any new or additional
regulatory burdens upon owners of land within the proposed refuge
boundaries. Once land is placed is placed within a National Wildlife
Refuge, land does not become part of the refuge system until they are
purchased or placed under agreement within individual land owners.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has a policy to acquire lands only
from willing sellers. Lands required from the sellers are removed from
the tax roles, however the Fish and Wildlife Service has practice of
reimbursing County's to reduce revenue loss due to federal acquisition
of private property.
Page 90
9/6/95
(p ~J
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
Exhibit 18
Proposed San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
Page 91
9/6/95
05'
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Fundino
Should portions of the Otay Ranch Preserve be included in the San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge, then the duty to maintain and operate
the Preserve would become the obligation of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. If this occurred then the obligation of developed Otay Ranch
properties to fund such an operation would be eliminated. Under those
circumstances, the assessment burden discussed elsewhere would need
be decreased.
d. Otay Ranch Properties
The Otay Ranch GDP established several tasks which are the direct or
indirect responsibility of the Otay Ranch properties. Direct
responsibility would be those tasks which would be performed by
current or future Otay Ranch property owners. Indirect obligation
would be those tasks which would be funded by current and/or future
Otay Ranch property owners through a land based assessment. The
broad task which are the responsibility of Otay Ranch property owners
are as follows.
. Conveyance ofland,
. Funding of the operation and maintenance of the preserve,
. Funding of a Biota Monitoring Program,
. Performance or funding of restoration programs.
Each of these is discussed below.
The Otay Ranch preserve funding program is based on the assumption
that Otay Ranch properties will directly convey preserve land to the
Preserve Owner/Manager without financial consideration.
Relative to capital costs, the Otay Ranch funding program is based on
the assumption that prior to conveyance of land to the Preserve
Owner/Manager, it is the obligation of the Otay Ranch properties to
construct fences necessary to protect the conveyed property. After
conveyance of the property, it is the obligation of the Preserve
Owner/Manager to perform capital improvements and the obligation of
Otay Ranch properties to fund such improvements to the extent that
Page 92 /. ,';"
9/6/95 LV '<-'
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
there is a relationship between the improvements and the approved
development (i.e., there is no obligation to fund regional park capital
improvements or any capital improvements beyond those contemplated
in the GDP).
It is the obligation of the Otay Ranch properties to maintain land
before conveyance, sufficient to maintain the habitat value of the land
as described in the Otay Ranch GDP. Subsequent to conveyance, it is
the obligation of the Preserve Owner/Manager to perform operation
and maintenance tasks. It is the obligation of the Otay Ranch
properties to pay for operation and maintenance.
It is the obligation of Otay Ranch properties to revegetate and restore
preserve lands to the extent required by the Otay Ranch GDP prior to
conveyance. Subsequent to conveyance, the Otay Ranch funding plan
assumes that it is the continuing obligation of the property owner to
restore and/or Revegetate land consistent with the requirements of the
GDP through the direction ofthe Preserve Owner/Manager.
The GDP also contemplates that the property owner must prepare a
series of SP A-by-SP A plans addressing a variety of different habitats
and species. This remains the obligation of the property owner and by
definition, occurs prior to conveyance.
Page 93
9/6'95 I" ?
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Manaoement. Convevance. Funding
2. Cost
The creation and management of large scale resource management
preserves is a relatively new phenomenon. Accordingly, it is difficult
to identify anticipated preserve management costs. However, review
of existing literature and antibella experience identifies a likely range
of costs.
a. County of San Diego
Since 1970, the County of San Diego Department of Parks and
Recreation has acquired and managed more than 31,000 of open space
parkland, including urban canyons, river courses, wetlands and
meadows. The Department of Parks and Recreation is charged with
responsibility for managing these lands. Their management tasks
include trail management and construction, fire suppression, stream
corridor improvement, vector control, open space management control,
biological assessments and habitat restoration including the removal
of exotic vegetation. The County has experienced an average per acre
annual cost for management of these lands of $
b. MSCP
The public review draft of the Multi-Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) contains a section addressing the cost of operation,
maintenance and program management. The MSCP document
concludes that based upon the information obtained from existing open
space and habitat preserves, the average cost of preserve operation and
maintenance is estimated to be $36.50 per year per acre. This cost
includes brush and trail maintenance, fire prevention, fencing,
predator control, range patrol, limited visitor and interpretive services,
and amortized one time costs for equipment and facilities. The MSCP
plan notes that wetland and riparian area management requires
higher operation and maintenance costs than upland areas.
Additionally, the MSCP plan notes that another $7.50 per acre, per
year cost could be required for management and administration of the
Page 94 ,-;-
9/6/95 rj,6
O!ay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource ManaGement Plan
II. Preserve ManaGement. Convevance. Funding
MSCP. This cost includes preserve planning, preserve administration
and management of acquisition programs. It is questionable whether
all or part of this additional cost is necessary for the Otay Ranch
preserve, since there are no acquisition or preserve planning costs
associated with preserve management.
c. Center for Natural Lands Management
The Center for Natural Lands Management published a September
1994 study entitled "Habitat Management Cost Analysis." The report
analyzes a series of existing habitat preserves and proposed habitat
preserves. The report notes that the annual costs range from $17 to
$460 per acre for existing projects and $8 to $529 per acre for a
proposed project. Based upon a review of these costs, the report
concludes that for a preserve containing more than 1,000 acres the cost
per acre, per year should run between $10 to $75 per acre per year.
The report notes that within this range of cost, projects with
substantial capital improvements, a large proportion of wetlands,
particularly created wetlands, or closely monitored endangered species
would tend to fall at the high end of these ranges. It is important to
note that the Otay Ranch preserve possesses none of these
characteristics.
d Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Preserve
The "Habitat Maintenance Cost Analysis" prepared by the Center for
Natural Land Management contains a series of case studies. One of
those case studies appears to be similar to the Otay Ranch situation,
the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Preserve. This preserve is located
on the eastern side of the Santa Ana mountains in Murietta, CA. The
7,000 acre preserve property contains oak woodland, sage scrub and
native grasslands substantially similar to the content of the Otay
Ranch preserve. The preserve is managed by the Natural Conservancy
through a cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Water
District, the County of Riverside, the California Department of Fish
and Game, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Preserve also
contains vernal pools, riparian tenaja, and chaparral communities,
Page 95 /,.. C;
9/6/95 ,.,.
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Conveyance. Funding
similar to Otay Ranch. Visitation to the preserve is encouraged.
Visitor facilities include 15 miles of maintained hiking trails, signs,
and a boardwalk. A docent program run by volunteers provides public
education about the reserve. Much of the Preserve is managed by
controlled burning every 5-20 years depending upon habitat type.
Several restoration projects are underway and others have been
concluded. These efforts include riparian and native grassland work.
There is also work being done to eradicate exotic plant species.
The Nature Conservancy is responsible for funding management
activities and managing the reserve, which includes a manager, staff
and volunteer program. The County of Riverside is responsible for
providing patrol, resource protection and other enforcement activities.
The California Department of Fish and Game is responsible for
helping manage the endowment which funds many of the tasks on the
project.
The Nature Conservancy has arranged for four onsite staff members.
A caretakerlbiologist and an intern both work half time and a ranger
dedicates 3/4 of his time to the Preserve. The total cost for the ongoing
management of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Preserve is about
$243,000 per year or $35 per acre, per year.
e. Biota Monitoring Program Costs
Exhibit 19 below is a listing of budget estimates for biota monitoring-!
tasks within Otay Ranch.
4
The Biota Monitoring Plan is summarized in Section 111.5 of this report and continued in
its entirety in Appendix F 11.
Page 96
9/6/95 ;7t'
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Conveyance. Funding
Exhibit 19
Biota Monitoring Program Estimated Annual Costs
Resource
Year Monitorin...
1 $113.100
2 $54,100
3 $94.100
4 $76,000
5 $126,100
6 $71,100
7 $56.100
8 $52,000
9 $66,000
10 $124.000
11 $49,000
12 $68.000
13 $52,000
14 $49,000
15 $140,000
16 $52.000
17 $59.000
18 $68.000
19 $52,000
20 $121.000
21 $68,000
22 $52.000
23 $121,000
24 $68.000
25 $52.000
26 $49,000
27 $68,000
28 $128,000
29 $45,000
30 $68.000
Page 97
9/6/95
/7/
~/. /
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Fundino
f Conclusion
Based upon the analysis above, it is concluded that costs for
management of the Otay Ranch Preserve could run from $25 to $45
per acre, per year. For analytical purposes, it is assumed that the cost
of the Otay Ranch Preserve for operations and maintenance will be
almost $35 per acre. This conclusion is reached because of the
similarities of the Otay Ranch preserve and the Santa Rosa Plateau
Ecological Preserve, and the estimated MSCP maintenance and
operation costs.
In addition, it is assumed that the cost of the Biota Monitoring
Program equal the costs summarized in the preceding exhibit. The
assessed maintenance and operation expense, combined with the cost
of the Biota Monitoring Program equate to approximately $41.60 per
acre.
Page 98
9/6/95 '1 ,,:'
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoemenl Plan
II. Preserve Management. Convevance. Funding
3. Funding Sources
The following is a discussion of four alternative assessment
mechanisms to fund the improvement, maintenance, management and
operation of a resource management preserve.
a. Habitat Maintenance Assessment District
Government Code Section 50060-50070 was enacted in 1993 to provide
for public financing of long term maintenance of natural habitat.
Authorized expenditures under the program include: habitat creation,
restoration, enhancement and maintenance. Legislation established
the principle that the lot or parcel is presumed to benefit from the
natural habitat if past or proposed development, or use of the lot or
parcel has adversely affected or will adversely affect the habitat. A
local legislative body may initiate the formation of a habitat
maintenance assessment district. As is required in most assessment
procedures, every property owner must be notified. Before levying the
assessment, the local agency must hold a hearing. If the proposed
assessment is opposed by more than 35% of the property owners, the
procedures must be terminated. If the assessment is opposed by more
than 15% of the property owners, the procedures must be abandoned or
an election must be held and the assessment approved by a majority
vote. If less than 15% of the property owners protest the assessment,
the local agency may proceed with the assessment.
Once levied, the assessment may not be reduced or terminated if doing
so would "interfere with the implementation of the habitat plan." This
provision unlike other assessment mechanisms, tends to create a fairly
permanent funding mechanism for habitat protection.
The statute provides that a habitat district can only be created after
approval by the Department of Fish and Game of a "plan for the
conservation of natural habitat."
Page 99
9t6i95 -;73
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Management. Conyevance. Funding
The statute also provides that an assessment cannot last more than 30
years and cannot exceed $25 per parcel (although the amount rises
with the increases in the California Consumer Price Index after 1994).
b. Lighting and Landscape Act of 1972
Streets and highway code sections 22500-22679 establish the Lighting
and Landscape Act of 1972. The 1972 act allows local agencies to levy
assessments to pay for, among other things, acquisition of open space,
land and subsequent grading and landscape maintenance, including
water. Unlike the Habitat Maintenance Act, the 1972 Act does not
have a $25 per parcel assessment limit and does not require a Fish and
Game approved habitat planned. A possible disadvantage to the use of
this mechanisms is that assessments levied under the 1972 act are not
necessarily permanent. A local agency can eliminate the assessment
at any time.
c. Community Facilities Act
Government Code Section 53311-53368 established the Mello Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982. The Act allows local governments
to impose special taxes within the areas designated. These taxing
districts can be used to pay for acquisition of habitat property and for
capital improvements for such lands. Bonds can be issued to raise
money for these purposes. Mello Roos revenues can be used to pay
ongoing personnel and maintenance costs associated with habitat.
The problem with the Mello Roos tax is that it can be reduced or
eliminated upon the action of the local agency.
Page 100
9/6/95 11/
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Manaqement. Conveyance. Fundinq
d. Development Impact Fee
The City of Chula Vista and/or the County of San Diego could impose a
Development Impact Fee (DIF) upon new development within Otay to
fund part or all of the costs of the Management Preserve. DIFs are
problematic funding sources for ongoing operation and maintenance,
since the impact fee is a single payment while maintenance costs are a
continuing obligation. Accordingly, DIFs should primarily focus upon
capital costs or "start-up" costs within the preserve.
e. Revenue Source Recommendation
Based on the alternatives reviewed above, it is recommended that the
Habitat Maintenance Assessment District authority be utilized as the
revenue source for the Otay Ranch Preserve, supplemented by the SPA
One applicant's direct funding of monitoring activities, until land is
conveyed to the Preserve OwnerlManager.
Page 101
916/;;5
/JZ:-
. ......
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaqement Plan
II. Preserve Manaqement. Conveyance. Fundinq
4. Preserve Budget
The preceding sections identify the necessary data from which an Otay
Ranch Preserve budget can be calculated. Exhibit 9 identifies "the
preserve land conveyed - forecasted by village." Exhibit 12 identifies
"preserve land conveyed - forecasted by year." Exhibit 20 identifies the
estimated cost for preserve monitoring activities. The preceding
section assumes the cost for Otay Ranch maintenance operation will be
$35 per acre. The preceding section also concludes the Habitat
Maintenance District Authority should be utilized as the revenue
source for the Otay Ranch Preserve. State law limits this assessment
to $25 per year per parcel (adjusted for inflation).
Based on these assumptions, the following thirty year forecasted
budget for the Otay Ranch preserve is shown in Exhibit 20.
Page 102
9/6/95 ?{;;
Olay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaqement Plan
II. Preserve Manaqement. Conveyance. Fundinq
Exhibit 20
Otay Ranch Preserve Budget
(In $1,000)
Co... IWveQu.. BalaacI
Y.~ a..oaree Qperacioa II; Tow AaHNlDIDc. SP':.~~ Tow Ao.... CWDuJacivI
MODitoriD' MaiatlaanCI Co... AnuIII OD Rewau.. 8aJance Oallace
1 . 113.1 . . 113.1 . 15.1 . 113.1 . 128.2 . 15.1 . 15.1
% . ".1 . . 5..1 . 39.3 . 54.1 . 93.4 . 39.3 . ....
3 . 94.1 . 20.7 . 114.8 . .... . 94.1 . 160.1 . 45.3 . ".7
. . 7G.1 . 20.7 . .... . 94.1 . . 94.1 . (2.77) . ....
, . 126.1 . 20.7 . 146.8 . 121.4 . . 121.4 . (25.4-4) . 71.'
. . 71.1 . .... . 119.7 . 148.0 . . 148.0 . 28.2 . ".7
7 . ".1 . &3.' . 119.9 . 174.1 . . 174.1 . 54.2 . 1~.9
. . 52.1 . 70.' . 123.0 . 203.4 . . 203.4 . 80.4 . 234.3
. . .... . 112.0 . 178.0 . 232.2 . . 232.2 . 54.2 . ,....
I. . 124.0 . 120.8 . 244.8 . 269.4 . . 259.4 . 14.6 . 303.1
11 . 49.0 . 139.7 . 188.7 . 282.6 . . 282.6 . 93.9 . 397.1
II . .... . 170.8 . %38.8 . 309.4 . . 309.4 . 70.6 . 467.6
18 . 52.0 . 177.4 . 229.4 . 333.6 . . 333.6 . 104.2 . 571.8
14 . 49.0 . 200.4 . 249.4 . 357.8 . . 357.8 . 108.4 . ....3
10 . 140.0 . 227.8 . 361.8 . 380.6 . . 380.6 . 12.8 . 693.1
16 . 52.0 . 234.6 . "'.6 . ..... . . ..... . 121.9 . 815.0
17 . 49.0 . 264.1 . 313.1 . 431.7 . . 431.7 . 118.7 . 933.6
18 . .... . 281.1 . 35$.1 . 454.0 . . ..... . 98.9 '1,032.5
.. . 52.0 . 294.3 . 346.3 . 474.3 . . 414.3 . 128.0 '1,160.5
,. . 121.0 . 2N.3 . 415.3 . 491.8 . . 491.8 . 76.5 '1.237.0
Zl . .... . 3la.7 . 383.1 . 499.4 . . ..... . 115.7 $ 1,352.7
.. . 52.0 . 323.8 . 375.8 . 507.1 . . 507.1 . 131.3 $ 1.484.0
,. . 121.0 . 357.6 . 478.6 . 514.8 . . 514.8 . 36.2 $ 1.520.2
.. . .... . 367.6 . 425.6 . 522.6 . . 522.6 . 97.0 '1.617.2
" . 52.0 . 357.6 . ....6 . 528.2 . . 528.2 . 118.7 $ 1.735.9
26 . 49.0 . 357.6 . .....6 . 633.8 . . ..... . 127.3 $ 1.863.2
Z1 . .... . 357.6 . 42$.6 . 539.4 . . 539.4 . 113.9 '1,977.1
.. . 128.0 . 381.1 . ....1 . 545.0 . . 545.0 . 35.9 $2,013.0
" . .... . 398.1 . ....1 . 550.7 . . 550.7 . 107.6 ,2,120.5
3. . .... . 398.1 . ....1 . 556.1 . . 556.1 . 90.. ,2.210.5
Page 103
~:6195
-7-7
, .'
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaqement Plan
II. Preserve Manaoement. Conveyance. Fundinq
The assumption relative to acres of land conveyed is based upon. the
adopted Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan (maximum residential).
The same phasing plan is utilized to forecast the rate of development
per year.
The analysis assumes the "maximum residential" development of Otay
Ranch. This assumes that residential development will occur in the
university area and within Village 3. If a university locates within
Otay Ranch, then accommodations will have to be made for the
university land use to contribute to the maintenance and operation of
the preserve on an equitable basis, vis-a.-vis, residential development.
In a similar fashion, if Village 3 is developed as industrial instead of
residential, accommodations will have to be made to ensure that the
industrial development contributes to the Preserve OwnerlManager
maintenance and operation in a manner comparable to the assumed
residential contribution.
The number of dwelling units forecasted to be developed by year
pursuant to the adopted Village Phasing Plan must be adjusted to
reflect two considerations, (1) non-residential parcels and (2)
apartment development. Each of these is discussed below.
The Village Phasing Plan assumes construction of 27,059 residential
dwelling units. However, Otay Ranch contains many uses other than
residential, such as commercial, industrial, community purpose, public
use, etc. Of the 10,360 acres of Otay Ranch deemed to be developable
(exclusive of limited development areas), about 6,551 acres are
designated for residential uses. Accordingly, residential parcels will be
supplemented by parcels for non-residential uses. For the purposes of
preparing the budget, it is assumed that the non-residential
supplement equals 5% of the residential dwelling units or 1,353
additional parcels.
The number of forecasted residential parcels must also be adjusted
since some of those units will be developed on a single, undivided
parcels (apartments). For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that
50% of residential units will be developed on single, non-divided
parcels (this would reduce the total number of parcels by 6,180).
Page 104 ../Y/
9/6/95 /?5
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaqement Plan
II. Preserve Manaqement. Conveyance. Fundinq
Applying the 5% increase in parcels to accommodate non-residential
uses and the 50% reduction in parcels for multi-family units to
accommodate apartments results in a net reduction in the number of
units of 4,828 units. This means that the cost of funding the preserve
would have to be allocated over 22,230 parcels, or a 17.8% reduction in
the number of parcels when measured against the 27,058 parcels
contained in the Village Phasing Plan. Application of this factor
results in the budget depicted in Exhibit 19 above.
The budget above reflects a second modification. As development
occurs in the initial years, total assessment revenues are relatively
modest. For example, in Year 1 it is assumed that revenue
assessments total $15,576. This is followed by Year 2 revenues of
$40,651. This creates a problem because a Biota Monitoring Program
will cost approximately $90,000 per year. Clearly, if the Biota
Monitoring Plan was financed from the assessment revenues, a deficit
would occur during the initial years of the preserve system. To avoid
this deficit, it is recommended that the SPA One applicant directly
fund the performance of the Biota Monitoring task until the initial
preserve conveyance occurs (estimated to be in Year 3).
Page 105
9/6/95
/12
. .
MEMORANDUM
September 20, 1995
TO: Chainnan Tuchscher and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for SPA One
Action Request: Receive report on status ofPFFP.
Background: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the City's Growth
Management Program require the preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plan in
conjunction with each Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for the Otay Ranch. The PFFP
is required to ensure that the phased development of the villages is consistent with the
GDP and General Plan Quality of Life Threshold Standards.
The PFFP is being prepared based on the phasing of The Baldwin Company's Alternative
B-2. This phasing is done to assist in the prediction of when additional or upgraded
facilities will be needed to meet or maintain compliance with the City's Quality of Life
Threshold Standards. The PFFP will provide recommended mitigation necessary for the
continued compliance with the Growth Management Program and Quality of Life
Threshold Standards. The plan may indicate that the proposed development phasing
should be limited or reduced until certain actions are taken to guarantee public facilities
will be available or provided to meet the Standards.
Willdan Associates was selected to prepare the PFFP for SPA One. Mr. Tom Bandy will
update the Commission on the status of the PFFP at the September 20, 1995 workshop.
Master Plans for all utilities have been prepared for the SPA One Plan and will be used as
the basis for the PFFP. Those Plans are being revised to reflect Alternative B-2 and are
due from the engineers on September 22, 1995. The final draft PFFP will be presented to
the Planning Commission at the November 15, 1995 hearing.
Concerns Raised:
1. Number and location of elementary schools
2. Phasing of high school
Resolution of Concerns:
1. The SPA One Plan is being adjusted to provide for three elementary school sites.
PCPFFPRT.DOC
q-c