2.3 Public Outreach Process

The Camp Lockett Master Plan and Rezone effort involved an extensive public outreach process that involved ongoing coordination with the CLIG, Campo/Lake Morena CPG, County staff, and other interested members. The project team worked closely with the CLIG to help create a vision for the Camp Lockett area, and guide implementation of the long-range goals and objectives for the site. To inform stakeholders of planning efforts and solicit their input, the team developed a project webpage, hosted stakeholder interviews, conducted an online community questionnaire, held multiple public workshops, provided updates to the Campo/Lake Morena CPG, and interacted with the Historic Site Board. Public feedback early on in the planning process was crucial to the success of the Master Plan. The following highlights each outreach effort in further detail.

Stakeholder interviews were conducted early on in the process to inform and educate the public about the project. The first stakeholder interview was conducted on September 6, 2017 at the Mountain Empire Community Center. This meeting was intended to: 1) facilitate visioning, 2) develop a conceptual future land use plan, 3) aid in the drafting of design guidelines, and 4) assist in the development of the Master Plan. Members of the project team became acquainted with the CLIG and learned about their initial vision for the property they owned. Stakeholders learned more about the project and were invited to identify/draw their plans (i.e. proposed land uses, building changes, grading,

trails, parking, etc.) and overall vision for the site. An initial “wish list” of desired uses were developed based on the input received at the meeting.

Several stakeholder interviews followed once the project team overlaid the CLIG’s proposed land uses with the opportunities and constraints revealed during the existing conditions analysis. County staff, with assistance from the project team on graphic support, coordinated these meetings and met individually with CLIG members to discuss how the opportunities and constraints would affect the development of their property. The County worked collectively with CLIG to refine the development areas to limit potential impacts. Recommendations and revisions evolved through various discussions.

A community questionnaire was developed to generate input regarding Camp Lockett’s existing strengths, current limitations, future opportunities, and potential threats that could impact the revitalization of the site. The questionnaire asked the following questions:

· Please describe the existing strengths of each planning area – what do you like best about each area or what do you consider to be the biggest contributor to its current success?

· What types of land uses, amenities and improvements do you want in each planning area?

· What are the potential challenges or constraints that need to be addressed in order to improve each planning area?

· What types of mobility/circulation improvements would you like to see in the Camp Lockett planning area?

· Would you be willing to pay assessments or higher property taxes for new amenities?

· Do you have any other thoughts regarding the Camp Lockett Master Plan and Rezone?

The following outlines the strengths, desired amenities, and challenges of each CLIG member that were expressed by the public:

Camp Lockett Event Equestrian Facility (CLEEF)

· Strengths: equestrian events and outdoor recreation (i.e. gymkhanas, rodeos), education seminars, youth-friendly

· Desired amenities: boarding stables, restoration (building preservation – specifically Ferguson House), overnight camping

· Challenges: funding and permitting process, erosion, coast live oak tree protection

Motor Transport Museum (MTM)

· Strengths: historic value and preservation, educational opportunities for children, building restoration

· Desired amenities: building restoration (Old Mill), events, youth programs (educational seminars)

· Challenges: funding and permitting, continued restoration

Mountain Empire Historical Society (MEHS)

· Strengths: historic value and preservation, educational opportunities for youth, proposed trail connectivity to Pacific Crest Trail

· Desired amenities: trails with historical stops and guides, parking, events

· Challenges: funding and permitting, trail crossing SR-94

Mountain Empire Unified School District (MEUSD)

· Strengths: education, large employer and respected community partner, expansion

· Desired amenities: more youth and family opportunities, middle school, sports fields

· Challenges: funding and permitting, meeting building regulations

San Ysidro Health (SYH)

· Strengths: community services (health care, wellness programs, community events), employment opportunities, community cohesion

· Desired amenities: programs (educational, drug and alcohol services, etc.), community services (laundromat, food bank, community center), adult/children daycare

· Challenges: funding and permitting, preserving historic culture, coast live oak preservation

Pacific Southwest Railway Museum (PSRM)

· Strengths: historical value and preservation, good community partner, educational opportunities

· Desired amenities: storage, exhibits, train rides

· Challenges: funding and permitting, biology or wetland constraints

From a mobility perspective, the majority of respondents desire improvements that provide connectivity to existing and planned trails and open spaces, uniform signage/wayfinding system, increased access to the site through the existing rail corridor, shuttles, and additional parking. The majority of respondents were willing to pay assessments or higher property taxes for new amenities. Special priority for organizations to make improvements was expressed.

Three public workshops were held at key milestones in the planning process.

The first public workshop was held on October 23, 2017, at the Mountain Empire Community Center. This workshop was intended to report the existing conditions analysis and preliminary opportunities and constraints, share the initial “wish list” and consolidated map of desired land

uses/amenities, and gather feedback on the “wish list” and ideal future for Camp Lockett. The input received was used to determine the ideal future Camp Lockett scenario.

On December 11, 2017, a joint public workshop was held with the Camp/Lake Morena Community Planning Group at the Mountain Empire Community Center. This joint meeting was intended to provide an update on the project, summarize the public input received to date, and elicit additional feedback.

On April 22, 2019, the second public workshop was held at the Mountain Empire Community Center. This workshop was intended to share the initial policy framework and prospective design guidelines, review the proposed land uses and underlying constraints, and gather feedback on the proposed land uses to refine and confirm the preferred land use map.

On October 26, 2020, a joint public workshop was held with the Campo/Lake Morena Community Planning Group at the Mountain Empire Community Center. This joint meeting was intended to provide an update on the project, with specific emphasis on the change of scope and CEQA direction for the project. Workshop attendees were also invited to review and provide comments on the draft Master Plan before it goes to hearing.

The County, with support from the consultant team, provided updates to the Campo/Lake Morena Community Planning Group (CPG) throughout the planning process. Updates were held in conjunction with public workshops or as standalone meetings. The purpose of the updates was to provide an opportunity for the CPG to learn more about the planning process and provide feedback on the desired amenities, uses, preferred conceptual designs, and planning documents. The project’s success pays tribute to the ongoing coordination with the CPG.

In December 2018, the County held a tour with the Historic Site Board (HSB) to discuss the features of the Historic District. Subsequent HSB Subcommittee meetings were held in January, March, June, July, and August of 2019. These meetings provided updates to the HSB regarding the historic landscape survey, resource boundary, methodology for evaluating contributing features, and example analysis pertaining to the following topics: natural systems and features, vegetation, circulation, constructed water features, buildings and structures, and small scale features.