HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2000-481 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-481
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A MULTIPLE SPECIES
CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) ANNEXATION
AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT
AMONG THE CITY, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, UNITED
STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, AND NNP-TRIMARK
SAN MIGUEL, LLC, CONCERNING THE CONSERVATION
AND BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION PROGRAM FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT, AND ADOPTING
ADDENDUM IS-01-032 TO THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN
MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AND TENTATIVE MAP (FSEIR 9%02)
WHEREAS, on October 19, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 19631 approving
the approximately 743 acre San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and related
documents; and
WHEREAS, on February 29, 2000, the City Council approved a Master Tentative
Subdivision Map for the approximately 743 acre San Miguel Ranch project by Resolution No.
2000-068; and
WHEREAS, the project area is currently within the unincorporated County of San Diego,
and requires annexation to the City prior to the approval of any Final Subdivision Maps or the
issuance of any grading or other permits for the project; and
WHEREAS, the project is also located within the boundaries of the adopted County of
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) (as shown on Exhibit 1) Subarea
Plan, South County Segment; and
WHEREAS, The County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan Implementing Agreement
(IA) specifies, in Section 9.19, that:
"In the event land within the County's jurisdiction is annexed to another jurisdiction, an
agreement shall be reached between County, the annexing jurisdiction, USFWS, and
CDFG, as part of the annexation process, to ensure that any development of the annexed
lands proceeds in accordance with the conservation goals of the MSCP (and, if the
annexing jurisdiction is a Participating Local Jurisdiction, the goals of the Jurisdiction's
Subarea Plan) and sets forth the resulting responsibilities pursuant to the MSCP for
ongoing maintenance and enforcement of the terms of this agreement and the MSCP as it
relates to the annexed land."; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan requires that, when new territory is
added to the City through annexation, "An MSCP Annexation Agreement shall be reached
between the City of Chula Vista, the detaching jurisdiction, USFWS and CDFG, as part of the
annexation process, to ensure that any development of the annexed land proceeds in accordance
with the conservation goals of the MSCP." (Section 4.3.1 ); and
Resolution 2000-481
Page 2
WHEREAS, on November 22, 1999, Trimark Pacific-San Miguel, LLC, filed an
application by landowner petition with the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) to annex the approximately 743 acre San Miguel Ranch project area to the City of
Chula Vista from the unincorporated area of the County; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2000, the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) adopted a Resolution (Ref. No. RO99-42) approving the San Miguel Ranch
Reorganization subject to conditions, one of which reads, "Pursuant to requirements of the
County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) regarding the annexation
of land, the County, City of Chula Vista, the United States United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, California Department of Fish and Game and the property owner shall execute an
agreement in accordance with the requirements of the MSCP, prior to recordation of the
certificate of completion for the San Miguel Ranch Reorganization"; and
WHEREAS, the City, County of San Diego, United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), Califomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the project applicant NNP-
Trimark San Miguel, LLC, have negotiated and prepared the required MSCP Annexation
Agreement ("Agreement") for the San Miguel Ranch project, on file in the Office of the City
Clerk; and
WHEREAS, as required by LAFCO, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.19 of the
County of San Diego MSCP IA, the Agreement contains necessary provisions to ensure that any
development of the annexed lands under the City's jurisdiction proceeds in accordance with the
conservation goals of the MSCP, and sets forth the resulting responsibilities pursuant to the
MSCP for ongoing maintenance and enforcement of the terms of the Agreement and the MSCP
as it relates to San Miguel Ranch; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement also serves as a mechanism that will enable the legal "Take"
of MSCP covered species and associated habitats within San Miguel Ranch, prior to final federal
and State approval of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and issuance of federal and State
Endangered Species Act permits to the City; and
WHEREAS, a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR-97-02) for the
San Miguel Ranch project and annexation was certified by the City Council on October 19,
1999, by Resolution No. 19630 along with attendant Findings of Fact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the Annexation Agreement will result in only minor technical changes or
additions which are necessary to make the FSEIR 97-02 adequate under CEQA, and Addendum
IS-01-032 to FSEIR 97-02 has been prepared in conformance with Section 15164 of the CEQA
Guidelines (Addendum attached as Exhibit 2).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. The City Council does hereby determine that no subsequent or supplemental
environmental impact report is necessary for the City to approve the Agreement.
Resolution 2000-481
Page 3
2. The City Council does hereby find that the Addendum FSEIR-97-02, the
Findings of Fact and Statement of Oveniding Considerations for this Project have
been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines and
the Envirommental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
3. The City Council approves the MSCP Annexation Agreement, made a part hereof
and which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and authorizes the Mayor to
sign the Agreement of behalf of the City, provided, however, that certain Side
Agreement to the Annexation Agreement identified herein is executed by Trimark
and USFWS.
4. That the City Council approves the Grading Agreement and Side Agreement to
the Annexation Agreement presented in Exhibit 1A and Exhibit 1B, respectively,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, and authorizes the Mayor to sign the
Agreements on behalf of the City.
5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file certified copies of this resolution
with the Executive Officer of LAFCO.
6. That, pursuant to the condition of approval under Item 3.b of LAFCO Resolution
RO99-42, the Executive Officer of LAFCO will not issue a certificate of
completion for the purposes of finalization and recordation of the reorganization
until the Agreement has become effective.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Planning & Building Director City Attorney
Resolution 2000-48
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 19th day of December, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Padilla, Rindone, and Salas
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Horton
Patty ?Dav~',~eputy Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, Califomia, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2000-481 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 19th day of December, 2000.
Executed this 19th day of December, 2000.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
Area Subject to Annual Fiscal Reviews
ROAD
~,~ :::: :::.:..~:";'.:: ::.:: : :.::.:: - .: ....~:: :~ ~2:::~ I~',~'~'v ' _~,
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOOATOR PROJI:GT TRI MARK PACIFI0-SAN MIGUEL LLC. PROJEGT DEBCRIPTION:
~-PucA~m San Miquel Ranch:
PROJECT Unincorporated County area adjacent
LOCATION: tothenortherlyboundaryofChulaVista,FiSCal Impact Review Orbinance
SCALE: ~ FILE NUMBER: An ordinance establishing a Fiscal Impact Review Process
NORTH No Scale PCM - 96-04 and Fund for Ihe San Miguel Ranch Planned Community.
c:\MyFiles~lDcators%PCMgs0'~.cdr 'I'J/29/OB EXHIBIT
R2000-481
Exhibit 2
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-97-02
PROJECT NAME: San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation Agreement
PROJECT LOCATION: San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and TM Area.
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department
CASE NO: IS -01-032
DATE: December 13, 2000
I. BACKGROUND
A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the San Miguel Ranch SPA and
Tentative Maps (EIR 97-02) was certified on October 19, 1999. The SEIR addressed the
development of a Master-planned community with 1,394 residential units, elementary school, a
community service facility, community and neighborhood parks, and a retail commercial center.
The SEER acknowledges that the San Miguel Ranch site is within the City of Chula Vista's
Sphere of Influence but outside of the unincorporated area in the County of San Diego, and thus
would require annexation to the City for project approval. The Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) approved the San Miguel Ranch Reorganization in April 2000, subject to
completion of an Annexation Agreement under the provisions of the Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP).
The San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation Agreement, which is an agreement between the
County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the San Miguel developer,
NNP-Trimark San Miguel, LLC, is required by LAFCO as well both the County and City MSCP
Subarea Plans. The Agreement specifically describes all MSCP-related requirements that must
be met to meet the biological mitigation, conservation and management goals of the MSCP, as
delineated in the San Miguel Ranch FSEIR-97-02 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
II. THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation Agreement adds minor technical changes that require
review under CEQA to make the previously approved FSEIR 97-02 adequate under CEQA.
Specifically, the Agreement: t) cladties the acreage of undisturbed habitat being conveyed to
open space in perpetuity to mitigate for impacts from project development and as a result of
extensive negotiations with the City, USFWS and CDFG; 2) changes the long-tenn management
assumption for the open space preserve from the applicant or other entity to the USFWS; and 3)
supersedes the MMRP mitigation requirement for Trimark to prepare, and the City to approve, a
management plan for the Otay Tarplant preserve. These changes are discussed in detail below.
EIR 97-02 Addendum #1 I 12/14/00
1. Open Space Acreage
The Annexation Agreement clarifies the total acreage of undisturbed habitat to be conserved in
biological open space, whereas the FSEIR states an overall open space acreage that includes all
open space, natural and landscaped. The Agreement states that Trimark shall assure the
conservation of approximately 346 acres of biologically important habitat located partly on San
Miguel Ranch North and partly on San Miguel Ranch. Specifically, approximately 166 acres
will be transferred in fee to the United States of America for inclusion in the San Diego National
Wildlife Refuge in the San Miguel North parcel. In addition, approximately 182 acres of
undisturbed vegetation in the Eastern, Western and Central Open Space areas in San Miguel
Ranch will be conserved. This acreage includes the 37-acre Otay Tarplant Preserve. In addition,
Trimark shall provide for an additional approximately 5.2 acres in the Western Open Space Area
of San Miguel Ranch intended for additional Otay Tarplant Acreage. The clarification of
acreage of undisturbed vegetation to be retained in open space to offset biological impacts of
future development satisfies the biological mitigation requirements in the FSE1R.
2. Lon~-Term Open Space Management Assumptions
The Annexation Agreement provides the details for the long-term management of the
undisturbed open space. Specifically, the open space land will be transferred to the USFWS as
part of the National Wildlife Refuge The Agreement also specifies that the USFWS shall
prepare a management plan for the species and habitats within the open space areas referenced in
the Agreement consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966,
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, the Endangered Species Act and Executive Order 12996
(Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System). The Agreement
assures that funding will be available to the USFWS to implement the biological conservation
and mitigation measures required of the Agreement. The FSEIR assumed that the long-term
management of such lands was the responsibility of the applicant or other entity. The transfer of
long-term management and maintenance responsibility from the applicant, or other entity, to the
USFWS would not result in a significant environmental impact.
3. OtaV Tarplant Management Plan
The Annexation Agreement supercedes the obligation for Trimark to prepare, and the City to
approve, a management plan for the Otay Tarplant preserve, which is a MMRP mitigation
measure. The Annexation Agreement states that Trimark will comply with all other provisions
of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan FSEIR/MMRP and conditions of approval. The Agreement
meets the intent of this MMRP mitigation requirement by the transfer of undisturbed open space,
including Otay Tarplant habitat, to the USFWS for maintenance and management, and the
requirement for the USFWS to prepare a management plan for the species and habitats within the
open space areas referenced in the Agreement consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, the Endangered Species
Act and Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife
Refuge System).
EIR-97-02 Addendum#1 2 12/14/00
The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista allow the Environmental
Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration if one of
the following conditions exists:
1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the San
Miguel Ranch FSEIR (97-02) have not created any new significant environmental impacts
not previously addressed in the FSEIR.
2. Additional or refined information available since completion of the FSEIR regarding
potential environmental impacts of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives
available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the
project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the
FSEIR.
This addendum has been prepared to pursuant to the requirements of Section 15164 of the State
CEQA Guidelines. This document specifically addresses the three technical changes included in
the MSCP Annexation Agreement related to the analysis and conclusions of the San Miguel
Ranch SPA and TM (FSEIR 97-02).
III. ANALYSIS
An Environmental Checklist Form was completed to determine if the Annexation Agreement
would change any of the analyses or conclusions contained in FSEIR-97-02. None of the three
technical changes proposed by the Agreement result in a physical change to the environment, or
add or intensify the environmental impacts identified in the FSEIR. No new mitigation measures
are required. A copy of the checklist is attached.
IV. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion, I
hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical
changes or additions which are necessary to make the FSEIR for San Miguel Ranch SPA and
TMs (97-02) adequate under CEQA.
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
Attachments: Environmental Checklist Form
References: City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
San Miguel Ranch SPA and TM FSEIR (97-02)
EIR-97-02 Addendum #I 3 12/21/00
Case No. IS-01-032
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Same as above
4. Name of Proposal: San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation Agreement
5. Date of Checklist: December 13, 2000
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] [] []
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] [] [] []
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., [] [] [] []
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an [] [] [] []
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not have an effect upon land use.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] [] []
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] [] []
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infmstimcmre)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] [] []
housing?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not have an effect upon population
or housing.
III. GEOPBYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic [] [] [] []
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] [] [] []
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] [] []
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any [] [] [] []
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [] [] [] []
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, [] [] [] []
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or
lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [] [] [] []
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otoy Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not have an effect upon geological
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, [] [] [] []
or the rate and amount of surface ranoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related [] [] [] []
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
2
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration F1 [] [] []
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] [] []
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of [] [] [] []
water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [] [] [] []
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [] [] [] []
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] [] [] []
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? [] [] [] []
j ) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] [] [] []
otherwise available for public water supplies7
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not have an effect upon water
quantity, direction or quality.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to [] [] [] []
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [] [] []
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or [] [] [] []
cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] []
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- [] [] [] []
stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguei Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not have an effect upon air quality.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. WouM
the proposal result in:
3
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] [] []
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., [] [] [] []
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [] [] [] []
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [] [] [] []
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [] [] [] []
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] [] [] []
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] [] []
h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] [] [] []
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or morn average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle hips.)
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not have an effect upon
transportation/circulation.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. WouM the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] [] [] []
concern or species that are candidates for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? [] [] [] []
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak [] [] [] []
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g.~ marsh, riparian and vernal [] [] [] []
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] [] []
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] [] []
efforts?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not result in a physical change to the
environment, does not identify a new biological impact and does not change the conclusions of the
biological analysis in the FSEIR 97-02. The clarification of acreage of undisturbed vegetation to be
retained in open space to offset biological impacts of future development satisfies the biological
mitigation requirements in the FSEIR. The transfer of long-term management and maintenance
responsibility from the applicant, or other entity, to the USFWS would not result in a significant
environmental impact. The Agreement meets the intent of the MMRP mitigation requirement to
prepare and approve an Otay Tarant Management Plan by: a) the transfer of undisturbed open
space, including Otay Tarplant habitat, to the USFWS for maintenance and management, and b) the
requirement for the USFWS to prepare a management plan for the species and habitats within the
open space areas referenced in the Agreement consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, the Endangered Species Act and
Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge
System).
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation [] [] [] []
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] []
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] [] []
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language would not have an effect upon energy or
mineral resources.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] []
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticicles, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] []
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [] [] [] []
health hazard?
5
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] [] [] []
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable [] [] [] []
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not have an effect upon hazardous
X. NOISE. WoaM the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] [] [] []
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] []
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not have an effect upon noise levels.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? [] [] [] []
b) Police protection? [] [] [] []
c) Schools? [] [] [] []
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] []
roads?
e) Other governmental services? [] [] [] []
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language does not have an effect upn public
services.
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City 's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold
Standards.
a) Fire/EMS [] [] [] []
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond
to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in
75% of the cases.
6
Pot~wauy Significant Less thaa
Sl~mcaat Untess Signmeant NO
Im~act Mitigaled Iml~ct tmlmct
Comments: The proposed language in the Annexation Agreement does not have an effect upon the
City's thresholds standards relative to Fire/EMS because it would have no effect upon public
services.
b) Police [] [] [] []
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of priority 1
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1
calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls
of 7 minutes or less.
Comments: The proposed language in the Annexation Agreement does not have an effect upon
the City's thresholds standards relative to police protection because it would have no effect upon
public services..
c) ' Traffic [] [] [] []
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may
occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections
west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of
arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard.
Comments: The proposed language in the Annexation Agreement does not have an effect upon the
City's thresholds standards relative to traffic because it would have no effect upon
transportation/circulation.
[] [] [] []
d) Parks/Recreation
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population.
Comments: The proposed language in the Annexation Agreement does not have an effect upon the
City's thresholds standards relative to parks/recreation because it would have no effect upon
recreational resources.
e) Drainage [] [] [] []
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
Comments: The proposed language in the Annexation Agreement does not have an effect upon the
City's thresholds standards relative to drainage because it would not effect storm water flows and
volumes.
f) Sewer [] [] [] []
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
7
Commen~: The proposed lan~age ~ ~e A~exa~on Agreement does not have an effect upon ~e
Ci~'s ~resholds s~ndards relative to sewer b~use it wo~d have no eff~t upon public ser~ces and
u~es.
g) Water ~ ~ ~ ~
The Threshold St~d~ds r~u~e that adequate storage, ~atment, ~d ~s~ssion
facilities ~e cons~cted concu~ently wi~ planned ~owth ~d ~at water qu~W
st~d~ds e notjeop~dized dung gowth ~d cons~cfion. AppHc~ts may ~so
be requ~ed to p~icipate in whatever water consedation or fee off-set pro~ the
CiW of Chula Vista has ~ eff~t at the t~e of building pe~t issu~ce.
CommenB: The proposed language in ~e Annexation Agreement does not have an effect upon ~e
Ci~'s thresholds s~ndards relative to water s~rage, trea~ent or transmission bemuse it would
have no effect upon public ser~ces and u~es.
XIIL ~ILITIES A~ SERVICE SYSTEMS. WouM
the proposal result in a need for new ~stems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or na~rM gas? ~ ~ ~ ~
b) Communications systems? ~ ~ ~ ~
c) Local or regional water ~eatment or distribution ~ ~ ~ ~
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ~ ~ ~ ~
e) Sto~ water drainage? ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Solid waste disposal? ~ ~ ~ ~
CommenB: The subject tech~cal changes proposed by the San ~guel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requiremenB, identify the long-tern biolo~cal preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an O~y Tarplant
Managemere Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language would not have an effect upon u~es
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] [] [] []
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic [] [] [] []
route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] [] []
8
d) Create added light or glare sources that could [] [] [] []
increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause
this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 197
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] []
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language would not have an effect upon aesthetics.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the [] [] [] []
destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or [] [] [] []
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a [] [] [] []
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [] [] [] []
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan [] [] [] []
EIR as an area of high potential for archeological
resources?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP Annexation
Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term biological preserve
manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an Otay Tarplant
Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language would not have an effect upon cultural
resources.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the [] [] [] []
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction
of paleontological resources ?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP
Annexation Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term
biological preserve manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an
Otay Tarplant Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language would not have an
effect upon paleontological resources.
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
9
Impact Mlli~ted Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] [] [] []
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] [] [] []
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans [] [] [] []
or programs?
Comments: The subject technical changes proposed by the San Miguel Ranch MSCP
Annexation Agreement clarify biological open space requirements, identify the long-term
biological preserve manager, and transfer the mitigation requirement to prepare and approve an
Otay Tarplant Management Plan to the USFWS. The proposed language would not have an
effect upon regarding recreation.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: .
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade [] [] [] []
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods or California history or prehistory?
Comments: The proposed language does not change the physical environment, and therefore
would not degrade the environment beyond what was analyzed in the FSEIR.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve [] [] [] []
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: The proposed language does not address nor change the long-term vs. short-term
impact analysis in the FSEIR.
c) Does the project have impacts that are [] [] [] []
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? CCumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable fumm projects.)
Comments: The proposed language does not address nor change the cumulative impacts analysis
or conclusions in the FSEIR.
d) Does the project have environmental effect [] [] [] []
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
10
Commen~: The proposed lan~age doesnot create new en~o~en~l effec~ or ~te~y ~e
env~o~en~l effec~ identified ~ ~e FSE~ 97-02.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be
implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project:
No mitigation measures are required for the proposed language revisions included in the Annexation
Agreement other than those already required by the EIR.
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company' s authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained
herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign
the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall
indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator' s desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that
Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
Not Applicable
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name[
Signature of Authorized Representative of Date
[Property Owner's Name]
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Signature of Authorized Representative of Date
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages. None
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, []
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the []
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an []
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but []
at least one effect: 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the []
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An
addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination.
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
12
EXHIBIT 1-A
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this ~ day of
~~ , 2000, by and between NNP-Trimark San Miguel Ranch,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Trimark) and the City of
Chula Vista (City), a municipal corporation.
Trimark hereby agrees as follows:
NNP-Trimark San Miguel, LLC agrees to modify the storm drain
system, known as line "F" as shown on sheet 00040-34 of the grading
plans, to diminish offsite erosion caused by increased runoff to
the tributary stream. The modification shall be to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and will be added as a
construction change to the plans prior to any installation of
permanent improvements.
(NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE)
SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN NNP-TRIMARK SAN MIGUEL RANCH, LLC
AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this
Agreement on the date specified above.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPLICANT
NNP- TRIMARK SAN MIGUEL RANCH,
LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
BY'~Horton, ay~or BY:
ATTEST: S~~~
Its: Vice President
By: ~1~ i~'~ Approved as to form:
Susan Bigelow
City Clerk ~~~/tant~
Approved as to form:
H: \Home\Attorney\Agree\Trimark. SMR
2
EXHIBIT IB
Agreement Concerning Conservation of 166 acres on San Miguel North
Side Agreement
To The
Annexation Agreement
Concerning The Conservation and Biological Mitigation Program
for the Implementation of San Miguel Ranch
By and Among
The City of Chula Vista
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
And
NNP-Trimark San Miguel Ranch, LLC
The City of Chula Vista (CITY), United States Fish and Wildlife Ser~ ice
(USFWS) and NNP-Trimark San Miguel Ranch, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, (TRIMARK) are each a party to that Agreement known as the Annexation
Agreement Concerning the Conservation and Biological Mitigation Program for the
hnplementation of San Miguel Ranch (the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT) (herein
collectively referred to as the "Parties").
The ORIGINAL AGREEMENT provides for the conservation of certain property
within the project area known as San Miguel Ranch and within the area known as San
Miguel North. The ORIGINAL AGREEMENT also provides for the transfer of Take
Authorizations, as such pertain to the San Miguel Ranch, for Incidental Take of Covered
Species Subject to Incidental Take.
The ORIGINAL AGREEMENT provides that the existing Take Authority of the
County of San Diego (COUNTY) with respect to the San Miguel Ranch will transfer to
CITY. CITY, as a condition of USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) approving the transfer of the Take Authorizations, acknowledges that
TRIMARK is required to implement a number of provisions, including the conservation
of certain property and transfer of such property in fee title to the United States of
America for inclusion in the San Diego Wildlife Refuge (the Refuge). The property
required to be conserved and transferred in fee title to the Refuge includes 166 acres
located in San Miguel Noah (the "San Miguel North Mitigation Parcel"), as depicted on
Exhibit F and legally described on Exhibit G in the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT.
1
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, TRIMARK has a beneficial conservation interest of
approximately166 acres known as the San Miguel Noah Mitigation Parcel
and is able to provide fee title as required herein.
B. WHEREAS, CITY, USFWS and TRIMARK are parties to the
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT.
C. WHEREAS, Exhibit 1, Section A(i) of the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT
provides the following: "As soon as practicable after the Effective Date,
and subject to Section 6(C)ofthis Agreement, TRIMARK shall cause the
transfer, in fee, of 166 acres located in San Miguel North, as depicted on
Exhibit F and legally described on Exhibit G (the "San Miguel North
Mitigation Parcel") to the United States of America for inclusion in the
San Diego Wildlife Refuge. As of the date that CITY has extended the
Incidental Take authority to TRIMARK, the San Miguel Noah Mitigation
Parcel shall only be utilized in a manner consistent with conservation
purposes and shall be fully accessible to the managers and
employees/subcontractors of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge,
who shall be entitled to take any actions they deem appropriate for
conservation management. The San Miguel Noah Mitigation Parcel is not
being annexed into CiTY at this time; accordingly, notwithstanding any
provision to the contrary in this Agreement, CITY shall not be responsible
for enforcing this Paragraph A(i)."
D. WHEREAS, Tentative Map No. CVT 99-04, approved by CITY for the
San Miguel Ranch Project, includes a condition that prior to approval of a
final map, the applicant (TRIMARK) shall enter into a SupplementaI
Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SSIA) with CITY which shall
delineate, to the satisfaction of CITY, that applicant (TRIMARK) has
satisfied mitigation measures required by the adopted San Miguel Ranch
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
E. WHEREAS, the adopted San Miguel Ranch EIR, finds that "the
mitigation measures for this project will include implementation of the
previously agreed upon requirements established within a Conservation
Bank Agreement ... signed .... With the USFWS and the CDFG in August
1997 ."
F. WHEREAS, the Conservation Bank Agreement referenced by the San
Miguel Ranch EIR provides for the conservation of the 166-acre San
Miguel North Mitigation Parcel.
G. WHEREAS, the County Subarea Plan Figure 1-1 depicts the San Miguel
Noah Mitigation Parcel as land which is to be conserved, subject to
agreement with USFWS; and Section 3.3.3.5 of the County Subarea Plan
specifies that the subject agreement provides for "166 acres of the
Noahern Parcel to be preserved."
H. WHEREAS, the Implementing Agreement between the County of San
Diego and USFWS serves as the contract tluTough which the County
implements its MSCP Subarea Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO AGREEMENT AGREES AS
FOLLOWS:
1.) NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of Exhibit 1, Section A(i) of the
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, pursuant to this Side Agreement to the ORIGINAL
AGREEMENT, CITY, USFWS and TRIMARK do hereby represent and warrant the
following:
A. CITY
CITY hereby acknowledges that it will enforce provision A( 1 ) of Exhibit 1 of the
original agreement by requiring Trimark to convey San Miguel Noah Mitigation Parcel
to the San Diego Wildlife Refuse in accordance with the terms herein.
B. USFWS
USFWS hereby acknowledges that, upon delivery by TRIMARK to the United
States of a good and sufficient grant deed conveying to the United States a marketable
title to the San Miguel North Mitigation Parcel of such character as to be satisfactory to
the Attorney General of the United States, it will accept the transfer of fee title of the San
Miguel Noah Mitigation Parcel, and will assume all liability and responsibility for
continued conservation, maintenance and management of the land. USFWS further
acknowledges that CITY shall not be held responsible for such maintenance or
managelrtent.
C. TRIMARK
TRIMARK acknowledges and agrees that Condition 15 of Tentative Tract Map
No. CVT 99-04 requires the full conveyance of the San Miguel Noah Mitigation Parcel
to the San Diego Wildlife Refuge prior to approval by CITY of the first final map for the
San Miguel Ranch Project. TRIMARK further acknowledges and agrees to cause the
conveyance of said parcel to the San Diego Wild Life Refuge prior to approval by the
City of the first final map for the Project.
2.) NOTWITHSTANDING Section 6 (C) of the ORIGINAL
AGREEMENT, USFWS agrees that THE City shall not accept Take Authority from the
County pursuant to the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT ifTRIMARK exercises its right
pursuant to this provision to not perform under the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. In such
instance, USFWS agrees that the CITY shall not have any obligations to perform in
accordance with the provisions of the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT.
3.) Prior to the CITY's approval of the First Final Map that contains any
property within the San Miguel Ranch Project located west of SR-125, TRIMARK shall
provide the CITY with proof of its compliance, to the~][TY's satisfaction, with
paragraph 7_. of the sideletter dated Decemb~e:2~Z:?,~B00 between TRIMARK and
USFWS, which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit of the CITY's Take Authority
Permit.
SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT
CONCERNING CONSERVATION OF 166 ACRES
ON SAN MIGUEL NORTH
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLiFE SERVICE, an agency of
The Department of Interior of the
Mayor B .
Title: ~'l~~[ll~l}[llllllll)llht
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow NNP-TRIMARK SAN MIGUEL
City Clerk RANCH, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:~
j~Ci~tyt~tome/y-/d Its: Vice President
By:
H:\Homc\Attorney\Agree\SMR.Side.doc