HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/10/09
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesdav. October 9. 1996
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Cornrnission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1.
ORDINANCE:
Amending Otay Ranch Pre-Annexation Development
Agreement Between Otay Ranch, L. P., a California limited
partnership, Village Development, a California general
partnership, and the City of Chula Vista
2.
REPORT:
PCM-97-04: Land Use Chart Revision: Inclusion of the
Nomenclature "Transfer and brokerage of non-putrescible
material" as a permitted land use in the IL & I Zones
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
EIR-95-04: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (DSEIR) for San Miguel Ranch General Plan
Amendment and General Development (continued from
9-25-96)
Agenda
-2-
October 9, 1996
OTHER
4. Appointment of Planning Commission representative to the Growth Management
Oversight Cornmittee (GMOC)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
5. Update on Council Items
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT at
p,m. to the Workshop Meeting of October 16, 1996 at 5:30 p.m.
in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of
October 23, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
Tbe City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for
meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley
for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) (619)
585-5647. California Relay Setvice is available for the hearing impaired.
(aglO-9pc)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
Planning commission Meeting Date 10/09196
ITEM TITLE: Ordinance - Amending Otay Ranch Pre-Annexation
Development Agreement Between Otay Ranch, L.P., a
California limited partnership, Village
Development, a California general partnership, and
the city of Chula vista
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager~b7
Planning Director /.'6(c- ~.() ~
Otay Ranch Project Manag~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 4/5 Vote: Yes NO--X-
On June 25, 1996, the Planning Commission and City Council met
jointly and approved a development agreement for the above parties.
There is now a mutual desire (by village Development and otay L.P.)
to amend the agreement to further guarantee infrastructure
improvements where the developer wants to create parcels for sale
prior to finalizing the typical final subdivision map. In
addition, on August 20, 1996, the Council asked if the agreement
could be tightened up to head off any problems with regard to any
debt payment that might be levied to make public improvements or
should development be only partially completed on any particular
project. A case in point would be the st. Claire Project on
Telegraph Canyon Road where development was stopped for a time due
to a bankruptcy action.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the planning commission
approval of the ordinance.
recommend
BDICOMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and
be reviewing and taking
amendment on October 9
respectively.
City Council will
action on the
and October 22
DISCUSSION:
On June 25, 1996, the City approved three development agreements
with United Enterprises, Greg smith, and Village Development, et
al. On August 20, 1996, three additional agreements were placed on
first reading of the ordinance for the Jewels of Charity, SNMB,
Ltd. and the Foundation (those agreements are awaiting signature by
the applicant prior to second reading). On October 1, 1996, the
Council placed on first reading the ordinance for Baldwin Builders,
the trustee for the bankruptcy. These various entities cover the
Otay Ranch Western Parcel land holdings. West Coast Land was
included in the original village Development Agreement.
"..--,...-.---.. ..,"-~"~" ----.-.--....---,-- .-,-.. -'-
Attached for Commission information, Exhibit A is the previous
agenda statement from June 25, 1996 when this Development Agreement
was first considered for Villaqe DeveloDment along with other
parties. The basic business terms are explained therein, have not
changed, and will not be readdressed. What is focused on are the
changes to the agreement proposed since commission approval in
June. These changes are all in a strikeout/underline format in the
attached agreement text for ease of reading.
1. overview
with the Baldwin Builders agreement, a number of changes were
added at the request of City Council to help avoid any similar
situations such as st. Claire. The additional language
included the city's ability to withhold action on any of the
applicant's Future Discretionary Approval requests (7.10); a
statement that if development stops on a project and there is
a nuisance, health or safety hazard, the developer agrees to
cure the situation or the City will have the authority to
enter private property as well as public and take correction
action at the developer's expense (7.11); and a requirement
that the developer shall comply with the terms of any
assessment districts and make timely payments thereon or the
City can take any legally authorized action appropriate to
guarantee payment (14). All of these provisions, as well as
other clarifying language the City wanted, have been
incorporated into the VillagejOtay L.P. agreement amendment in
their entirety. These three sections, 7.10, 7.11 and 14 on
Paqes 16 and 23 of the Aqreement, are the major substantive
chanqes, plus 7.1 discussed below (see Paqe 12 of the
Aqreement).
2. Request bv Villaqe DeveloDment to Not have to Bond at the
Master Subdivision ("A" MaD) Showinq "SuDer Block" lots for
backbone infrastructure facilities. (Section 7.1)
By way of background, on large scale developments there are
usually two levels of final map approvals. The first level is
referred to as the "A" Map and is used to create large parcels
of land or "super Block" lots to be conveyed to Builders. At
the next level, "B" Maps are prepared. The "B" Map is the
traditional final map that creates smaller lots for sale to
homebuyers.
Normally, a Master Developer dedicates, bonds or constructs
backbone infrastructure such as major roads, trunk sewer
lines, project serving drainage facilities or unique features
such as pedestrian bridges, etc. with the "A" map. This
dedication and improvement guarantee is performed in
conjunction with creating the Super Block Map which creates
parcels for sale to merchant builders. Those builders then
assume the typical improvement requirements associated with
the final "B" map which creates building lots for sale to
homeowners.
In this instance, Village Development requests that the City
allow it to sell off large parcels to Developers in advance of
guaranteeing the backbone facilities. Village Development can
then satisfy its debt obligations to Bank of America, the
lienholder for the tentative map land, and remain viable to
construct the balance of the project. Staff is comfortable
with this arrangement as long as: (1) Village Development,
otay Ranch L.P., or their successor in interest covenant in
the development agreement that it is their sole and separate
responsibility to provide or finance the cost of backbone
facilities required by any final map including both the "A"
and "B" Maps; and (2) The backbone facilities are bonded for
by Village Development, otay Ranch L.P., or their successor in
interest prior to approval of the first final "B" map. These
provisions are contained in the text of section 7.1 on Page 12
of the draft agreement. The requirement to bond for the
backbone facilities with the first "B" Map is still an issue
of disagreement with village Development.
3. Impact of Bankruptcy or Foreclosure
A final City issue is what a bankruptcy or foreclosure action
might do to the validity of the already granted Nuisance
Easements by Village Development and the legality of the
Development Agreement itself. sections 7.2.2 and 12.5 address
that possibility. New language has been added stating that
the developer agrees to enter into subordination agreements
with all lienholders having any interest in the property to
ensure that the agreement has a priority position over all
other liens. This will make it clear that the obligations as
well as the rights of the agreement will not be subsequently
suspended or abrogated by a senior lienholder.
In addition, the
and guarantees
requirements to
approval.
tentative map for SPA I contains many
via the Public Facility Finance
be satisfied in conjunction with
conditions
P Ian and
final map
Fiscal Impact
It isn't possible to quantify the value of the Agreement to the
ci ty or the other parties. Through annexation and the related
property tax, sales tax, etc., the city will realize significant
benefits. Likewise, the Developers benefit from the vesting and
certainty provided by the Agreement to be able to get loans and
sell and develop the Property in accordance with current and future
approvals.
village113
Exhibit A
JOINT MEETING OP CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
;z
Item No.
Meeting Date 6/25/96
ITEM TITLE: Ordinances Adopting Otay Ranch Pre-
Annexation Development Agreements Between:
A).:z&?~tay Ranch, L.P., a California limited
partnership, Tiger Development Two, a California
limited partnership, by Tigerheart Inc., a
California corporation; its general partner,
Village Development, a California general
partnership, and the city of Chula vista;
:J.b '6D
B) SNMB, Ltd., Jewels of Charity, and steven and
Mary Birch Foundation, and the City of Chula Vista;
C) ;,tKfted Enterprises, Ltd., a California limited
partnership, and the City of Chula vista; and
J.krr~ 'th d' .th d
D) Grdgory T. Sm1 , an Georg1ana R. Sm1 an
the city of Chula vista.
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy city Manag~mPl(;1f- U;'1LY
Planning Directo (.~~"~
Public Works Dire t ~y n<J
otay Ranch projec Manager~~~.
REVIEWED BY: city Manage$' 4/5 Vote: Yes _ No-L
The purpose of this item is to present four different development
agreements between the city of Chula vista and village Development;
the Foundation; united Enterprises and Greg Smith. These property
owners own the fee title to the majority of the lands on the
Western Parcel of the otay Ranch, ranch house and the "inverted L"
parcel of land. The Development Agreements, amongst other things,
are necessary to achieve the Developers' support for annexation of
the Otay Ranch Western Parcel as a unit and to meet certain
obligations of the Landfill Agreement between the County and the
city. Specifically, the Landfill Agreement requires that "Nuisance
Easements" be granted by the Property owners to the County on lands
within an approximately 1,000 foot buffer area surrounding the otay
Landfill. Granting of the Easements is a pre-condition of any
annexation of otay Ranch Properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Place the Ordinances on First Reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning commission will be reviewing and
taking action on the Agreements at a joint
meeting between the city Council and the
Planning commission on June 25, 1996.
.:2 -j
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 2
BACKGROUND
A Sphere of Influence application and annexation application for
consideration and action are pending before the Local Agency
Formation Commission July 1, 1996 to annex the Western Parcel of
otay Ranch plus the Ranch House and the inverted "L" property. In
consideration of supporting the entire annexation described above
at one time, LAFCO has stressed that it is important to have the
majority of the property owners' support. These Agreements offer
that support.
In addition to the LAFCO process and negotiations with property
owners, the city has also been working cooperatively with the
county of San Diego. On May 15, 1996, a Property Tax sharing
Agreement and an Agreement Regarding Jurisdiction Over and
operation of the otay Landfill were entered into between the City
and County. In mid to late April, draft development agreements
were submitted by village Development and the Foundation, and in
early June by United Enterprises. The City put together a
review/negotiating team consisting of the planning Director, Public
Works Director, otay Ranch Project Manager, Deputy City Manager and
the Acting city Attorney, as well as Peggy McCarberg, staff
contract attorney. Each of the applicants was represented by legal
counsel as well.
CEQA review is not required for the development agreement since an
in-depth review occurred when the environmental review was approved
for the otay Ranch General Development Plan and adopted by the City
on October 28, 1993. (Long Beach Sav. and Loan v. Long Beach
Federal, 232 Cal. Rptr. 772, 781-2 (1986).
DISCUSSION
The following discussion focuses on the benefits of the Agreement
to the parties, a description of the terms of the Agreement which
are constant for all the parties, a description of certain
specifics to each party, and an outline of major policy issues.
1. Benefits to the Parties
a. Benefits to the citv
. Developer support for annexation of the otay Parcel
to Chula vista.
. assurance that the Developer will dedicate needed
R.O.W. for SR #125.
. granting of landfill nuisance easements to the
county for the otay Landfill buffer area.
;z-J-
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 3
. prov~s~on of property for the Chula vista Greenbelt
open space areas and MSCP compliance.
. assurance of adequate public facilities when
needed, and in some cases development of excess
capacity or facilities sooner than required.
. compliance with the City's Growth Management
Program.
b. Benefits to the Developer
. vests permitted land uses, density, intensi ty of
use per the approved General Development Plan and
timing and phasing of development per Future
Discretionary Approvals (i.e., SPA Plan and Public
Facility Finance Plan) and in compliance with the
city's Growth Management Ordinance.
. grants the owner certainty to proceed with the
development of the property in general accordance
with today's ordinances, rules, regulations and
standards or as they may be changed in the future
citywide or east of I-80S.
. allows for fee credits and/or reimbursement
mechanisms for extraordinary facility improvements
or pioneering thereof and specifies that DIF fees
will be used to facilitate regional backbone
facilities.
. allows the Developer to receive timely processing
on an equal basis with other Developers of Future
Discretionary Approvals and allows those approvals
to be covered by these Agreements.
2. Description of the Agreement Terms
The Agreement contains the following major points:
(1) The owners support the annexation, and the plan is to
complete annexation of the otay Parcel by January 1, 1997
(an outside time frame - annexation is actually scheduled
July 1, 1996).
(2) The term of the Agreement, as recommended by staff, is 20
years (the Developers want 40 years).
(3) Application of new or amended Rules, Regulations,
Ordinances, Resolutions, Standards and Policies.
).~.3
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 4
As stated above, the Developer would like to lock in and
have certainty as to what rules will apply to his project
while the city wants to retain as much flexibility as
possible. The Agreement permits changes in rules,
policies, etc. as long as they are applied citywide or
east of I-80S and do not unreasonably prevent or delay
the development of the property to the approved uses,
densities or intensity of use. Changes necessitated by
changes in state or Federal law are also covered.
(4)
Modifications to
contemplated and do
Agreement. Future
contemplated and do
Agreement.
(5) The dedication and reservation of land is to be
consistent with the Existing Project Approvals.
Existing Project Approvals are
not constitute an amendment to the
Discretionary Approvals are also
not constitute an amendment to the
(6) The timing for project construction is to only be
regulated by the Growth Management Ordinance and
threshold standards which include the adequate provision
of all public facilities needed to serve the Project as
well as project phases through subsequent SPA and public
Facility Finance Plan Approvals. The project is subject
to amendments to the Growth Management ordinance subject
to certain conditions. Changes to the Growth Management
Ordinance and Threshold Standards are to be consistent
with the purpose and intent of the existing Growth
Management Ordinance and generally applicable citywide or
east of I-80S or applicable to a benefit, fee district as
described in earlier sections. The Developer would like
added the phrase "and such changes would not prevent or
unreasonably delay the development of the Property
consistent with the Existing Project Approvals." This is
a policy issue discussed later in this report.
(7) Application of new/increased Fees and special Taxes are
contemplated and allowed so long as they are applicable
citywide or east of I-80S or relate to some special fee
or benefit assessment district formed in accordance with
the Government Code.
(8) The city will accept and diligently process development
applications with the Developer paying for the staff and
consultant costs therewith.
(9) Length of validity of Tentative Maps. The Developer
would like to have the tentative map vested for the term
of the Agreement (20 or 40 years) while a tentative map
is ordinarily good for 3 years and can be extended
.2~'I
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 5
another 3 years for a total of 6 years. A compromise
proposed by the Developers is to have a tentative map
vest for 10 years for projects up to 3,000 dwelling units
and to allow tentative maps larger than 3,000 units to
vest additional time at the rate of one additional year
for each additional 300 units. This is a policy issue to
be discussed later in this report.
(10) Recognizes that the Developer can do certain work such as
grading at the pre-final map stage subject to city
approval and posting of required performance bonds.
Acknowledges the ability to record Superblock Final Maps
("A" Maps) for financing purposes as well as the standard
Final Maps ("B" Maps). Allows for maps to be recorded in
the name of builders or third parties and certain
transfer of obligations to occur with City approval.
(11) The Developer is obligated to dedicate or reserve land
and fund/construct public facilities as required by the
General Development Plan and subsequent approvals
(12) The SR #125 R.O.W. is to be dedicated to the city.
(13) Landfill nuisance easements are to be granted to the
County.
(14) The Developer is to comply with the provisions of any
Preserve Conveyance Plan and convey property as set forth
therein.
(15) The Developer is to comply with the otay Ranch Reserve
Fund Program as adopted as part of the Existing Project
Approvals.
(16) The City has the right to withhold the issuance of
building permits if a threshold has been violated and
until the deficiency has been cured per the Growth
Management Ordinance. Permits may also be withheld where
public facilities required for thresholds have not been
committed. Unless the Developer is responsible for the
threshold violation, the Agreement is tolled while permit
issuance has been stopped.
(17) If the Developer constructs a facility which is the
obligation of another Developer or builds a facility of
increased supplemental size, the City will consider a
reimbursement district. Similarly, the Developer will
dedicate land for others to pioneer projects on the
Property.
d--/
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 6
(18) The Developer agrees to pay DIF fees. The City agrees to
establish and use the DIF fees in an appropriate fashion.
The DIF can be modified if it incorporates reasonable
cost estimates to provide facilities based on specified
methodology and justification. The city can withhold
permits until the DIF is paid. The Developer can get DIF
credits when facilities are completed. The city will
undertake reasonable efforts to collect and impose the
DIF on others and spread the costs on an equitable basis.
The Property owner will pay its fair share of the DIF for
otay River Road crossings and the city will pursue other
,parties, such as the County and city of San Diego, to pay
their fair share as well.
(19) The City will cooperate in the provision of utilities to
the Project.
(20) The City agrees that if they negotiate some long-term
participation or financial advantages with CTV on the SR
125 road that the City may share those advantages with
subsequent property owners/residents of the area.
(21)
The Agreement contains provisions for
default, encumbrances and releases
modification or suspension, assignment
delay and amendments.
(22) A provision has been included that in the event of a
dispute between the parties that a mediation process be
followed. If any party commences litigation, the
prevailing party as determined by the court, will be
entitled to attorney's fees.
annual review,
on property,
and delegation,
(23) The parties recognize that the Developer and the City are
negotiating agreements with the u.S. Fish and Wildlife
and California Fish and Game to implement the "NCCP" and
the "MSCP" multi-species habitat programs. Modifications
to the Existing Project Approvals will be required to be
processed by the City, paid for by the Developer, and
would not constitute an amendment to the Agreement.
3. Aareement Terms Relatina to sDecific Parties
Because each agreement is with a separate Property Owner,
there are specific terms unique to each party by way of
benefits and acknowledgements.
a. united Enterprises
The united Enterprises Agreement speaks specifically to
the Rock Quarry operations, which have been in existence
,;2.~?
.....-"~- -~..------ -..-.- ~~._--.~-
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 7
for about the last 40 years. Upon annexation, the Quarry
operations will become a legal non-conforming use in the
ci ty. This is due to the fact that the use was
authorized by the county prior to an ordinance which
would otherwise require a use permit. A Reclamation Plan
is on file with the county and the state Division of
Mines and Geology. The main provision relating to the
Quarry states that the owner will be allowed the
continued use of the property for rock quarry use, that
applications for related uses will be processed by the
City for uses including such things as an asphalt and
concrete batch plant and sand and gravel operations, and
that planning for the ultimate non-quarry use of the
property shall be allowed as well.
b. The Foundation
The Foundation would like the City to consider certain
land use changes and infrastructure commitments regarding
their property. Those considerations are obviously
subject to future discretionary applications including
environmental review and public hearing and cannot be
pre-judged. Therefore, the terms of the Agreement are
along the lines of language stating that the City shall
process said applications and give them reasonable
consideration. The requests for land use changes the
applicant would like to make include the following:
transfer of residential units from village 3 to Villages
2, 4 and 8; a change of the Village 3 land use from
industrial to industrial, commercial, recreational,
visitor serving and some residential, and a request to
expand the development areas of Villages 2, 3, 4, and 8
if environmental constraints can be satisfactorily
addressed. with regard to infrastructure, the Agreement
says the City will cooperate and work with CALTRANS to
facilitate improvements to the 1-805 and otay Valley Road
interchange when needed, as well as hold appropriate
hearings to revise the DIF. In addition, we will
initiate contact and pursue discussions concerning the
number, scheduling and financing of otay River road and
bridge crossing with the city and County of San Diego.
c. Villaqe Development
A circumstance specific to Village Development is the
construction of additional east-west access. The
Agreement acknowledges that east-west access through the
property connecting to 1-805 may be needed at a time when
inadequate DIF monies are available and other developers
are not able to contribute either. In effect, Village
Development could be pioneering the facility at its cost.
;2-7
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 8
In that case, the City will be willing to consider a
traffic capacity development agreement, giving priority
status to some amount of project development. The
additional circulation capacity could be on either East
Palomar Street or Orange Avenue. The Developer agrees to
proceed, if necessary, with Orange Avenue first since it
provides potentially greater traffic capacity. In
addition, if SR-125 is constructed prior to construction
of east-west access, then the timing of construction
required for Palomar or Orange will be re-reviewed.
A second element specific to the Village Development
Agreement is the application of the Natural communities
Conservation Act (NCCP) and the Multiple Species
conservation Program (MSCP) . The Developer has
negotiated agreements with the resource agencies to make
certain trade-offs of sensitive habitat land preservation
in some areas for more flexible development possibilities
in some other areas. This Agreement recognizes that
circumstance, and the city agrees to reasonably consider
and process such amendments and consider them as part of
Existing Project Approvals and not requiring an amendment
to their Agreement.
A third factor, somewhat similar to what was mentioned
for the Foundation Agreement, would be to process and
reasonably consider an application for a land use change
necessitated by virtue of land use changes that will be
mandated in the Otay Landfill buffer area. Land uses in
the 1,000 foot buffer area of Village 3 (east of the
landfill) are currently designated "Residential" and will
need to be changed to an acceptable "non-Residential"
designation. Village Properties would like to have an
amendment to the GDP considered to relocate those
residential uses elsewhere on the Project.
Major Policy Issues
The major policy issues, in staff's view, are only three at this
point. The issues are the agreement terms, application of growth
management changes and the length of time tentative maps remain in
effect.
1. Aqreement Term - as stated earlier, the Developer wants a
40-year term and the City staff is of the opinion that a
20-year term is more than generous. While acknowledging that
the project buildout could be 40 years or more, that doesn't
mean the Development Agreement can or should run that long.
Many things will change over even a 10 or 20-year period that
it is not prudent to vest entitlements for 40 years. The
Developer could seek an amendment or another Development
.J-z
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 9
Agreement at that time. The City's existing agreements with
EastLake and Rancho del Rey have 7 or 10-year terms,
respectively. The recently approved Landfill Agreement with
the County has a term the length of operation of the landfill
or 50 years, whichever is earlier. We feel that is a
specialized agreement recognizing the uniqueness of a landfill
and ongoing monitoring even beyond closure and should not
establish a precedent for this type of agreement.
2. Growth Manaqement Ordinance/Threshold standard Chanaes - The
Developers agree that they are subject to the provisions of
the Growth Management Ordinance including the Threshold
Standards and all of the public facility requirements
associated therewith, including existing and future approved
Public Facility Finance Plans (PFFP's). They also agree that
they are subject to construct facilities to address project
required thresholds and the city retains the right to withhold
building permits should the relevant threshold be exceeded
until a deficiency is cured.
The issue then becomes whether or not they are subject to
changes in the Growth Management Ordinance and under what
conditions. The Developer wants to be protected from
"arbitrary" changes, which Developer states would be
impossible to meet and which in effect would stop all
development and negate the purpose of the Development
Agreement. An example would be changing the traffic threshold
from level of service "C" to level of service "A" or changing
the fire threshold from responding to calls in 7 minutes 85%
of the time to 2 minutes 100% of the time. The City, on the
other hand, has to be able to reasonably refine, adjust and
change, or add, to the thresholds as times, standards and
circumstances change. The compromise suggestion was to allow
for change if implemented citywide or east of 1-805 and if the
changes met the purpose and intent section of the existing
ordinance. In other words, the driving motive of the
standards are to insure that adequate public facilities are
provided when needed and not as a means to impose housing caps
or stop development. The above conditions are acceptable to
staff and help to circumscribe the types of changes that will
be acceptable.
The Developers request that an additional phase be added
whereby the City may make changes to the Growth Management
Ordinance "which would not prevent or unreasonably delay the
development of the Property consistent with the Existing
Project Approvals." This seems unacceptably broad, in
particular the reference to "unreasonably delay" since the
Growth Management Ordinance by its very nature sets
performance standards and infrastructure provisions and
phasing. Should a change in the ordinance result in a change
;2-9
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 10
in infrastructure phasing, then the timing of the Project
could very well be affected. The ability to change thresholds
has been an integral part of all of the City's development
agreements to date.
3. Lenqth of Validity of Tentative Subdivision MaDS As mentioned
earlier, a tentative map normally has a 3-year life with a 3-
year extension. The terms of this Agreement call for a 10-
year life of a map not to exceed 3,000 units and for a map
with more than 3,000 units an additional year for each 300
units. Then a map with say 4,500 units would have a length of
15 years. The policy issue is how long a period of time the
City wants a tentative map to exist before a new map has to be
filed. From a planning perspective, the longer the period the
map exists, the greater likelihood that circumstances of
development surrounding the mapped area will have changed or
the map and its conditions will have been dated. The options
would be to stick with the time frames in the current
Subdivision Map Act (i.e. 3 years with a 3-year extension),
shorten the 10-year base period, or state that smaller maps,
say less than 500 units, should not receive any special
consideration as to length. Another option would be to allow
for the Council to approve any extensions from 6 to 20 years
in length after the normal map extension period had run out.
All of the remaining Agreement terms and language are supported by
the Developers and staff as appropriate considerations for the
benefits occurring to both parties.
Fiscal ImDact
It isn't possible to quantify the value of the Agreement to the
ci ty or the other parties. Through annexation and the related
property tax, sales tax, etc., the city will realize significant
benefits. Likewise, the Developers benefit from the vesting and
certainty provided by the Agreement to be able to get loans and
sell and develop the Property in accordance with current and future
approvals.
M:\HOME\ADMIN\DEVAG113
~ - It)
PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is
made effective on the date hereinafter set forth below by and among
THE OTAY RANCH, L.P., a California limited partnership, TICER
DE1.TELOPHEtlT TWO, a CaliferRia limi tea. part.Rcl"ehip I B~f TICEIUIEhR'I',
I!la., a Califerftia eerperatien, i t.a general part-Rer, VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT, a California general partnership ("Developer") and THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, who agree as follows:
1. RECITALS.
following facts:
This Agreement is made with respect to the
1.1 Owner. The owners of the properties subj ect to this
Agreement (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner" or as
"Developer") are as follows:
1.1.1 Otay Ranch, L.P. is the owner of approxi-
mately 3,545 acres of undeveloped real property in the
unincorporated area of the County of San Diego ("County"),
described in Exhibits "A" and J1G.Il "F", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
1.1.2 r:l?itJcr DC7clepmeat. 'I've is the O\;Rer af
appre1Cimatcly 1,031 aorca af aaae7elapea real property iR th~
\:lRiRSarperatcd area af the Ce\:lrrty, Eicacril3eEi ill Euhisita liB"
aRB IIC" I at:taehea. hereto ana iaeerperate:Ei herein BY tBis
refeFeRae.
1.1.3 Village Development is the owner of
approximately 35 acres of undeveloped real property in the
unincorporated area of the County, described in Exhibits ~
"B" and J1G.Il "F", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
1.2 ci tv. The City of Chula vista is a municipal
corporation and an incorporated city within the County.
1.3 Code Authorization and Acknowledqments.
1.3.1 City
Government Code sections
development agreements
certainty for both city
development process.
is authorized pursuant to California
65864 through 65869.5 to enter into
for the purpose of establishing
and owners of real property in the
1.3.2 Government Code section 65865 expressly
authorizes a city to enter into a development agreement with
any person having a legal or equitable interest in real
property in unincorporated territory within that city's sphere
of influence for the development of property as provided in
the Development Agreement Law; provided that the agreement
shall not become operative unless annexation proceedings
-1-
annexing the property to the city are completed within the
time specified by the agreement.
1.3.3 City enters into this Agreement pursuant
to the provisions of the California Government Code, its home-
rule powers, and applicable City ordinances, rules, regula-
tions and policies.
1. 3.4 City and Owner acknowledge:
Owner acknowledge this Agreement will provide:
ci ty and
1.3.4.1 Certainty in the planning process so
that the property can be developed efficiently. This
will avoid unnecessary waste of resources and increases
in housing and other development costs. The Agreement
will allow comprehensive planning of a large property so
as to make maximum efficient utilization of resources at
the least economic cost to the public;
1. 3 . 4 . 2 To provide and assure to the City the
participation of Developer in the accelerated, coordinat-
ed and more economic construction, funding and dedication
to the public of certain needed public facilities and
benefits, and to provide for anticipated levels of
service to residents and populations of the property, the
City, and adjacent areas;
1.3.4.3 To provide and assure that the City
receive sales tax revenues, increase in the property tax
base, residential housing and other development, sewer,
water and street facilities;
1.3.4.4 To provide and assure that the City
receives public facilities in excess of project generated
impacts and such facilities shall be of supplemental
size, number capacity or length, which shall be provide
earlier than could be provided either by funds from the
city or than would strictly be necessary to mitigate
project related impacts at any development phase;
1.3.4.5 To provide Developer assurances
regarding the entitlements and regulations that will be
applicable to the development of the property consistent
with the Chula vista General Plan and the otay Ranch
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan;
1.3.4.6 To provide the city the opportunity
to secure immediate annexation of the lands depicted in
Attachment .I1BJ1 "c" and secure a related tax revenue
sharing agreement with the County of San Diego to assure
that development of the properties will generate suffi-
cient tax revenues to offset the costs of providing
services to the properties;
-2-
_._---~--..._,_._, ,..---.---....--...--... ..--.. "'-
1.3.4.7 To enable the City to secure title to
the land with the boundaries of the property necessary to
complete the Chula vista greenbelt system as defined in
the Chula vista General Plan;
1. 3.4.8 To enable the City to advance its
stated goal to identify and secure a site for a potential
four year university;
1. 3 . 4.9 To assure the City that the Developer
will dedicate right-of-way for SR-125, a route which when
constructed will substantially alleviate congestion on 1-
805 and 1-5, and also will facilitate the economic
development of Chula vista; and
1. 3 .4.10 To enable the City to prepare and
adopt a Habitat Conservation Plan consistent with the
requirements of the Natural Communities Conservation Act,
including the phased conveyance of open space land to the
otay Ranch Preserve.
1.4 The Annexation. The City has a~~liea te the Leeal
AIJ6Rey Fermat.iefl CeRUt\iaaieft ("U.FCO") fer aRRelfat.iea af Cphere af
Iafl\:leRee rla}\}\iR~ Area 1 IITae Ot.ay ParacI", rlaRRiftEjJ Area 2
IIIft9:er'teEl Lit aftEl 'ERe Uary r'a'trie]t Ea'ta'te r'areel (see 16't'taeftmefl'E
"D"). On Julv1. 1996. the Local Aqencv Formation Commission
("LAFCO") aDDroved annexation of SDhere of Influence Planninq Area
1 "The Otav Parcel", Planninq Area 2 "Inverted L" and the Mary
Patrick Estate Parcel (see Attachment "C").
1.5 SDhere of Influence. A City a~~lieatieft is ~eAaiA~
sefere Ll6FCO te save 'Ehe O~ay ~alley pareel iftel~aea vi'Eftia city's
sf)ftere af iRfl1:l0Ree. OR FeBruary 5, 199€ the Leeal Agcaey
Ferma'tiaft CammissieR approved the iftelasiefl of appreuima'tely 7,~eo
aerea iftta 'tae Cit.y Sphere af Iftfl\ieflee (Sphere af IRflaeRee
rlaAAiA~ ~rea 2 aAa the RerthcrR two thiras ef PlaAAiR~ ~rca 1),
afla dcoi~Ratea thc Ota} River Valle} aft ~illa~e J as special ct1:lsy
areas. On February 5, 1996 and Julv 1. 1996 the Local Aqency
Formation Commission aDD roved the inclusion of Planninq Area 1.
"The Otav Parcel". into the citv SDhere of Influence (SDhere of
Influence Planninq Area 1 "The Otav Parcel", Planninq Area 2
"Inverted L" and the Mary Patrick Estate Parcel - see Attachment
"C") 6
1.6 Planninq Documents. On October 28, 1993, City and
County adopted the otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional
Plan ("the GDP") which includes the Otay Ranch Village Phasing
Plan, Facility Implementation Plan, Resource Management Plan and
Service Revenue Plan, for approximately 23,000 acres of the Otay
Ranch, including the Otay Valley Parcel and the SNMB, Jewels and
Foundation Properties. The City amended the GDP on June 4, 1996.
-3-
1.6.1 SPA One Plan. On June 4, 1996, the Chula
vista City Council approved the otay Ranch sectional Planning
Area (SPA) One Plan including the Planned Community District
Regulations, Overall Design Plan, Village Design Plan, Public
Facilities Plan, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Plan, Regional Facilities Report, Phase 2 Resource Management
Plan, Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan, Ranch-wide
Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan, and
Geotechnical Report.
1. 7 Owner Consent. city desires to have the cooperation
and consent of Owner to include the Property in the Annexation in
order to better plan, finance, construct and maintain the infra-
structure for the Otay Valley Parcel; and the Otay Ranch L.P., a
California limited partnership, Ti~er Devele~lIIeftt 'F\.e, a Califerftia
li.i~ea partftcrchip, BY Ti~crhear~, IRe., a Califernia eerperatian,
ita ~cfteral ~artfter, and Village Development, a California general
partnership desire to give their cooperation and consent, provided
that they obtain certain assurances, as set forth in this
Agreement.
1.8 citv Ordinance. July 9, 1996 is the date of
adoption by the City Council of Ordinance No. 2679 approving this
Agreement. The ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on
the effective date of Annexation.
2. Definitions.
otherwise requires:
In this Agreement, unless the context
2.1 "Annexation" means the proposed annexation of that
portion of the Otay Ranch into the city as depicted on Exhibit "D".
2.2 "City" means the city of Chula vista, in the County
of San Diego, State of California.
2.3 "County" means the County of San Diego, State of
California.
2.4 "Development Plan" means the GDP.
2.5 "GDP" means the General Development Plan/Subregional
Plan for the Otay Ranch, described in Paragraph 1.6, above.
2.6 "Owner" or "Developer" means the person, persons, or
entity having a legal and equitable interest in the Property, or
parts thereof, and includes Owner's successors-in-interest.
2.7 "Project" means the physical development of the
private and public improvements on the Property as provided for in
the Existing Project Approvals and as may be authorized by the City
in Future Discretionary Approvals.
2.8 "Property" means the real property described in
Paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3.
-4-
_~ _____n__._._____
-_._,_..__.~._._._,_._._.-
2.9 The "Term" of this Agreement means the period
defined in Paragraph 3, below.
2.10 "Builder" means developer to whom Developer has sold
or conveyed property within the Property for purposes of its
improvement for residential, commercial, industrial or other use.
2.11 "CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality
Act, California Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq.
Council.
2.12 "city Council" means the City of Chula vista city
2.13 "Commit" or "Committed" means all of the following
requirements have been met with respect to any public facility:
2.13.1 For a public facility within the city's
jurisdictional boundaries and a responsibility of the develop-
er.
2.13 . 1. 1 All discretionary permits required of
the Developer have been obtained for construction of the
public facility;
2.13.1.2 Plans for the construction of the
public facility have all the necessary governmental
approvals; and
2.13.1.3 Adequate funds (i.e., letters of
credit, cash deposits, performance bonds or land secured
public financing, including facility benefit assessments,
Mello-Roos assessment districts of similar assessment
mechanism) are available such that the City can construct
the public facility if construction has not commenced
within thirty (30) days of issuance of a notice to
proceed by the Director of Public Works, or construction
is not progressing towards completion in a reasonable
manner as reasonably deemed by the Director of Public
Works.
2.13.2 For a public facility within the City's
jurisdictional boundaries, but to be provided by other than
Developer.
2.13.2.1 Developer's proportionate share of
the cost of such public facility as defined in the
existing Project Approvals and Future Discretionary
Approvals has been provided or assured by Developer
through the payment or impositions of development impact
fee or other similar exaction mechanism.
2.13.3 For public facility not within City's
jurisdictional boundaries:
-5-
._"_._-,._--_..~---_._.,_....,--
the cost
existing
Approvals
Developer
of Public
2.13.3.1 Developer's proportionate share of
of such public facility as defined in the
Project Approvals and Future Discretionary
has been provided for or otherwise assured by
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director
Works.
2.14 "Development Impact Fee (DIF)" means fees imposed
upon new development pursuant to the City of Chula Vista
Development Impact Fee Program, for example, including but not
limited to the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program, the
Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee Program, the Salt Creek Sewer
DIF and the Public Facilities DIF.
2.15 "Existing project Approvals" means all discretionary
approvals affecting the Project which have been approved or
established in conjunction with, or preceding, the effective date
consisting of, but not limited to the GDP, the Chula vista General
Plan, the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program adopted pursuant to
Resolution 18288, the SPA One Plan and the Phase II Resource
Management Plan (RMP), as may be amended from time to time
consistent with this agreement.
2.16 "Final Map(s)" means any final subdivision map for
all or any portion of the Property other than the Superblock Final
Map ("A" Maps).
2.17 "Future Discretionary Approvals" means all permits
and approvals by the City granted after the effective date and
excluding existing Project Approvals, including, but not limited
to: (i) grading permits; (ii) site plan reviews; (iii) design
guidelines and reviews; (i v) precise plan reviews; (v) subdivisions
of the Property or re-subdivisions of the Property previously
subdivided pursuant to the subdivision Map Act; (vi) conditional
use permits; (vii) variances; (viii) encroachment permits;
(ix) sectional Planning Area plans; (x) all other reviews, permits,
and approvals of any type which may be required from time to time
to authorize public or private on- or off-site facilities which are
a part of the Project.
2.18 "Planning Commission" means the Planning Commission
of the City of Chula vista.
2.l9 "Preserve Conveyance Plan" means a plan that sets
forth policies and identifies land to be transferred and/or fees to
be paid to insure the orderly conveyance of the otay Ranch land to
the Preserve Owner Manager. The purpose of the plan is to fulfill
the obligations to convey resource sensitive land, per the criteria
contained in the phase I and II Resource Management Plans and to
mitigate environmental impacts of the Otay Ranch Project.
2.20 "Public Facility"
public facilities described
Implementation Plan.
or "Public Facilities" means those
in the otay Ranch Facility
-6-
2.20.1 "SPA One Plan" means The Otay Ranch
sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan approved by the City of
Chula vista on June 4, 1996, including the Planned Community
District Regulations, Overall Design Plan, Village Design
Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Parks, Recreation, Open
Space and Trails Plan, Regional Facilities Report, Phase 2
Resource Management Plan, Non-renewable Energy Conservation
Plan, Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable
Housing Plan, and Geotechnical Report.
2.21 "Subdivision Map Act" means the California
Subdivision Map Act, Government Code section 66410, et seq., and
its amendments as may from time to time be adopted.
2.22 "Substantial Compliance" means that the party
charged with the performance of a covenant herein has sufficiently
followed the terms of this Agreement so as to carry out the intent
of the parties in entering into this Agreement.
2.23 "Threshold" means the facility thresholds set forth
in the city's Municipal Code section 19.19.040.
3. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as a
development agreement upon the effective date of the Annexation
("the Effective Date"); provided, however, that if the Annexation
does not occur on or before January 1, 1997, this Agreement shall
be null and void. Any of the foregoing to the contrary notwith-
standing, from the date of first reading of the ordinance approving
this Agreement, and unless or until this Agreement becomes null and
void, Owner shall be bound by the terms of Paragraph 4. The Term
of this Agreement for purposes other than Paragraph 4 shall begin
upon the Effective Date, and shall continue for a period of twenty
(20) years ("the Term") .
The term shall also be extended for any period of time during which
issuance of building permits to Developer is suspended for any
reason other than the default of Developer, and for a period of
time equal to the period of time during which any action by the
City or court action limits the processing of future discretionary
approvals, issuance of building permits or any other development of
the property consistent with this Agreement.
4. Owner Consent to Annexation. Owner hereby consents to
and shall cooperate with the applications of City to declare that
the land depicted in Exhibit 9 .Q is wi thin City's sphere of
influence and to annex the land depicted in Exhibit 9 .Q to the
City; provided, however, that Owner may withdraw such consent and
withhold further cooperation if the city, prior to the Effective
Date, adopts rules, regulations, ordinances, policies, conditions,
environmental regulations, phasing controls, exactions, entitle-
ments, assessments or fees applicable to and governing development
of the Property which are inconsistent with, or render impractical
development of the Property according to, the Development Plan.
-7-
5. Vested Riqhts. Notwithstanding any future action or
inaction of the city during the term of this Agreement, whether
such action is by ordinance, resolution or policy of the City,
Owner and Developer shall have a vested right, Drovided however the
develoDer is not in default of its obliqations under this Aqree-
ment. and except as may be otherwise provided in this section 5, to
construct the Project in accordance with:
5.1 Existing Project Approvals.
5.2 DeveloDment of PrODertV. The development of the
Property will be governed by this Agreement and Existing Project
Approvals and such development shall comply and be governed by all
rules, regulations, policies, resolutions, ordinances, and
standards in effect as of the Effective Date subject to the
provisions of section 5.2.1 below. The City shall retain its
discretionary authority as to Future Discretionary Approvals,
provided however, such Future Discretionary Approvals shall be
regulated by the Existing Project Approvals, this Agreement, and
City rules, regulations, standards, ordinances, resolutions and
policies in effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and
subject to section 5.2.1.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may make such changes to
the City's Growth Management Ordinance applicable to the Project as
are reasonable and consistent with the purpose and intent of the
existing Growth Management Ordinance and which are generally
applicable to all private projects citywide or east of 1-805 or
within a specific benefit, fee or reimbursement district created
pursuant to the California Government Code.
5.2.1 New or Amended Rules. Requlations.
Policies. Standards. Ordinances and Resolutions. The city may
apply to the Project, including Future Discretionary Approv-
als, new or amended rules, laws, regulations, policies,
ordinances, resolutions and standards generally applicable to
all private projects east of 1-805 or within a specific
benefit fee or reimbursement district created pursuant to the
California Government Code. The application of such new
rules, or amended laws, regulations, resolutions, pOlicies,
ordinances and standards will not unreasonably prevent or
unreasonablY delay development of the Property to the uses,
densities or intensities of development specified herein or as
authorized by the Existing Project Approvals. The City may
also apply changes in city laws, regulations, ordinances,
standards or policies specifically mandated by changes in
state or federal law in compliance with section 13.3 herein.
5.2.2 Developer may elect with City's consent,
to have applied to the project any rules, regulations,
policies, ordinances or standards enacted after the date of
this Agreement. Such an election has to be made in a manner
consistent with section 5.2 of this Agreement.
-8-
5.2.3 Modifications to Existinq proiect ADDrov-
also It is contemplated by the parties to this Agreement that
the City and Developer may mutually seek and agree to modifi-
cations to the Existing Project Approvals. Such modifications
are contemplated as within the scope of this Agreement, and
shall, upon written acceptance by all parties, constitute for
all purposes an Existing Project Approval. The parties agree
that any such modifications may not constitute an amendment to
this Agreement nor require an amendment to the Agreement.
5.2.4 Future Discretionarv ADDrovals. It is
contemplated by the parties to this Agreement that the City
and Developer may agree to Future Discretionary Approvals. The
parties agree that any such Future Approvals may not consti-
tute an amendment to this Agreement nor require an amendment
to the Agreement. DeveloDer aqrees to reasonablv COODerate
with any amendments to Existinq and Future Discretionarv
ADDrovals as may be requested bv the city from time to time.
5.3 Dedication and Reservation of Land for Public
PurDoses. Except as expressly required by this Agreement or the
Existing Project Approvals and Future Discretionary Approvals
(excepting dedications required within the boundaries of any parcel
created by the subsequent subdivision of the Property as required
by the Subdivision Map Act), no dedication or reservation of real
property within or outside the Property shall be required by city
or Developer in conjunction with the Project. Any dedications and
reservations of land imposed shall be in accordance with section
7.2 and section 7.8 herein.
5.4 Time for Construction and ComDletion of Proiect.
Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction
ComDanv V. citv of Camarillo (1984) 27 Cal.3d 465, that the failure
of the parties to provide for the timing of development resulted in
a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to
prevail over such parties' Agreement, it is the intention of the
parties to this Agreement to cure that deficiency by specifically
aCknowledging that timing and phasing of development is completely
and exclusively governed by the Existing Project Approvals,
including the Chula vista Growth Management Ordinance. The purpose
of the Chula vista Growth Management Ordinance is to "control the
timing and location of development by tying the pace of development
to the provision of public facilities and improvements to conform
to the City's threshold standards." (Municipal Code section
19.09.010A.7) The findings in support of the Growth Management
Ordinance conclude that the ordinance "does not affect the number
of houses which may be built." (Municipal Code section
19.09.010B.3) Therefore, the parties acknowledge that the Chula
Vista Growth Management Ordinance completely occupies the topic of
development timing and phasing and expressly precludes the adoption
of housing caps, urban reserves or any other means by which the
rate of development may be controlled or regulated. The City
agrees that the Developer shall be entitled to, apply for and
recei ve all permits necessary for the development of property,
-9-
consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance, Existing Project
Approvals, Future Discretionary Approvals and this Agreement.
5.5 Benefit of vestinq. Nothing in this Agreement will
be construed as limiting or impairing Developer's vested right, if
any, to proceed with the development and use of the Property
pursuant to the Federal and state Constitutions, and pursuant to
statutory and decisional law.
5.6 Vestinq of Entitlements. All rights conferred by
this Agreement vest with the Effective Date hereof. The approval
of Future Discretionary approvals shall not be deemed to limit
Developer's rights authorized by this Agreement, and once such
approvals are obtained they shall be vested to the same extent as
the Existing Project Approvals.
6. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
6.1 processinq of Future Discretionarv Approvals. City
will accept and diligently process development applications and
requests for Future Discretionary Approvals, or other entitlements
with respect to the development and use of the Property, provided
said applications and requests are in accordance with this
Agreement. City costs for processing work related to the Project,
including hiring of additional City personnel and/or the retaining
of professional consultants, will be reimbursed to City by
Developer.
6.2 Lenqth of Validi tv of Tentati ve Subdivision Maps.
Government Code section 66452.6 provides that tentative subdivision
map(s) may remain valid for a length up to the term of a Develop-
ment Agreement. The City agrees that tentative subdivision maps
for the Property shall be for a term of six (6) years and may be
extended by the city Council for a period of time not to exceed a
total of twenty (20) years and in no event beyond the term of this
Agreement.
6.3 Pre-Final Map Development. If Developer desires to
do certain work on the Property after approval of a tentative map
(for example, grading) prior to the recordation of a final map, it
may do so by obtaining a grading and/or other required approvals
from the City which are authorized by the City prior to recordation
of a final map. The permit may be approved or denied bv the citv
in accordance with the citv's Municipal Code. requlations and
policies and provided Developer is in compliance with this
Aqreement and with the terms of all Existinq and Future Discretion-
arv Approvals. In addition. the Developer shall be required to
~aeR pcrmi~ Baall Be iasHca ta DC7cleper, SF ita eeRtrae~er, H~eR
9c7cleper'e appliea~ieft, ap~re~al, aRa pre7idea De~elepcr poste a
bond or other reasonably adequate security required by city in an
amount determined by the city to assure the rehabilitation of the
land if the applicable final map does not record.
6.4 Final Maps.
-10-
6.4.1 "A" Maps and "B" Maps. H Developer shall
Be eleets, the City Bhall aeee~t aRa process a master subdivi-
sion or parcel map ("A" Map) showing "Super Block" lots and
backbone street dedications. "super Block". lots shall be
consistent with the GDP and subsequent Sectional Plan Area
plans, and shall not subdivide land into individual single-
family lots. All "Super Blocks" created shall have access to
dedicated public streets. The City shall not require improve-
ment plans in order to record a final map for any "A" Map
lots, sa~ ~he City shall re~~ire seRdin~ fer the ee~letieR af
sao]tSBRe faeilit.ica prier te l'e.cel'eliR~ iR all am81iRt to be
aetermiRea BY the City. Following the approval by City of any
final map for an "A" Map lot and its recordation, Developer
may convey the "Super Block" lot. The buyer of a "Super
Block" lot shall then process final improvement plans and
grading plans and a final map ("B" Map) for each "Super Block"
lot which the city shall process if such documents are in
compliance with the citv's Municipal Code. standard policies.
and the applicable tentative map. The "B" Maps shall be in
substantial conformance with the related approved "A" Map. In
the instance of the mUlti-family dwelling unit areas, a
separate tentative subdivision map may be submitted to the
City and the "B" Map(s) for these areas may be submitted to
the City after the city Planning Commission approves said
tentative subdivision map.
6.4.2 Recordation of Final Subdivision Map in
Name of Builder or Third Partv. Developer may, if it so
elects, convey to a Builder or third party any "super block"
lot(s) shown on the recorded Superblock Final Map. In such
case, the Builder or third party will (i) process any neces-
sary final improvement and grading plans and a final map for
each such "super block" lot ("B" map), which map city shall
accept and process if such map is in compliance with the
citv's Municipal Code. standard policies. the applicable
tentative map. and the provisions of 7.1 of this Aqreement if
applicable as subsequent phases in a multi-phase project, (ii)
enter into a subdivision improvement agreement with City with
respect to the subdivision improvements which are required for
such super block lot, and (iii) provide security and insurance
satisfactory to City for the completion of the subdivision
improvements. ( i v) aqree. in such case. wi th the ci tv's
consent to complv with the obliqations set forth in 7.1.
6.4.3 Recordation of Final Subdivision Map in
Developer's Name: Transfer of Obliqations Under Subdivision
Improvement Aqreement(s). If Developer so elects, it may
defer the conveyance of any super block lot to a Builder or
third party until after the final map of such super block lot
has been recorded. If Developer elects to proceed in this
manner, it will enter into city's standard subdivision
improvement agreement(s) with City for the improvements
required as a condition to the approval of such map(s). Upon
sale to a Builder or third party, if such Builder or third
party assumes Developer's obligations with the citv's consent
-11-
under the improvement agreement and provides its own security
and insurance for the completion of the subdivision improve-
ments satisfactory to the city and as approved by the City,
Developer shall be released from liability under the subdivi-
sion improvement agreement(s) and Developer's security shall
be released.
6.4.4 Transfer of Riqhts and Obliqations of
Development. Whenever Developer conveys a portion of the
Property, the rights and obligations of this Agreement shall
transfer in accordance with section 15 herein.
7. DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATIONS.
7.1 Condition to Developer's Obliqations to Dedicate. Fund or
Construct Public Facilities. Developer agrees to develop or
provide the public improvements, facilities, dedications, or
reservations of land and satisfy other exactions conditioning the
development of the Property which are set forth hereinbelow. In
addition to any other obliqations the Developer may have. Villaqe
Development. Otay Ranch L.P. or their successor in interest as its
sole and separate responsibility. covenants and aqrees to provide
or finance the cost of backbone facilities that are required bv anv
final map I includinq "B" Maps). This requirement mav be satisfied
throuqh the construction or financinq of said facilities or with
the citv's approval of any of the followinq: the establishment of
a reimbursement mechanism. a development impact fee proqram. an
assessment mechanism. or other equitable facilitv financinq proqram
within the city's discretion. This requirement shall be deemed
satisfied in the event that the Builderls) of a "B" Map expresslv
assume the obliqations with the consent of the citv to provide said
backbone facilities. Villaqe Development. Otav Ranch L. P.. or
their successor in interest shall bond for the backbone facilities
prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map. For purposes of
this section. backbone facilities mean those facilities such as
water. sewer. storm drain and public streets necessarv to serve
demands qenerated for the backbone facilitv bevond that of any
sinqle "B" map. but are not included within a wider area citv
development improvement fee proqram.
The obliqations of the Developer. pursuant to this Aqreement. are
conditioned upon: Ii) the citv not beinq in default of its
obliqations under this aqreement: and Iii) the citv not unreason-
ably preventinq or unreasonablY delayinq the development of the
property: and liii) if the Aqreement has been suspended in response
to chanqes in state or federal law or due to said obliqations beinq
suspended pursuant to section 13.2. said obliqations of Developer
shall be suspended for the same period of time.
7.2 Dedications and Reservations of Land for Public Purposes.
The policies by which property will be required to be reserved,
dedicated or improved for public purposes are identified in the
Existing Project Approvals. A more precise delineation of the
property to be preserved, dedicated or improved for public purposes
shall occur as part of Future Discretionary Approvals, consistent
with development of propertv as set forth in section 5.2 herein.
-12-
7.2.1 Dedication of Land for SR 125. Developer
agrees to dedicate land for right-of-way purposes and property
owned by the Developer that is reasonably necessary for the
SR-125 configuration that is generally depicted in the SR-125
draft Environmental Impact Report/statement and as revised in
the Final Environmental Impact Report/statement to respond to
engineering, design, environmental and similar constraints.
The dedications shall be to the City or by an alternate method
acceptable to the City at such time as requested by the City.
city agrees that in the event city shall negotiate with
California Transportation Ventures (CTV) or other toll road
builder any participation or advantages to City that city
shall share such rights with subsequent owner/resident of the
property.
7.2.2 Landfill Nuisance Easements. Developer shall
grant to the County by July 1, 1996 "Landfill Nuisance
Easements" substantially in the form attached as Exhibit E.
The Easement shall cover all land which is within the Otay
Landfill Buffer Area of Villages 2, 3 and Planning Area 18B of
the Otay Ranch GDPP as shown on Exhibit E hereto.
In addition. Developer aqrees to enter into subordination
aqreements. acceptable to the County. with all lienholders
havinq an interest in the Propertv to ensure that this
Aqreement has a priority position over all other liens. The
subordination aqreements shall be delivered to the citv prior
to the second readinq of the Ordinance approvinq the Aqree-
ment. If there is no second readinq of this Aqreement. the
citv shall return said subordination aqreements to the
Developer. If the Countv Board of Supervisors does not accept
or approve said easements. this Aqreement shall be automati-
callv terminated with neither party bearinq anv liability
hereunder.
7.2.3 Preserve Conveyance Plan. The Developer
shall comply with any existing or yet to be adopted Preserve
Conveyance Plan and convey property as set forth in such Plan.
7.3 Growth Manaqement Ordinance. Developer shall commit the
public facilities and city shall issue building permits as provided
in this section and in accordance with Existina proiect Approvals
and Future Discretionarv Approvals. The city shall have the right
to withhold the issuance of building permits any time after the
City reasonably determines a Threshold has been exceeded, unless
and until the Developer has mitigated the deficiency in accordance
with the city's Growth Management Ordinance.
Developer agrees that building permits may be withheld where the
public facilities described in the Existing project Approvals/-
Future Discretionary Approvals required for a particular Threshold
have not been committed.
-13-
In the event a Threshold is not met and future building permit
issuance may be withheld, the notice provisions and procedures
contained in section 19.09. 100C of the Municipal Code will be
followed. In the event the issuance of building permits is
suspended pursuant to the provisions herein, such suspension shall
not constitute a breach of the terms of this Agreement by Develop-
er. Furthermore, any such suspension which is not caused by the
actions or omissions of the Developer, shall toll the term of this
Agreement as provided for in section 16.12 of this Agreement, and
suspend the Developer's obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
7.3.1 Reauired Condemnation. The City and Developer
recognize that certain portions of the Resource Preserve and
of the public facilities identified in the Existing Project
Approvals/Future Discretionary Approvals and required to
comply with a threshold are located on properties which
neither the Developer nor the city has, or will have, title to
or control of. The City shall identify such property or
properties and at the time of filing of the final map commence
timely negotiations or, where the property is wi thin the
city's jurisdiction, commence timely proceedings pursuant to
Title 7 (commencing with S 1230.010) of Part 3 of the Code of
civil Procedure to acquire an interest in the property or
properties. Developer's share of the cost involved in any
such acquisition shall be based on its proportionate share of
the public facility as defined in the Existing Project
Approvals/Future Discretionary Approvals. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Nnothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to
preclude the City from requiring the Developer to pay the cost
of acquiring such off-site land. For that portion of the cost
beyond the Developer's fair share responsibility, the City
shall take all reasonable steps to establish a procedure
whereby the developer is reimbursed for such costs beyond its
fair share.
7.3.2 Information Reqardina Thresholds. Upon
Developer's written requests of the City Manager, the City
will provide Developer with information regarding the current
status of a Threshold. Developer shall be responsible for any
staff costs incurred in providing said written response.
7.4 Improvements Required bv a Tentative Subdivi-
sion Map. As may be required pursuant to the terms of a tentative
subdivision map approval, it shall be the responsibility of
Developer to construct the improvements required by the a subdivi-
sion map. Where Developer is required to construct a public
improvement which has been identified as the responsibility of
another party or to provide public improvements of supplemental
size, capacity, number or length benefiting property not within the
tentative subdivision map, City shall process for consideration to
approve or denv in its sole discretion a reimbursement agreement to
the Developer in accordance with the citv's Municipal Code and
Article 6 of Chapter 4 of the Subdivision Map Act, commencing with
Government Code section 66485, and section 7.5, below. This does
-14-
not preclude the Developer or the city from considerinq alternative
financinq mechanisms.
7.5 Facilities Which Are the Obliqations of Another
Partv. or Are of Excessive Size. Capacity. Lenqth or Number.
Developer may offer to advance monies and/or construct public
improvements which are the responsibility of another land owner, or
outside the City's jurisdictional boundaries, or which are of
supplemental size, capacity, number or length for the benefit of
land not within the Property. City, where requesting such funding
or construction of oversized public improvements, shall consider
after a public hearing, contemporaneous with the imposition of the
obligation, the formation of a reimbursement district, assessment
district, facility benefit assessment, or reimbursement agreement
or other reimbursement mechanism.
7.6 Pioneerinq of Facilities. To the extent Developer
itself constructs (Le., "Pioneers") any public facilities or
public improvements which are covered by a DIF Program, Developer
shall be given a credit against DIFs otherwise payable, subject to
the City's Director of Public Works reasonable determination that
such costs are allowable under the applicable DIF Program. It is
specifically intended that Developer be given DIF credit for the
DIF Program improvements it makes. The fact that such improvements
may be financed by an assessment district or other financing
mechanism, shall not prevent DIF credit from being given to the
extent that such costs are allowed under the applicable DIF Program
7.7 Insurance.
insured for all insurance
Project as pertains to the
the Project.
Developer shall name City as additional
policies obtained by Developer for the
Developer's activities and operation on
7.8 Other Land Owners. Developer hereby agrees to
dedicate adequate rights-of-way within the boundaries of the
Property for other land owners to "Pioneer" public facilities on
the Property; provided, however, as follows: (i) dedications shall
be restricted to those reasonably necessary for the construction of
facilities identified in the City's adopted public facility plans;
(ii) this provision shall not be binding on the successors-in-
interest or assignees of Developer following recordation of the
final "Super Block" or "A" Map; and (iii) the City shall use its
reasonable best efforts to obtain agreements similar to this
subsection from other developers and to obtain equitable reimburse-
ment for Developer for any excess dedications.
7.9 Construction of East-West Access. Pursuant to
City's requirements, Developer is required to pay Transportation
Development Fees (TDIF) for a variety of purposes including
construction of east-west arterial access through the Property
connecting to 1-805. Alternatively, the Developer may be required
to actually construct all or portions of such access if, at the
time of need, the TDIF fund does not contain sufficient revenues to
finance the construction of the needed facilities. Such east-west
-15-
arterial access from SPA One to 1-805 could occur on either East
Orange Avenue or on East Palomar Street. It is not now possible to
determine with certainty when it will be necessary to actually
construct the arterials in order to comply with the threshold
requirements because the rate and location of future development is
unknown. The total cost and length of the arterial, which might be
constructed by the Developer, are unknown at this time because it
cannot be determined if and when development west of the property
(Sunbow) will construct the Western portion of the arterials. Such
uncertainty makes it difficult to plan and finance the orderly
development of the property and needed on-site and off-site
facilities. To provide greater certainty as to the timing and
construction of east-west arterial access, the city agrees to
reasonably consider in good faith a traffic capacity agreement with
Developer which would reserve traffic capacity for all or part of
SPA One in exchange for Developer's agreement to pioneer all or
part of planned east-west access to SPA One.
7.10 Assurances of Compliance. Owner acknowledqes that
the citv is not reauired to and will not take any action on any of
Owner's applications for Future Discretionarv Approvals under this
Aqreement. or anv modifications or amendments thereof. until and
unless the citv Manaqer determines that the Owner is not in default
of its obliqations under this Aqreement includinq but not limited
to those set forth in section 7.11 and 14.
7.11 Complete Construction. Developer/Builder or any
third partv aqree to diliqentlv complete construction once a
buildina permit has been issued for Property which is covered bv
this Aqreement. Should construction stop once the buildinq permits
have been issued bv the citv. which the citv in its sole discretion
determines has created a nuisance or fire or safetv hazard. the
Developer aqrees to take such steps necessary to cure the nuisance
or hazard. Should Developer fail to do so to the city's satisfac-
tion. the citv mav take what steps it deems necessarv to cure the
nuisance or hazard at Developer's sole cost and expense.
8. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.
8.1 Existinq Development Impact Fee Proqram Pavments.
Developer shall pay to the City a DIF, or construct improvements in
lieu of payment, for improvements which are conditions of a
tentative subdivision map upon the issuance of building permits(s),
or at a later time as specified by City ordinance, the Subdivision
Map Act, or Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP). The DIF will be
in the amount in effect at the time payment is made and may only be
increased pursuant to section 8.6 herein.
8.2 Other Undeveloped Properties. The City will use its
reasonable best efforts to impose and collect, or cause the
imposition and collection of, the same DIF program on all the
undeveloped real properties which benefit from the provision of the
public facility through the DIF program, or provided as a condition
of project Approvals.
-16-
8.3 Use of Development Impact Fee Proqram. The DIF
amounts paid to the City by Developer and others with respect to
the Area of Benefit shall be placed by the City in a capital
facility fund account established pursuant to California Government
Code sections 66000-66009. The City shall expend such funds only
for the Projects described in the adopted fee program as may be
modified from time to time. The city will use its reasonable best
efforts to cause such Projects to be completed as soon as practica-
ble; however, the City shall not be obligated to use its general
funds for such Projects.
8.4 withholdinq of Permits. Developer agrees that City
shall have the right to withhold issuance of the building permit
for any structure or improvement on the Property unless and until
the DIF is paid for such structure or improvement.
8.5 Development Impact Fee Credit. upon the completion
and acceptance by the City of any public facility, the city shall
immediately credit Developer with the appropriate amount of cash
credits ("EDUs") as determined by Developer and city. However, if
the improvements are paid for through an Assessment District, the
city shall credit the Developer with the appropriate number of
Equivalent Dwelling unit Credits (EDU's). Developer shall be
entitled to apply any and all credits accrued pursuant to this
subsection toward the required payment of future DIF for any phase,
stage or increment of development of the Project.
8.6 Modification of Development Impact Fees. The
parties recognize that from time to time during the duration of the
Agreement it will be necessary for the City to update and modify
its DIF fees. Such reasonable modifications are contemplated by
the City and the Developer and shall not constitute a modification
to the Agreement so long as: (i) the modification incorporates the
reasonable costs of providing facilities identified in the Existing
or Future Project Approvals; (ii) are based upon methodologies in
substantial compliance with the methodology contained in the
existing DIF programs; or other methodology approved by the City
Council following a public hearing; (iii) complies with the
provisions of Government Code sections 66000-66009.
8.7 Standards for Financinq Obliqations of Owner. In
connection with the development of the Property, the following
standards regarding the financing of public improvements shall
apply:
8.7.1 Owner shall participate in the DIF Program
for the Otay Valley Parcel with other owners in proportion to
the total dwelling units or equivalent dwelling units allowed
on the Property as compared with the total of such units
allowed on properties in that particular DIF or by some other
equitable methodology decided by the City Council.
8.7.2
requirements that
The city shall diligently pursue the
the Eastern Territories' DIF requires
-17-
offsite third parties and adjacent jurisdictions to bear their
fair share of all Otay River Valley crossings.
9. CITY OBLIGATIONS.
9.1 Urban Infrastructure. To the extent it is within
the authority and ability of the City to provide, City shall
accommodate urban infrastructure to the project, consistent with
Existing project Approvals. Where it is necessary to utilize City
property to provide urban infrastructure consistent with the
Existing Project Approvals, the city agrees to make such land
available for such uses, provided that the City if it so chooses is
compensated at fair market value for the property. To the extent
that the provision of urban infrastructure is within the authority
of another public or quasi-public agency or utility, the City
agrees to fully cooperate with such agency or agencies to accommo-
date the urban infrastructure, consistent with Existing Project
Approvals. Urban infrastructure shall include, but not be limited
to gas, electricity, telephone, cable and facilities identified in
the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan.
9.2 Sewer Capaci tv. The city agrees to provide adequate
sewer capacity for the project, upon the payment of ordinary and
necessary sewer connection, capacity and/or service fees.
9.3 Nuisance Easement. The City shall reasonably
consider with proper environmental review a request to amend the
otay Ranch GDP to relocate, wi thin the property, the land uses
affected by the execution of a "nuisance easement" pursuant to the
otay Ranch Landfill Agreement, (dated May 15, 1996). This GDP
amendment shall be processed prior to or concurrent with the GDP
amendment covering the landfill buffer area required by the
Landfill Agreement. The amendment shall be deemed vested to the
same extent as Existing Project Approvals and shall not require or
constitute an amendment to this Agreement. The Developer agrees to
pay the reasonable city cost for processing the amendments.
10. ANNUAL REVIEW.
10.1 citv and Owner Responsibilities. city will, at
least every twelve (12) months during the Term of this Agreement,
pursuant to California Government Code S65865.1, review the extent
of good faith substantial compliance by Owner with the terms of
this Agreement. Pursuant to California Government Code section
65865.1, as amended, Owner shall have the duty to demonstrate by
substantial evidence its good faith compliance with the terms of
this Agreement at the periodic review. Either City or Owner may
address any requirement of the Agreement during the review.
10.2 Evidence. The parties recognize that this Agreement
and the documents incorporated herein could be deemed to contain
hundreds of requirements and that evidence of each and every
requirement would be a wasteful exercise of the parties' resources.
Accordingly, Developer shall be deemed to have satisfied its good
faith compliance when it presents evidence of substantial com-
-18-
pliance with the major provisions of this Agreement. Generalized
evidence or statements shall be accepted in the absence of any
evidence that such evidence is untrue.
10.3 Review Letter. If Owner is found to be in com-
pliance with this Agreement after the annual review, City shall,
within forty-five (45) days after Owner's written request, issue a
review letter in recordable form to Owner ("Letter") stating that
based upon information known or made known to the council, the City
Planning Commission and/or the City Planning Director, this
Agreement remains in effect and Owner is not in default. Owner may
record the Letter in the Official Records of the County of San
Diego.
10.4 Failure of Periodic Review. city's failure to
review at least annually Owner's compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall not constitute, or be asserted
by city or Owner as, a breach of the Agreement.
11 . DEFAULT.
11.1 Events of Default. A default under this Agreement
shall be deemed to have occurred upon the happening of one or more
of the following events or conditions:
11.1.1 A warranty, representation or statement
made or furnished by Owner to City is false or proves to have
been false in any material respect when it was made.
11.1.2 A finding and determination by city made
following a periodic review under the procedure provided for
in California Government Code section 65865.1 that upon the
basis of substantial evidence Owner has not complied in good
faith with one or more of the terms or conditions of this
Agreement.
consider
submitted
11.1.3 city does not accept,
requested development permits
in accordance with the provisions
timely review, or
or entitlements
of this Agreement.
11.1.4 Aft}.. ethe::E' aet. or smisaisR by ci t.~l ey O.'/\'.Rcr
whioh materially iRtcrferea with the terms af thia A~rccmcRt.
All remedies at law or in equitv which are consistent with the
provisions of this Aqreement are available to city and Owner
to pursue in the event there is a breach provided. however.
neither Darty shall have the remedv or monetary damaqes
aqainst the other exceDt for an award of litiqation costs and
attornevs fees.
11.2 Procedure UDon Default.
11. 2.1 Upon the occurrence of default by the
other party, City or Owner may terminate this Agreement after
providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice
specifying the nature of the alleged default and, when
-19-
appropriate, the manner in which said default may be satis-
factorily cured. After proper notice and expiration of said
thirty (30) day cure period without cure, this Agreement may
be terminated. In the event that City's or Owner's default is
not subject to cure within the thirty (30) day period, City or
Owner shall be deemed not to remain in default in the event
that City or Owner commences to cure within such thirty (30)
day period and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion.
Failure or delay in giving notice of any default shall not
constitute a waiver of any default, nor shall it change the
time of default. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Agreement, City reserves the right to formulate and propose to
Owner options for curing any defaults under this Agreement for
which a cure is not specified in this Agreement.
11. 2.2 City does not waive any claim of defect in
performance by Owner if, on periodic review, city does not
propose to modify or terminate this Agreement.
11.2.3 Subject to Paragraph 16.12 of this
Agreement, the failure of a third person shall not excuse a
party's nonperformance under this agreement.
11. 2.4 All other remedies at law or in equity
which are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement are
available to City and Owner to pursue in the event there is a
breach.
12. ENCUMBRANCES AND RELEASES ON PROPERTY.
12.1 Discretion to Encumber. This Agreement shall not
prevent or limit Owner in any manner at Owner's sole discretion,
from encumbering the Property, or any portion of the Property, or
any improvement on the Property, by any mortgage, deed of trust, or
other security device securing financing with respect to the
Property or its improvement.
12.2 Mortqaqee Riqhts and Obliqations. The mortgagee of
a mortgage or beneficiary of a deed of trust encumbering the
Property, or any part thereof, and their successors and assigns
shall, upon written request to city, be entitled to receive from
city written notification of any default by Owner of the
performance of Owner's obligations under the Agreement which has
not been cured within thirty (30) days following the date of
default.
12.3 Releases. city agrees that upon written request of
Owner and payment of all fees and performance of the requirements
and conditions required of Owner by this Agreement with respect to
the Property, or any portion thereof, City may execute and deliver
to Owner appropriate release(s) of further obligations imposed by
this Agreement in form and substance acceptable to the San Diego
County Recorder and title insurance company, if any, or as may
otherwise be necessary to effect the release. City Manager shall
not unreasonably withhold approval of such release(s).
-20-
-"_._-_._---_._~-~.~_.._-_._--~-
12.4 Obliqation to MOdifY. City acknowledges that the
lenders providing financing for the Project may require certain
modifications to this Agreement and city agrees, upon request from
time to time, to meet with Owner and/or representatives of such
lenders to negotiate in good faith any such requirement for
modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to
any such requested modification.
12.5 Subordination. Developer aqrees to enter into
subordination aqreements with all lienholders havinq anv interest
in the Property to ensure that the provisions of this Aqreement
bind such lienholders should thev take title to all or part of the
property throuqh quit claim deed. sale. foreclosure or any other
means of transfer of property. Developer shall deliver to the city
the fullv executed subordination aqreements in a form acceptable to
the city Attornev and suitable for recordinq on or before the
second readinq or the Ordinance.
13. MODIFICATION OR SUSPENSION.
13.1 Modification to Aqreement bv Mutual Consent. This
Agreement may be modified, from time to time, by the mutual consent
of the parties only in the same manner as its adoption by an
ordinance as set forth in California Government Code sections
65867, 65867.5 and 65868. The term, "this Agreement" as used in
this Agreement, will include any such modification properly
approved and executed.
13.2 Unforeseen Health or Safety Circumstances. If, as
a result of facts, events, or circumstances presently unknown,
unforeseeable, and which could not have been known to the parties
prior to the commencement of this Agreement, City finds that
failure to suspend this Agreement would pose an ~laee the resiaeftts
sf city iR a ac.,ere; aRa iBU1\eEliatc CB\CE'Ij'eROY t.e thcir immediate
threat to the health or safety of the citv's residents or the city.
The followinq shall occur:
13.2.1 Notification of Unforeseen Circumstances.
Notify Developer of (i) city's determination; and (ii) the
reasons for City's determination, and all facts upon which
such reasons are based;
13.2.2 Notice of Hearinq. Notify Developer in
writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date, of the
date, time and place of the hearing and forward to Developer
a minimum of ten (10) days prior to the hearings described in
section 13.2.3, all documents related to such determination
and reasons therefor; and
13.2.3 Hearinq. Hold a hearing on the deter-
mination, at which hearing Developer will have the right to
address the City Council. At the conclusion of said hearing,
City may take action to suspend this Agreement as provided
herein. The City may suspend this Agreement if, at the
conclusion of said hearing, based upon the evidence presented
by the parties, the City finds failure to suspend would ~laee
-21-
the reeideflts af ~he city iR a De~ere aRd immediate emcr~cBey
te their health er safety. Dose an immediate threat to the
health or safety of the city's residents or the citv.
13.3 Chanqe in state or Federal Law or Requlations. If
any state or federal law or regulation enacted during the Term of
this Agreement, or the action or inaction of any other affected
governmental jurisdiction, precludes compliance with one or more
provisions of this Agreement, or requires changes in plans, maps,
or permits approved by city, the parties will act pursuant to
sections 13.3.1 and 13.3.2, below.
13.3.1 Notice: Meetinq. The party first becoming
aware of such enactment or action or inaction will provide the
other party(ies) with written notice of such state or federal
law or regulation and provide a copy of such law or regulation
and a statement regarding its conflict with the provisions of
this Agreement. The parties will promptly meet and confer in
a good faith and reasonable attempt to modify or suspend this
Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regula-
tion.
13.3.2 Hearinq. If an agreed upon modification
or suspension would not require an amendment to this Agree-
ment, no hearing shall be held. otherwise, the matter of such
federal or state law or regulation will be scheduled for
hearing before the city. Fifteen (15) days' written notice of
such hearing shall be provided to Developer, and the City, at
such hearing, will determine and issue findings on the
modification or suspension which is required by such federal
or state law or regulation. Developer, at the hearing, shall
have the right to offer testimony and other evidence. If the
parties fail to agree after said hearing, the matter may be
submitted to mediation pursuant to subsection 13.3.3, below.
Any modification or suspension shall be taken by the affirma-
tive vote of not less than a majority of the authorized voting
members of the city. Any suspension or modification may be
subject to judicial review in conformance with subsection
16.19 of this Agreement.
13.3.3 Mediation of DisDutes. In the event the
dispute between the parties with respect to the provisions of
this paragraph has not been resolved to the satisfaction of
both parties following the City hearing required by subsection
13.3.2, the matter shall be submitted to mediation prior to
the filing of any legal action by any party. The mediation
will be conducted by the San Diego Mediation Center; if San
Diego Mediation Center is unable to conduct the mediation, the
parties shall submit the dispute for mediation to the Judicial
Arbitration and Mediation Service or similar organization and
make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. The cost of
any such mediation shall be divided equally between the
Developer and city.
-22-
13.4 Natural Communities Conservation Act (NCCP). The
parties recognize that Developer and the City are individually
negotiating agreements with the united states Fish and wildlife
service ("USF&W") and the California Department of Fish and Game
pursuant to the ongoing regional effort to implement the Natural
Communities Conservation Act ("NCCP"), locally proposed to be
implemented through the Multi-Species Conservation Program
("MSCP"). The parties further recognize that implementation of the
agreements may necessitate modification to the Existing Project
Approvals. The city agrees to utilize its best efforts to
implement these agreements, once executed, through the timely
processing of modifications to the Existing Project Approvals as
such modifications applv to Developer's propertv. The Developer
agrees to pay the reasonable city cost for processing work related
to the modifications. Once such modifications are obtained they
shall be vested to the same extent as Existing Project Approvals.
Such modifications shall be substantially similar to the provisions
contained in Exhibit "F", the May 17, 1996 Administrative draft of
the City of Chula vista SubArea Plan for the Multi-Species
Conservation Program, except for the proposed deletion of the
Maritime Succulent Scrub restoration requirement [Section 3(b) of
the SubArea Plan (page 27)).
14. DISTRICTS. PUBLIC FINANCING MECHANISMS.
This Agreement and the Existing Project Approvals recognize
that assessment districts, community facility districts, or other
public financing mechanisms, may be necessary to finance the cost
of public improvements borne by this project. If Developer,
pursuant to the Existing project Approvals/Future Discretionary
Approvals, is required bv the citv to install improvements through
the use of assessment districts, eemmHHity faeility ais~riets, or
other public financing mechanisms, the city shall initiate and take
final action to approve or denv eeHel~ae appropriate proceedings
for the formation of such financing district or funding mechanism,
under applicable laws~ ~ ordinances. or policies. Developer may
request that the City. but the citv is not obliqated to. utilize
any other financing methods which may become available under City
laws or ordinances. All costs associated with the consideration
and formation of such financing districts or funding mechanisms
shall be paid by Developer subject to reimbursement, as may be
legally authorized out of the proceeds of any financing district or
funding mechanism.
Developer shall complv with the terms of any assessment
districts or other financinq mechanisms so approved bv the citv for
Propertv covered bv this Aqreement and shall make timelv payments
as required bv said financinq mechanism. The City retains its
riqhts to take any action it deems reasonablv appropriate to
quarantee payment.
15. ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATION.
15.1 Assiqnment. Owner shall have the right to transfer
or assign its interest in the Property, in whole or in part, to any
-23-
persons, partnership, joint venture, firm, or corporation at any
time during the Term of this Agreement without the consent of city.
Owner also shall have the right to assign or transfer all or any
portion of its interest or rights under this Agreement to third
parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Property at any time
during the Term of this Agreement without the consent of city.
15.2 Deleqation. In addition, Owner shall have the
right to delegate or transfer its obligations under this Agreement
to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Property
provided the owner is in compliance with the terms of this
Aqreement and after receiving the prior written consent of the City
Manager, which consent shall not be unreasonably wi thheldT or
delayedT or conditioned. Provided. however. the citv mav denv such
release if the citv determines that the performance of such
obliqation would be ieopardized bv such transfer. Once the city
Manager has consented to a transfer, delivery to and acceptance by
the City Manager of an unqualified written assumption of Owner's
obligations under this Agreement by such transferee shall relieve
Owner of the obligations under this Agreement to the extent the
obligations have been expressly assumed by the transferee and as
approved bv the citv. Such transferee shall not be entitled to
amend this Agreement without the written consent of the entity
that, as of the Effective Date, is owner, which consent shall not
be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or conditioned. The entity that
is Owner as of the Effective Date, however, shall be entitled to
amend this Agreement without the written consent of such transfer-
ee.
16. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
16.1 Bindinq Effect of Aqreement. Except to the extent
otherwise provided in this Agreement, the burdens of this Agreement
bind, and the benefits of this Agreement inure, to City's and
Owner's successors-in-interest and shall run with the land.
16.2 Relationship of citv and Owner. The contractual
relationship between City and Owner arising out of this Agreement
is one of independent contractor and not agency. This Agreement
does not create any third-party beneficiary rights.
16.3 Notices. All notices, demands, and correspondence
required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and
delivered in person, or mailed by first-class or certified mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
If to City, to:
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention: city Manager
If to Owner, to:
Jim Baldwin
Otay Ranch, L.P.
Newport Center Dr., Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-24-
with a Copy to:
Kim John Kilkenny
otay Ranch, L.P.
11975 El Camino Real, suite 104
San Diego, CA 92130
City or Owner may change its address by giving notice in writing to
the other. Thereafter, notices, demands, and correspondence shall
be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notice shall be
deemed given upon personal delivery, or, if mailed, two (2)
business days following deposit in the united states mail.
16.4 Rules of Construction. In this Agreement, the use
of the singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes
the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; "may" is permissive.
16.5 Entire Aqreement. Waivers. and Recorded Statement.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement
of city and Owner with respect to the matters set forth in this
Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all negotiations or previous
agreements between city and Owner respecting this Agreement. All
waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and
signed by the appropriate authorities of city and Owner. Upon the
completion of performance of this Agreement, or its revocation or
termination, a statement evidencing completion, revocation, or
termination signed by the appropriate agents of city shall be
recorded in the Official Records of San Diego County, California.
16.6 Pro;ect as a Private Undertakinq. It is
specifically understood by City and Owner that (i) the Project is
a private development; (ii) City has no interest in or
responsibilities for or duty to third parties concerning any
improvements to the Property until city accepts the improvements
pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement or in connection with
subdivision map approvals; and (iii) Owner shall have the full
power and exclusive control of the Property subject to the
obligations of Owner set forth in this Agreement.
16.7 Incorooration of Recitals. The recitals set forth
in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement are part of this Agreement.
16.8 caotions. The captions of this Agreement are for
convenience and reference only and shall not define, explain,
modify, construe, limit, amplify, or aid in the interpretation,
construction, or meaning of any of the provisions of this
Agreement.
16.9 Consent. Where the consent or approval of city or
Owner is required or necessary under this Agreement, the consent or
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or con-
ditioned.
16.10 Covenant of Coooeration.
cooperate and deal with each other in good
other in the performance of the provisions
city and Owner shall
faith, and assist each
of this Agreement.
-25-
16.11 Recordinq. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of
this Agreement to be recorded with the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, California, within ten (10) days
following the Effective Date.
16.12 Delav. Extension of Time for Performance. In
addition to any specific provision of this Agreement, performance
by either City or Owner of its obligations hereunder shall be
excused, and the Term of this Agreement and the Development Plan
extended, during any period of delay caused at any time by reason
of any event beyond the control of City or Owner which prevents or
delays and impacts City's or Owner's ability to perform obligations
under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, acts of God,
enactment of new conflicting federal or state laws or regulations
(example: listing of a species as threatened or endangered),
judicial actions such as the issuance of restraining orders and
injunctions, riots, strikes, or damage to work in process by reason
of fire, floods, earthquake, or other such casualties. If city or
Owner seeks excuse from performance, it shall provide written
notice of such delay to the other within thirty (30) days of the
commencement of such delay. If the delay or default is beyond the
control of city or Owner, and is excused, an extension of time for
such cause will be granted in writing for the period of the
enforced delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon.
16.13 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealinqs. No party
shall do anything which shall have the effect of harming or
injuring the right of the other parties to receive the benefits of
this Agreement; each party shall refrain from doing anything which
would render its performance under this Agreement impossible; and
each party shall do everything which this Agreement contemplates
that such party shall do in order to accomplish the objectives and
purposes of this Agreement.
16.14 ODeratinq Memorandum. The parties acknowledge that
the provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of
cooperation between city and Developer, and that the refinements
and further development of the project may demonstrate that minor
changes are appropriate with respect to the details of performance
of the parties. The parties, therefore, retain a certain degree of
flexibility with respect to those items covered in general under
this Agreement. When and if the parties mutually find that minor
changes or adjustments are necessary or appropriate, they may
effectuate changes or adjustments through operating memoranda
approved by the parties. For purposes of this section 16.14, the
city Manager, or his designee, shall have the authority to approve
the operating memoranda on behalf of city. No operating memoranda
shall require notice or hearing or constitute an amendment to this
Agreement.
16.15 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the
performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is
an element.
-26-
--.-.'.-.-...--. ._"---_..._~,----
16.16 Amendment or Cancellation of Aqreement. This
Agreement may be amended from time to time or canceled by the
mutual consent of city and Owner only in the same manner as its
adoption, by an ordinance as set forth in California Government
Code section 65868, and shall be in a form suitable for recording
in the Official Records of San Diego County, California. The term
"Agreement" shall include any such amendment properly approved and
executed. City and Owner acknowledge that the provisions of this
Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between them, and
that minor or insubstantial changes to the Project and the
Development Plan may be required from time to time to accommodate
design changes, engineering changes, and other refinements.
Accordingly, changes to the Project and the Development Plan that
do not result in a change in use, an increase in density or
intensity of use, cause new or increased environmental impacts, or
violate any applicable health and safety regulations, may be
considered minor or insubstantial by the City Manager and made
without amending this Agreement.
16.17 Estoppel certificate. within 30 calendar days
following a written request by any of the parties, the other
parties to this Agreement shall execute and deliver to the
requesting party a statement certifying that (i) this Agreement is
unmodified and in full force and effect, or if there have been
modifications hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and
effect as modified and stating the date and nature of such
modifications; (ii) there are no known current uncured defaults
under this Agreement, or specifying the dates and nature of any
such default; and (iii) any other reasonable information requested.
The failure to deliver such a statement within such time shall
constitute a conclusive presumption against the party which fails
to deliver such statement that this Agreement is in full force and
effect without modification, except as may be represented by the
requesting party, and that there are no uncured defaults in the
performance of the requesting party, except as may be represented
by the requesting party.
16.18 Severabilitv. If any material provision of this
Agreement is held invalid, this Agreement will be automatically
terminated unless within 15 days after such provision is held invalid
the party holding rights under the invalidated provision affirms the
balance of this Agreement in writing. This provision will not affect
the right of the parties to modify or suspend this Agreement by
mutual consent pursuant to Paragraph 12.4.
16.19 Institution of Leqal Proceedinq. In addition to any
other rights or remedies, any party may institute legal action to
cure, correct, or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants or
agreements herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation
thereof; to recover damages for any default or to obtain any remedies
consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Such legal actions
must be instituted in the Superior Court of the county of San Diego,
State of California.
-27-
16.20 Attornevs' Fees and Costs. If any party commences
litigation or other proceedings (including, without limitation,
arbitration) for the interpretation, reformation, enforcement, or
rescission of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by
the court, will be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.
16.21 Hold Harmless. Developer agrees to and shall hold
city, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless
from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury,
including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from
the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of its
contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees or other persons
acting on Developer's behalf which relate to the Project. Developer
agrees to and shall defend City and its officers, agents, employees
and representatives from actions for damage caused or alleged to have
been caused by reason of Developer's activities in connection with
the Project. Developer agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, pay all
costs and provide a defense for City in any legal action filed in a
court of competent jurisdiction by a third party challenging the
validity of this Agreement. The provisions of this section 16.21
shall not apply to the extent such damage, liability or claim is
caused by the intentional or negligent act or omission of City, its
officers, agents, employees or representatives.
-28-
Dated this
SIGNATURE PAGE TO PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
day of
, 1996.
"CITY"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Its:
Mavor
"OWNER"
THE OTAY RANCH, L.P.
a California limited partnership,
by Sky Communities, Inc.
a California corporation,
its general partner
By:
James P. Baldwin, President
VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
a California general partnership
By:
James P. Baldwin, President
of the foregoing Pre-
day of
I hereby approve the form and legality
Annexation Development Agreement this
1996.
Ann Moore
Interim city Attorney
city of Chula vista
By:
-29-
EXHIBIT A
~'f.?
--.-
F_-_ _-_-
,~~~
OTAY RANCH, L.P.
~~
PIANNINC DEPARTMENT
IlIIle6
EXHIBIT B
\
\
f
I
I
,
CI1Y OF
CHUlA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9/25/96
VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
c:-
'" '" '"
_"C -
'" c: ",-
:; ::2 ._ 0"
0 :>..2;
~CII "'.....
::J >0 _0.>::2
::2-'=_
a .c: .~ .s:: 0.-
Z uu uen.5
w
~ \
w
..J \
I
I
\
~
.
o
Z
t:
~ 0
- .-
(/)-
.- ~
>.t:!
() ~ t:
~ ""5 ~
.t:...
.J::. U 0
X '+- QJ
w 0 c::::
>..t:
~ U
U t:
~
c::::
>.
~
-
o
"I:
..
"C
C:C:
"0
EO;
E~",
O".u
uc:..
"'C:...
O::~~
...
c:
"C..
..E
"'-'=
Ou
c..u.u
0-'"
........
c..a~
'= tU
"C ..
;-.:t
..J.~ >.
>ou"C
.uQ.l::2
-c...::;
Oenen
:I
~
~
~ ~
Z~ ..
~
~~ z
c
!!g~ ~
..
:I
- c;
7)t :-
I u::> ~
:I: i
U ..
..
"
c
~
"
i~m
~~.~~4~~~~~~;~-'W~~-
.... ,.,.'
".."
I
--I
1
I
L_,
..J
I
l,
I
\1
-~
\
\--J
J
I
t'~
.
oS
'"
..
..
..
c
.,.
EXHIBIT liD"
. - --"'" ........ ty,....-.
- _... PI_ ....... ,.,
C'llof _"'-tho effl_
_ .t... tI_
''-GO:I _If Ie ...,..
_ .,_, ca .'11'1
~ .... fer, .. '. IIM:I
--
UJft)FILL JltJxsua DSEKBN'r
AND
CO'VJ:NU'l'S JroNJiINC; 1I'X'rE !l'E& UND
,
_-(bereinafter ref.rred to a. -c;rantorW), for valuable
- conelcleratlon, doe. hereby.GRAN'1' to tb. cot1NTY 01' SAN Dnc;o, .
political .Qbdividon of th. stat. of California (hereinafter
ref.rr. to .. .Grant....) .. the owner of that r.al property
-located in the COunty ot San Dieqo, Cal1fonia knovn .. the .ouy
Landfill. which i. .ore particularly described in -Exhibit A-
. _hereto (bereinafter referred to .. th. -DcIIIlnant Ten..nt-) and
it. auec_.or. in interut t.o th. Doainant Ten_ant, an ZASEKENT
._ (hereinaner r.ferred to .. .)lulaanee ~a..ent.) over .11 t:.bat.
r.al property loc;&tad in t:be county of San Elleqo, California
de.eribed In -EXhibit B- hereto (hereinafter referred to .a the
0- .Servient '1'aneJIIentW).
~i. Jrui.ance u....nt 1. for the us. and benefit of Grantee
and ita 8UCC_.ors in intere.t and avitec! vuut.. in tb. conduct
or .011d vaste landUllin; operations on the Dolllnant 'renament,
o tor the tre. and unobstr\1c:ted pacea;. on, ont.o, in, tbrou;h, and
acro.. the .urface and airspaoe ebov. the wrface of the .ervi.nt
'1'ene..ent of the followiN) thin;. (her.inafter r.f.rred to.. -
-~uiaanQe ~t"'.)J
du.t, aoi_e; vibrationa, any and all cbu.icals or particl..
auapende4 (pe1'1llU\entlI or t-.poradly) in the air and wind.
including bl.Jt not lta ted to ..than. p.: odon, ~., ~el
particle.' .eaqull. and other acavenqer bir4e and the
exorement drcpp1n9- thuefroa, and the unob.tr\1~ p...aga
below Ue aurfaoe of leachate and other pollut&nta, and tor
..eb, .vary an4 all effect. a. aay be cauaad by or r..ult
~r_ ~e operatioD of a landfill which 1. !lOV h exiatenoa
o or vb.1ob aay be developed in the f~,
1:o<;ether with 'the oontiDuiD; right to caue. or allow In all of
aucb Servient 'ren_ant .uch !II.1bance It__, it tie in; und.rstood
and a;rea4 1:.bat Grantee, or ita aYooesaor. in intersst, intenda
to develop, aainuiJI and .xpand the landfill on tha adjaoent
. Do~ant '!'en_ant in wcb a aaMer that .aid landfill and the
euaent c;ranted herein vill be uad at an- t1JDu in compliance
with all applicable Sute an<! Federal lava and the lavtul or~are
-...-----..."-.
._. ',_,_"N'__
of state and Fe4aral aqancie. requlatinq environmental factor.,
toxic and/or Juu:ardOWl wa_te, and tha operation of ~ lan4U.ll.
. Grantor, ~or it..alf and it. auoo...ora ant! a..igns, do..
hareby ~ullJ' niva anc1 rel.... any dqht or cause of action which
.'th.y or any o~ t:bea _y nov bave or _y hava 11'1 1:be futura
aqain.t Cran~~ it.. euc~..or. and a..ign., 01'1 accoWlt of or
arl.in9 out of aw=h XUbanoe I~ bar_to fore and her_Iter
caW164 by ~ operatioza of a landf1ll.
Gr.llter, ~or SUelf u4 St. n~.acra and a..ifNI,
. covenant. and aqr_., vI th t.ha 1UI<!u..tant!in; anc:l intent that .uc:ib
. ehall run with 1:be land, ane! which &hall 1"WI with the land, that
.. neither they nor any of th_ will coDance or aaintaln a sult,
.. action, writ, arbltratlon, or other lagal or .~itable proceedlng-
aqailwt Granue or it. .ucce..or. or ..aign. wherein the relief
aouqht: u t:be ceaaation or lWtation on the uae of the Dominant
Tanesent a. . landfill. Grantor, for itaalf and it. sucoe..ora
and ...igna, covenanu and .~ae., with the unc1ar.tandLnq and
intent: that: ..ucb shall run with the lan4, and which ahall run
. with the lanf4, t:hat in the evant that -1:bey "iolate the above
covenant.. ot tha foreqoi%l9' .antanee, they ahall pay to Crante_
. .uch attorney.' f... and. coat. .. ..y be CSatera1nad to be
na.onable by a C:ourt of <X7"'P'"tant juri.dictlon. Inquirie. or
. requut. ~or antorcaaent -.ad. ~ Grantor, it. .ucc...or. or
...11JN1 to state or Federal aganci.. with rei'llatory au1:borit)'
over t:ha operaticn of landfills shall not be considared a
'violation of ~. para~apb.
Upon t:ba t:e1:aination of u. of the DoII~t !ran_ant tor
. landfill purpoae., (including coapletion of active landfill
. operatioNJ and all clo.ure and poat-cloaun activiti..), Grantor,
it.. .\!.Cce..or. or a..signa 11&)' request that Gran"., it.
. . .ucce_ora or a.slCina, throuqh the applicable legal prooedure,
vacate or urm1nata thi. ..&alent, which r*iU..t will not be
'wu-eaaonably witheld.
ZXecuted th1.a
c:au.rornia.
...~R
day of
, 1t'6, at San Ciego,
'.
--,--_.. --.-.-.---'''.. ---.---.-.-.-.----- _.,,_._.._.~--"-
'"
<( ~
. u
I -
~
co ..J
I'--- I \ *
.J "'" h.
0 u.. lU HI
:::.
D CC I
0 Z <( 1 ~ '"
< -
c( I \
I -.J I .# 0<
~ H
,,/ OJ
cD >- H
~ I :r:
><
OJ f- '"
0 "
*
~
~ \
w ---- -
U \
I
Ct:: ,
;
<( i I
, u
0.- .J ZN
<('"
"'0:>
- --------'.'. . >-Q.
.....-----. ~4:
0::;;:
~
~.. ,,#.
-
LL /,,/
0,
Z
<::( t-
O
~ -'
...
""-
'" >- :;:
<( "-
t- V> -
0 I- u
-' ...
0 ""- w
V>
:;:
1)1 l'
-\ '
.//
/0-
J'&>
<,.
&>/
o~
J'
-"
~
/
0::::
W
LL
LL
~
OJ
o
z
<(
--.-J
--.-J
LL
o
Z
<(
--.-J
.
!
..
II
!
<!
,
,
!
:'
>-
<(
~----'-dfjYl'"
"'
,~I
,~'I1"r!..
, I
....:.\.,
o
,""
EXHIBIT "F" I I
PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Planning Area Assessor Ownership Acreage
Parcel Numbers
Otay Valley Parcel 595-070-33 Otay Ranch L.P. 15.39
Otav Valley Parcel 641-020-15 Otav Ranch L.P. 21.89
Otay Valley Parcel 641-020-18 Otay Ranch L.P. 10.00
Otay Valley Parcel 641-030-13 Otay Ranch L.P. 97.36
Otay Valley Parcel 641-040-05 Otay Ranch L.P. 151.17
Otay Valley Parcel 641-060-04 OtayRanchL.P. 8.16
Otay Valley Parcel 641-060-06 Otav Ranch L.P. 17.91
Otay Valley Parcel 641-070-01 Otay Ranch L.P. 87.86
Otav Valley Parcel 641-080-01 Otay Ranch L.P. 88.89
Otay Valley Parcel 642-040-16 Otay Ranch L.P. 13.99
Otay Valley Parcel 642-050-14 Otay Ranch L.P. 44.62
Otav Valley Parcel 642-050-24 Otav Ranch L.P. 29.36
Otay Vallev Parcel 642-070-0 I Otav Ranch L.P. 160.00
Otay Valley Parcel 642-090-0 I Otay Ranch L.P. 92.78
Otav Valley Parcel 643-010-03 Otay Ranch L.P. 19.92
Otay Valley Parcel 643-010-09 Otay Ranch L.P. 51.63
Otay Valley Parcel 643-020-10 Otay Ranch L.P. 159.37
Otay Vallev Parcel 643-020-28 Otay Ranch L.P. 48.13
Otay Valley Parcel 643-020-32 Otay Ranch L.P. 32.70
Otay Valley Parcel 643-050-01 Otav Ranch L.P. 53.51
Otay Valley Parcel 643-060-04 Otay Ranch L.P. 268.55
Otay Valley Parcel 644-030-0 I Otay Ranch L.P. 311.03
Otav Valley Parcel 644-030-06 Otay Ranch L.P. 255.85
Otay Valley Parcel 644-060-11 Otay Ranch L.P. 159.18
Otay Valley Parcel 644-070-01 Otay Ranch L.P. 313.52
Otay Valley Parcel 644-070-07 Otay Ranch L.P. 285.85
Otay Valley Parcel 644-080-09 Otay Ranch L.P. 152.40
Otav Valley Parcel 644-090-02 Otay Ranch L.P. 299.60
Otay Valley Parcel 645-030-15 Otay Ranch L.P. 16.89
Otay Valley Parcel 645-030-18 Otay Ranch L.P. 102.10
Otay Vallev Parcel 646-010-03 Otay Ranch L.P. 175.14
3,544.75 Total
Otay Valley Parcel 643-010-10 Villa~e Development 17.06
Inverted IV 595-050-04 Village Development 10.00
Inverted 'L' 595-050-07 Village Development 2.50
Inverted 'L' 595-050-08 Village Development 2.50
Inverted ILl 595-050-09 Village Development 2.50
34.56 Total
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Page #1, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 10/09/96
ITEM TITLE:
Report - PCM-97-04: Land Use Chart Revision: Inclusion of the
Nomenclature "Transfer and brokerage of non-putrescible material" as a
permitted land use in the IL & I Zones
Staff is requesting clarification from the Planning Commission on a particular land use which
staff believes should be a permitted use in the IL & I Zoning Districts. At present, there is a
prohibited land use listed in 919.44.050.A.7 "Industrial metal, waste rag, glass or paper salvage
operations and slag piles" which, in the past, has been used to keep salvage and scrap metal
yards from locating on land zoned IL. However, the use under consideration is a substantial
departure from the traditional junkyard/salvage concept and deserves a land use evaluation based
on operational characteristics rather than being burdened with a generic categorization.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission direct staff to include the nomenclature
"Transfer and brokerage of non-putrescible material" as a permitted land use on the land use
chart under the IL & I Zones.
BACKGROUND:
In late August 1996, the Planning Department met with SOS Metals, Inc. to discuss the
relocation of their business from San Diego to Chula Vista. SOS Metals, Inc. specializes in
recycling titanium, high temperature alloys and non-ferrous metals. They are considering
relocating to an area of Chula Vista which is currently zoned IL (Limited Industrial). As follow-
up to the meeting, SOS Metals sent the attached letter dated September 4, 1996 describing their
land use (Attachment A). Staff responded with the letter dated September 27, 1996 (Attachment
B).
Staff was inclined to consider the use as permitted in the IL Zone, but wanted to see SOS
Metals' operation first hand, so a site visit was arranged for Tuesday, September 24, 1996 to
inspect their Kurtz Street site in San Diego near the airport.
DISCUSSION:
1. Analvsis
After seeing SOS Metals' site, staff drew several conclusions regarding their operations. SOS
Metals, Inc.:
1) Handles non-putrescible (material that does not spoil) material;
2) Does not produce vectors either during the handling of the metals or as a land
use;
----,..--.,..,. ..._.~,._---. .-.-,.--.-----... --_.--
Page #2, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 10/09/96
3) Is a transfer operation and no heavy industrial metal work (smelting, welding,
shredding, densifying, etc.) occurs as part of their operation;
4) Handles material that is not traditionally sent to a landfill. Instead, their materials
are commonly viewed as commodities; and
5) Operates at a wholesale level and is not open to the general public.
When staff considered the prohibited "industrial metals," (e.g., salvage yards and recycling
operators which handle household recyclables) to SOS Metals, we concluded that "industrial
metals" is intended to regulated scrap metal yards which include all types of metals, are retail
in nature, may create vectors, often cut, densify or otherwise process metals thus creating a
heavy industrial use, often end up discarding their unsalable material in landfills. In addition,
the SOS Metals operation provides containers where all materials are kept. At times, material
is placed on a sorting table in order to separate the different types of metals, but these are then
bundled or containerized. In no case are metals stacked on the ground exposed to the elements.
2. Conclusion
Staff concluded that the nomenclature for the type of land use SOS Metals falls under can be
appropriately called "transfer and brokerage of non-putrescible material" and should be listed
as a permitted land use in the IL & I Zoning Districts in the Land Use Chart.
Attachments
1. Letter dated September 4, 1996 from SOS Metals, Inc.
2. Letter dated September 27, 1996 from the Planning Department Responding to SOS Metals
3. Page 23 of the Land Use Chart showing "Transfer and brokerage of non-putrescible material" as a permitted
land use in the IL & I Zones
(m: \home\planning\martin \50S \9704pc. rpt)
ATTACHMENT A
Letter dated September 4, 1996 from SOS
Metals, Inc.
-", - _. - .._-~-_._-_... -,....._-~~....._"- - ,,--.----------.--.,-- _. --_._-~. ....-
50S
SOS Metals, Inc.
Specialist in Recycling
TItanium - Hi Temp Alloys
Non Ferrous Metals
2165 Kurtz SI.
San Diego, CA. 92110
(619) 233-3666 FAX: (619) 299-4275
September4,1996
Mr. Martin Miller
CITY OF CHUU VISTA
Planning Department
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Dear Mr. Miller:
Thank you very much for meeting with us this morning.
As you requested, below is a brief overview of our request for a pennit of occupancy for
our SOS Metals, Inc. San Diego location:
I. We request a pennit for the prernises of 635 Anita Street, Chula Vista, California.
2. SOS Metals, Inc. is a company that has been in business for 25 years in Los
Angeles and 10 years in San Diego. We have expanded and are in need of an
additional facility for growth. We have chosen Chula Vista as a city to relocate.
Weare a company that procures materials from the wholesale, industrial and
commercial sectors. We are not in the retail business. We do not do business with
the general public.
DEvtLOf'MENT
~"~,,...,~rlnN
o
This I.
Printed on
Ppt'ycled Paper
Bill
o
6J~
'W
-
aD
-
_01-
"~,",~,=,!I...,
TITANIUM
,r
......,.t.l'..tI...1
~t I" "rr.,IJPltlu
..'l'lcllhd,t,
50S
-2-
Currently, we have twenty-three (23) employees in our San Diego location and
hope to expand to forty (40) after moving to a new location.
We currently utilize seven to ten trucks that make two trips per day in and out of
this facility. Materials are brought to our facility in containers. The loads are
inspected and then consolidated for later delivery.
We do business in the San Diego and Tijuana areas and have chosen Chula Vista as
a center point in the consolidation and redistribution of our products and subsequent
shipment of these goods in full truckload quantities to our other facilities.
3. I believe that our usage of this facility is not identical but very similar to the
previous owner occupying this facility. We plan to professionally landscape and
beautify the sUITOundings of the facility.
Our escrow closes on October 2nd and because of time constraints, we look forward to a
timely response from your staff whenever possible.
Thank you in advance for your favorable consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Vice President
SOS MEr ALS, INC.
For Lease
=t.13,500 sq. ft. on 4.1 Acres
",\". :~- -:'c.:'
'~'-:~;"..-, ~_ ':!i:. '::".
j_:'.;1.J';~',;: -;:.:~)}
. \:.,.. -_~1' :.,:- ~i_.\;~~
':l~~{.:"~t~~
,:\.-:,,",' .
635 Anita Street · Chula Vista, CA
Main Buildim!
. /,5.13 HVAC, 3 R.R.
. 5 Service Bays
. 6 (l8'x/8') Truck Doors
· /,867 sq. ft. Me1.1.anine
. 2,000 Amps, 120/208V Power
. Compre,,'or/Air Lines
. Lube Pit (Equipment)
. B.l Occupancy
Palomar B
[-5
d 0
u .
.
I
r
I y
I Mai
I
Fuel Island/Wash Bav
Fenced Yard
~
N
. Waste Clarifier
. Paved/Lighted
. 150 Carnruck Parking
Underl!round Tanks
. 24,000 Gal. DIesel
. 10,000 Gal. Gas
· 6,000 Gal. Fresh Oil
· /,000 Gal. Used Oil
Dennis Gault
619 929-9700
Paul Earnhart
909 989-7771
. .-'. Lee &. .
~ Associates
2011 Palomar Airport Rd, Suite 102, Carlsbod, California 9200Q
(619) 929-9700 / Fax (619) 929-9977
~
~
r;:
~
I
I:
~
j'
~:
i'-
.
i
,
./
:i "[1.[ iii:\, i~":'IT~\l[ 5FH\ILL''J
:..-.-
, -
, --
, ~A A
- II>
t .'
~
t.~
t-,
~...
-
\\
,
~ \ .\~
.. -.
{
-.
,
i I~I
,...,
I
"Q
IDIIIIiI*M.O ....If? oIQL~"'~._
,...-. .--..5r.. i~~ ...I\/n..I'II"C.","'71'fWtf ~,
_ . JJ.__ 1. _:Z::. ..~'" H __ . _ _ _ _ __, ,
~ .
.
:.."
;1;- -- ~--I
~!' .
-
~~
~~ I~ "
, ~
,
"
.~ . -'.~"
L
- I
. -=
.~ , jt
h
'- . ~11"
.~
..... -,
,
0---
"
..
..
,
1--1{ ~I~ ---!
I~ : np=-:
~, I i ~ 1'1
'~ ~~. .I'~'.' I ~~~~ I ~1.li .~, jl I ~ I ~ "
. j . I Il.!:.,-, _~
r- ~ \ . ( . "I ~~ '1- ~~
~~ -\~~~~_l I~ ~ ~.~. ~~
~. . "~,.., -' --t~'f)--j, ~
-~ r'."! "~:'f~"... . \J ' I-
" .' I. .
f i
f' \~
f: !t ~ III i '"
i>> I"" ;~;; ~ -:;r :I. ~ ;...1
~ ~ Ii ~~ ~," :~: If
fi- '-' I i oj u ~ .~ ~ \ ~
.~~ ! ~ .~ I J~' r: ~ I
i.~ .:~:._Jr'f-; Illl! IJ "
~ ~.~ ....IT(. ,-~_~
!.,~. "~.\, . . . .. .. -. ~~='"-
ill' ~:, '.. I, I : L ~. - 1
t ( - I l' Q, ~ I ......:
~II ;. I" ; ~:~ ,,~
Xh 'l13-I It
"\h -- ~ __ ---r
~ ,"'''' _.W,,,,"" 6 -1._.
i!Ij-
-~
f~
~...
.~
-~
~.nl ..~..~
-
-
133i: V.LINV
I
.
,
../
,
..
..
j
.
"
~
:~
!
.
~
2~
,if
~..
t
?
<C
..J
Q;
W
f-
~
N
.--.--
'.
ATTACHMENT B
Letter dated September 27, 1996 from the
Planning Department Responding to SOS
Metals
___..... h .---." ,,--. .._.,._~_____ _...._'_.'___.__..__'... ___ ,___.,.... ___
~(f?-
~
~~~~
cnv OF
CHUlA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 27, 1996
Mr. Don L. Shadrow, Vice President
Mr. Pat Hubbard, General Manager
SOS Metals, Inc.
2165 Kurtz Street
San Diego, California 92110
RE: PCM-97-04: Your letter of September 4, 1996; Site Visit of Septeinber 24, 1996 to
Your Kurtz Street Operations; Possible Move to 635 Anita Street
Dear Mr. Shadrow and Mr. Hubbard:
We appreciate your interest in moving to the City of Chula Vista and the time you spent
on 9/24/96 to show us your operations at Kurtz Street. The visit greatly assisted us in
understanding your land use.
Now that we have a clear understanding of what SOS Metals, Inc. actually does, it is
staff's opinion that this should be a permitted land use in the IL (Limited Industrial) Zone. The
problem is that this particular land use is not specifically listed in either the Zoning Ordinance
or on the Land Use Chart, which more clearly outlines the permitted, conditionally permitted,
accessory and prohibited uses for each zone. There is, in fact, one land use called "Industrial
metal, waste rag, glass or paper salvage operations and slag piles," which is listed in Chapter
19.44.050 of the Zoning Ordinance as a prohibited land use in the IL Zone. This is being
pointed out because at present there are other businesses in Chula Vista which fall under this
definition which may be confused with yours. It is our opinion that "industrial metals" is
intended to regulated scrap metal yards which deal in all types of metals, are retail in nature,
create vectors, often cut or otherwise process metals thus creating a heavy industrial use, often
end up discarding their u"...lahle material in landfills, and have very little, if any, environmental
. consideration. In addition, your operation seems to be of the type where all materials are kept
in containers and when not in containers, they are on a sorting table. In no case are metals
stacked on the ground exposed to the elements.
Because of the unclear definition of "industrial metal," staff is compelled to request
clarification from the Planning Commission defining the nomenclature of your particular land
use as the "transfer and brokerage of non-putrescible material." We are using, at this time, five
criteria to defme this land use. These are that your operation: 1) handles non-putrescible
material; 2) your use does not produce vectors during the handling of the metals or as a land
use; 3) it is a transfer operation and no heavy industrial metal processing (smelting, welding,
shred,lil1g, densify, etc.) occurs as part of your operation; 4) the material is not traditionally sent
to a landfill but is commonly viewed as a commodity; and 5) the business operates at a
~ ~., JRTH /I.\'E/CHULA V:STt- (",lI~!FOR",.r.', 9191'"'11(;1Q1 6g1-~,10'
SOS Metals, Inc.
September 27, 1996
Page #2
wholesale level and is not open to the general public. This defmition is necessary to distinguish
your land use from other, more impactive land uses which do not meet one or more of these five
criteria.
As was mentioned to you during our visit, and assuming approval by the Planning
Commission for the clarification, you will need to complete the "site plan and architectural
approval" process as outlined in Chapter 19.14 of the Zoning Ordinance (copy enclosed). Also
enclosed are copies of Chapters 19.66 and 19.68 which deal with performance standards and
nuisance avoidance.
This item is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on October 9, 1996, which
is their next regularly scheduled meeting. You are welcome to attend the meeting. Please note
that there is no guarantee that the Planning Commission will support the staff recommendation,
in which case we will ask direction from the Planning Commission as to how they wish to
proceed. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (619)476-5335.
~
Martin Miller
Associate Planner
~
-
--------==...--
cc: Ms. Lorraine Santana, SOS Metals, Inc.
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Planning
Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney
Lyle Haynes, Community Development Department
Michael Meachum, Conservation Coordinator
Frank A. Herrera-A, Associate Planner
Encls.
C'TY o~ CHULA VISTA
ATTACHl\1ENT C
Page 23 of the Land Use Chart showing
"Transfer and brokerage of non-putrescible
material" as a permitted land use in the IL & I
Zones
. _..~_,'d _, ......._..._."_..........______...._ M....._________...._"..___ _',. ....___. ___
C = Conditio' Uses A =
X = Permitted Uses CC =
BLANK SQUARE = PROHIBITED USE in the zone.
Acce: .ry Uses
Requires City Council Approval
LAND USE Unci A R-E R-1 R-2 R-3 c-o C-B C-N C-C C-V C-T I-R I-l I
Tires, Recapping & X X
Retreading (Also see
Automobile)
Title Insurance & Trust X X X X X
Companies
Tobacco, Mfg. X X
Tools, Mfg. X X
Towing Services (Also C C X X
see Automobile)
Toys & Sporting X X
Equipment, Mfg.
(Excluding Rubber
Products)
Toys, Retail X X X X
Toys, Retail (Warehouse X C C
Type)
Tract Signs & Offices, A A A A A A A A A A X X X
Temporary (See
19.58.320 & 19.60.470)
Trailer Parks (CUP in
MHP Zone) See 19.27
Trailer Rentals C C C X
Trailer Sales C X
Trailer Services, Including C X
Major Repair
Transfer and brockerage X X
of non-putrescible
material
Transportation Vehicles, X
Mfg. (See Automobile,
Mfg.)
Travel Agencies X X X X A X
Tree Farming (See X X
19.04.062)
Tree Farming - Interim X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Use (See 19.16.030)
Trophy Stores X X X X
Truck Rentals C X
Truck Repair Facilities C A C
(Including Major Repair)
Truck Sales C X
Truck Terminals & Yards C X
(Also see Freight Truck
Terminals)
Friday, September 27,1996
land Use Chart, Planning Department, City of Chula Vista, California Page 23
PLANNING COMl\fiSSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 3
Meeting Date: 10/09/96
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: EIR 95-04; Consideration of comments on the San
Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment (GP A) and General Development
Plan Amendment (GDPA) Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(DSEIR)
The public hearing on the San Miguel Ranch GPA and GDP DSEIR was continued from the
Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1996 to allow time for staff to clarify issues raised
in the letters of comment.
The DSEIR evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed San Miguel Ranch project which
seeks to develop portions of 2590 acres of land generally located between the Sweetwater
Reservoir and East H Street/Proctor Valley Road and the ten acre Mother Miguel Estates project
located adjacent to the north border of the south parcel.(Attacbment 1) Because of the
uncertainty of the ultimate location of SR-125, a planned tollway which would either traverse
along the San Miguel Ranch's west side or bisect the property, the applicant has prepared two
General Development Plans, each reflecting one of the proposed routes. Both plans propose a
combination of residential uses at various densities and supporting commercial, recreational and
institutional uses. These uses are described in more detail later in this report. Both proposed
plans are reviewed in the DSEIR.
On August 13, 1996, the San Miguel Ranch DSEIR was filed with the State Clearing House.
A 30 day review period was requested and granted starting on August 13, 1996 and ending on
September 11, 1996. City of Chula Vista procedures require the Planning Commission to hold
a public hearing to receive public comments on the Draft SEIR. The DSEIR public review
period ends with the closing of the Planning Commission public hearing.
ISSUES:
The following impacts were identified as significant by the Draft SEIR:
.Land Use
. LandformlVisual Quality
. Air Quality
. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing on the DSEIR (EIR-95-Ql), close the
public hearing and EIR public review period and direct staff to prepare the Final EIR including:
Responses to the comment letters received to date and testimony at the public hearing, Findings
of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The San Miguel Ranch Citizen's Advisory Committee met on September 5, 1996 to review the
DSEIR. A motion was unanimously approved that the Committee concurs with the impacts
identified in the SEIR but these impacts should be able to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance at the SPA level on all but air quality and grading/visual quality. Mitigation
rather than findings of overriding social and economic benefits should be pursued.
(AlgertlGilman) The minutes are attached. (Attachment 2)
The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) met on September 9,1996 to review the DSEIR.
A motion was made (Burrascano/Thomas) to reiterate the RCC's earlier motion to approve the
No Project alternative for SR-125 or the Proctor Valley Alignment Alternative, if necessary.
Commissioner Marquez revised and added to the motion (seconded by Thomas): that the RCC
wants City Council to recognize that even if there is no development on the north, the
devastating impacts to biological resources to the south still exist, and the RCC recommends no
development on the north parcel of the San Miguel Ranch, vote 5-0, motion carried. A motion
was made (Burrascano/Yamada) that the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the
San Miguel Ranch is adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act; vote 5-0, motion
carried. The minutes are attached. (Attachment 3)
Specific concerns raised by the RCC included:
The need for the Sectional Planning Area Plan to address solutions and ways that the impacts
which are significant be mitigated to a level below significance.
That small mammal trappings be required for the SPA level analysis.
Biologists have found Silky Pocket Mice and Baja California Racers adjacent to the south parcel
and the Checker-spotted Butterfly around Otay Mountain. These should be addressed and
adequately surveyed.
.' --~,_..,._...~._-,._._..- ..._._~-,--_.._-.-..,._-,._-
Page 3
DISCUSSION:
A. Background
In March, 1993 Chula Vista City Council approved the original San Miguel Ranch GDP and
certified the Final EIR 90-02. Minor changes to the land use concept for the GDP were
incorporated into the project in response to public review comments and staff concerns regarding
General Plan consistency. An Addendum to the Final EIR was prepared evaluating the
environmental effects of refinements to the proposed land use concept, referred to as the
Mitigation Concept Plan. A second Addendum was prepared incorporating additional changes
to the Mitigation Concept Plan and additional mitigation measures for impacts to biological
resources. After the public hearing process, a Supplement to the Draft EIR 9Q-02 was prepared
in 1993 to evaluate further changes to the Mitigation Concept Plan, referred to as the New Plan.
The New Plan proposed design changes (specifically, additional estate lots and density
reductions) on the south parcel to further reduce General Plan inconsistencies. The Final
Supplement to the Draft EIR 90-02 , which presented the project's impacts to land use,
landform/visual quality, biological resources, transportation/access, and parks/recreation/open
space on the south parcel was certified in March 1993. The New Plan was adopted as the
approved GDP for San Miguel Ranch subject to a number of conditions to which compliance
must be reached prior to approval of the first Sectional Planning Area (SPA) for the project.
The adopted GDP approved up to 1,619 single family units (357 one-acre lots on the north
parcel and 1,262 lots on the south parcel) on 2,590 acres of land. The approval allows for an
overall gross density (across the entire 2,590 acres) of .63 du/ac. In addition to residential
development, the GDP allows for commercial uses, a community park, an elementary school,
a conference/resort center, community purpose facility uses and permanent open space (over 63
percent of the site). Upon approval of the GDP, the property was pre-roned for Planned
Community (PC) Attachment 4 depicts the existing approved GDP for San Miguel Ranch.
The applicant, Emerald Properties Corporation (EPC), has redesigned the project and is now
seeking approval of an Amendment to the GP and GDP as described in the project description
section that follows. Several route alignments for State Route 125 have been considered. The
draft environmental document for three alignments is currently circulating for public review.
Additionally, the City of Chula Vista is a participant in the Multiple Species Conservation
Program whose Revised Multiple Species Habitat Planning Area Boundaries Map (June, 1995)
has identified the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch as a key element for preservation.
There has been no previous development planning conducted on the Mother Miguel Estates since
the original San Miguel Ranch GDP was adopted in 1993.
The DSEIR evaluates environmental impacts of amendments to the San Miguel Ranch General
Development Plan and the City's General Plan for two separate projects proposed by EPC.
Two alternative land use plans have been submitted for consideration based on two proposed
. '---"~--"~----""-"-""'-'----~"---
Page 4
freeway alignments: the Proctor Valley Alignment and the Horseshoe Bend Alignment (referred
to as the Horseshoe Bend-CAC Variation Alignment by Caltrans). A description of these land
use plans and alignments are in the project description section that follows. (Attachment 5
summarizes the plans)
Through the competitive bid process the firm of Tetra Tech, Incorporated was selected to
prepare the EIR's. On August 3, 1995, the City, the project applicant and Tetra Tech entered
into a three party agreement for the preparation of the EIR's.
B. Project Description
The DSEIR analyzes the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendments and General
Development Plan Amendments submitted by EPC to the City on August 22, 1997. Refinements
have been made to that plan as more detailed information and studies have been prepared for the
General Plan and General Development Plan Amendments.
The project area is generally located between the Sweetwater Reservoir and Jamul Mountains,
north and west of the eastern Chula Vista planned communities of EastLake, Salt Creek I, and
Salt Creek Ranch. The San Miguel Ranch property is currently in the unincorporated area of
San Diego County, but within the adopted Sphere of Influence of the City of Chula Vista. The
San Miguel Ranch project site is comprised of to two separate land areas: the 1,852 acre north
parcel and the 838 south parcel. These land areas are separated from one another by land owned
by San Diego Gas and Electric which operates a substation and transformer yard on the
intervening land and which contains associated transmission lines. Existing access to the north
parcel is limited to its southwest comer, although numerous informal hiking and riding trails
exist in the area. Access to the south parcel can be accomplished from Proctor Valley Road to
the south of the site. The 1 Q-acre Mother Miguel Estates project is located adjacent to the north
border of the south parcel.
PROCTOR V ALLEY ALIGNMENT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposed land use plan would amend the previously approved GDP for the site and
incorporate the SR-125 alignment currently shown in the City's General Plan. The Proctor
Valley Alignment General Development Plan Amendment (hereafter, the Proctor Valley Plan)
would delete the 357 one-acre estate lots currently allowed on the north parcel under the existing
GDP and increase the unit count on the south parcel from 1,262 to 1445 units. The entire north
parcel would be acquired, protected and included in the preserve area in accordance with and
under the City's Subarea Plan. However, this proposal is contingent upon the terms and
conditions of the City's Subarea Plan, and a Conservation Agreement to be entered into with the
Federal and State resources agencies. The City's Subarea Plan includes a Revised Multiple
Habitat Planning Area Map which accurately depicts the current status of the north parcel for
conservation purposes. The proposed Proctor Valley Plan would not result in any disturbance
of the north parcel but 524 acres on the south parcel would be disturbed to accommodate
-, ......,---_..._,-----, _._--~_.__...-_.._.._... .-._^-,., ,,--
Page 5
residential, commercial and public facility uses. All of the north parcel and the balance of the
south parcel would be retained as a preserve area (totaling 1,961.9 acres of the 2,590 acres).
The GDP proposes a wider variety of residential categories than is currently provided on the
south parcel: Low (0-3 du/acre), Low Medium (3-6 du/acre), Medium (6-11 du/acre), and High
(18-27 du/acre). Non-residential land uses proposed on the south parcel include: a 13.6 acre
elementary school, 29.5 acre community park, 5.6 acre neighborhood park, 7.5 acre community
service site and 13.9 acres of retail commercial. Utility easements, open space, and roadways
comprise the balance of the site acreage.
It should be noted that an alternative to the Proctor Valley Plan provided 50 units on 107 acres
on the north parcel. This alternative plan was accessed in the Draft EIR. The north parcel
development was proposed for the Proctor Valley Plan, but subsequently deleted by the applicant
to avoid inconsistencies with the City's Subarea Plan.
In addition to the proposed GDP amendment, the applicant is seeking a General Plan
Amendment (GPA) for the south parcel. The proposed GPA would apply to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan. The GPA would provide the new residential
land use classifications with which to implement the required amendments to the GDP discussed
above.
Development of the Proctor Valley Plan would entail the extension of two roads within the
Circulation Element of the City's General Plan: East H Street (six lane prime arterial) and Mt.
Miguel Road (four-lane Class I collector). The projecfs circulation system also includes the
provision of right-of-way for the State Route 125 (SR-125) freeway, which would parallel the
western edge of the south parcel and intersect with Mt. Miguel Road. All circulation elements
(roads, transit routes, and bikeways) within San Miguel Ranch have been assigned classifications
consistent with or greater than the General Plan's Circulation Element.
HORSESHOE BEND ALIGNMENT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP (hereafter, the Horseshoe Bend Plan) changes the
residential land use densities on the south parcel adjacent to the freeway and incorporates the
proposed SR-125 Horseshoe Bend alignment. Adoption of the Horseshoe Bend Alignment and
proposed GDP would require amendment of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's
General Plan. The acreage and types of land uses in the Horseshoe Bend Plan would be similar
to those proposed in the Proctor Valley Plan. However, residential densities and unit yields
would increase near the freeway under this alternative. Land uses near the interchange would
consist of Low (0 to 3 du/ac), Low Medium (3-6 du/ac) and Open Space land use categories.
The locations of the school, community park, neighborhood park and community service sites
are essentially the same as the Proctor Valley Plan. Acreages for the elementary school site and
community park are slightly smaller than the Proctor Valley Plan, 12.7 acres and 28.2 acres
respectively. The entire 1,852 acre north parcel would be designated as a preserve area under
Page 6
this alternative land use plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of the City's Subarea
Plan.
Similar to the Proctor Valley Plan, the applicant is seeking a GPA for the south parcel as part
of the approvals for the Horseshoe Bend Plan. Amendment of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the City's General Plan would incorporate the proposed land use categories
described above and the proposed new alignment for SR-125.
Development of the Horseshoe Bend Plan would require the extension of two roads: East H
Street (six lane prime arterial) and Mt.Miguel Road (four-lane major arterial). The SR-125
interchange with Mt. Miguel Road would shift east under this alternative, requiring a GPA of
the City's Circulation Element.
Project approval would require the following discretionary actions regardless of which GDP is
adopted:
e Annexation to the City of Chula Vista subsequent to the approval of a SPA Plan
e Amendment (GPA) of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan
to adopt the following proposed changes:
eredesignation for Low, Low-medium, Medium, and High Residential, Retail
Commercial, institutional and open space/park uses,
erelocation of retail commercial, community park and elementary school sites to
proposed locations,
ereconfiguration of the Circulation Element map to reflect the GDP circulation plan and
erealignment eastward of SR-125 right-of-way (Horseshoe Bend Plan only)
e Amendment and adoption of a General Development Plan.
ePrezoning Mother Miguel Estates to "Planned Community"
eDesignating the Mother Miguel Estates property to Low-Medium Residential
Page 7
c. ANALYSIS
Project level and cumulative impacts are identified and divided into two categories: significant
and unmitigable, and significant but mitigable to a less-than-significant level These impacts are:
1. Sil!nificant and unmitigable proiect level environmental impacts
Land Use
The Draft EIR identifies impacts associated with increased densities for both the Proctor Valley
and Horseshoe Plan's in terms of changes in the character of development from the adopted
GDP. The Proctor Valley Plan compared to the Adopted GDP would result in a decrease in the
areas of Low Residential densities (97 acres and 197 dwelling units) and an increase in the areas
of Low-Medium (230.2 acres, 869 dwelling units),and the introduction of Medium (33.7 acres,
240 dwelling units) and High (7.8 acres, 139 dwelling units).
The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP compared to the Adopted GDP would result in a similar
decrease in the areas of Low Residential densities (58.8 acres, 94 dwelling units) and an increase
in the areas of Low-Medium (292.2 acres, 1,055 dwelling units), and the introduction of
Medium (30.8 acres, 210 dwelling units), and High (7.8 acres, 139 dwelling units). The
increase in residential densities would be a substantial change when compared to the Adopted
GDP because the Adopted GDP had fewer Low Medium (6.0 acres, 96 dus) and no Medium
or High residential densities.
Consistency with the General Plan's affordable housing projections shall be achieved upon
satisfying the City's performance criteria at the SPA Plan level.
Mitigation measures required to reduce impacts associated with locating residential lots adjacent
to a large electrical substation include: buffering and provision of grading site plans to future
buyers.
Air Quality
Project-related air pollution emissions from combined mobile and stationary sources would
exceed significance thresholds for the adopted GDP and both proposed GDP's. The opportunities
to reduce emissions from such sources on a project-specific basis are limited. For a project of
the scope of the San Miguel Ranch, reduction of indirect sources to a less than significant level
is not feasible.
Page 8
Landform/Visual Quality
With the Proctor Valley Plan, development on the south parcel would require grading of an
estimated 9.9 million cubic yards of earth and reconfigure landforms. Gobblers Knob would be
removed and terraced manufactured slopes would step down to Proctor Valley Road. The
prominent Horseshoe Bend landform would be retained.
With the Horseshoe Bend Plan grading on the south (9.7 million cubic yards of earth) would also
be extensive and would reconfigure landforms including the razing of Horseshoe Bend which
is a result of the SR-125 alignment proposed by CALTRANS. Impacts due to extensive grading
in the south would be considered significant.
The development of the land with residential development on the south parcel would alter views
to the site from south, west and northwest of the proposed project. The overall visual impact
of introducing homes is not considered to be significant as this area has been designated for
some form of residential development by the City of Chula Vista General Plan. However, the
increase in the residential density included in both GDP's would result in additional structures.
The elimination of Gobbler's Knob (in both Alignment GDP's) and Horseshoe Bend (Horseshoe
Bend Alignment GDP only) and impacts to scenic roadway views are considered significant.
Compliance with hillside development guidelines and City landform grading policies during the
SPA Plan review, implementation of landscaping and development planning consistent with
General Plan guidelines for scenic roadways are included as proposed mitigation measures.
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Portions of the trail systems would traverse and follow the SDG&E easements, which is contrary
to the City's guidelines. The impacts of the trails in the easements can be mitigated by the
movement of the proposed trails on site.
2. Si!!nificant. but miti!!ated
Impacts to the following categories can be mitigated to below a level of significance at the
project level:
eBiology (with no development on the north)
eTransportation
e Noise
ePublic Services and Facilities (with no development on the north)
Page 9
Biolo!!y
At the GDP level of development, under the Proctor Valley Plan and Horseshoe Bend Plan with
no development on the north, biological impacts would be mitigated to a level below
significance. Elimination of development on the North will preserve 1298 acres of Diegan
coastal sage scrub, 93 acres of mixed chaparral, 15 acres of dry marsh/wetland, and 90 acres
of annual grassland. This mitigation plan is consistent with preliminary agreements among u.s.
Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and Emerald Properties.
Therefore, this is considered adequate mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities
in the southern parcel. Other mitigation measures regarding: permits, hydroseeding,
landscaping, timing of grading activities, and site preparation activities are included in the
document. If the option of developing on the north is chosen, biological impacts would be
considered significant and unmitigated.
Transportation
The Proctor Valley Plan and the Horseshoe Bend Plan would result in a decrease in ADT below
levels anticipated by the Adopted GDP. Both Alignment GDPs would not signiticantly
contribute to a freeway, tollway or roadway segment performance. Implementation of either
Alignment GDP would result in significant impacts to traffic, but would result in an incremental
addition of project-related trips to cumulative volumes onto the circulation system which, in
some cases, exceeds the City's goal of LOS C. An amendment to the County of San Diego's
Circulation Element may still be required prior to the tentative map approval to reclassify
sections of Proctor Valley and of San Miguel Road. This will be incorporated into the Final
EIR.
Noise
Significant impacts would occur since noise levels in many areas in the southern portion of the
proposed development, as designed, would exceed 65dBA due to traffic noise long proposed
State Route 125 and several major roads proposed within the development. The precise location
and geometry of any noise barriers will be contingent upon final selection of an SR-125
alignment and upon final grading plans for individual developments. Specific noise attenuation
mitigation measures will be identified at the SPA level.
Public Services and Utilities
Mitigation measures for: Water, Sewerage,Police Protection, Fire Protection, Emergency
Medical Service Protection, Schools, Gas and Electric and Solid Waste Disposal are detailed in
the EIR. In brief they inc1ude:the applicant's provision of a Water Master Plan, Water
Conservation Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, payment of supplemental development impact fees
for police protection, partial funding required in the form of a development fee for fire services,
implementation of an acceptable brush management plan, payment of school fees, approval of
the Chula Vista Elementary School District that the proposed elementary school site will be
.._...,------_." ~'-'-" -.---.-- -,--. -- "'-"-.."'-
Page 10
acceptable to the District, and Mello-Roos Community Facilities District financing or other
financial with the Sweetwater Union High School District. If the alternative with development
on the North is selected, there are unmitigated impacts to Police, Fire and Emergency Service
Protection.
3. Cumulative Environmental Impacts
The EIR provides a comprehensive examination of buildout of the San Miguel Ranch and other
major projects in southern San Diego County. When considered in conjunction with other
development projects in southern San Diego County the following are considered significant and
unmitigable cumulative environmental impacts:
Biological Resources
Transportation
Air Quality
Noise
Schools
Water/Wastewater
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
D. ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives were analyzed:
1. No Project/No development
Under this alternative, San Miguel Ranch would not be developed and the site would remain in
its current condition. While impacts associated with the project would be avoided, the No
Project Alternative prevents the project objectives from being achieved,such as the provision of
residential opportunities to the citizens of Chula Vista.
2. No Project/Adopted General Development Plan
Under this plan, the proposed GDP and GPA amendments would not be processed and the
approved plan could be implemented. Compared to the impacts associated with the proposed
GDPs. The No Project! Adopted GDP Alternative would produce greater impacts to public
services, traffic and air quality and biological resources on the north parcel and, greater
landform alteration on the south parcel.
Page 11
3. Reduced Density/Environmentally preferred
Under this alternative, the proposed land use plan would be revised to incorporate lower density
residential and to bring the project into strict consistency with the General Plan. There would
be no development on the North Parcel. The Reduced Density GDP Alternative would adjust
the dwelling unit count on the south parcel to achieve the estate lot goals from the original
approval. A minimum of 555 units on the south parcel would be estate housing. The remaining
92.5 acres could produce an additional 555 units by applying the Low-Medium Residential
maximum density factor of 6 du acre. The alternative which assumes no development for the
north would reduce the overall development yield. Reductions in density and clustering would
reduce land use impacts to below significant and further reduce traffic.
4. Annexation Alternatives
Four annexation alternatives are addressed: SDG&E Parcel, Limited SDG&E Corridor, Otay
Water District and No North Parcel. Of the four the no north parcel would be the
environmentally preferred.
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS
All comments received from outside Public Agencies and the applicant are attached.
(Attachments 6 through 16) Comments were received from:
U.s. Fish and Wildlife
California Department of Fish and Game
California Department of Transportation
Local Agency Foundation Commission
County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use
San Diego Gas and Electric
Sweetwater Authority
Otay Water District
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Sweetwater Union High School District
Gatzke, Mispagel and Dillion
Page 12
All comments received on the Draft EIR, both written and oral will be responded to in the
"Response to Comments" section of the Final EIR adopted by the City Council.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Attachment 11
Attachment 12
Attachment 13
Attachment 14
Attachment 15
Attachment 16
San Miguel Ranch Project Setting
Minutes of the San Miguel Ranch Citizen's Advisory Committee Sept. 5 ,1996
Draft Minutes of the Resource Conservation Commission for Sept. 9, 1996
San Miguel Ranch existing approved General Development Plan
San Miguel Ranch Summary of adopted GDP and Proposed GDP's
Letter from United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Sept. 18, 1996
Letter from the Department of Fish and Game Sept. 11, 1996
Letter from the Department of Transportation Sept. 11, 1996
Letter from the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission Sept.12, 1996
Letter from the County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use Sept. 13, 1996
Letter from San Diego Gas and Electric Sept. 11, 1996
Letter from Sweetwater Authority Sept. 20, 1996
Letter from Otay Water District Sept. 25, 1996
Letter from Chula Vista Elementary School District Sept. 6, 1996
Letter from Sweetwater Union High School District Sept. 6, 1996
Letter from Gatzke, Mispagel and Dillion Sept. 11, 1996
ATTACHMENT 1
SAN MIGUEL RANCH
PROJECT SETTING
. ,,'_-,," ....-...-.-..-...-".". .._._----_._,._.._-~-_._._-_.... -,_.'"._,-
-ti-"
~'t~"
s~~
.~...
,
-. :::.:.\\:..... -.
1":'\.... . .-
r .\ '. .\;.....
PIoject Boundary
--
~
4-
Project Setting
TmA TECH INC.
O'
.
2000'
,
Figure 2.1-3
,
.-
u
ATTACHMENT 2
MINUTES OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH
CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 5, 1996
~
MINUTES
SAN MIGUEL RANCH CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 5, 1996
MEETING NO.8
PRESENT: Barbara Gilman, Chairperson
Jim Algert
Michael Beck
Ray Yrnzon
STAFF: Paul ManganeIli
Barbara Reid
ABSENT:
Craig Adams
Steve Gilles
Michael Roark
The minutes of the August 15, 1996 meeting were approved as submitted. (Gilman, Algert)
Barbara Reid, staff environmental planner, briefed the Committee on the Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch project. She stated that the deadline for
comments is 9-11-96 but comments will be accepted up to the Planning Commission hearing on
9-25-96. She described those impacts which were deemed significant and not fully mitigated to
the level of insignificance identified for both alternative GDP's as follows: land use,
landfonnlvisual quality, air quality and parks, recreation and open space. Considerable
discussion regarding land use and unmitigated impacts ensued. Also discussed were the City
Greenbelt and trails.
Beck questioned mitigation ratios and how the 166 acres of north parcel mitigation was derived
as mitigation for impacts on south parcel development in the EIR for the 1993 plan. (Note: The
ratio was two acres of dedicated open space on the north parcel for each acre of development
impact to the south parcel.)
Algert questioned the rationale of the statement in the draft SEIR that the Parks and Recreation
Department does not want trails in SDG&E easements.
There was some discussion regarding SR-125 and its impacts on the project and affected
communities and on the existing and planned trail system in the region.
A motion was unanimously approved that the Committee concurs with the impacts identified in
the SEIR but these impacts should be able to be mitigated to a level of insignificance at the SPA
level on all but air quality and grading/visual quality. Mitigation rather than findings of
overriding social and economic benefits should be pursued. (AlgertlGiIman)
After discussion, the Committee voted 4-0 to recommend that the General Plan be amended to
delete the Low Residential indicated on the north parcel in conformance with the proposed
General Development Plan Amendment which now indicates no north parcel development for
both GDP alternatives. (Beck/Gilman)
ccmin.9-5
-_..._~-_.._.._-----~-~._-_._-_.-._--_..__.__... -..-- ---~
Staff discussed the following topics with the Committee:
. Staff and the developer are still discussing appropriate locations for the community park and
the elementary school.
. Staff will make presentations on the project to the Sweetwater Community Group on October
1st and the Sweetwater Civic Association on October 2nd.
. Staff will hold community forums regarding the project for Sunnyside residents on September
19th and the Salt Creek I development (south of the SMR project) on September 16th.
The meeting was adjourned to an indefInite date. If anything occurs to warrant the Committee's
attention between now and the end of 1996 when the City Council considers the project, staff
will contact the Chairperson who will convene another meeting. If not, the Committee will again
begin regular meetings when the SPA plan and master tentative map are submitted by the
applicant. During the interim, staff will keep the Committee apprised of the progress of the
planning and environmental review processes for the project.
Note: The Planning Commission hearing regarding the SEm has been rescheduled to
October 9, 1996, at 7:00 PM.
Minutes prepared by Paul Mangane11i (691-5256)
ccmin.9-5
>. ~.,-----... --_.,._--"_....+,-_._----_._--~_.__._-_. ,"---'- ,'-
ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
4820682
EXPRESS SECRETRRIRL
931 P02
SEP 26 '96 12:19
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR. MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
ChuIa VISta, California
6:30 P.M.
Monday. September 9.1996
Council Conference Room
City Hall Buildin~
CALL MEETING TO ORDERI1l0IL CALL: Meetins was called to order at 6:37 PM. by Chair
Burras<;ano. Present: Barbara Reid, Planning Department staff, Commissioners BurrQcano,
Hall, Thomas, Marquez, Fisher, and Yamada.
Also present: 10hn Rojas, Chu1a VISta Historical Society; leffHoward, EWada Land Planning;
and Betty DeRone, San Miguel proj~.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (Marquez.lHall) to approve the minutes of the
meeting of August 26, 1996, with the foUowing correttions:
. Page 2, paragraph 7, "Commissioner Hall questioned whether this proj~ confonned to
the mandate of CEQA not to carry out growth-inducing development."
. Page 3, add to paragraph I, "A cost estimate was requested and Ms. Glasgow said she
will provide the information to RCC."
. Para. S, correct the sJ'C!1in8 to "Pond Tunles" in the center of paragraph.
. Under Commissioner's Comments on Page S, change to "Commissioner Hall was
concerned that Fuller Ford, as the responsible party for the toxic material contaminating
the soil of their fonner business location on Broadway, should be required to clean it up,
rather than the City having to assume the additional cost of disposing the material."
. Page 6, "Commissioner Marquez wanted to DOte her discouragement of the placement of
the Chula Vista Marina and Jake's Restaurant in a redevelopment area . . . "
Vote 6-0, motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: John Rojas, ChuIa VISta Historical Society, presented his most
recently published book, Chula Vista's Trees. This will be available for sale to the public.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Review of San Miguel Ranch Em. .leffHoward, Senior Planner of&trada Land
Planning, presented an overview of the project area. Betty DeHone, as author of the document,
abo was present to answer detailed questions on the proj~. She stated that the constraints
centered mostly around SR12S aoing throuah the area, with the main analysis surrounding land
use around Bonita and along the tieeway connectors. She stated the lower residential density
would be around Bonita, with the greater density through the Salt Creek area. Ms. Reid noted
that the subarea plan draft currently circulating shoW$ no development within the north parcel.
The hope is that the resource agencies will purchase the land and use it as mitigation banking.
4820682
EXPRESS SECRETARIRL
931 P03 SEP 26 '96 12:20
Resource Conservation Commission
PaRe 2
Ms. DeHone stated the SR12S alignment through Horseshoe Bend was not preferred because it
splits the community one-third and two-thirds, and most of the landfonn becomes obliterated.
An attempt was made to tic the project together via Mount Miguel Road, a key clement for
connectivity.
Commissioner Burrascano was concerned about the significant traffic and air poUution impacts.
They are already exiJting below level of servi~ and no plans have been made for a troney to
relieve these impacts. Ms. DeHane pointed out that they're already unmitigable and referenced
page 3.4..8 for the studies. She pointed out some discretionary actions they looked at including
annexation to Chula Vista for physical connectivity, land use and development impacts, and
amendment trom prezoning to planned community. They also looked at the impacts of Proctor
Valley GDPlHorseshoe Bend GDP. north and south/no project GDP, and reduced density GDP,
all based on 50"/0 of the land being estate lots. Page 2-15, gives a SUIIIIJI8!)' of units per acre.
She explained that the land fonn alteration is less than significant at the GDP level and could not
be reduced to below LOS. Each of the alternatives are not mitigable.
Biology was not evaluated in the lame fonn as the alternatives. They looked to the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife for preservation of multispecles.
Commissioner Hall asked whether development was required to keep 166 acres preserved on the
north for connectivity to the south. Ms. DeHone stated it was not, plus, in conjunction with the
MSCP, dedicated land for gross acreage is 1500 units on SOO acres or 3 units per acre in the
Proctor VaJley area. She also stated that the applicant requests no development to the north
parcel.
Ms. Reid pointed out that the EIR. alternatives show a variety of different plans based on the
proposed alignment ofSRI2S.
Commissioner Fisher reiterated that the RCC had already recommended the No Project
Alternative, as voted on at the August 26, 1996, meeting; further, that if the City Council must
approve the SR125 project, that Alternative #6 be the recommended alignment. He added that
biologists have found Silky Pocket Mi~ adjacent to the south sites, Baja California Racer found
in the ChuIa Vista fragment adjacent to the south site, and the Checker-Jpotted Butterfly found
around Otay Mountain (close enough to the project site). He requested that these be addressed
and adequately surveyed. Ms. DeHone will refer this to her staff and forward report to RoCC.
[Commissioner Fisher left the meeting at 7:S2 P.M. ]
Ms. DeHone gave a traffic overview stating that the existing conditions are already impacted at
below level of servi~. The circulation elements that exist are significant and unmitigable
overalL She stated that the project created three criteria to base its findings:
a. LOS threshold D or worse - to be significant
b. LOS for roadway must lessen by one fuU LOS segment
c. Significant traffic volume by this project be over S% to warrant significant criteria.
482121682
EXPRESS SECRETRRIRL
931 PI2I4 SEP 26 '96 12:21
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 3
She stated that most segments were already low and that this project mayor may not be impacted
further. The regional requirement is set by CalTrans and MTDB, and these are out of the scope
of this project. However, practical mitigation will be made to resolve significant implQts
according to CEQA Mr. Howard stated that the intersections leading to SR12S at various points
are still below LOS and SRIZS does not bring any kind of improvement.
Commissioner Thomas had a major concern about the designer's re$ponsibility to plan for multi-
modalitiC$. The transportation elements should allow for emergency provisions (fire and police)
and public transportation to improve the level of service trom F in some places. She also asked
why building a treeway would not improve the traffic now to an acceptable level of service.
Ms. DeHone stated that the GDP does address public traniportation and will be part of the
improvements for the project. Information on this Issue Is located in the Air Quality section for
an improvement plan to reduce traffic. No light rail is planned at this time, but a Park and Ride
facility will be avai1able.
-
A motion was made (BurrascanolI'homas) to reiterate the RCC's earlier motion to approve the
No Project alternative or the Proctor Valley alignment alternative, ifnecessary. Further
discussion followed.
Commissioner Marquez questioned whether the slopes and terrain were developable land. Ms
DeHone stated it was not, that It was steep terrain. The area is level around Horseshoe Bend,
comes to a ridge point, then drops off'steeply. Commissioner Marquez was concerned that the
number of Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens, located along the nonh parce~ would be impacted.
As the focused on habitat acreage on parcels and didn't look at individual numbers, she stated
that the nonh option will reduce Cactus Wrens down trom thirteen pairs to sever\. Any other
alternative could impact up to 36 pairs of Cactus Wren. Conunissioner Thomas noted that
difrerent studies were inconsistent on the Cactus Wren and that the new data is not updated into
these tables. The RCC was assured that timing on grading will be restricted during nesting
season, as already mandated by the U.S, Fish &:. Wildlife. It is noted that one pair of Cactus
Wren is located in the very nonhemmost part orthe project and the rest is not in the project area.
Commissioner Hall questioned how Bonita Vista Middle School and EastLake High School will
be impacted and how the would handle the capacity. Mr. Howard explained that school fees will
be assessed with the project in lieu of a site, with additional building done by the discretion of
the Planning Department. The project currently has planned only for an elementaIy school. The
difrerent financing needs of the district will be met by the project.
Commissioner HaD questioned how the project would handle possible water pollution of the
Sweetwater Reservoir. Although this is an SR12S problem and not in the scope of the project,
Ms. DeHone stated that the nonh parcel slopes will be cut so it drains to the south. Mr. Howard
confirmed that the south parcel will not impact the Sweetwater Reservoir. The goal of the GDP
is to eliminate any flow to the river. This project will also use the water reclamation plant and
have a separate pipe syatem for reclaimed water. This is already part of the project requirement.
4820682
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL
931 P05 5EP 26 '96 12:21
Resource Conservation commission
Paae 4
Also, the inftastructure is already there at the next level and this is detailed at the SPA level
The motion was restated (BumacanofI'homas) to reiterate its earlier motion (August 26, 1996)
for a No Project Alternative or the Alternative 1#6 of SR125. Commissioner Marquez; revised
and added to the motion (seconded by TholJUl8): that the RCC wants City Council to recognize
that even if there is no development on the north, the devastating impacts to biological resources
to the south stUI exist, and the RCC recommends no development on the north parcel of the San
Miguel Ranch; in the event that there is an SRIZ5 and in the event that a recommendation for
alignment must be given, the RCC recommends the Proctor Valley aligmnent ofSR125; vote
5-0, motion carried.
It is noted that the Specific Plan will address solutions and ways these impacts will be mitigated.
Commissioner Burrascano requested that small mammal trappings be required for the SPA level
analysis.
A motion was made (BurrascanoIYamada) that the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for the San Miguel Ranch is adequate under the California Environmental Quality M;
vote 5.0, motion carried.
,
Commissioner Burrascano mentioned that the resource documents for the MSCP program were
not available in the h'brary as requested by resource agencies. Staff to check on the availability
of said documents.
2. Review of Planning Commission Agenda for September 11, 1996;
.. Variance ZA V-96-13: Request to exceed maximum lot coverage 1341 Park Drive;
Public hearing; no action by RCC.
b. PCM-97.o2: Request to demolish and reconstruct project at 219 Madrona St.; Public
hearing, no action by RCC.
c. SUPS-96-06: Request for CUP at 2400 Faivre Street; Public hearing. Commissioner
Hall conunented that the company be responsible for clean-up of oil or toxic material
that escapes from the trucks.
STAFF REPORT: None.
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Burrascano requested council fill the vacancy on
the RCC.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS:. Commissioner Bumacano relayed Commissioner Fisher's
conunent: In a construction site area off East H Street near Terra Nova, workers have thrown I
significant amount of trash into the open space preserve area. He requested they be made to
clean it up and stay out of the preserve.
4820582
EXPRESS SECRETRRIRL
'332 pel
SEP 25 ''35 12:23
Resource Conservation Commission
Pa!!e 5
Commissioner Marqu~ - Commissioners were encouraged to attend the council meeting to
speak on the SRI25 alternatives. She also requested Barbara Bamburger come before the
commission to update them on her current projects.
Commissioner Yamada requested I person from the Traffic Department speak on traflic impacts
in the eastern territories, how TransNet money is working towards future upgrades and new
development, and update on SR-125.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrasc&no at 9: 17 P.M.
Respectfully submitted.
ExPREsS SEcRETARIAL SERVICES
~~~
Barbara Taylor
>
ATTACHMENT 4
SAN MIGUEL RANCH
EXISTING APPROVED GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Ii P! i
I Ii Pi Pi anil
f J f J
",Old jlpllll!
I j HIII,J'IIIlH
D 10 J Ism J ImmSD IJ
J
J
I
,
-
.11 II. I!.._ II,
~: -.-.-
-.i-
.. .
.. N
&I~ N
Ii 1: ~
\,j u .!!'
1!i.~
e~
it
<0
""
c
:m
J!
h
..
f ..d:-ll
I -w.
J
I J.iJ) ~
J ~:
_. --
".u~~... ..
ATTACHMENT 5
SAN MIGUEL RANCH
SUMMARY OF ADOPTED GDP AND
PROPOSED GDP'S
Statistical Summary or Adopted General Development Plan
and Proposed General Development Plans
n Mi Ranch
........rn....~iW~; ...';.WIi'ti\llIli.11
Ar....e JlIIIIa Al!Nau JlIIIIa Af!fta"
RESIDENTIAL
Low (.5-3 duleae) 933.5 1523 204.6 247 58.8
Low Medium (3~ duleae) 6.0 96 230.2 869 292.2
Medium (6-11 duleae) 0.0 0 33.7 240 30.8
High (11.27 duleae) 0.0 0 7.8 139 7.8
Residential Total: 939.5 1619 476.3 1495 389.6
COMMERCIAL
Neighbcrhood/Retail 14.0 13.9 13.9
Visit<< (Caoference) 6.7 0.0 0.0
~ Total: 20.7 13.9 13.9
INSTlTlmONAL
CcmmUDity Service 8.5 7.5 7.5
Ekmon'ary School 11.9 13.6 12.7
InsIitutiooal Total: 20.4 2\.1 20.2
OPEN SPAcrJPARKS
CcmmUDity Park 20.7 29.5 28.2
Neigbborbood Park 0.0 5.6 5.6
NaIW'II OpeD SpICC 1630.0 1961.9 2029.8
Ulility EulmentsIPoricways 19.7 19.5
Open SpaceJPark Total: 1650.7 2016.7 2083.1
Rood Rigbls-of-way Totals: 62.2- 62.2 83.4
PROJEcrTOTAU: 25!N1.o 161' :2s!NI.2 1495 2590.2
- Road oaeage included with residential total..
Soun:e: EsIrada Land P!aDning, July 1996
I.
"
)1
:1
94
1055
210
139
1498 ,i
. , I
1498
Slut AI,."" R_" GPAlGDP A___nt
SubUfUIll DR. Dr4/I
CIt1 tJ/ Qu/G VIItII
A/I6fIIIl996
_..,~._~.".__n'_~_"_. _... .._--._-"~-
ATTACHMENT 6
LETTER FROM UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SEPTEMBER 18, 1996
~-
" '~Ci:r-:
:'.--, .::rJ \i~-:
United States Department of the Interior
,........
....~r~zJ '
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Field Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
FLA ~'.'~Ii-.
IV''oJd\-
September 18,1996
Ms. Barbara Reid
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch General Plan
Amendment/General Development Plan Amendment, City ofChula Vista EIR-95-04, .'
SCN #96051038
Ms. Reid:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) for the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment/General Development
Plan Amendment received on July IS, 1996. The Service's mission is to conserve, protect, and
enhance the nation's fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of people.
Towards that goal, the Service has been working with the property owner, the California
Department ofFish and Game (CDFG), and the City ofChula Vista (City) for some time to
develop an agreement which would allow development of San Miguel Ranch while also
conserving the diversity of sensitive biological resources which occur on-site.
San Miguel Ranch consists of2,590 acres located in the unincorporated portion of the County of
San Diego, immediately south of Sweetwater Reservoir and north ofEastLake, a community of
the City of Chula Vista. Proctor Valley Road borders the property to the west. The property is
divided into two parcels, commonly referred to as the north and south parcels, which are 1,852
and 738 acres in size, respectively. Biological resources found on-site are considered to be some
of the most biologically sensitive and regionally important in San Diego County. San Miguel
Ranch is part of the largest intact biological core area in the Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) planning area which includes Otay Mesa, Otay Mountain, San Miguel
Mountain, and the Sweetwater River. Approximately 1,922 acres of coastal sage scrub, 109 acres
of southern mixed chaparral, 23 acres ofchamise chaparral, 13 acres of wetlands, 16 acres of
native grassland, and 506 acres of non-native grassland occur within the San.Miguel Ranch
project area. Over 30 sensitive plant or animal species occur on-site, including the federally-listed
threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila colifornico colifornico) (gnatcatcher) and
Otay tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens), a state endangered plant species which is also proposed for
Ms. Reid
2
federal listing as endangered. The property also provides a key habitat linkage between Jamul
Mountain and open space on Otay Mesa and at Sweetwater Reservoir. As a result, conservation
of this area is critical to the preservation ofa diversity of species, including several that are state
and/or federally listed.
Based upon our review of the draft SEIR, the Service is providing general and specific comments
and recommendations. These are discussed, along with the project description, in the following
sections.
Genenl Comments
As stated in previous letters and during past meetings for the subject property, the Service
remains opposed to any development of the north parcel. To this end, we have entered into an
agreement with Emerald Properties Corporation and the CDFG (attached) to provide for
conservation of the north parcel through the development of a conservation bank. The Service
and/or CDFG have committed to the acquisition of 500 acres of habitat previously designated for ..
development in the City's approved General Development Plan (GDP) to ensure that no
development occurs on the north parcel.
The Service is also concerned with the adequacy of mitigation for impacts which will result trom
development on the south parcel. The final EIR for the Rancho San Miguel GDP (EIR.-92-02;
SCH #90010155) discusses specific mitigation measures for impacts which would result to
habitats and species trom development on the south parcel. These biological resources include
wetlands, California adolphia (Adolphia CDlifornica), coast barrel cactus, Palmer's grapplinghook
(Harpagonella palmen), Otay tarplant, San Diego marsh elder (Iva hayesiana), spiny rush
(Juncus acutus), and cactus wren. It is the Service's understanding that these mitigation
measures trom the approved GDP are to be carried through to the revised GDP and, as such, they
should be included in the SEIR. The final EIR for the approved GDP recommended project
redesign to preserve at least 50 percent of the Palmer's grapplinghook. Based upon the design for
each of the revised GDPs, a population of at least 10,000 plants of Palmer's grapplinghook will
still be affected by the construction of a neighborhood park. As such, impacts remain significant
and unmitigated. This saine document notes that impacts to Otay tarplant remain significant and
unmitigated, even with conservation and transplant programs.
Project Description
The City's GDP for San Miguel Ranch (approved by the Chula Vista City Council on March 23,
1993) allows for 1,619 dwelling units, 357 on the north and 1,262 on the south. Its
implementation would result in direct impacts to 467 acres of coastal sage scrub, 132 acres of
southern mixed chaparral, 3 acres of wetland, and 415 acres of annual (non-native) grassland.
Emerald Properties Corporation (the property owner) is propos41g revisions to this GDP
dependent upon the alignment for State Route 125 South (SR 125) that is selected by Caltrans.
These revisions to the GDP trigger the need for the preparation of the SEIR. which discusses three
alternatives: Proctor Valley GDP, Proctor Valley North Parcel Preservation GDP, and Horseshoe
Ms. Reid
3
Bend GDP. The draft SEIR provides a description of each alternative as follows:
· Proctor Valley GDP: The Proctor Valley GDP assumes that the alignment of SR 125 in
the north would approximately follow the alignment of Proctor Valley Road at the
western edge of San Miguel Ranch. It would allow for the development of 1,495 dwelling
units, 50 on the north parcel and 1,445 on the south. Implementation of this alternative
would affect 227 acres of coastal sage scrub, 13 acres of dry marshlwet1and, and 348
acres of annual (non-native) grassland.
· Proctor Valley-North Parcel Preservation Option GDP: This alternative removes all
development on the north parce~ allowing development of 1,495 dwelling units on the
south parcel only. It would result in impacts to 129 acres of coastal sage scrub, 9 acres of
dry marsh/wetland, and 323 acres of annual (non-native) grassland.
.
Horseshoe Bend GDP: The Horseshoe Bend GDP assumes that the Horseshoe
Bend/Citizens Advisory Committee alternative for SR 125 would bisect the south parcel
by passing through the topographic feature known as Horseshoe Bend. This alternative
would allow the development of 1,498 dwelling units, again on the south parcel only. It
would affect 168 acres of coastal sage scrub, 6 acres of dry marshlwetland, and 375 acres
of annual (non-native) grassland. It is unclear, however, ifimpacts ftom this alternative
include or exclude those attributable to the construction of SR 125 and for which, it is
assumed, Caltrans would be required to mitigate.
.
.
The draft SEIR states that the etimination of development ftom the north parcel would mitigate
biological impacts resulting ftom development on the south parcel for the Proctor Valley-North
Parcel Preservation Option and Horseshoe Bend OOPs, however, impacts resulting ftom the
implementation of the Proctor Valley GDP would be significant and unmitigated. These issues
are discussed in text in the Specific Comments section which follows.
Specific: Comments
1. The impact assessment provided for each OOP alternative is inconsistent with data
presented in Figures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3, most notably for gnatcatchers. Text on page 3.3-17
which discusses the impacts to W'.tcatchers ftom implementation of the Proctor Valley GDP state
that this alternative would affect 40 pairs of W'.~catchers. Totaling the number of pairs in the
development areas on Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2, it appears only 15 pairs (and 3 single males) would
be affected. The Proctor Valley North Parcel Preservation GDP would eliminate impacts to 6
pairs (and 1 single male), bringing the total number of pairs to be affected by this alternative to
only 9 (and 2 single males). Text on page 3.3-19 states that impacts to sensitive plants and
animals will remain the same as those calculated for the Proctor Valley OOP, however, this
appears to be incorrect. Upon a review of Figure 3.3-3, it appears that 11-12 pairs of
gnatcatchers (and 4 single males) would be affected by this alternative. This impact is greater
than that of either of the Proctor Valley alternatives. Similar discrepancies also exist for coast
barrel cactus. Text on page 3.3-15 states that impacts to coast barrel cactus are approximately
Ms. Reid
4
the same for both the Proctor Valley and Proctor Valley-North Parcel Preservation Option. It is
unclear how this can be the case as a large numbers of cacti appear to be located in the
development bubble on the north parcel. Elimination of development on the north parcel would
necessarily result in the preservation of additional cacti. These discrepancies between the text and
figures should be explained.
2. Related to the issues discussed in the previous paragraph, infonnation on the source of
gnatcatcher numbers and distribution is needed. Figures in the biological technical report (Ogden
1991) for the City's approved GDP show less gnatcatcher pairs (and no records of single males)
than depicted on the figures provided in the draft SEIR. The draft SEIR does not discuss
additional gnatcatcher surveys which may have occurred since those conducted by Sweetwater
Environmental Biologists in 1991.
3. A number of issues relative to project mitigation need to be corrected and/or addressed in
greater detail. Text on page 3.3-1 references the preparation ora Conservation Agreement
between Emerald Properties Corporation and the resource agencies. It should be noted that such ,.
a preliminary agreement (Agreement) between these parties was signed in May 1996. The draft
SEIR should discuss the Agreement in detail and a copy should be included as an appendix. The .'
Agreement provides for the resource agencies' acquisition of 500 acres of habitat, conservation of
166 acres on the north parcel as compensation for impacts to coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers
which will result from development on the south parce~ and conservation of 146 acres (mcluding
a 21-acre preserve for Otay tarplant) on the south parcel as compensation for impacts to other
sensitive resources. The Agreement also discusses density increases for the south parcel, outlines
the conservation bank component on the north parcel, and determines the number of mitigation
credits available.
The statement on page 3.3-19 that the elimination of development in the north "is considered
adequate mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities in the southern parcel" is not
accurate. A$ previously stated, the resource agencies will acquire 500 acres of the north parcel to
ensure that there will be no development on the north parcel. Emerald Properties will give fee
title of 166 acres to the resource agencies for impacts resulting to gnatcatchers and coastal sage
scrub on the south. Credits from the 1,186-acre conservation bank would be reduced in exchange
for increased density on the south parcel, a proposal which is supported by the Service as long as
it can be accomplished within the existing development footprint. The SEIR should discuss the
ramifications of each GDP alternative on the amount of habitat which can be banked after the
mitigation requirements for San Miguel Ranch are met.
The location of the 166 acres to be conserved as part of the Agreement should be identified in the
draft SEIR to confinn that conditions contained within the Agreement would be met. It should be
stressed that the Agreement is only valid ifno development oceurs on the north parcel and the.
City completes its MSCP Subarea plan. Any development on the north parcel would render this
Agreement void, and permits for impacts to federal and state listed species could not be obtained
through the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. Development on the north would require Emerald
Properties Corporation to obtain federal permits through section 10 of the federal endangered
Ms. Reid
5
species act of 1973, as amended (Act) by preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for
listed species. State compliance would require the formulation of Management Authorization
Agreements for listed taxa. If the City chooses not to complete its Subarea Plan, the Service
would need to review the entire mitigation program for this project to determine adequacy on a
species by species basis.
4. The open space designs for the Proctor Valley, Proctor Valley-North Parcel Preservation
Option, and Horseshoe Bend GDP alternatives differ in their configuration from each other and
the approved GDP. The draft SEIR should address if the 146-acre open space requirement, as
specified in the Agreement, is met for each alternative. The Service is particularly concerned
about the area to be preserved for Otay tarplant. It appears that impacts associated with the
Horseshoe Bend alignment of SR 125 could affect this preserve area as currently depicted.
Although SR 125 impacts incurred by Caltrans would require mitigation by this transportation
agency, Emerald Properties Corporation still has an obligation to protect a minimum of21 acres
of Otay tarplant as specified in the Agreement. The draft SEIR should specifically address
impacts to the Otay tarplant preserve on the south parcel for each alternative in terms of how it
would be affected by the three alternatives.
..
'.
5. It is difficult to determine the impacts associated with each GDP alternative and those
which would result from the implementation ofSR 125. Impacts to each habitat type on the
south parcel should be quantified for both the Proctor Valley and Horseshoe Bend alternatives.
Impacts to sensitive plant species should be addressed in greater detail.
6. The biological resources section of the draft SEIR incorporates, by reference, data from
past biological surveys which are contained in previous biological reporta (pSBS 1989, 1991;
ERCE 1990; SED 1991; TetraTech 1995). Some of these data have not been reviewed by the
Service (e.g., the SEB 1991 and TetraTech 1995 reports). These should, therefore, be included in
the biological technical appendix. The results of the 1995 survey should be compared specifically
with existing information, particularly the area where the East "H" Street extension is proposed.
The final EIR for the approved GDP identifies the area surrounding the future alignment of East
"H" Street as "recently graded," however the draft SEIR identifies coasta1 sage scrub occupied by
gnatcatchers in this area. Impacts to coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers were not addressed in
the final EIR for the approved GDP as the area was identified as "recently graded." It needs to be
clear that impacts to these resources which would result from residential and commercial
development and the construction of East "H" are included in this document and adequate
mitigation provided.
7. It is the Service's understanding that barrel cactus in areas ofi"1J'act will be salvaged and
relocated to protected open space on San Miguel Ranch. It should be noted that this effort
should be designed and implemented by an experienced native habitat restoration specialist with
demonstrable experience with barrel cactus. Such is also the case for any other transplant or
relocation programs for other plant species.
Ms. Reid
6
8. Brushing and grading activities within and/or adjacent to gnatcatcher or cactus wren
habitat should not occur during the breeding season (February IS through August IS) unless
other minimization measures as approved by the Service are employed. The draft SEIR should be
revised to incorporate this information.
9. It is not clear why Mother Miguel Estates is discussed in this document. The IO-acre
parcel is proposing a density increase (30 dwelling units to 60 dwelling units) which requires a
General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Planned Community prezone. The Mother Miguel Estates
project is not discussed in the CumuIative Effects section nor is any resource information
provided. It is not possible for the Service to evaluate these potential impacts without this
information.
10. The draft SEIR proposes that impacts to wetlands will be compensated for at a minimum
ratio of I: I, however, it should be noted that the final mitigation measures for such impacts will
be detennined during the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit and the CDFG's Streambed
Alteration Agreement processes. The Service generally recommends a greater than I: I to offset
the temporal loss of habitat value.
,.
"
In summary, the draft SEIR needs to be revised to clearly discuss project impacts associated with
each GDP alternative as they relate to both the Proctor Valley and Horseshoe Bend SR 125
alignment alternatives. An accurate and complete discussion of mitigation measures also needs to
be provided, The Proctor Valley GDP will result in significant, unmitigated impacts to biological
resources as a result of proposed development in the north parcel. The previously referenced
Agreement is predicated upon the e1imination of development on the north parcel and the Service
remains opposed to any development in this area. We appreciate the oppo~ty to review this
document and your careful consideration of our comments and recommendations. If you have
any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please contact Nancy Gilbert or Julie
Vanderwier of my staffat (619) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
.D~
('~GailC.K 'ch
~. Field Office Supervisor
<:c: William E. Tippets, CDFG
David Lawhead, CDFG
Garrett Thelander, Emerald Properties Corporation
Ed Sauls, The Sauls Company
Attachment
#1-6-96-HC-311
,
Emerald Propertie, Corp.
280 Park AVemle, 23W, New Yor.k, NY 10017
Garrett W. Thelander
Vice President
Tel: 212-454-3303
Fax: 212-454-3821
May I, 1996
Mr. Ron Rempel
Program Supervisor
Habitat Conservation PI.","I18
State of California DeptofFlSb. and Game
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
--~- .~--:,"""":!,"..-,~~' -.....--.... ....
;~~!!~!t'~~f~F"~J~. ih.
~ .- -. ,~'...- .- ~>.:.-.. ....:.~~...._- - ...~;!
Dear Ron:
The purpose of this letter is to memorialize, and to obtain approval of the Agreement that was
entered into between Emerald Properties Corp. ("EPC"), the California Department ofFlSb. and
Game ("DFG") and the United States FlSb. and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") (conectively, "the
parties") with respect to conservation of the North Parcel, mitigation for the SouthParcel, and the
process for the take authorizations for the South Parcel of the San Miguel Ranch property. This
Agreement, which is attached to this letter and incorporated by this reference, is memorialized in a
three-page document entitled "San Miguel Ranch," and dated April 30, 1996 ("the Agreement").
The Agreement is based upon negotiations between the parties over the past month, and the prior
Points of Agreement which. is also attached to this letter and incorporated by this reference. It is
understood between the parties that neither the Agreement nor the Points of Agreement is
intended to preclude or predetennine any action to be taken by the City of ChuIa VISta ("the
City") with respect to the San Miguel Ranch property.
The parties have mutually agreed to cooperate to prepare and sign a Conservation Agreement.
This Conservation Agreement will be based upon the Agreement and the Points of Agreement,
both of which will remain in effect until execution of the Conservation Agreement.
,
,
,
Mr. Ron Rempel
May 1, 1996
Page 2
Please ;nrj;cate your approval to the AgreemeIIt by !tipg in the spaces provided below, and by
mmRHng each page of the Rtt1IclIo:d Agreement and Points of Agreement.
Sincerel
y, ~ ~
~cr~ ~0fVX(i
Garrett Th..IRnder
...
c ~:~: ~ }r q ~-}I.fr~
California. Department ofFish ana Game
~:}c 7101 i::'-Ivs. r:9t
United States Fish and WllclIife Service
San Miguel Ranch
sqtmlAREA
eEmmldF._1ieswil1 iIIdi 1 IIIdl"oYidekthe~afthe 14hc:ns
ofJ1ioIoIicIl opca space iD JO-!fhMft "'W tI ..dJt..
.
N~RTBAREA
....L..,;~ ,.. .
~~... ....t
e 500 ICreS oIb aartb paI1iaD oISIII)diaIIII:Raac:b would be _";'.1 by Stille
mdI<< FederII AgtD:ies wi1h the ICqUisiIi- pric:e baed aD Iiir 1IIIrbt va1~ pmsuIIIt 1D
Stille aJ/or FedcnliIIId _";';';<JIt t"-.do..4S
. 1be 500 ces afa&:qUisiMn ~ 1be area ot1be DOrIh pIIC8i Ibich -
designated for deYelopmeat iI1!he GeDeraI DeYtJgpmeuI PIIII previously IppI'oved by !he
City ofCwla VISta
,
~('Jft BM'IIIrtno C""""",,mrt
..
emere would be a "'-;"'0IIII of 1116 .:res of.......... ~ c:redits (the
c:cmsemriGD bBDk 0WDeI' T<<IIIId set 1ba ala pric:e for 1ba ~ bBDk c:redits)
e1be IImIIber of .......... .lIiaD b8aIc c:recIiIs woald be reduced by 1.0 cxuseMIiGD
c:redits mr eac:h uait ~<Md uadIr ~ B (CAe "'iF""""!) iI1_ of 1262 uaits
. IIld 'WDUld be reduced by 1.1 CXIISCVIIiIz aediIs fbr -=h uait appnMId UDder I1temaIiw A
(p....An Valley West "lia'... -"t) iD exass of 1262 UDiIs
Mf'"L"C:ludrt fUnds and 'P~~
e 1he IIIIIIapIIISIt SIdowmIr4 woaId be -..9....-:.. I 1)' Sl,oooJCDIS8I'Y3IiGD cndit
e Emerald p.~"Mdd DIIb III iaiDII dej....., 01$100,000 ia1D \be
-...&GaIt IIIdoo..IDCIIt 1D pnMdII fbr -nm....... iaIIrim -..- 011111 IIIIire
~'-..,..
.1be izIitiIl ~ ..:. will..... . the ...-..,- eadDwmIar k1be fim 100
c:cmsenatim c:recIits sold
Apri1!30,l996
~{o..l.
p'vt. ~~~
~t\ ~, 1.,\10
""V ~.P
~
. I
I
- -
~1iII.1'_L'fi..';"';""
MitJpdoa pIInZI
. \be fee We 10 die 166 11:15 will be k-m....d 10 \be D~~ ofFISh
IIId GIllIe or 1be U.S. FISh IIId WiIdIi1is Stnice (or to ID arpoi-- ............! by
1baD) fiIIIowiaa City of ChuIa VISIIS ...tI.. - i ,.... af'1bI projer:t based upoa ID
......<)....d MIIItipIe Sp-i- c-wIiIa Pi......... Sabella PIID Ibr 0mIa Vaa
elbe.. tide will be k-A...dprigrto mypmjec:t Padiaa or CCIK.......4
Mh 1be I'IICOIdIDcm ollblSmIrlCt IIIIp, wIIidInw oc:c:IIIS &sf
CUll ...... BIak laacII
. . caaserY1IIiGa LI - CI11b1--s.. .MiCI1 bIIIk IIDds will be ....AI.d 10
1bI DepInIIImt alFlSh IIId GlIDe or 1bI U.s. Fisb IIIIi Wi1dIife Service, by 1be
~.-r. prigr to 1be sale of1bl first......'IIiCI1
Acquisitiaa parmi
. 10 f'aeiIitUe alD1litiple yar p...} I. die II:q\IisiIioa pan:eI ml:Jbe
_";'..d IS mul1ip1e parcels
....... . ~ ---J/,)-L..-n .. .. .-.. desi .
. lUlll;'a-....m..HJ' ......WiM\S aau. retllDds "''''''''.'11-.& use "._f.~_.
Acq1IiIitioa tiIIIiq
. subjec:tlo stile aJ/at fIdInl ~ die ICqIIisitica IaIIds wou1d
be acq..is:ed duriaa die DCa two BscaI,em {stile (711196-6131191) IIId fedml
1011196-9130191]
B~ CI1 ibis 1IIIdersIImding. 1be Wildlife AgeDcias will:
. support. both ia writiaa IIId ia public: beariDp, ID ;..un,eeI deasity project CI1 the
IOIIIbem pan:e! wi1h I>> IddiUaaal ope space reqy;.-4:.,
. work wi1h 1be City of'ChuIa Villa 10 .....,edftI1bI-w....al of'1htirMSCP
Sabella PIaII wi1h die =-10 haw SCII8I111i FederII eadaapred sped..
auIbu.: ,,':oos ia place prior 10 1bI ead oldie 1996 ~t-'-ys;
.wvrkwi1hJ:mmld1'\~IO~...- IJlaI~"tab
.......:. "--ora-~~" "~'.I 0CII:Ibc 1.1996)a1b......atlbacitil.L:Jnlbly
amiciplled 1bat tab audIariz:IIioas Ibr \be MSCP wiD J>>t be __ priar 10 1->- 1, 1997
. asist die prujer:t spoasoI1 ick.4iC, .....~ gppartuaiIia fix' tbcir c:cmcvatiga
bIIIk c:redds.
April 0, 1996
...
s~\"!P
t:~ ~~:~b
~ I.\'J
~~
\
r-~ 1-"< ....-...,
POINTS OF AGREEMENT
June 21, 1995
These Points of Agreement (points) are between Emerald Properties Corp. (EPC), the
U.S. FISh &: W1ld1ife Service (USFWS), IUIIi the California DepartmeDt ofF'uh &: Game
(CDFG) (parties). The Poims are Un-tied to be memorialized in a Cou.servation
Agreemem between the Parties and the City ofCbula VISta (City) in the context of the
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan fOr the City.
'I'M PoinU an:
A. EPC owns San Miguel Ranch, which comprises a 738-acre South Parcel and an 1,852-
acre North Parcel. Wildlife agencies inte:Dd to issue the City Take authorizations
which would permit City to allow EPC to take covered species. Wildlife agencies
intend for the implementation of San Miguel Ranch's portion of City's MSCP Subarea
Plan to represent full compliance with the mandates of the federal and California
Endangered Species Acts (ESA), the Natural ComlTllJllity Conservation Planning AJ:;t
and the California Native Plant Protection N:t..
B. To assure t1exibility in development plAnm"g for EPC, the Points of Agreement
provide for two preserve boundary scenarios to be prepared for the San Miguel Ranch .
portion of the City's Subarea Plan.
C. The two scenarios are:
L Draft MBP A (Scenario 1)
The preserve alternative is depicted in Figure I , and is ,eWred to IS the Draft
Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHP A) map. This alternative indicates DO
development on the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch. To make it acceptable
to EPC, the development on the South Parcel would need to be redesigned to
yield about 1,620 dwelling units. This scenario and re1ated biological
mitigation are acceptable to the wDdlife agencies.
.
.
n. GDP (Sceuario n)
This preserve a1tcmativc is depicted in Figure 2, and is referred to IS the
General Development Plan (GDP) scenario. This alternative reflects the
development approvals for San Miguel Ranch obtained in 1993 &om the City,
but does not reflect the understanding between the wDdlife agencies IUIIi EPC.
D. Take Authorizations for Scenario I would be the same IS for the proposed MSCP and
be approved through the City's Subarea Plan. For Scenario II, EPC would have to .
seek Take AuthOrizatiODS through the Section 10(a)(1)(B)ofthe federal Endangered \~
,p<cio<Aot""'...............-_. ~S~~~~\
~ -.\")'
~ra
E. Mitigation for San Miguel Ranch project biological impacts in each of the two
scenarios is as fonOW$:
L Draft MBP A: EPC would dedicate apprn,.;....te!y 166 acres of the North
Parcel to offset the impacts of development on the South Parcel and would
also preserve apprtMmatoely 21 acres ofOtay TarplaDt on the South Parcel.
The ,....,.mder of the North Parcel would be a high priority MSCP acquisition
target .
D. GDP: Mitigation for any development impacts on either the North or South
parcels would be determined at the time when EPC prepared a Conservation
Plan in support ofits ESA Section 10(aX1)(B) permit application and a FISh"
Game Code Section 2081 Management Authorization.
F. If the Draft MHP A scenario is implemented, the habitat value of each acre in the
North Parcel is equivalent for purposes of mitigation banking.
G. It is anticipated that the Otay Tarp1ant, Golden Eagle, Northern Harrier, Cooper's
Hawk, and the Coastal Cactus Wren will be included as Covered Species in the
approved City MSCP Subarea Plan, provided the agency-recommendeci changes to
the MSCP Preserve design are aclIieved and assuming the Scenario I is chosen by
EPC. This basic level of assurance is esserV.r to provide EPC with certainty if they
set aside the north as preserve, they can proceed with development of the south
without future endangered species constraints.
r
r
H. Agencies intend to vigorously support efforts ofEPC to pin project approval1i"om
City, assuming MHP A scenario is used as the development "footprint" for the San
Miguel Ranch project. This support will include letters in support and appearances at
public hearings.
1 Agencies acknowledge that EPC &ivini up the right to pursue 1Urther entitlements for
the North Parcel indicates EPC's desire to recover the value in the estate lot
development in the North Parcel through a combination of preserve acquisition,
mitigation banking, and a redesign and General Plan Amendment on the South Parcel.
If an approximately 1,62O-dwel1ing unit entitlement is approved by City on the South
Parcel, EPC will not pursue Scenario II.
I. EPC intends to cooperate fi1IIy with the City and wildlife agencies in the development
of a MSCP Subarea Plan in ChuIa VISta, which will provide the regu1atory framework
for this Agreement. In the event City does not prepare an MSCP Subarea Plan,.
agencies will work with EPC to develop project-specific Take Authorizations. If; at
that time, EPC pursues Scenario I. the wildlife agencies will work with EPC to
develop a subarea plan for inclusion under the MSCP umbrella, rather than going \-J~
though the more lengthy Habitat Conservation Plan development process. ~ C, V
:It ~~ ~.~b
~~{,
.'
,
Ie. If a Conservation Agreement has not been signed within six months of the signing date
of these Points of Agreement, then an parties are relieved of any expHcit or impHcit
obHgations noted in the Points of Agreement. Parties will use best etrorts to conclude
negotiations on the Conservation Agreement within the six month period.
Acknowledged:
Emerald Properties Corp.
By..2l('~l.~~~
V(~ Prt~,~ f_
A New York Corporation
United States FISh " Wildlife Service
B~jal{! ~
.
.
California Department ofFISh" Game
~y ';<.___o~-::D <~r-f
ATTACHMENT 7
LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996
STATE Of CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
PETE WILSON. Go\lWftOr
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
4~49 VlEWRIDGE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(619) 467-4112
RECEIVED
. September 11, 1996
I:'t":") i } '...'-
........z J ,::":.'j
PLANNiNG
Ms. Barbara Reid
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch
General Plan Amendment/General Development Plan Amendment, City of Chula Vista
Effi-95-04, SCN #96051038
Dear Ms. Reid:
The California Department ofFish and Game's (DFG) Natural Community Conservation
Planning (NCCP) staff has completed its review of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (DSEIR) for the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment and General Development
Plan Amendment and offers the following comments and recommendations. The DFG has been in
discussions with the property owner and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for some
time in an effort to reach agreement on a development plan for San Miguel Ranch that adequately
protects the many sensitive habitats and species on the site, and also contributes to the City of
Chula Vista's and the region's multiple habitat reserve system. The Conservation Agreement
entered into by the DFG, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Emerald Properties describes a San
Miguel Ranch project which the DFG finds acceptable within the context of a Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan for the City ofChula Vista. We encourage the City
ofChula Vista to help create this region's multiple habitat reserve systcm by inereasir.g the density
of development on the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch, thereby facilitating preservation of the
north parcel.
The 2,590-acre San Miguel Ranch property is located immediately south of the
Sweetwater Reservoir and north of the Chula Vista community of East Lake. Proctor Valley
Road borders a portion of the property to the west. Although the site is within the
unincorporated portion of the County, it lies within the Sphere of Influence of the City ofChula
Vista, which proposes its annexation to the City. The property is divided into two parcels, a
1,852-acre north parcel and a 738-acre south parcel.,Lands owned by San Diego Gas and .
Electric (SDG&E) separate the north and south parcels. The property has historically been used
for cattle grazing, although much of the native habitat lands on-site are in healthy condition.
@
~
~
Ms. Barbara Reid
September 11, 1996
Page Two
The property has an approved general development plan, but the current property owners
have proposed revisions to that plan, resulting in the need for this DSEIR. The DSEIR proposes
several development alternatives for the property. The alternatives vary depending upon which
alignment alternative is selected for proposed State Route 125 (SR-125). . The Proctor Valley
Alignment GDP assumes that SR-125 will closely follow the current route of Proctor Valley Road
to the west of the property. This GDP proposes 50 one-acre estate lots on the northern parcel,
and 1,445 dwelling units on the south parcel. A North Parcel Preservation Option of this GDP
would eliminate the 50 estate lots on the north parcel. The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP
assumes that SR-125 bisects the south parcel by passing through Horseshoe Bend. This proposal
would focus all development, 1,498 dwelling units, on the south parcel. In addition to residential
dwellings, each alternative would include acreage dedicated to community parks, open space,
schools, and community services.
San Miguel Ranch is considered one of the most biologically sensitive and important ,t
properties in southern San Diego County, both in tenns oflocation, habitats present and presence ..
of sensitive species. The site is part of a critical biological core encompassing the Otay-San
Miguel Mtn.-Sweetwater River area. This is the largest intact core area within the Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) planning area. Its conservation is critical for preservation
of a number of species, including the California gnatcatcher and the coastal cactus wren. With
significant development pennitted on San Miguel Ranch, particularly the north parce~ the City of
Chula Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan would not be considered adequate by the DFG. The property
is located in such a position that is also fonns a key habitat linkage between the Jamul Mountain
open space on Otay Ranch and the Sweetwater Reservoir.
The parcels support 1,922 acres ofDiegan coastal sage scrub, 109 acres of southern
mixed chaparral, 23 acres of chamise chaparral, 13.1 acres of wetlands, 506 acres of non-native
grassland, and 16 acres of disturbed native grassland. Thirty-three sensitive plant and animal
species have been documented on-site, including 69 pairs offederal-threatened California
gnatcatchers, 13 pairs of cactus wrens, and State-endangered Otay tarplant. The Otay tarplant on
San Miguel Ranch appears to be the largest population in the County. A large number of rap tors
utilize the open and diverse habitats on San Miguel Ranch as well.
Impacts ftom the three GDP Alignment Alternatives are discussed in the DSEIR.
However, it is not clear ifhabitat impacts from the Horseshoe Bend GDP excluded or included
impacts from SR-125 that Caltrans will be responsible for mitigating (see Comment #3). Under
the Proctor Valley GDP 227 acres of coastal sage scrub, 13 acres ofwet1ands, 348 acres of non-
native grassland, 48 pairs of California gnatcatchers, seven pairs of cactus wrens, 6,300 out of
8,000 coast barrel cactus individuals, and significant amounts ofOtay tarplant would be impacted.
Impacts to other sensitive species would also occur. The Proctor Valley GDP-North Parcel
Option would eliminate the 50 r-esidential units on the north, resulting in 129 acres of coastal sage
scrub, nine acres of wetlands, 323 acres of non-native grassland, and 36 pairs of California
Ms.Barbara Reid
September 11, 1996
Page Three
gnatcatchers being impacted. The Horseshoe Bend GDP would impact 168 acres of coastal sage
scrub, 6 acres of wetlands, and 375 acres of non-native grassland. Impacts to sensitive species
would be similar to the Proctor Valley GDP-North Parcel Option.
The DSEIR states that elimination of development on the north parcel would mitigate
impacts to sensitive habitats and species on the south parcel to below a level ofsignificance. The
Proctor Valley GDP alternative, which proposes 50 residential unit on the north parcel would not
mitigate project impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance.
The DFG has the following issues of concern and recommendations:
1. The DSEIR should include a copy of the Conservation Agreement, dated May I,
1996, between Emerald Properties Corp., USFWS and the DFG. This agreement
has a significant bearing on mitigation for project impacts and future pennitting for &
the project for impacts to State and federal endangered or threatened species. The
Conservation Agreement states that 166 acres of the north parcel will be set aside
as mitigation for impacts on the south side, in addition to 146 acres on the south
parcel. The location of the 166 acres should be identified in the DSEIR, and
confirmation that the conditions in the Conservation Agreement for mitigation
have been met. This Conservation Agreement is only valid ifno development is
pursued on the north parcel and if the City ofChula Vista has an approved MSCP
Subarea Plan. Should Emerald Properties seek development on the north parcel
the Conservation Agreement is no longer in effect, and pennits for impacts to
State or federally listed species could not be obtained through the NCCP program
(i.e., through the City ofChula Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan). Emerald Properties
would have to seek permits for impacts to State or federally listed species through
the preparation of a separate Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Management
Authorization Agreement. The DFG agrees with the DSEIR when it indicates that
only the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP-North Parcel Option and Horseshoe Bend
GDP alternatives would mitigate biological impacts to below a level of
significance.
2. Please clarifY the effect of the Horseshoe Bend GDP on potential development
opportunities on the north parcel. Page 2-17, paragraph 2 appears to indicate that
this alignment ofSR-125 precludes any development on the north parcel by
limiting access. This is contrary to our understanding of the project.
3. There are apparent discrepancies within the DSEIR as regards calculated impacts
to habitats. Impact acreages in the text are inconsistent with some acreages in
Table 3.3-1. Page 3.3-15, paragraph 2, sentence I, indicates that 227 acres of
coastal sage scrub will be impacted by the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP with no
Ms. Barbara Reid
September 11, 1996
Page Four
development on the north parcel, while the table indicates only 129 acres will be
impacted. We assume that this sentence is actually referring to the Proctor Valley
alternative that proposes development on the north parcel. In addition, impact
acreages presented in the table for the Horseshoe Bend GDP differ from those in
the text on page 3.3-19, paragraph 2. It appears that the discrepancy is due to
subtracting out the impacts Caltrans will be responsible for when SR-125 is
constructed and using these numbers in the table. Please clarifY what impacts this
project is responsible for and impacts that are the responsibility of Caltrans.
In addition, we request that impacts. for each habitat type on both the south and
north parcels be separated and quantified for the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP.
More specific estimates of impacts should be made for the sensitive plant species
impacted on both parcels, especially the Otay tarplant, as well as the California
gnatcatcher and cactus wren. ,!"
4.
Page 3.3-19, paragraph 3 - Mitigation Measures. This paragraph states that
elimination of all development on the north parcel adequately mitigates for all
significant impacts on the south parcel. While the DFG agrees that this would be
the case, the Conservation Agreement indicates that dedication of 146 acres of
open space on the south parcel, including a 21 acre Otay tarplant preserve, and
166 acres of the north parcel is sufficient mitigation for total biological impacts as
long as the north parcel is not developed, but dedicated as permanent open space,
and the City completes its Subarea Plan. The Conservation Agreement calls for a
combination of acquisition and the establishment of a conservation bank on the
north parcel, in addition to the dedication of 166 acres of mitigation land. The
referenced statement in the DSEIR noted above indicates that the entire northern
parcel would need to be dedicated as open space for impacts on the south parcel to
be mitigated to below a level of significance. This issue of the amount of open
space on the north parcel being dedicated for mitigation of project impacts needs
clarification in the Final SElR.
..
5. The open space plans on the south parcel differ between the Proctor Valley GDP
alternatives and the Horseshoe Bend GDP. Please indicate the acreage of open
space on the south parcel for each alternative, and indicate whether a minimum of
146 acres will be dedicated as required under the conditions of the Conservation
Agreement. Ofparticular concern is the open space set aside for preservation of
the Otay tarplant. The FSEIR should confirm whether the minimum 21-acre Otay
tarplant preserve referenced in the Conservation Agreement is inaintained in each
alternative, especially the Horseshoe Bend GDP. . .
6. Page 3.3-20, paragraph 2, last sentence. A minimum mitigation ratio of1:1 for
Ms. Barbara Reid
September 11, 1996
Page Five
impacts to wetlands is proposed. The final mitigation required for project impacts
to wetlands will be detennined during the DFG's Streambed Alteration Agreement
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permitting processes. However,
mitigation for wetlands impacts is anticipated to be at minimum 2 or 3: 1,
depending upon the habitat quality.
7. Page 3.3-20, paragraph 6. The DFG strongly recommends that no brushing or
grading of California gnatcatcher habitat occur during the breeding season. Under
special circumstances, habitat removal may occur during the breeding season, but
only ifbrushing or grading is in excess of200 feet ITom nesting gnatcatcher pairs,
not 100 feet as indicated in the DSEIR. In addition, the breeding season should be
considered February 15 through August 15, not "mid-March through July" as
stated in the DSEIR.
~
8. The impacts to coast barrel cactus are significant, with up to 6,300 out of8,000
individuals removed. It has been our understanding that a barrel cactus
transplantation program would be incorporated into the mitigation measures for
the project. A significant number of barrel cactus specimens should be salvaged
and relocated to protected open space areas on San Miguel Ranch, especially areas
already supporting this species. This efforts needs to be designed and coordinated
by an experienced native landscape restoration specialist or a botanist who has
conducted similar transplantation projects. This effort could also be coordinated
with revegetation and landscaping plans for the project, with some specimens
utilized in project landscaping. A major transplantation program would mitigate
impacts to this species to below a level of significance.
9. If the City ofChula Vista chooses not to proceed with its MSCP Subarea Plan,
thereby removing that endangered/threatened species incidental take permitting
avenue for this project, then Ihe DFG will need to re-evaluate the entire mitigation
progIam for this project for each sensitive species impacted. The ConselVation
Agreement is only in effect if the City approves its Subarea Plan.
10. The DFG, in general, supports the concept of clustering of development in
exchange for an increase in project open space and a reduction of project edge
effects. As such, we support the project applicant's proposal to increase housing
density on the south parcel by transferring approved housing units from the north
parcel. Not only will this allow for the project proponent to recoup some
development in exchange for agreeing to abandon development plans on the north
parcel, but the more units transferred the more of the north parcel will be set aside
as open space up-front by reducing the acres included in the conseIVation bank.
Ms. Barbara Reid
September 11, 1996
Page Six
This concludes the DFG's comments and recommendations on the San Miguel Ranch
DSEIR. If you have any questions please contact David Lawhead at (619) 467-4211. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
!/V~~ {. ~
William E. Tippets
NCCP Field SupeIVisor
cc: Department ofFish and Game
Mr. Ron Rempel
Sacramento
Ms. Patty Wolf
Long Beach
Mr. David Lawhead
San Diego
u.s. Fish and Wildlife SeIVice
Mr. Gail Kobetich
Ms. Julie Vanderwier
Carlsbad Field Office
Mr. Garrett Thelander
Emerald Properties Corporation
c/o Bankers Trust Co.
280 Park Avenue 23 W
New York, NY 10017
f1LE: a..n
SANMIGEL.DNL
LA WI!EADfllPPETS
.
.
..
ATTACHMENT 8
LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996
3:~~-::-~c7E:.; 2: ::; FM
'AL"j'f' ,'" Pu-", r 'I'RA' n
\. \ . b....J \; JL.J
FA" 1'0
.1. d.
61' '88 4299
p, 2
51\\TE Of CALifORNIA- BUSINESS,' R....~SPORTATION ANDHOUSlN(j ACJENCY
PETE WLSON, &>..mor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT II. PO, eox 85406, ~L Sl'ATlON S5,SAN DEGO. !l!186.5406
(619) 1I!6~424 IDD t;;mbo,
(6111) fl!e-6002
~
-
September 11, 1996
11.SD.125 South
VAR
Mr. Chris Belsky
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 92110
Dear Mr. Belsky:
Draft SubseQuent EIR for the San Miguel Ranch Residential Community-SCH 96051038 .
.
f' ().' 1/
e '
Caltrans District 11 comments are as follows:
"
. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Subsequent EIR
and the efforts of the City and project representatives to accommodate the two
State Route 125 (SR-125) South alignment altematives currently under study.
. We have reviewed a more detailed version of the proposed Interchange at Mt.
Miguel Road and SR.125 depicted in Figure 2.4-2 and again in Figure 3.1-5, We
do have concerns regarding the interchange design, which we have discussed
with project representatives. Many of the concerns we have are detailed geometric
design Issues Involving entrance and exit ramp configurations, grading
requirements, and bridge location constraints. We believe the Issues of concern
can be resolved through continued coordination with project representatives and
the City staff as the project progresses through the general development plan stage
to the specific plan level.
. For the traffic analysis performed for the SR.125 South project, the County of
San Diego Circulation Element two-lane light collector designation was used for
San Miguel Road. .
. Page 1-4, third paragraph..Thls indicates there would be no development on the
northern parcel due to the physical constraints associated with the SR.125 '
Horseshoe Bend segment. Access would remain via San Miguel Road and could
also be provided from the highway Interchange. .
. Page 2.3, Figure 2.1-2--Thls should also depict the Horseshoe Bend/Citizens ,
Advisory Committee (CAC) segment. '
. Page 2-11, first paragraph--Three SR.125 segments impact the San Miguel Ranch
development: Proctor Valley West, Horseshoe Bend, and Horseshoe Bend/CAC.
. Pages 2-12,2-17,3.1-6,3, 1-10--lt Is our understanding that the development
density is a land use decision and not driven by the SR-125 proJeot. .
~~~-;:-s~ 7~~ ::56 FY CALTi 3 PUBLIC TRANS
FAX NO. 61 688 4299
P. 3
Mr. Chris Belsky
September 11, 1996
Page Two
. Page 3.3-1..Depending on the development plan specifics, a wildlife crossing for
SR-125 South may be appropriate. Please continue to coordinate with us to allow
for this crossing.
. Page 3.4.9..Figure 3.4-2 (and Figure 2.2 In Appendix C) depict the .incorrect
alignment of SR-125. The alignment shown Is Horseshoe Bend (it should be
Proctor Valley West).
. Page 3.4.16, second paragraph-.lt is our understanding that either the Chuta Vista
Interim SR-125 facility or the SR-125 South project is needed before development
beyond the current threshold of 9,654 residential units Is exceeded. This should be
clarified in the SEIA.
. Page 3.5-12..We compliment the City and the developer for including a park and
ride lot proximate to SR.125. :
. Pages 3.8.3 through 3.8-6 discuss the Impacts of SR-125 to trails in the
development. It is our understanding there is a trail planned along MI. Miguel
Road. There will be allowances made for the trail to cross the highway on the
same bridge structure as Mt. Miguel Road. Therefore, this Impact will be mitigated
below significance. The SR.125 South Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Statement very thoroughly addresses the impacts to trails In this area. We
will continue cooperation with the City and developer to accommodate trails in the
area.
. The Traffic Study needs to address the Impacts to Interstate Route aDS (l.a05) and
its interchanges In the project vicinity Including 'H' Street, Orange Avenue and
Telegraph Canyon Road that already require improvements. Ramp metering
problems should also be addressed.
. Please send us a copy of the Notice of Detel1Tlinatlon when it becomes available.
We look forward to continued coordination of our efforts as both projects progress
through development and construction. Our contact person for Traffic Operations Is Fred
Yazdan, (619) 688.6881. For SR-125 South our contact person Is Charles Stoll, Project
Manager, (619) 688.338-8365. The Environmental Analyst assigned to this project Is
Susanne Glasgow, (619) 688-6715.
~~~
Bill DillON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
BD/lS:vc
ATTACHMENT 9
LETTER FROM THE SAN DIEGO LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 12, 1996
. .
U\f~~
1600 Pacific Highway. Room 452
San Diego, CA 92101 ~#q1-5400
"'-. -~ - , '/::..
"-I( 0
<:'t:, .
......: 1. [> ~
\..; <I")...
p .~~
'LAN/'v'"
,/VG
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
Chairwoman
Dianne Jlcob
County Bolrd of
Supervisors
Members
Bill Hom
County Boord of
Supervisors
Shir1ey Horton
Mayor, City of
Chula VISII
Lori Howlrd
Councilmember, City of
Santee
Harry Mlthis
Councilmember, City of
Sin Diego
Dr. Limln M. Childs
HelIX Water District
John SISSO
President, Borrego
Water District
Andrew L. Vlndertooan
Public Member
Alternate Members
Greg Cox
County Board of
Supervisors
Julianne Nygaard
Councilmember. City of
Car1Sbed
Juan Vargas
Councilmember. City of
Sin Diego
Ron.~ VV. VVboUon
Viall Fire Pnotection District
Devid A. Pe",ins
Public Member
Executive Officer
Micheel D. 011
Counsel (Acting)
John J. Slnsone
September 12,1996
Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
SUBJECT: Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, San Miguel Ranch
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). We offer the following comments:
,
,
. The Draft SEIR is very confusing with respect to the definition of the
project. Page 1-4 states that, "The applicant, Emerald Properties, has
determined that this alternative is now the proposed project in the
event that the Proctor Valley alignment for SR-125 is selected." (It
appears that this statement refers to development ofthe South Parcel
and no development of the North Parcel.) If the Horseshoe Bend
Alignment for SR-125 is chosen, does the Horseshoe Bend Alignment
then become the project?
This same section indicates that the property owner is requesting
annexation to the City in conjunction with a GPA and a GDP
amendment. Is it intended that this SEIR be used by LAFCO in
processing an annexation proposal, or will annexation be proposed
in conjunction with subsequent environmental review at the SPA level
of processing?
.
Page 1-4 also states that due to the physical constraints associated
with the location of SR-125, no developm~nt is proposed for the North
Parcel. However, page 1-11 states1hat, "Whether limited or no
development occurs on the North Parcel is an .outstanding issue."
This apparent contradiction needs to be resolved or clarified.
.
Since development of this area is dependent upon the eventual SR-
125 alignment, the Draft SEIR should explain why the project is being
processed prior to an alignment decision for SR-125.
Barbara Reid
September 12, 1996
Page Two
. The legend for Figure 2.2-1, page 2-7, indicates Residential Neighborhood A as 10
du/ac. Should this be 1 du/ac?
. Section 2.5, page 2-18, lists discretionary actions/approvals associated with the
project. Although it does not identify these actions as sequential, It should be noted
that annexation to the City of Chula Vista would be considered after all of the other
actions have occurred.
. The description of existing conditions, page 3.1-1, states that since the project area
is proposed for annexation to Chula Vista, t"e land use analysis examines the
project's conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan. Land use planning for
this area is currently under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego. This section
should be expanded to include a discussion of the existing County land use ,
designations and the impacts, if any, associated with changes in land use
designations from the County to the City. ;
. Page 3.1-2 states that, "Annexation ofthe developable portion of the project site to
the City of Chula Vista will be required." Does this mean that only the South Parcel
will be proposed for annexation? Does this refer to the South Parcel and a portion
of the North Parcel? This statement requires further explanation. If undevelopable
areas are included in an annexation, the SEIR should explain why it is necessary
to annex these areas.
. The fire protection discussion, page 3.7-17, should note that, since the project area
is unincorporated and primarily undeveloped, wildland fire protection is currently the
responsibility ofthe Califomia Department of Forestry (CDF). The SEIR indicates
that the project area will continue to be provided fire service by the Chula Vista Fire
Department. Since this area is not currently within the City, what agreements are
. in effect that require the City to provide fire servJces to this area? 1his same section
indicates that the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District (FPD) also provides fire
protection to the project area. Since the area is also not within the fire district, why
does the fire district provide services to this area?
The third paragraph under Existing Conditions (page 3.7-17) states that if the North
Parcel is annexed to the City, the Chula Vista Fire Department would .cover" this
area. It then indicates that the Bonita-Sunnyside FPD would respond to the area
through an automatic aid agreement. When annexing large areas to cities that
provide fire protection services, the presence of automatic aid agreements is not
seen as an adequate substitute for the provision of fire protection services by the
annexing city. The SEIR should state if the City intends to rely on the fire district for
on-going fire protection to this area if it is annexed and develops within the City.
. . .
Barbara Reid
September 12,1996
Page Three
. The discussion of emergency medical services (page 3.7-20) states that the Bonita-
Sunnyside FPD has "first-in" response to the area. As with the discussion of fire
protection, the SEIR should note that this area is not currently within the fire district.
. Page 3.7-24 states that solid waste disposal services for the project area are
provided by the Chula Vista Sanitary Service. Is this correct? It is our
understanding that solid waste disposal services for the City and the adjacent
unincorporated areas are provided by private solid waste haulers operating under
franchises with the City and the County.
. The discussion of Altematives (Section 4.0) should state explicitly that cities cannot
annex non-contiguous territory. Therefore, since the North Parcel is not contiguous
-
with Chula Vista, some intervening territory will have to be included if the North
Parcel is proposed for annexation. Ifthe North Parcel is proposed for annexation, '
the intervening territory, whether SDG&E or Otay Water District property, will
require prezoning and environmental analysis prior to annexation.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 531-5400.
Sincerely,
/I/.lLa~
CJ?~.: CONVERY
Local Governme tal Analyst
JFC:hm
ATTACHMENT 10
LETTER FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
LAND USE
SEPTEMBER 13, 1996
.
([~.of ~an ;!Eli~g.o
Ii~C~/V~D
SE.p J {; 'r._
p. j~::S
-'J.AlVlVitvG
GARY L PRYOR
IMRECTOR
..'.. ....J112
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE
1201 RUFFIN ROAD, SUITE B, SAN DIEGO. CALIfORNIA 12123-1'"
INFDRMAnON "11) ...._0
September 13, 1996
Mr. Robert A Leiter, Director
City of Chula Vista, Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
COMMENTS REGARDING THE AUGUST 1996 SAN MIGUEL RANCH DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
Dear Mr. Leiter,
Attached you will find our technical comments on the subject document. Please
inform us I) of any hearings on this project and 2) of your responses to the
attached comments in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092.5,
subdivision (a).
If you have any questions please contact Eric Gibson, Environmental
Coordinator at (619)694-2952.
ROBE T A H R, hief
Resource Planning
~-' ~~
-~
,PI
-~
~,.
.;'-
. _ _.. ---- --,---
,
,
..
.
aItnmtu nf ~a:n ~iegn
TOM GARIBAY
DtRECTOR
"1 I) ....-012:
FAX: (11 t) HI-"'11
LOCATtON CODI 110
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY IINGIHEIR
COUNTY AIRPORT.
COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER
TRANSIT I.RVICD
COUNTY IUIIYIYOR
FLOOD CONTROL
. WASTEWATIllMANAGEIIINT
SCUD WAITE
. .... OYERLANDAVE, SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 12123-12a.
September 11, 1996
FROM:
Gary L. Pryor, Director
~~~t~Planning and Land Use
Dw g t smith, Deputy Director
Department of Public Works
SAN MIGUEL RANCH, DRAFT EIR TRANSPORTATION SECTION
(0650)
(0336)
TO:
My staff has completed the review. of these documents and have the
following comments addressing their informational accuracy, method'
of analysis and consistency with the California Environmental
Quality Act. .
GENERAL COMMENTS
A version of this project with a supporting Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and traffic study was submitted for the County's
review and comment in 1993. Our review of the latest subtitle
finds that the traffic study still contains factual errors
concerning vehicular access to the site, the misclassification of
a county circulation Element Road, and the omission of .required
near term (existing plus project) traffic analysis. Each of these
deficiencies was identified in the county's previous letter of
comment dated February 8, 1993.
Specifically, access from the west to this site through'County
territory is by Proctor Valley Road, south of San Miguel Road.
This portion of Proctor Valley Road is not part of the circulation
Element. It is a local residential street. The connection of the
project's northern access to Proctor Valley Road, as depicted in
the EIR and traffic study, is inconsistent with the County's
Circulation Element. This connection will not be allowed without
a comprehensive transportation study and a subsequent amendment to
the County's Circulation Element adding this segment of Proctor
Valley Road. -
The study repeats the error in ciassifying San Miguel Road west of
the future SR 125. This segment is not classified' as a four lane
Collector Road, but as a two lane Light Collector Road. The 12,000-
to 18,000 ADT forecast by Series 8 is equivalent to levels of
service "E" and "F" for a Light Collector Road. These volumes
rep~esent a significant unmitigated impact to the County's
Circulation Element. This project has no access to San Miguel
() ~~ 0:" ~ peoer
Gary L. Pryor
-2-
September 11, 1996
Road. Analysis of.buildout conditions that include any connection
to it are inaccurate and will not.be accepted by the County of San
Diego. As a point of clar1.fication, San Miguel Road east of SR 125
is classified as a four lane Collector but does not connect to the
portion of this property covered by'this proposed project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Adequacy of Draft EIR and. Traffic Study
Project Plus Existing Conditions and Near Term Cumulative analysis
is omitted from the traffic study and the Draft EIR. The absence
of this analysis precludes the County of San Diego from assessing
the impact of the proposed projects traffic on the Circulation
Element of the Sweetwater Community Planning Area of Bonita.
Without an analysis of these impacts, the County of San Diego
considers the report inadequate and 'incomplete.
,
As submitted, the documents are inconsistent with the California,
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15125 (c) of the act
requires that analysis of the project's impacts on existing
conditions as well as future conditions, be analyzed. The analysis
of Near Term impacts can not be deferred until a later date. The
discretionary granting of development rights can not be conferred
until the plan to ground analysis of potential project impacts are
documented and mitigated.
Sandag Series 8 (Year 2015)
,
The traffic study and Draft EIR have not analyzed buildout
conditions. Series 8 Buildout is the buildout of that portion of
the adopted General Plans projected to occur by the year 2015. The
forecasts used for analysis are not full buildout of the adopted
General Plan of Chula Vista or the County of San Diego. The
analysis of buildout conditions in the documents is deficient. The
volumes represented as buildout are much lower than can be
expected. The 1993 Phase II PrDgress Plan forecast for the Otay
Ranch Project is the only buildout (Series 7) forecast valid for
this area.
Network Assumptions
-
The assumed location of a connecting interchange from SR 125 to
this project is speculative. No Freeway Agreement for SR 125 has
been formulated. The connection of this project bY.an interchange
to the County Circulation Element wi!} not be made to either the
planned San Miguel Ranch Road 1:Ir Blacksmith Road without a
comprehensive and detailed transportation study. Until the
location of the interchanges along SR 125 are established through
a formal Freeway Agreement the information in the traffic study for
this project is not reliable.
Gary L. Pryor
-3-
September 11, 1996
SUMMARY
In summary, this document 'is not consistent with the.Circulation
Element of the County of San Diego. It contains factual
inaccura~ies and omits CEQA required'analysis. The information in
these reports is inadequate for assessing the proposed project's
impacts.
DGS:SD:jw
M:IWP\HOGLENlTRANSIRNCHSNME.COMUW
,
..
ATTACHMENT 11
LETTER FROM SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996
G~.
SO IE San Diego Ga. & Electric
An Enova Company
RZCE[VE~ '
",.. .
.:..t:..P 1. . ~ '."1-_
.; ,:,,-,.I~....
September 11, 1996
PL4NNfNG
Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
Planning Department
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SAN
MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Dear Ms. Reid:
,
,
.
Thank you for the opportunity for San Diego Gas & Electric to review the above
referenced EIR. SDG&E's interest in the proposed project is due to its proximity to the
Miguel Substation, one of the most important facilities on SDG&E's system.
SDG&E has been involved with both the City of Chula Vista and Emerald Properties
since the initiation of this project. From our perspective, the current plan is an
improvement ITom previous plans for the San Miguel Ranch development in relation to
land use compatibility with SDG&E's Miguel Substation and adjacent transmission lines.
SDG&E appreciates the significant efforts of Emerald Properties to reduce the land use
conflicts surrounding our facilities.
SDG&E supports the proposed development for the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch
described in the Draft EIR. However, SDG&E still has concerns with the proposed
development on the north parcel. The focus of our concern is the proposed development
in the north parcel closest to the substation, particularly the lots below the 520 contour
line. The primary view ITom these lots would be to the substation. Occupants of these
lots would also be subjected to noise ITom the substation. As the City ofChula Vista
continues to grow, the substation wiIl need to expand, creating more facilities in the
direct viewshed of the proposed north lots.
SDG&E supports the applicant's proposed project, which has no development on the
north parcel of San Miguel Ranch. However, there are no exhibits demonstrating no
development on the north parcel. We would like this clearly shown at the SPA level.
SDG&E is opposed to any alternatives that propose development on the north parcel of
the San Miguel Ranch.
"
SDG&E's comments are primarily concerned with the ability to operate and expand the
Miguel Substation as an important energy hub on the regional energy system. Miguel
Substation currently handles the majority of energy imported into the San Diego region
plus a great deal of the energy produced at the South Bay Power Plant. It represents a
link for international and interstate power exchanges. The need for expansion capability
at Miguel Substation is critical to the energy system design for the entire region. This
need will become apparent with growth in the region.
SDG&E does not oppose some forms of development adjacent to our facilities. Past
experience has proven that residential uses near energy facilities are seldom compatible.
SDG&E's experience suggests that the public frequently objects when new or upgraded
electrical facilities are planned in proximity to existing neighborhoods. This creates
future problems for the local jurisdiction as well as SDG&E.
The Final SPA for San Miguel Ranch should state that there will be future expansions to
SDG&E's Miguel Substation. A map depicting where these expansions occur will be
sent by SDG&E to the City for inclusion in the Final EIR.
In response to the Mitigation Measures in the Land Use Section, SDG&E would like to
make a few comments:
. On page 3.1-8, the first bullet under Mitigation Measures, SDG&E would like
exhibits added to the white paper, in addition to the description. It should read:
Provide potential buyers considering lots north of the proposed alignment of San
Miguel Road with a white paper and exhibits describing future SDG&E expansion
plans, to the extent feasible. Provide buyers of these lots with a "white paper"
containing a provision describing and exhihiting future SDG&E expansion plans, to
the extent feasible.
. The bullet under (d) on page 3.1-9, states: Provide grading site plans and other
information to SDG&E to assist them in their efforts to develop future improvements
on their site...This statement needs to be deleted due to the fact that SDG&E's
future improvements ofthe Miguel Substation have already been designed and
cannot be changed.
. Items (a) and (b) state that specific measures proposed by SDG&E are as follows:
a) Establishment of separation of development setback incorporating landscaped
greenbelt or residential collector street; b) Achievement of visual separation through
landscaping, topographic variation, homesite orientation, and height and lot setback
restrictions for houses near the substation property. SDG&E does not have any
setback requirements. The reference to setbacks in these two items needs to be
deleted from the EIR.
. On page 3.1-10, under Level of Significance, it states that impacts associated with
locating residential lots adjacent to the SDG&E Miguel Substation and on SDG&E
easements will be reduced to below a level of significance by the proposed mitigation.
,
;
SDG&E Easement Documents state that no building or structures can be placed
within our easements. The final EIR needs to reflect this change.
. On page 3.1-10 under Level of Significance, the second sentence refers to locating
trails in SDG&E easements. This sentence should read: Potential impacts associated
with locating trails in SDG&E easements, with permission from SDG&E. will be
addressed at the SPA level and would, therefore, be unmitigated at this time.
SDG&E needs 'assurance that access is retained to existing utility rights-of-way and/or
easements on site. Any grading or improvements within SDG&E's easements or that
affect access to and along the easements will require written consent from SDG&E.
Access is critical to the continued maintenance, repair, upgrade, relocation or
construction of SDG&E's gas and electrical facilities.
In addition to the development alternatives in the EIR, there are two SR 125 alternatives.
SDG&E is currently fonnulating its position on the alternatives for SR 125.
Again, SDG&E appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for San Miguel
Ranch. Should you require additional information, please contact me at (619) 696-2415.
,
~
Sincerely,
~y~
Associate Land Planner
ATTACHMENT 12
LETTER FROM SWEETWATER
AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 20, 1996
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912-2328
(619) 420-1413
FAX (619) 425-7469
September 20, 1996
-E-ct&\-Jt&f)
~ _r';',
Ct: P 1,'. ':~>
.\..'
~\..f:>,~~,rs~G
GOVERNING BOARD
GEORGE H. WATERS, CHAIRMAN
MARGARET COOK WELSH, VICE CHAIR
JAMES F. OOUD. SR.
SUE JARRETT
BUD POCKl.INGTON
JAMES S. WO!.NIEWICZ
CARY F. WRIGHT
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
DIAN J. REEVES
SECRETARY
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
...
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SUBSEQUENT EIR, SAN MIGUEL RANCH
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
SWEETWATER RESERVOm URBAN RUNOFF PROTECTION
Dear Ms. Reid:
Sweetwater Authority has reviewed the Subsequent Em for San Miguel Ranch. As discussed
in our previous letters, a portion of the northern parcel proposed for development is located
less than 2,000 feet from Sweetwater Reservoir, a drinking water supply for the Authority's
165,000 customers.
We appreciate that the City is precluding the use of reclaimed water in the northern parcel, in
deference to our policies for protection of Sweetwater Reservoir. However, other potential
water quality issues were not discussed. Therefore, the conditions of approval for San Miguel
Ranch should address the Authority's concerns, as follows:
1. Sweetwater Authority shall receive copies of the drainage study master plan by the City
of Chula Vista for review and comment.
2. Prior to other project construction within the Sweetwater Reservoir watershed, a runoff
diversion facility shall be in place in order to protect the reservoir from accidental
release of substances such as fuel, paint, pesticides, and other chemicals used in
construction and landscaping. The design of this system shall be reviewed by the
Authority prior to approval.
A Public Agency,
Serving National City, Chula Vista (J'1d Surrounding Areas'
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista, Planning Department
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SUBSEQUENT EIR, SAN MIGUEL RANCH
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
SWEETWATER RESERVOIR URBAN RUNOFF PROTECTION
September 20, 1996
Page 2
Because all drainage from developed areas within San Miguel Ranch will be directed out of the
Sweetwater Reservoir watershed, no compliance with Sweetwater Authority Resolution 84-8
As Amended is required. This resolution requires developers of projects within the watershed
to contribute funds toward the construction of the Urban Runoff Diversion System, which will
protect the reservoir from runoff CODtamination. The Authority appreciates the ini:lusion of a
feature of the San Miguel Ranch project which will prevent poor quality water from reaching
Sweetwater Reservoir. However, because Sweetwater Authority has an entitlement to all
runoff within the watershed boundary, we will calculate appropriate compensation for our loss
of watershed relative to this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the SEIR. If you have any questions, please contact
me or Ms. Troy Murphree at 420-1413, extension 632.
Very Truly Yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~~
- ft, JL~
JLS:TM
pc: Mr. Dennis Bostad, Director of Water Quality, Sweetwater Authority
Mr. 10hn Hammond, Sweetwater Community PJanning Group
c:\wpSl \data\cases\sweetwater\sanmigucJ.com
,
.'
ATTACHMENT 13
LETTER FROM OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SEPTEMBER 25, 1996
~\ ...cDediMted to COI.I.unity ge,\Vice
~ 10595 JAMACHA eoUlEVARO. SPRING VALLEY. CALIFQJINIA .,1177
~)i:Ii~ ~1."(~" TELEPHONE: 87'\).2222, AREA CODE 619
RECErVED
SED2'7'r,~c
I I ;':J~",)
PLANNiNG
September 25, 1996
W.o. 2980
Ms. Barbara Reid
Associate Planner
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: San Miguel Ranch-Subsequent Environmental Zmpact Report
CUR)
VZA FAX "1-5171
, u.S. Mail
t
Dear Ms. Reid:
The Otay Water District (OWD) appreciates the opportunity to
review and respond to the above referenced subsequent Draft EIR.
We understand that the subject project involves an annexation to
the City of Chula Vista, a General Plan Amendment and a General
Development Plan Amendment for San Miguel Ranch. The project
modifications include: revisions to the type, distribution, and
density of proposed land uses, particularly reducing/eliminating
development on the North Parcel and increasing residential
densities on the South Parcel. The proposed project also
includes two alternative land use plans for consideration based
on two alternative alignments for the southerly extension of SR
125 from SR 54 to 1-905. The Mother Miguel Estates parcel
proposes a General Plan Amendment and prezoning.
OWD's comments, with regard to water and reclaimed water
concerns, are listed below. The Final EIR must fully cover all
needed project facilities so that OWD may rely on this document
for future action and environmental clearances. The Final EIR
should specifically address:
. Annexation of portions of the project site to an OWD
improvement district. All of the project site is within the
OWD service areal however portions of the project site are
outside of an OWD improvement district. Please contact the
OWD Engineering Public Services Counter for assistance at
670-2241.
City of Chula vista
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
San Miguel Ranch Project
Page 2
9/25/96
. Water demands, landscaping demands, and system interruptions
during construction.
. Potential relocation impacts to existing water pipelines and
appurtenances.
. Timing and opportunities for OWD to coordinate with the city
the necessary construction of pipeline water facilities per
the OWD Master Plan to coincide with project development and
road construction.
,
. Sewering of the San Miguel Ranch and any potential impacts
to OWD's ability to discharge excess reclaimed water into '
the Spring Valley Sanitation District Frisbee trunk.
. Potential impacts to OWD's Mitigation Bank. Initial project
plans for San Miguel Ranch show Natural Open Space to
surround OWD's Mitigation Bank.
. The requirement for all necessary water and reclaimed system
easements to be obtained by the project applicant and
conveyed to OWD.
. How water and reclaimed water facility criteria and
requirements will be met.
. The requirement for landscaping irrigation systems to be
designed and installed for the use of reclaimed water.
. Jan Tubiolo's (OWD's Water Conservation Specialist) April
261 1996 Water Conservation Program comments as follows:
1. Project Water Demands-Figures of 2680 gpd/AF/AC yr given
for irrigation rates seem to be on the low side. otay's
Water Efficient Irrigation Ordinance for separate1y-
metered commercial or multi-family sites allows a maximum
allocation of 4 AF/ac. yr (3574 gpd/AF/Ac yr), based on
the CIMIS annual ET. reference requirement for tall fescu
turfgrass. This allocation is far greater than required
for most drought tolerant plant material, but if cool
season turfgrass is also used in the landscaping, it
would probably become stressed at the lower limit of 3
City of Chula vista
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
San Miguel Ranch Project
Page 3
9/25/96
AF(36")/year. While the lower rate is an excellent goal
to strive for, limiting the rate to that level for all
landscaping might create long term problems, particularly
in the use of reclaimed water, which should include an
amount of water necessary for leaching accumulated salts
beyond plant root zones.
2. The developers might want to stress advisory assistance
ONLY on the Water Efficient Clothes Washers since the
current, average cost of the most efficient horizontal
axis machines ($1200 per machine) is prohibitive for most
homeowners until manufacturers are able to make them
available at competitive rates. These machines will ;
reduce daily domestic consumption by as much as 33% over
traditional machines. :
3. Timing should be included for the slope plantings if
possible. Native plant seed should ideally be planted or
hydro seeded in the fall, to take advantage of optimum
seed germination and growth during the approaching rainy
season. Spring would be the second choice. Hydroseeded
slopes must be kept moist, but often receive more water
than required because longer-than-necessary irrigation
cycles create runoff or encourage water-loving weeds.
Hydroseeded slopes should require no more than 2"-4"
irrigation per month until established, depending upon
the time of year.
. The requirement for the applicant or developer to obtain
copies of OWD record drawings to avoid conflicts with
existing facilities before the commencement of construction
of the project. Prior to construction, the contractor must
contact Underground Service Alert at 1-800-422-4143 at least
48 hours prior to beginning work.
other corrections/clarifications or comments that should be
included in the final EIR include:
. On page 3.7-4, under the Reservoir discussion, wording
should read "The reservoir will be designed to hold 1.3
maximum daily flow plus fire flow storage." Note: the 1. 3
factor is from the OWD Water Resources Master Plan.
. On page 3.7-41 bottom two lines, it is OWD's understanding
that this legislation is no longer being pursued.
city of Chula Vista
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
San Miguel Ranch Project
Page 4
9/25/96
. On page 3.7-5, under the fire Flow Requirements discussion,
wording should read: "OWD reservoirs are designed to hold
the 1.3 maximum daily flow plus fire flow storage. For
purposes of sizing required storage, the project proposes
1,500 gpm..........
. On page 3.7-5, under the Water Conservation heading, the
1989 referral appears to be a reference to an older
document. Reference should be made to the 1996 OWD Water
Resources Master Plan.
".
. On page 3.7-6 it should be clarified that the Water Master .'
Plan (known as a "Subarea Master Plan" by OWD) as well as
the Water Conservation Plan should be reviewed and approved
by OWD prior to City approval.
. On page 4-8, regarding potential annexation of the 509 acre
OWD "Use Area", biological Mitigation Parcel, OWD is neutral
on this issue at this time. Further investigation and pre-
zoning work would have to be quantified prior to OWD making
a decision on the annexation issues. OWD would agree with
the City that subsequent environmental analysis and review
by the city would be required before decisions could be made
with regard to annexation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 670-2293 for assistance
of any kind. Also, the following contacts at OWD are provided
for your assistance:
IAmI Areas of Exoertise
Phone
Michael Coleman Environmental (CEQA/NEPA)
670-2293
Jim Peasley Planning I Annexation, Subarea
Master Plans
670-2242
Terry Kreuiter Engineering Public Services
(plan check, general OWD
requirements, fees)
6.70-2246
Jan Tubiolo Water Conservation
670-2290
City of Chula Vista
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
San Miguel Ranch Project
Page 5
9/25/96
In addition, the OWD Water Resources Master Plan (Montgomery
Watson) and the final Master Environmental Impact Report (RECON)
are available as resource documents in preparing the EIR (see OWD
Environmental Specialist at 670-2293).
Sincerely,
7?~
Michael F. oleman, AICP
Environmental Specialist
,
,
MFC:jkp
cc: Tim Stanton, OWD
Bart Mumford, OWD
Jim Peasley, OWD
Terry Kreuiterl OWD
David Charles, OWD
Jan TUbiolo, OWD
Larry Rega, OWD
Betty Dehoney, Tetra Techl Inc.
Doug Reid, City of Chula vista
1t:\WORUG\W02MOIt.TR$-24.DOC
-/
;
Mother Miguel Eslltes
SDG&E
Miguel
Substation
... .r~
"''''J>
....<3
SR-12SAltemative ....'<'"_-_
Horseshoe Bend ,I
Alignment ~
SR-12SAltemative -
Proctor Valley Bonita Meadows
Alignment
San Miguel Ranch
,
.
.
!.-
r
Otay Ranc:h
Source: San Migual Ranch Amendad General Development Plan
~
-+-
-+t+
Vicinity Map
TETRA TECH INC.
No seero
_Figure 2.1-2
2-3
-.-"-.-
'.
__..' '.I :) ,..."., !
~ ;";'-;". .,.....: ;,"' .
", ~~:""';'.' ..."'.....,......,... J
..-- . j!~.~, ). .. . ~. r.-:O..5/ ~
'" . ".J:. ,,' '. ; . ..:;-'..n
I .~' . , ......
I !if::F:..c...~ ~
~ v'J
i'I
f,f,'t
si'l
foot-
,5
.'
..... .
..
'.
.,.
.....
~~.
.'
Project Boundary
~
4-
~.
Project Setting
TETRA TECH INC.
O'
2000'
Figure 2.1-3
24
ATTACHMENT 14
LETTER FROM CHULA VISTA
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
SEPTEMBER 6, 1996
SEP-09-96 MON 10:10 AM
P.02
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST . r STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425-9600
UCH CHILD IS AN JNDMDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
BOARD OF EVUCATION
September 6. 1996
JOSEPH D, CWI4INGS.I'hD,
IIHMCN GUS
PATIIQ( A. oUJO
PAIIElAUMITIi
_A.~
SU'EIIINRNDENT
IJIIAs'GLI'hD,
Ms. Barbara Reid
Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Notice of Public Review and Planning CommissIon Public
Hearings for . Draft Subsequent EIR - San Miguel Ranch
Dear Ms. Reid:
(
Thank you for the opportunity to review and COmment on the Notice of Public
Review and Planning Commission Public Hearings for a Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (DSEJR) on the Proposed San Miguel Ranch.
Also attached is a copy of our comments of May 28, 1996. This project is
within the Chuta Vista Elementary School District which serves Children from
Kindergarten through Grade 6.
The Statistical Summary of Adopted General Development Plan and
Proposed General Development Plan (Table 2.4-1, Page 2-15) provided
under separate cover, indicates the following dwelling unIt distribution:
Using a generation rate of .3 students per dwelling unit, we can eXpect to
generate the following number of students:
~~
The District's current schools are des!gned to house 600 students on a
traditional calendar. Of our 33 elementary schools, 21 are' on a traditional
calendar and 12 are on a year-round calendar. The program" for this site will
be determined at a later date.
(
,
.'
SEP-09-96 MON 10:10 AM
.
P.03
Sept 6, 1996
"'$. Barbara Reid
Page 2 012
RE: Notice of Preparation of DSEIR/San Miguel Reneh
In regards to the fourth paragraph on page 3.7-21 "There Is an elementary school
planned within the development that will be located in the south parcel adjacent to
the park... w this is related to the Proctor Valley alignment only.
(
Their has been recent communication with Steve Estrada and Jeff Howard regarding
our proposed school site in the Horseshoe Bend alignment. We feel the most
appropriate location should be east of the Horseshoe Bend alignment as the district
is concemed about transporting large numbers of students across SR-125. Our
preference is to have our site adjacent to a neighborhood park as we need to provide
the safest route to and from school for all of our elementary students. The State
Department of Education must approve the site prior to district acceptance.
Please note that the reference to school fees on page 3.7-23 is Incorrect. 'the
current rate of school fees for residential Is $1.84/sq. ft. and $.30 for commercial
developmenl However, the district does not agree that implementation of these
mitigation measures "Will reduce project related impacts for both the Proctor Valley
Altemative and the Horseshoe Bend Altemative to less than a level of significance.w
The mechanism for funding the proposed school site and the needed facilities Is
unclear. , In order to assure elemeniary facilities will be available to ..rve
children from this project, participation in a Mello-ROO8 Community Facilities
District or an alternative financing mechanism Is neceesary.
The third paragraph on page 3.7-23 should read: ...Funding shall be satisfied through
the Mello-RDOS Community Facilities District financing method or other means
acceptable to the District.
The fifth paragraph on page 3.7-23 should be corrected to read "...shall obtain
written verification from Chula Vista ~ Elementary School District....n
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please give
me a call.
,
Sincerely,
~~
Assistant Superintendent for
Busin8$S Services & Support
(
LB:dp
cc: Tom Silva
~".mI(IeI
SEP-09-96 MON 10:11 AM
P.04
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST OJ" STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 61905-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GBEAT WORTH
OARII Of !DUCATION
.IOIiI!PH D.~'-rlGS.l'IIJ).
SIAAONGW
~~k~ May28,1996
PANEI.A UMIfIf
-"---
SUPERINTENDINT
I.IIU.BL,JIII.O.
(
"
"
-",
Ms. Barbara Reid
Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
RE: Notice of Preparation of . DnJft Subsequent EIRlSan Miguel
Ranch
1
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of
Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR)
on the proposed San Miguel Ranch. This project is within the Chula Vista
Elementary School District which SElrves children from Kindergarten
through Grade 6.
The project proposes between 1495 and 1757 dwelling units. Using a
generation rate of .3 students per dwelling unit, we can expect to generate
approximately 527 elementary students. The District's current schools are
designed to house 600 students on a traditional calendar. Of our 33
elemernary schools, 21 are on a traditional calender and 12 are on a year-
round calendar. The program for this site will be determined at a later
date.
I understand that the Preliminary Grading Study dated August 15. 1995.
identifying a school site (13,6 acres) within the project was reviewed and
that the location was concepMllly I~ptable to the District. The location
of this site adjacent to a neighborhood park.. is highly desirable. We need
to provide the safest route to and from scMool for all of our elementary
students. Any modifications to the location shown on the document
referenced above must be reviewed by the District. The proposed school
site is conceptual at this point. and could change based on new
information The State Department of Education must approve the site
prior to district acceptance.
SEP-09-96 MON 10:12 AM
P. 05
May 17. 1996
Ms. Barbara Reid
Page 2 0'2
RE: Notice Of Preparation of DSEIRl$en Miguel Ram:h
Should any changes occur, the State and District criteria and POlicies
should be kept in mind. Proximity of schOol sites to:
. Major arterials
. Powerlines
. Airports
· Geological hazards
The EIR prepared for the project should identify the school site and
include its anticipated traffic; generation impact on adjacent roads. indicate
its proximity to any nazardous air emissions within one quarter mile and
the impact development of . school may have on future proposed land
uses.
,
,
(
Though a school site has been identified, the meChanism for funding this
school site and the needed facilities is unclear. In order to assure
elementary facilities will be available to serve children from this project.
participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District or an alternative
financing mechanism is necessary.
By now I trust that you are aware of Kate Shurson's leave of absence from
the District. In this interim period, I will be handling planning issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If' you have any questions,
please contact me at 425-9600, ext. 326.
Sincerely,
/~./I!.--;
L"' ~~lIrngs, Ed.D.
Assistant Superintendent for
Administrative Services & Suppan
LB:dp
cc;; Tom Silva
..~ r~'
(
ATTACHMENT 15
LETTER FROM SWEETWATER UNION
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
SEPTEMBER 6, 1996
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 Aflh Avenue
Chula Vlala. California gI911.2896
(819) 891.5500
f?t:-r-.-
-- '-" :..- ,,/-
,t \- t:: r-.
DIvision of Planning and Facllhles
". .
-:":..P.t. Ii
.." . -':';
PLArvlVilVC:
September 6, 1996
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Dear Ms. Reid:
Re:
San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment / General Development Plan Amendment
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report: August 1996
,
.
The Sweetwater Union High School District is in receipt of the above subsequent
environmental impact report for the proposed amended San Miguel Ranch plan. The statistical
summary of the adopted general development plan and the proposed general development
plans, provided under separate cover and identified as Table 2, indicates the following dwelling
unit distribution:
Adopted GDP Proctor Valley Alipment GDP Ho"""-,,hoe Bend AII~ment GDP
1,619 d.u.s 1,495 d.u.s 1,498 d.u.s
The district's student yield rates are 0.19 students per dwelling unit for high school distribution
and 0.10 students per dwelling for middle school distribution. Based on the number of
dwellings to be constructed, the anticipated impact to the district is as follows:
Grade Level Ad<wted GDP Proctor Vall"Y GDP Horseshoe Bend
~
High School (9-12) 308 (students) 284 (students) 285 (students)
Middle School (7-8) l62 .lSO .lSO
Total 470 434 435
Approximately 15 1016 ciassrooms are required to house the anticipated additiolJal Students.
The report accurately states that the proposed project will have a significant impact on the
district (p.3.7-22). However, the district does not concur with the suggestei1 mitigation
measure that payment of fees will reduce the level of significance. Pursuant to Government
Code 65995, said fees limits are relevant when no legislative action is required for the project.
San Miguel Ranch does not fall within that category. The only acceptable means for mitigating
Ms. Barbara Reid
September 6, 1996
Page 2
the project's impacts is its establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District or some
other financing mechanism acceptable to the District. The third paragraph on page 3.7-23
suggests this approach, but it can be construed as too weak. It should be revised as follows:
Prior to SPA Plan approval, the project proponent shall provide documentation to
. the City confirming satisfaction of Sweetwater Union High School District
facility funding requirements to offset student generation Impacts. Funding
weuId shall be satisfied through the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
financing method or other means acceptable to the District.
This change will make the mitigation of this project consistent with how other developers in the
eastern territories have addressed their projects' impacts to schools. The District can not
support the approval of the subsequent environmental impact report without this change.
If you have any questions, please feel free to cal1 me at 691-5553.
;z~
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
Ts/ml
c: Andy Campbel1, SUHSD
LowelI Billings, CVESD
;
,.
ATTACHMENT 16
LETTER FROM GATZKE,MISPAGEL
AND DILLION
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996
1821 P"L.OMAR O"K$ W"Y, SUITE ZOO
RECEIVED
SE.P 12 1996
PLANNING
GATZKE, MISPAOEL & DILLON
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
CARLS.AD, CALI"ORNIA 82008
TIEL.IEPHONE: 18101431.0501
MARK J. DILLON
PARTNER
......x: 1810' <431-0&12
......IL.ING AOORIESS:
POST O......ICE BOX 1838
CARL.SBAD. CA 82018-1838
. September 11, 1996
By Telecopier and
By Messenger
Barbara Reid
Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
,
Re: Comments to Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
No. 95-04 ("EIR") For San Miguel Ranch (SCH No. 96051038)
"
Dear Barbara:
I have been asked by the project applicant, Emerald Properties Corp. ("Emerald
Properties") to submit this letter for purposes of providing you with our project team's comments
and suggested revisions to the Draft Subsequent Em for San Miguel Ranch. We hope that the
comments presented below will assist you and the environmental consultant in clarifying the Draft
Em. We look forward to continuing to work closely with City staff on both the amended land
plans and the Draft Em for San Miguel Ranch. Our comments are as follows:
1. Page 1-4lDeve1opment on North Parcel. The Draft EIR should be revised, at page
1-4, to clarify that Emerald Properties has prepared and submitted two separate Amended General
Development Plans ("GDP") for San Miguel Ranch to accommodate two proposed freeway
alignments for the southerly extension of State Route 125 ("SR 125"). One GDP is in response
to, and incorporates, the Proctor Valley Alignment for SR 125 which runs along the western edge
of the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch. The other GDP is in response to, and incorporates, the
Horseshoe Bend Alignment for SR 125 which bisects the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch in a
north-south direction. Both Amended GDPs are proposing that no development occur on the
north parcel of San Miguel Ranch to ensure that Emerald Properties is consistent with the terms
and conditions of the City's Draft Subarea Plan (August 1996 version).. In addition, no
development is proposed on the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch at this time because Emerald
. The City's Draft Subarea Plan (August 1996 version) is intended to refer to the
version dated August 1, 1996, which was forwarded by the Chula Vista City Council to the City
of San Diego for incorporation into the Draft MSCPINCCP Program.
GATZKE, MISPAGEL & DILLON
Barbara Reid
September 11, 1995
Page 2
Properties and the federal and state resource agencies have entered into an agreement that
contemplates the acquisition, protection and inclusion of the north parcel, and a portion of the
south parcel, in a preserve area within the City's Subarea Plan. This agreement is consistent with
the Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") and the Revised Multiple Habitat
Planning Area Map of the City's Subarea Plan. A copy of that agreement is enclosed for your
review. Please incorporate the enclosed agreement into the Final EIR.
We also believe that the Draft EIR should be revised to reflect the above-referenced
information. In making those revisions, we specifically request that you delete the following
sentence on page 1-4: "Due to physical constraints associated with the location of SR 125, no
development is proposed on the north parcel." This sentence is not accurate.
,
2. Page 1-4/General Plan Amendment For South Parcel. At page 1-4, the Draft '
EIR should be revised to make it clear, at the outset, that Emerald Properties is requesting a "
General Plan Amendment (ooGPA") for the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch. The GPA, which
would apply to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, is proposed for two reasons.
First, San Miguel Ranch has been redesigned based upon a comprehensive site analysis and a
jointly prepared statement of goals and objectives. This analysis revealed that the GPA's
identification of essentially one residential land use designation ("Low") did not create the
flexibility needed to develop a balanced and integrated planned community for the City of Chula
Vista. In addition, the General Plan designation does not provide the appropriate residential land
uses adjacent to, or in view of:
. The Horseshoe Bend Alignment for SR 125;
. The SDG&E easements traversing the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch; and
. The off-site SDG&E Substation and associated transmission lines.
Second, the proposed GPA for the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch is consistent with the local,
state and federal efforts to preserve covered species and their habitat in the context of the San
Diego-area MSCPINCCP Program. Under both City's Draft Subarea Plan (August 1996 version)
and the MSCPINCCP Program, the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch is contemplated for
acquisition, protection and inclusion in the preserve area of the City's Subarea Plan. The USFWS,
the CDFG and Emerald Properties have entered into the enclosed agreement which would retain
the entire north parcel, and a portion of the south parcel, as a permanent ecological reserve;
however, the agreement is conditioned upon certain assurances, acknowledgments and agreements
to be obtained from the USFWS, the CDFG and the City of Chula Vista. Those assurances, as
set forth in the City's Subarea Plan, include, among others, City Council approval of a GPA for
the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch, and approval of one of two Amended General Development
Plans for San Miguel Ranch - both of which would change the land use designations on the south
parcel to allow greater flexibility in project design and, at the same time, achieve the conservation
GATZKE, MISPAGEL & DILLON
Barbara Reid
September 11, 1995
Page 3
and resource protection objectives of both the City's Subarea Plan and the MSCPINCCP Program.
The Draft EIR should be revised, at page 14, to refer to thc applicant's GP A request for the south
parcel and the two reasons supporting that request.
3. Page 1-11lDevelopment on North Parcel. The Draft EIR should be revised, at
page 1-11, to reflect the reasons why development is no longer being proposed on the north parcel
of San Miguel Ranch at this time. See, Comment Nos. 1 and 2 above.
4. Page 2-5, Last ParagraphlThe Project Applicant. At page 2-5, last paragraph,
the Draft EIR incorrectly refers to the project applicant as "Emerald Properties, Inc." The
document should be revised to refer to the applicant as either "Emerald Properties" or "Emerald
Properties Corp."
:
5. Page 2-12, Second ParagrapblUnit Counts. At page 2-12, the Draft EIR states"
that the Amended Proctor Valley GDP has 262 fewer units than the Amended Horseshoe Bend
GDP. The 262 unit count is based upon the February 22, 1996, GDP submittal. The correct unit
counts for both Amended GDPs are reflected on Table 2.4-1 (Proctor Valley GDP/1495 units and
Horseshoe Bend GDP/1498 units). Please revise the Draft EIR to correctly reflect the current unit
counts for the two Amended GDPs.
6. Page 2-12, Last ParagrapblGPA Request. At page 2-12, last paragraph, the first
sentence should be revised to clarify that Emerald Properties is seeking a General Plan
Amendment ("GPA") for the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch. See, Comment No.2 above.
7. Page 2-16, Second ParagrapbINorth Parcel Preservation Option. This
paragraph should be revised in the following manner to accurately reflect the current status of the
north parcel:
This SEIR aIse evaluates 11ft optionallll!l.d IISe eoMigltratioli 11 hie!!
i! the full preservation of the entire N(!orth p(!arcel under the
Preet6r 'htH~ AU lit GD~~...........tiO"J'~ea~ ,~ S
, gnme ".>_"~~~..t=..~,_,~"~_,~...P, ,[!! ,
~:MigU~~~'T::I!. This option is presented s~~ one
alternative of the City's Draft Subarea Plan ~~~~~I!!\I
recommends preservation of the north parcel to meet III
conservation goals of the MSCPIJ~~. Under this
scenario, the south parcel would be developed as described abMe
and the Nom plll'eel would be 4es~d III Opeli spaeel'!S
N>Plicant'spiOPQsed~QQf!i~j'iiJ.,~~~~~
W()u1i1 beacguiiel:J,profe!:tea ~~d.eIJ:i1t''t}1e~,\~,~~
Plan (All~lOQl;'VeJ:sion\ ;m; .'. ,., 'raa:nce':w.ifbt@1~:'Ji~""rii_5
t,: .,_".-'.__,.__., _"'h"',,<....r~-~i>:>.\.k_"-~___,\~~&.;."""'^~__,.-..,"""''''''''''.. -', - - ,~t
GATZKE, MISPAGEL & DILLON
Barbara Reid
September 11, 1995
Page 4
~\V1~gtJ!~nrs;~~~.~:fg~'ij!~~. The 50
estate lots proposed on the north parcel would be removed entirely
from tIIeILtiY'P!9.P6sei! land use plan; no design transfer to the south
parcel would occur. All other improvements necessary to develop
the south parcel would be impleme~ IIftIicr tftis altel"ftllti,e. No
development or disturbance would occur within the entire 11852-
acre north parcel.
8. Page 2-17, First Full ParagraphlProposed Land Use Categories. The following
paragraph in the Draft Em should be revised because the text contains certain minor typographical
errors and includes an inaccurate statement regarding . access limitations. on the north parcel
(there are no such limitations). In addition, the paragraph should be revised because both ~
Amended GDPs would be required to provide rights-of-way for SR 125 on the south parcel of San
Miguel Ranch due to Caltrans' decision to locate SR 125 either adjacent to San Miguel Ranch "
(i.e., the Amended Proctor Valley GDP) or through San Miguel Ranch (i.e.. the Amended
Horseshoe Bend GDP):
The entire 1,852 acre north parcel would be designated as 6I'eD. sp~j1~1~
reserve under tftis aItel'ftIIti.. e 1_ IIse pl~~~~.~Jj~l,(~~M~
Ranch in accordance with the terms ~ conditions of the City's Subarea Plan
(August 1996 version). In additi"Ii, Ii6 dC'Jtl6l'meJ1t 11 OtIld be pr6l'osed m the
Ii6rth p8feel dIIe to aeeess limitations e8l1sed ~ the re. ised SR 125 lII.ignm-."ftt. 1ft
adamon, th~ IIM3~3h6~ B'litl ,A-ligttmelit CDP ~8ttId pNY~i4c. the. rilht of way fOf
~ segmcftt of the freeway ~ the s6lttk parcel based IIpOIi lie!otiMions with
Caltrans.
9. Page 2-17, Third ParagraphlProposed General Plan Amendment. The Draft
EIR should be revised to clarify that Emerald Properties is seeking a GP A for the south parcel
of San Miguel Ranch as part of the approvals for both of the Amended GDPs. In addition, the
following typographical error should be corrected at page 2-17: . Amendment oftbe Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan would incorporate the proposed land use
categories described above, and fa ~jnew alignment for SR 125. .
10. Page 2-18, First LinelMt. Miguel Road. At page 2-18, the Draft EIR refers to
Mt. Miguel Road as a four-lane major arterial. This sentence should be revised to refer to Mt.
Miguel Road as a four-lane collector road with a raised median.
II. Page 2-181Discretionary Actions/Approvals. The second bullet item states that
the City's Circulation Element would need to be changed to reflect the Horseshoe Bend Alignment
for SR 125. The Draft Em should be revised to reflect that the Chula Vista City Council has
GATZKE, MISPAGEL & DILLON
Barbara Reid
September 11, 1995
Page 5
selected the Horseshoe Bend Alignment as the "preferred" alignment for SR 125. The Draft EIR
should also reflect that the Circulation Element Amendment is being driven by a final alignment
decision to be made by Caltrans. The proposed Circulation Element Amendment, therefore,
should be a jointly shared responsibility of all parties affected by the ultimate decision to be made
by Caltrans.
12. Page 3.1-2, Second LinelDraft MSCP. The Draft EIR should be revised to refer
to the City's latest version of the . Admini~trative Draft Subarea Plan, dated August 1996." In
addition, we request that the City's Subarea Plan (August 1996 version) be incorporated by
reference in the Draft EIR.
13. Page 3.1-5, Second Paragraph/Amended Proctor Valley GDP. The reference ,
.
to the Amended Proctor Valley GDP should be revised in the following manner:
,
.
The Proctor Valley Alignment GDP has ebstlm.ftllll, re.4lieed
8t...elopMClit m tht 116rth pared to II 1!Iftim.1Im of S9 estate lets
~cludes two.'St1balternati~::(1)'~S1tJl"ntijj1,~11]P.iD,.C1'1t~.~
north parcel wJiithproposc:S?Od",*l1ing1JDitS]!')r'1Ib'1t~;~Q7~;
pnd(2)NoDevelopxnent O'n.,the,~~~~cb~~~
r,vith an alternajjveih ,the;r;y:y~n~~.~~~~.:.(~~~",~
rtersion). The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP eliminates all
development on the north parcel ~~~)~~~iifill1~
acknowledgi.i1en.tS':tm~P!nf~.;Sfj~.f.9mlmE~Btyl~_~
Plai1 (Augusq~,tm~)~J!i!!yj@1~~. Both ~~,~
GDPs alte;mati.ItS would reduce the amount of runoff and eliminate
the potential for surface water contamination (i.e., urban
contaminants) affecting Sweetwater Reservoir.
14. Page 3.1-6, First ParagraphINo Development on North Parcel. The Draft EIR
should be revised in the following manner to accurately reflect the "no north parcel development"
proposal submitted by the project applicant:
. ... on north parcel which would eliminate all development on the
north parcell"i.lJi:i!ii1p1~_~~I~~!i!~~"
fQrth1.P!l1if~!OC!~2!,~~"~~pJRIfl. Both sub-
alternatives would result in a substantial reduction in the residential
land uses on the north parcel, with significant increases in tIpeI'I
~ acreage J!llic:l1!i@~~:~:I'~.~:!m~
within a--res-e,.alea',(Sf,11ie'Ciro~~"1&li.re~f;otQft2f~um'i1f11996
~;""" . ,"',' "-,'P.""~~;,-=;",^",""",,,,,-_,,"--~,..,..:::.1:J',~,,,,,,...,,,..__~..~~ f<:..,_'~:~~"=i
rers10p.). "
GATZKE, MISPAGEL & DILLON
Barbara Reid
September 11, 1995
Page 6
IS. Page 3.1-6, Last Sentence/Amended Horseshoe Bend GDP. The correct open
space acreage figure under the Amended Horseshoe Bend GDP is 181.9 acres, not 177.8 acres.
16. Page 3.1-6, Third Paragraph/Amended Horseshoe Bend GDP. The Draft EIR
should be revised in the following manner to accurately reflect the status of the north parcel under
both Amended GDPs:
A substantial change between the land uses of the Adopted GDP
and the IIorse3h6e Bend MigftmCllt GDptWo~GDPs1is the
Ih~.. ..;._~.",,: ,'u:- ..:.: ...".".:........,"'"
pr6posedelimination of residential development on the north parcel
placcordance withthetc:@S.aIld~~it!i?~R!~~ri~~~
!,lan{Atigustl996 -veiSlQ.i1).';';The Adopted GDPproposed Low
Residential (357 dwelling units located on 357 acres specified as
Estate Lots) in the west portion of the north parcel. The IIMsesftee
Belitl A-lignmeftt GDP"tTIe1ill~t'GJ:)!,~ proposes all development on
the south parcel and eliminate all residential land uses on the north
parcel as long as thepreferredalreroatiyeJJ1~~~1'!@
(August 1996versioJ1)isad~'~ ;i1l'Pl~J!JI~I
Bcknowled ents 7Mid,agreernentS.:set':fotth':m'~that 'l>181i'1_
....gm... ....... ':. ........... ./...;~;;>._.""'''',..O;~,''''''"''''-",'''','.,'-".,:.~,~,, ..,.,__",i-",",-'",>(';,
Implemented. The North Parcel would be epeft sl'8ee ~j
protected and included in a preserve area Within.:t1le1)itf$'.''SulJii'e3
pJah {Au" 't 1996 'Version)'djf':r6~m1he1iSC:PlN(.ji
. gus.., ", ..".." " ,.'PI' .,.' app,~_.....,_.~.,......, ...__,...~...,...........
Program.
17. Page 3.1-21/Figure 3.1-2. We believe that Figure 3.1-2 should be revised to
accurately reflect the north parcel of the San Miguel Ranch project. Specifically, the figure
should be revised to show the north parcel as a cross-hatched area with an asterisk stating that it
will be a conserved area after implementation of all the terms and conditions of the City's Subarea
Plan (August 1996 version). This approach is consistent with the mapping of the north parcel
under the Draft MSCPINCCP Program (see, MSCP Recirculated Draft Ioint EIRlEIS, August
1996, Figure 2-5). The project manager for Emerald Properties, Mark Faulkner, will be meeting
with you in the next few days to discuss our proposed revisions to this figure.
18. Page 3.3-18, First SentencelRaptor Nest. The Draft EIR refers to one raptor nest
being lost by implementation of the Amended Proctor Valley GDP. As noted in the letter from
Rick Engineering Company to Barbara Reid, dated July 16, 1996, we do"not believe that there
are any raptor nest sites affected in the northeastern portion of the north parcel of San Miguel
Ranch (see Figure 3.3-1). Please revise the Draft EIR accordingly.
,
,
..
GATZKE, MISPAGEL & DILLON
Barbara Reid
September 11, 1995
Page 7
19. Page 3.3-181 Amended Proctor Valley GDP-North Option. The Draft EIR should
be revised in the following manner to accurately reflect the proposed conservation of the north
parcel of San Miguel Ranch:
Direct impacts to sensitive plants communities, and animal and
plant species will be reduced for this alternative if diG Berth 1'IIfed
iJ diminated MId dedieated ti epea 3p8eC pevelop~ll!n~'i!1'tJj~~\~
arcelis elilIlinated 'and 'the north........., '1S1i"""--" 'tectedand
P , ,,'>, " .'"" :1'':':''='"'1....~,p1'I).,''.,.
mcludedwithin the,.p~e.'~&r~.~"~~~~2!!~
(August 1996"e~i61l)'
20. Page 3.6-6/Noise Mitigation Measures. The Mitigation Measures, Items 1 ,
,
through 3, refer to construction of noise walls or walllberm combinations. These proposed
mitigation measures should be the responsibility of Caltrans, not the project applicant. The Draft ..
Em should be revised in this section to clarify that Caltrans will be responsible for any mitigation
measures that are required due to construction of SR 125 through San Miguel Ranch.
21. Page 3.7-4/Proposed Water Supply Facilities. At 3.7-4, the Draft EIR should
be revised as follows: "... Project site will be served by . .. ."
22. Page 3.7-19/Mitigation Measures. At page 3.7-19, Draft EIR refers to a "second
access road" to the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch. Assuming that no development is proposed
on the north parcel, this mitigation measure would not be necessary. In addition, this mitigation
measure is not feasible in any event based upon a letter from Rick Engineering Company to
Barbara Reid, dated July 16, 1996.
23. Pages 3.8-3 and 3.8-SlTrails. The Draft EIR refers to trails within the SDG&E
easements. This issue should be clarified with the City's Parks and Recreation Department, and
revisions should be made to the Draft EIR to accurately reflect this issue.
24. Page 3.8-4/0pen Space. The Draft EIR should be revised in the following manner
to accurately reflect the "open space" in the north parcel:
The project would preserve 1,962 acres of l'enmment 6I'eII.
~!arid, (76% pereent of the project site) ~~!I!i~~~
tesei'Ve;f6~(:~~,~~~.~~!f!,![~!!!1!,~g
!>ftbe<:Jity's~g~I:!II"!!,<~I,l&\1S!.~~:~~~!@}. The open space
designation preserves the majority of steep slopes in the northern
portion, including Mother Miguel Mountain. Mother Miguel
Mountain will be preserved as permanent open space.
GATZKE, MIS PAGEL & DILLON
Barbara Reid
September 11, 1995
Page 8
2S. Page 3.B-S/Mitigation Measures - Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP. The Draft
EIR states that construction of SR 125 will bisect the City's trail system in numerous places. The
proposed mitigation is to create "structures" that will allow trail users to cross over SR 125.
First, Caltrans, and not the project applicant, would be responsible for any such mitigation
measure. Second, we are not convinced that "structures" are needed in any event. Hikers and
equestrian use could be accommodated on Mt. Miguel Road where it crosses SR 125. Obviously,
these issues should be analyzed further at the SPA Plan level.
26. Page 3.B-S/Open Space. The Draft EIR should be revised in the following manner
to accurately reflect the "open space" in the north parcel:
The project would preserve 2029.8 acres of perI!I8fteftt opel!. stlllee
(78% percent of the project site) PSPart'()f8A~l()gi,cIi.1~~'~
~ ereated,~ accom.anceWiththe~~~~~9~]')~gft~
~barea PlanlJ\ugustl~6,!~'g,11).
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments and revisions to the Draft EIR.
Please contact me or Mark Faulkner should you have any questions regarding our comments, or
if you need any further information.
,1);:I~ .
Mark J. Dillon
of
Gatzke, Mispagel & Dillon
MJD:wbo
Enclosures
cc: Garrett W. Thelander
Mark Faulkner
John D. Goddard, Jr.
Steve Estrada/Jeff Howard
Ed Sauls
(w/encl.)
,
.
.'
Emerald Properties Corp.
280 Park Avenue, 23W, New York, NY 10017
Garrett W. Thelander
Vice President
Tel: 212-454-3303
Fax: 212-454-3821
May I, 1996
Mr. Ron Rempel
Program Supervisor
Habitat Conservation Planning
State of California Dept.ofFish and Game
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: San Miguel Ranch
,
.
Dear Ron:
The purpose of this letter is to memoria1ize, and to obtain approval of the Agreement that was
entered into between Emerald Properties Corp. ("EPC"), the California Department ofFish and
Game ("DFG") and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") (collectively, "the
parties") with respect to conservation of the North Parcel, mitigation for the South Parcel, and the
process for the take authorizations for the South Parcel of the San Miguel Ranch property. This
Agreement, which is attached to this letter and incorporated by this reference, is memorialized in a
three-page document entitled "San Miguel Ranch," and dated April 30, 1996 ("the Agreement").
The Agreement is based upon negotiations between the parties over the past month, and the prior
Points of Agreement which is also attached to this letter and incorporated by this reference. It is
understood between the parties that neither the Agreement nor the Points of Agreement is
intended to preclude or predetermine any action to be taken by the City of Chula Vista ("the
City") with respect to the San Miguel Ranch property.
The parties have mutually agreed to cooperate to prepare and sign a Conservation Agreement.
This ConselVation Agreement will be based upon the Agreement and the Points of Agreement,
both of which will remain in effect until execution of the Conservation Agreement.
Mr. Ron Rempel
May 1, 1996
Page 2
Please indicate your approval to the Agreement by signing in the spaces provided below, and by
initialing each page of the attached Agreement and Points of Agreement.
Sincerely, _
)\"'.;;:>> . ')L"~J'V"c.\
(,.,0/...." L.... !""
Garrett Thelander
.
,
c- ~:~~::~ e ~-)I/~h
California Department ofFish ana Game
l1Jc 1101 i::-~S. ~9~
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
,......-f'\-~-...'='~ u~...... r-r<;Ui I ...ru C.i",.... ~I"\'... ... .
,~
.;.;...--~-- - - ."
San Miguel Ranch
squm AREA
. Emerald p,~.!S will dedicate and provide Cor the DIIIIIIemmt orthe 146 lCI'es
of~ioIogical opca space in IOIIIbem deYeIopmmt..
N~RTR AREA
...1_.:..:.: ",-
~.LLOD ~J.~__1iMtt
. SOO ICreS of1be DIII1h poniaa of SID MiaueI RIDch would be KqUired by Stile
llldlor Federal Agencies with the ICqIIisiIigD price baed on fair IDIrbt Ylllues pursuant ID
Stile and/or Federa11111d acquisitioo procedures
. 1be 500 acres of ac:quisiIioa indudes the .. of the DOrth pImII ebid! was
designated for development in the GeDenI DtrYeIopIl1lDt PIm previously Ipproved by the
City of Cbula Vista .
,
~
{"~tion BBnkinR r.nmnnn_
_ Ihere would be a nwcimum of 1186 ICI'es of COIISeNaIim credits (the
ccmerva1ion bank owner would selthe sales pric:e for 1be CCQServatiao bIIIk credi1s)
_ the number of conservation baIIk credits would be reduced by 1.0 coaservaIion
a-edits for each IIIIit IppfOWd UDder alter1IIIive B (CAC aIi~) in IGeSS of 1262 Ullits
IIld would be reduced by 1.1 CXXJSe:VIdigo credits for each IIIIit IlpplVYllClIIIIder alternative A
(PIw... Valley West ,.liW'..-.\) in exc:ess 0(1262 uoits
MtmIUf~ fUnM Bftd J:PW4n~t
.
-the manapment endowmeatwouldbe .........;"....Iy SI,OOOlcmserva!ion credit
. Emerald l'I~es would make an initial dejIosit of SI00,OOO ia1D 1110
lIIIIIII&emeat mdo..1IICIII1D provide for mini"".... interim IDIOIpIIIIIIt ortbe IIIIire
conservasioa bIII~ ..
. die initia1 de90sit wiD serve a the m"""8~ endowmeat for 1be first 100
ccmeMSion c:recits sold
Apri1j30, 1996
s\);:.,..
;/ ~~\~
~ ~.\~'
~
..-. .-
!"i-'....-3t1-19::-6 0-=-; 41 ":i(UtI lJFG ~NV. ~RV. L.J1v.
TO
~1~~1~(4 ~.~~
~ tide trander timincr
MitiSatiDD parcel
. ~ fee Utle to the 166 acres will be 1I......&.."d to~ Department ofFish
IIId Game or tile U.S. Fish IIIId Wildlife Service (or to III OI'p";...ti?>llpproved by
1bem) fbDowiDa City of ChuIa VISIIS IIIthorizasion of1be project based IIpOIIIII
approved Multiple Species CoIIsemIIIiaa Pr....... Subarea PIIn fbr Chula Villa
. . 1be fee 1itle will be 1I.....f\.."d prior to III)' prqject padiDg or CCIDaImnt
willi the recordatioa of the filii IrIc:t IIIIP, wbic:hllYw occun filii
ColIMI'YatiDD Bauk lMdJ
. . CCIIISCMIioD eu -- 011 die COIIIeMItiaa bIIIk lands will be &i_docIlO
die Def...h-4t ofFish IIIId Game or the U.S. Fish IIId Wllcllif'e SII'Yice, by the
landowner, prior to the sale or1be first COIlse&' ..1Iioa
AcqulsltiDD parcel
. to &cilillle . multiple year purcbae, the acquisition parcel may be
acquired as muhiple parcels
. the remainder pace1(s) sball main its existina land use desi&aaliOll
AcquisitiOD ti1DiD&
. subject to state lIIIdfor fedenlapproprildioas, ~ acquisition Isnds would
be acquired during the next two fiscal years (state (7/1J96.M1198) IIId federal
1011196-9130198]
.
.
B.ed 011 this IIDderstsndin& 1be Wildlife Agencies will:
. support. both in writing IIId in public b.riDp, 11\ ~*M cIeosity project 0II1be
southern parcel with 110 Idditiooa1 open space requiremenIs;
. work wi1h the City ofChula Vista 10 ~ the applVYll of1beir MSCP
Subara PIIII with the intent to haw SIIIe IIId FecIerI1-.4!11\Sered species lIlte
authoriza1:ioas in place prior to the ead or1be 1996 c:aJr'. yar;
. work with Emerald PJoputies to e..-podiliously process aItmIatM take
autborizaioDs or .......IM (bb......:..a 0c:I0ber 1. 1996) in tbe _t tbIt it is ~Iy
anticipated that take autborizations for die MSCP wiD DOt be issued prior to JIII\III)' I, 1m
. assist the project $pODSOII identifY marbIiDa gpporIIIDities fbr their coaservatica
bIIIk cadits.
April po, 1996
I
I
~-Xr,y,~
;t~ ~~~~"
~b
,~ F-",<~U.._
POINTS OF AGREEMENT
June 21, 1995
These Points of Agreement (points) are between Emerald Properties Corp. (EPC), the
U.S. Fish" Wlldlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department offish" Game
(CDFG) (panies). The Points are intended to be memorialized in a Conservation
Agreement between the Panies and the City ofChula Vista (City) in the context of the
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan for the City.
The Points are:
A. EPC owns San Miguel Ranch, which comprises a 738-acre South Parcel and an 1,852-
acre North Parcel. Wlldlife agencies intend to issue the City Take authorizations
which would pennit City to allow EPC to take covered species. Wlldlife agencies
intend for the implementation of San Miguel Ranch's portion of City's MSCP Subarea
Plan to represent full compliance with the mandates of the federal and California
Endangered Species Acts (ESA), the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
and the California Native Plant Protection Act.
B. To assure flexibility in development planning for EPC, the Points of Agreement
provide for two preserve boundary scenarios to be prepared for the San Miguel Ranch
portion of the City's Subarea Plan.
C. The two scenarios are:
L Draft MBPA (Scenario I)
The preserve alternative is depicted in Figure 1 , and is referred to as the Draft
Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHP A) map. This alternative indicates no
development on the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch. To make it acceptable
to EPC, the development on the South Parcel would need to be redesigned to
yield about 1,620 dwelling units. This scenario and related biological
mitigation are acceptable to the wildlife agencies.
,
,
n. GDP (Scenario II)
This preserve alternative is depicted in Figure 2, and is referred to as the
General Development Plan (GDP) scenario. This alternative reflects the
development approvals for San Miguel Ranch obtained in 1993 nom the City,
but does not reflect the understanding between the wildlife agencies and EPC.
D. Take Authorizations for Scenario I would be the same as for the proposecJ MSCP and
be approved through the City's Subarea Plan. For Scenario n. EPC would have to
seek Take Authorizations through the Section 10(a)(1)(B)ofthe federal Endangered \1,'11.1
Species Act and state Management Authorization processes. }.\J'4. ., ~ ~ \qp
n\ ,~~
V '.\"J'
~'o
E. Mitigation for San Miguel Ranch project biological impacts in each of the two
scenarios is as fonows:
L Draft MBPA: EPC would dedicate approximately 166 acres of the North
Parcel to offset the impacts of development on the South Parcel and would
also preserve approxilnately 21 acres ofOtay Tarplant on the South Parcel.
The remainder of the North Parcel would be a high priority MSCP acquisition
target .
n. GDP: Mitigation for any development impacts on either the North or South
parcels would be detennined at the time when EPC prepared a Conservation
Plan in support of its ESA Section 100aXl)(B) pennit application and a Fish &
Game Code Section 2081 Management Authorization.
F. If the Draft MHP A scenario is implemented, the habitat value of each acre in the
North Parcel is equivalent for purposes of mitigation banking.
~
G. It is anticipated that the Otay Tarplant, Golden Eagle, Northern Hanier, Cooper's
Hawk, and the Coastal Cactus Wren will be included as Covered Species in the
approved City MSCP Subarea Plan, provided the agency-recommended changes to
the MSCP Preserve design are achieved and assuming the Scenario I is chosen by
EPC. This basic level of assurance is essential to provide EPC with certainty if they
set aside the north as preserve, they can proceed with development of the south
without future endangered species constraints.
,
H. Agencies intend to vigorously support efforts ofEPC to gain project approval nom
City, assuming MHP A scenario is used as the development "footprint" for the San
Miguel Ranch project. This support will include letters in support and appearances at
public hearings.
I. Agencies acknowledge that EPC giving up the right to pursue further entitlements for
the North Parcel indicates EPC'sdesire to recover the value in the estate lot
development in the North Parcel through a combination of preserve acquisition,
mitigation banking, and a redesign and General Plan Amendment on the South Parcel.
Iran approximately 1,620-dwellingunit entitlement is approved by City on the South
Parcel, EPC will not pursue Scenario n.
J. EPC intends to cooperate fully with the City and wildlife agencies in the development
of a MSCP Subarea Plan in Chula Vista, which will provide the regulatory ftamewDrk
for this Agreement. In the event City does not prepare an MSCP Subarea Plan,
agencies will work with EPC to develop project-specific Take Authorizations. If, at
that time, EPC pursues Scenario I, the wildlife agencies will work with EPC to
develop a subarea plan for inclusion under the MSCP umbrena, rather than going
though the more lengthy Habitat Conservation Plan development process.
\~~I
. '::''\>t tw
yt.. ~~ ".~ \
~~S.
K. If a Conservation Agreement has not been signed within six months of the signing date
of these Points of Agreement, then all parties are relieved of any explicit or implicit
obligations noted in the Points of Agreement. Parties will use best efforts to conclude
negotiations on the Conservation Agreement within the six month period.
Acknowledged:
Emerald Properties Corp.
BY~C~). (il ~~a"
VIUz P~~,L:"\-L
A New York Corporation
United States Fish & WJ1dlife Service
By jq~ ~
/
,r
California Department ofFish & Game
~y ..;2-..o0,.(:i> <CV\N'\~
~~
j\~~ <;\.~~\
~~
EXTENSION OF POINTS OF AGREEMENT
December 1,1995
This is intended to memorialize our agreement to extend the terms of the June 21, 1995,
Points of Agreement on San Miguel Ranch by three months to March 21, 1996. This is
solely for the purposes of extending the deadline; all other terms remain the same.
Acknowledged:
.'
..
i
,
Emerald Properties Corp.
By 4~,VM~
Its V\<< IN~:aML
A New York Corporation , ;}. - (;, '- '1 S--
~
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
By l~(!.~
/ 1d..".rS'
California Department ofFish & Game
By<_m~~~t-P
I'2..}1o f. S'
..-. ---_._-_.-_._._..~- "-.-"--"'''--'----' ..--....-. ",.---.. .."--