HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1998/08/12
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, August 12, 1998
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 Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each
speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCA 98-08 & PCM 98-37; City-initiated proposal to amend
the Growth Management Ordinance; the Growth Management
Program; and the Threshold/Standards and Growth
Management Oversight Commission Policy, to enact a
revised Air Quality Threshold Standard. (I",.H.)
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCM 99-02; Otay Valley Road Name Change. (Morn,)
(Hearing to be canceled and rescheduled to a later date)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Plarming Commission Agenda
-2-
August ]2, ]998
]. Report on Consolidation ofP]anning and Building and Housing Departments.
2. Interim staff support to PIarming Commission
OTHER BUSINESS:
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT to the Plarming Commission Workshop of August 19,1998
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying wilh Ihe American wilh DisabiJities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for
meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific
information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585-5647.
California Relay Service is also available for Ihe hearing impaired.
H:\HOME\PLANNING\DIANA\PCAGENDA,DV
~-_.~.,---"-_.-
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Chair Davis and Members of the Planning Commission
Duane E. Bazzel, Principal Plarme~
TO:
DATE:
August 7,1998
SUBJECT:
WHY THE LARGE TWO VOLUMES (MSCP Final EIR/EIS)?
Attached is the Agenda Statement (Staff Report) for recommending action on the Otay Valley
Regional Park Concept Plan. As you have already noticed there are a couple of large documents
enclosed (MSCP Final EIR/EIS VoL I & 2). The recommending action that the Commission is
being asked to take on Wednesday night regarding the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan
involves making a determination that the Commission has "considered the enviromnental effects of
the Otay Valley Regional Park project" and a recommendation on adoption of the OVRP Concept
Plan.
To assist the Commission, staff has extracted pages from the MSCP Final EIR/EIS that directly
address the OVRP Concept Plan as a separate discretionary action addressed in this EIR/EIS and
included them in your Agenda Statement package as Attachment No.8. The two large EIR/EIS
- volumes delivered contain a significant amount of information focused primarily on the MSCP;
however, this information is not required reading but rather additional information for the
Commission. Don't worry about carting these documents back home Wednesday night as staff will
be taking them off your hands until a future date. Sorry for the inconvenience, but we felt that it's
better to error on too much information than not enough.
(#22:\PCOVRP.MEM)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Page 1, Item ~
Meeting Date 8/12/98
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA-98-08 & PCM-98-37, City-initiated proposal to
amend the Growth Management Ordinance; the Growth Management
Program; and the Threshold/ Standards and Growth Management Oversight
Commission Policy, to enact a revised Air Quality Threshold Standard.
Resolution PCA-98-08/ PCM-98-37 recommending City Council adoption
of proposed amendments to Section 19.09.040 J of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code; Section 3.11.1 of the City's Growth Management
Program, and the Air Quality Threshold Standard of the City's
Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission
Policy.
BACKGROUND:
As part of their actions on the GMOC'S 1995 Annual Report, on April 25, 1996, the City Council
and Planning Commission endorsed the draft Threshold Standard amendment. Council also
directed staff to finalize the amendments for formal public hearing and adoption. Due to a high
work volume, staff was unable to process the amendment. Therefore, the GMOC agreed to
receive air quality reports during the 1996 and 1997 annual reviews under the spirit of the
proposed, revised Air Quality Threshold. Staff has since worked with the GMOC and the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to define reporting requirements through the GMOC
armual review process, and is now returning the amendments for action.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed amendments are
exempt from environmental review under General Rule 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Plarming Commission adopt attached Resolution PCA-98-08/
PCM-98-37 recommending that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Ordinance
amending Section 19.09.040 J of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Exhibit A); and the attached
Draft City Council Resolution amending Section 3.11.1 of the City's Growth Management
Program (Exhibit B), and the Threshold/ Standards and Growth Management Oversight
Commission Policy (Exhibit C), to enact a revised Air Quality Threshold Standard.
Page 1, Item ----1-
Meeting Date 8/12/98
MAJOR ISSUE:
Revisions to the Air Quality Threshold Standard address prior APCD comments that the present
standard is impractical in its call for APCD to review the City's 12-18 month growth forecast, and
provide comments regarding that forecast's impacts on current and future air quality manag ement
programs. By law, APCD relies on SANDAG's regional "Series" growth forecasts for their air
quality planning and monitoring efforts, and indicated that they had no practical basis to evaluate
such a local growth forecast. The GMOC and APCD concur that the proposed, revised standard
is well-reasoned, and forms a workable and logical foundation for annual progress/compliance
reporting on air quality improvement efforts at the local and regional level.
DISCUSSION:
Air Ouality Threshold Standard Amendment
The revised Air Quality Threshold Standard directs staff to provide the GMOC with a report
encompassing the following:
. Presents an overview and evaluation of development projects approved within the last year
with respect to measures they implemented to foster air quality improvement.
" Identifies whether the City's development regulations are consistent with applicable
Federal, State, and regional air quality regulations, and
. Identifies non-development related City activities aimed at compliance with Federal, State,
and local air quality regulations.
Additionally, under the amended Threshold Standard, a copy of the report is forwarded to the
APCD for review, and the APCD continues to report to the GMOC on:
" Overall regional and local air quality conditions,
" The status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional
Air Quality Strategy, and related Federal and State programs, and
. The affects of those programs/efforts on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and
development activity.
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 8/12/98
Conclusion
The revised Air Quality Threshold Standard results in a more practical approach for planning and
monitoring air quality at both the local and regional levels. Through the GMOC review process,
the proposed revisions have been reviewed and conceptually approved by the City Council,
Planning Commission, and APCD. Furthermore, the procedures within the proposed amended
Threshold Standard have successfully been applied in spirit as part of the GMOC's 1996 and
1997 annual reviews.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments
1. Proposed Planning Commission Resolution PCA-98-08/ PCM-98-37
(ILl HOME\ PLANNING\ EDAUAQGICMOC98\AMDMT!M.GENSTMT.AIR)
RESOLUTION PCA-98-08/ PCM-98-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 19.09.040. J, OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE; AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 3.11.1 OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND THE AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD
STANDARD OF THE CITY'S THRESHOLD/ STANDARDS AND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION POLICY, TO REVISE THE
AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD STANDARD.
WHEREAS, at the initial request of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD),
the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) has evaluated the need for
amendment of the Air Quality Threshold Standard as part of its armual review process; and,
WHEREAS, the GMOC, with the APCD's concurrence, presented a revised Air Quality Threshold
Standard as part ofits' 1995 Annual Report; and,
WHEREAS, at the April 25, 1996,joint meeting with the GMOC, the Planning Commission
and City Council accepted the draft, revised Threshold Standard in concept, and directed staff to
finalize the revisions and return them for formal public hearing and adoption; and,
WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998 the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to
recommend that the City Council enact the amendment in accordance with its Resolution PCA-98-
08/ PCM-98-37; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a public hearing on said amendment
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the amendment is exempt ITom environmental
review pursuant to General Rule 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act
guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED AT
THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends City Council adoption of
amendments to Section 19.09.040. J, of the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit "A" and
amendments to the Growth Management Program as shown in Exhibit "B"; and amendments to the
Threshold Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy as shown in
Exhibit"C" of the attached draft City Council Ordinance and Resolution.
ATTACHMENT 1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 12nd day of August, 1998 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Patty Davis, Chairperson
Diana Vargas, Secretary
(h: \home\planning\edalia\pcm9808 .res)
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION
19.09.040. J, OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENACT A
REVISED AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD STANDARD.
WHEREAS, at the initial request of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD),
the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) has evaluated the need for
amendment to the Air Quality Threshold Standard as part of its' annual review process; and,
WHEREAS, the GMOC, with the APCD's concurrence, presented a revised Air Quality
Threshold Standard as part of its' 1995 Annual Report; and,
WHEREAS, at the April 25, 1996, joint meeting with the GMOC, the Planning Commission
and City Council accepted the draft, revised Threshold Standard in concept, and directed staff to
finalize the revisions and return them for formal public hearing and adoption; and,
WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing, and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the City Council enact the amendment in
accordance with its Resolution PCA-98-08/ PCM-98-37; and,
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment to the
Mtmicipal Code, and notice of said hearing together with its purpose was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 20 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely August II,
1998, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the amendment is exempt from environmental
review pursuant to General Rule 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act
guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That the amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to General
Rule 15061 (b) (3) ofthe California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
SECTION II: That the proposed, revised standard is well-reasoned, and forms a workable
and logical foundation for annual progress/compliance reporting on air quality improvement
efforts at the local and regional level.
SECTION III: That the City Council hereby adopts the proposed amendments to Section
19.09.040 J of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as presented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
SECTION IV: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth
day from and after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this I st day of September 1998.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
(h:\home\planning\edaJia\pcm9808.ord)
Chapter 19.09
Growth Management
Section 19.09.040 Quality of Life Threshold Standards
Subsection J thereto is proposed to read as follows:
J. Air Quality
The Gity GMOC shall sFlAuslly be pfovided thc Son Diego ArCD with e 12 to 18 month
dcvelopment forecast ond request an evoluation of its impoet on current and future air quolity
monagement program3, olong with recent air quolity data. The growth force03t ond ArCO
rcsponsc lettCfs sholl be provided to the CMOC for inclusion in it3 rcvicw. w1thl:ErJ:t~l;(nua]
:",~H""""";~~~,fu"''''''''''''''''M_,,"
re oriWhlch:
P..........-..
1_ Er;QY!g~~!~I1~Q!!~~l~~:ClI1.lt~!?!1I,<J!iQn.;~ofnq,~~9"eveI2Itr'!:t~f;1!"ProJ~~ts.a2prQ!.ElfI;c!u~D9
the'ptior;"" eart,'lto::cIeteitiilne to\WnEi'feXtent'tneY:implementoo';measures des" ned to
.. .. "....'Y~"".....~ .. .._.... .......... .".~...~. " .. ..............~... . "......... ... ...9... '.
fo~t~~~lty;'Li1iiJrQv~If!~8tiJ.\:JrSua!]t,Ii;>,;fel~v~ntf~giona~ and.lo~ralrquality
im'provej'f]e1itfStfat~9ie.S:
2. Idl3!1!ifi!,!~:~1;I~~LtheQlty:s d~\i'!:il()pme.!)llE?gf!!a!io!1~;poIi91es and. pr()eedures relate
fo;;':al1Q7p)11!!it~~~!!Ie.i!t~it.m~VtIentapp!I~gJe:F'eQe.ta!,S1ate '8n~ r'eglonalair quality
r'e Ulafiohslar:lo"'t6r'am&
.. ~,,_..._.....~.~!J:!!,.!!L~...
31 ItJentifjesmCitj~evelomef:Jt'iS'eCific actiVitiei:>~eln 11i1der'tBkerr:bJhe:;Cin:i :toward
"""'",';;"'-"4<>""'~~"~jAU:.~,."~"~R'=""=";;jR,,,,,",,,~,,-,,";;",=~,,,~;;,="-g~"',"""W;,;,\J.,""i,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,""';';~"'Y:''';i...,,,.,.;..,,,."'".;~'Z;<...,......".. . ".
co 'lFcf:'ce1Wjtf,j"'elevan1~defaljh~Stat€;arml!1ocanetiJlatiOt1s3'eHafCfin;alt'bality. and
H JllP~JiI.~."_.._.,r__~~,,,,%.._.... ".h_~____." _c. g_........",....".......g. .... ,.9" ...q.. ,
wQ~t)1~:0tIT~~]!YJfia"s~J31~v~~ .e6!pplian~
The Qity~~hall'pr'6v]~Efa.:c:opyofsaitJ .report t6 the ~CO for review.and comment. In
adgLt!.0I:i,,,;the..-,,,p,gQI~.Ii1!=1)11rep..or.!!Qn.:.()!~[~tlre9iQ!)~!.~d:1()c.aJ.ta.ir:q~~lity :CDr:lditions, the status
ot reglq1i!~!.ai~q1!~lty~iJljprov~.~!)1!If!p'r~fjie.nt?Qci~~!for:tS~rfder.!tJe:Reglonal ,Air Quality
Strate ':".:and relatedffieaeral arid:State'! ro ramS1!i,aIWdth'E!"affectlOfathOse effOrts! ro rams on
".. ",._.~9.Yh"o.^"",._.,c,,,,._:.....~g"'I4MI4,,'"~'~'.........=,,",,,="o.,,,,"j,,,,~~~.9,,,;,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,!;,,,,,,,,,,,,,;:;;,,,,",,,,,._,c;'''''''~~''''''~''''''d''0''''',,,,, ......., .,.............",,,,,...........P..., ..,9
the ~c;!tX:()t c;~..~!CI..cY!~l!'!?l1"d Jq..9aliPlarrfi!1.E9:~r1..<!',CI~\ie.!gpfji.E'.nJ~9iy1t..!es.
(h: \home\planning\edalia\pcm9808. res)
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 3.11.1 OF THE CITY'S GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND THE AIR QUALTIY THRESHOLD
STANDARD OF THE CITY'S THRESHOLD/ STANDARDS AND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION POLICY, TO ENACT A
REVISED AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD STANDARD.
WHEREAS, at the initial request of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD),
the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) has evaluated the need for amendment
of the Air Quality Threshold Standard as part of its annual review review process; and,
WHEREAS, the GMOC, with the APCD's concurrence, presented a revised Air Quality
Threshold Standard as part of its' 1995 Annual Report; and,
WHEREAS, at the April 25, 1996,joint meeting with the GMOC, the Planning Commission
and City Council accepted the draft, revised Threshold Standard in concept, and directed staff to
finalize the revisions and return them for formal public hearing and adoption; and,
WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998 the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to
recommend that the City Council enact the amendment in accordance with its Resolution PCA-98-
08/ PCM-98-37; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment to the
Municipal Code, and notice of said hearing together with its purpose was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely September I,
1998, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS; the Commission found that the amendment is exempt ITom environmental
review pursuant to General Rule 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act
guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That the amendment is exempt ITom environmental review pursuant to General
Rule 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
SECTION II: That the proposed, revised standard is well-reasoned, and forms a workable
and logical foundation for annual progress/compliance reporting on air quality improvement
efforts at the local and regional level.
SECTION III: That the City Council hereby adopts the proposed amendments to Section
3.11.1 of the City's Growth Management Program (Exhibit A), and to the Air Quality Threshold
Standard of The City's Threshold! Standards and Growth Management Oversight Commission
Policy (Exhibit HB") attached hereto,
SECTION IV: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth
day from and after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 1st day of September 1998.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
(h; \homelplanning\edalia\pcm9808.ord)
3.11 Air Quality
3.11.1 Existing Threshold Policy
GillIl
To maintain and improve the ambient air quality enjoyed by the citizens of Chula Vista.
Obiective
Recognizing that air quality is a local and rcgional issuc, an issue "'pch needst91)~addressed
at both the local andregionalley~1s the City shall eIldeavot,.t,o implement the tactics established
",<","jif>.ijt"7;\lb'~'~'."-',:",.<"",,,,,;,,,,,~=,,,'",...,h,,.._.,_, '~,>','k;';;';;';;,.,,"" HL:,JV,_.,.. .....
in thc Rcgionnl Air Quality Maintcnnncc Plan (AQMP) and in addition, addrcss air quality
issues associated with ncw dcvclopmcnt.
Threshold
The €ffy !3MOC shall ftI!ffii!IH) b~ provide\!, thc San Diego APCD with a 12 to 18 month
_~",~"...,",.~,-. k'.,_ ....
devclopmcnt forccast and request an evaluation of its impact on current and future air quality
managcmcnt programs, along with recent air quality data. Thc growth forccast and APCD
rcsponsc lettcrs shall bc provided to thc CMOC for inclusion in its rcvicw. WitJ:i.~:~T'1T1ua1
reporViWhieh:
>..~,'~:</"'~,~........
1. eF6yidesantQverne~:;an~~uati6nLflf;SIri"1i1jdevcl mente r6'ects.ap,nM~ed!Q' Wle
;;~~~",,;~,~~.i!.E~t .. (d ","ryj'~w~tt~~"k=OJl_m;;'J,JJ1iiili~"/"~,_,,,,,,,,, ..)t~iBJii~;'~"',"",":,_
~;o-,.eat.:';t6'!Qerejfuinei!!1':-~'- ~- .4exreI!til~~~~~ -~ ~_.. emefirea.mrea$'ures:deSi "ea.IJt:t);f'6stef:mr
nnwAOO'", ~,."/,..',,."n",-"'" ~~.~,_" ~=-~ ,.. ,.OWw_- wi_'_, _.," .. _,_ .. '""';"';"""""'W"'_'.,'w'",M",_"",~" "'."....~..,.rj' .:..,._....tC';!' ='~~",:,".., . .,,''-'''
~.,"""~=.~ __W<_T ~...... """'" .:,,"~" " >=-~_-=~=='''~w_'''''''''.',''~._'''""..,'''~P;fu;,~''',''''''w"'''^c......,''''/,,,,;.:,.
rii."'m;::im tq~iit;::i!UF~"!liif'tri ie1 ~~.iflllJlfe'';'0Diil::ift(llOca1:;E11',~ii"lif:YT"'' '"oyeinent
~..1;?:"""",,")P.ik, '," <!:if:~,,,~':mkhi-?..oW~L:;;J:"\)ja;~"%;:;"twffiW;~1iii.ih'='~""""~'_~':""";"+h':*';2<~<y:(:l_"":'''''J'' ",~~..@~;",;;""",;", ,.
~~gi~-
2. ~q~~,!i~s ~!!~!!f~I!!Ie, ~i~~.s~dSy~!!>j!~!!!I~~~!?~i~gp~~,s a~2IprossdyrC?.s relat<: ;to,
andlorare c6hSistent witht.c'urre:nt 11 ilica:b1ei'll'1ecteral;:Statetand re - oual.air uali
",,""4"'ci!-i,,,,-~.,,.,,,..<~::<,0;$_;1i~,,,:":~:...:~~4Lit,,j_"""":";;;;7.u;,,PD!!fA::IWH<-H<~"H',:,:" /.,_~. .c,d"~::""";;:"':W;~::.,,, "::","n. g:t~. "':"_"'~::A:+,,,>g:;':"0' . ty
f~atioris ana;" fO' ams:
J..0"__...~;;"",-.",,.:,,:+,~,.,","",,:n"""40\E:''-'i''''~N''':''''''_''''
3. Identifies:ifi6Ji.:.o.evilo ment:1se.cifii" iCti ~'Ue'l.3I6eiIl" 'UJid~enmithe f"in'.i.toward
\;0.;;u.",;~""~:i""'i'_4cl~;;\k:~t'i4t.I.hI!PAa/""~ ~t""~.,~a~;,,:,,_\g::ii-~:~z.(:~rd;~-lk,...,.-;...,..g:~4J0,J1Ui'f1J.1.::L"'~_.
~<;!~pli@se;~~1eyam~~~~!E-.~!!:~:r~@!i.tio~'1tegar~g~~~ity, ,md
whetheitlie" C, iH~;'~1ijj~ac1iie:Ved1~m1J1ian:ce]
$;mw"'''''''.__'.~''''~'''" "';)::')<M+t,;rj*"_,~__:t:,,,,,,,,~"",,,,w~,,,."'I,,,,~"":1_,',~_,,t,,,,[d"",,,,;
The City~s~~n provide: a copy~ofsaid 'I;ej>p.rrt():tJ:ie:~GD forrevie~:and com';"ent.' In addition,
the. ~~CI:? s~n r~p~!t~!!2v~!~~g1R~~~cI ]6&~~~'~;,SOIl!!!tio11S' th,e. ~tatus ;of regioual
air" uali ..;.' " f6veinenti: -leinentati1$iUeff6rtS-:1r.nd '. ::I:th.e.'Re - onal
.'. .'. ..~q~",jt~!ft,,~,!!tp~X'1<<;';"='''''';;$~~#('''''''~'''aW0;;0W0_~Mii'''i:hW;'.d1)~4YJsr;NJt"",__,,,,';K<,"_~..,~,;,,.,
Air Q~i~~ S!f.a,~ro'~~~~':!.e~a~c:<!~e<!~aJ.c ~d~~!S:j>tpgr~m~;~,d::tJ:ieaffect of tho~e
effortS! r6' rams oritlie:'Cify" of Chula:;Nista: and:;rocatr;'"']annirigandrdevelopmentac1ivities.
,c' p, g ,..' .....'... ' ,..... H. P . ..... ,.. " ..
EXHIBIT A
page 1 of 2
Implementation Measure
Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to any of the
ago1:e air quality in,t~~()Yt:IIleJlreff()r.t~ at eith%th~~2eI or regio}lllllevel, org()th, it may adopt
a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City
Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing
on the GMOC's report;Copies',ofilie."Statem.eng;g1fiillalso t6-be directed to the-an... yother
".,.,.,..;..... ;.'m.. ..-,.",,'.. '-'..>..':.' ... .. .."w.,.......,..""";".,,,,;...'. ... ','
responsible public agency(ies) with follow up to assure appropriate response by that agency(ies).
(h: \home\planning\edalia\pcm9808. res)
EXHIBIT A
page 2 of 2
AIR QUALITY
(Revised by City COl.lncil September 1, 1998)
GOAL:
To maintain and improve the ambient air quality enjoyed by the citizens of Chula Vista.
OBJECTIVE:
Recognizing that air quality is an re!jieAsl issue which CfJnnot bc cffectively needS!tol:le addressed
by Chulo Visto, at boththefregionalahdlocallevels, the City shall endeav. or to implement tRe Iseties
,,_.. .... ......c..^..."."..,. .i... ._ ~^,^",,,..'~,"q,.,,.,,.......................;........... .. ........m...... .,.,. .....
e3tablished in thc currently adoptcd Regional Air Quality Maintenancc rlfJn (AQMP) 1ijpplieableair
quality imp~6v~ment strategies and prograrns that meet()t exceed those established through the
eUrrently,lIQ(>p!!!QRegiona,lf\.ir Quali.ty..$t@!!gY(R,6.Q~:)".'13!]Q..the R,6.QS'ssubseqq~nt
irnplernehtatioffifitneasures.
.... _~.,~ _ o'i_'-.c.;......" .~,,',~~, L...'.,'~...-.~._c._,';",.
THRESHOLD:
The 6ify GM()C shall sRRuslly be providecj the Son Diego ArCD with 0 12 to 18 month development
forcca3t ondrcquest fJn evaluohon of its impfJct on current ond future oir quality management
progroms, along with recent air quolity data. The growth fOfeCfJst and ArCD response letters sholl
be provided to the CMOC for inclusion in its revicw. .,.;.jtJ'i@'a,!]hu~l[ep()ttwhieh:
1. ProvIdes:arM(>\lelVi~Yi~a,!]Q !!yj:lLua!iol}otl(>pal;Qev~IQQIT1~el)!:Qrojects,flppro)7ed during
th~_ pri()ry~~f:;!qAetetffiiQ~::J:9;;.'1lj'st:~xt~~lc1[~)(:i.tyjpl~tJ:1f3h1~d measur~s .d~slgned to
f()st~J;.~?jf4gtiaUty~!!l.Pr~~m~1;)!RuGfIJ;arit~mt~l~ya.ii!:r~.9jgf:i?1:and16~a,1;:iit;'Gliality
1m .r6vemei:1'+:!Strate le5:
;",;"",I:?~~..k~"=j,,=,,.,#t9,@~,
2. L~~lLel!;jgijJtle~~I~yeIQRrTf~!MI!!SAI~ttQ!i~1IQ.6Iigl!'!s@hd prD,e~d!:J~es relate
to1'Clni:l7o):3fe1consTsteiJ1~:Witljrcuffeh1"~f~.j]jca15le'~Federal; Sfate.andre ional air ualit
,,,,,,..?~,,,,,-=-,,,,",,,.'"':'''''''~~~;'''_.'''''''~~A<~='''''''-'''.:w.''_'''''-''''''':=BP~,,,,,,,,,,,'/;h,,,:1.,,,"'^.=_:."''''''''''',,...~~:..h0''::;. ....,..:.'-..0'- .....",,<j,. ..g.;":""~,..c",,,,.. q .. p.... ....y
ref lilati6hs;CIi'fd~"'r6 rams;
..~g.~~._...~~... ..A~ . g... .~..~.
3. !Q.!'!'l!ifi.e.s.":gg!!~QevE1l6p.I!1~J;,ItsRee1fic.actj'il!j~.;;Q~if1g1J!]Qel'\?Ken by th~ City'toward
P.Q!.iiI>1iahc~~tljLf.~!~v~mffderallf~~~I~~~f111~lQc!!F~glilati611s .~egardingair quality; and
wnetb.et~h~~jtY}/ia~:~c;nle\(eil1P.QrnpJi@c.e;
TherCi'''':shall;;r6vide::i:f.<Ctf - ;J6f-said.re6f(,101:ttie'ARCB:.foi;'review,adicomment.ili:1addition, the
:..:L~'L:,,,,.,c-.:_~~,,,,,-lP......~~gYb;j_"':.:."""'h~'~14=1_""'-.,::.i:ii:_,,-,=Sill:J..,,,,-:..,.,.~\9!il=;.c;:"~:J_:',,,,,,,:,:,,,,,,~,,,,::,,,'''''',,,'n.":,..""",.,,,..,,,,...,......:...-:;;:....
AP~~sl).@!f@P:Q!to.l1-:::Qx!=1!:~!!itegI9!]~gdlQ.9al~tsjQar~[icjiJi~~~n;~.'~tatus.. of;regi().nal..air qIJa1ity
irTjp(()Y~Ill~IillL'i!!pl~!}]~nt~!91i!2~~ffort~!jJi9.eEtt1~B~gi.Q~]!D~[;i:g(IaljtYSr~t~g)'~ani:l relCjtec;l 'Federal and
Statf3Pr9gf:ilf!i~T@!!d:ttieaJf~ctof tn;6se: ~ff6t.ts/iJTcigrar:n~:o,:gthe qty6fCliula Vista ,and local
planning ahd\developmehtaetivities.
.... ........ .. .......,......-....~"':>...'" -...., .... ,.. " '.' ...... ....,......~.....
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE:
Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to anygfthe
!:jt'lgye air quality !r:nP@eji[j~jjlJ;ejff6i't~:;a,Eeltljejrtl1elbCill;qti:tejgionall~vel;sbrb()th, it may adopt a
formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council
to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the
GMOC's reportEi'9:>pie~'gf~g~;~15JiltE!m~i:1t';~han1:llso te be directed to tfte ahyotlier responsible
public ageney(i~s) with follow up to assure appropriate response by that agency(ies).
EXHIBIT B
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 8/12/98
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration to recommend to the City Council the
adoption of the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan (PCM-
91-08). The proposed OVRP is located at the southern terminus of the
City's boundary and extends from San Diego Bay to the Otay Lakes
Reservoir, approximately 11 miles.
BACKGROUND:
In 1990 a staff team formed through the adoption of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEP A)
between the County of San Diego and the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista (Joint Staff), began
the process of obtaining public input and preparing a Preliminary Draft Concept Plan (Attachment
10) for the formation of the Otay Valley Regional Park. This effort has been guided by a Policy
Committee made up of one representative from each member jurisdiction's Council or Board, and
included a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), appointed by the Policy Committee. This CAC
is made up of representatives from each jurisdictional area. On July 18, 1997, after
recommendation by the CAC, the Policy Committee voted to accept the Draft Concept Plan, with
modifications, and directed Joint Staff to proceed to the Plarming Commissions and City
Council/Board of Supervisors of each jurisdiction to obtain adoption of the Concept Plan.
Attachment 6 provides a comprehensive Planning History.
The City of San Diego as "Lead Agency" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as "Lead Agency" pursuant to the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), prepared and finalized a joint Environmental Impact
Report (EIR)/Enviromnental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) which in addition to analyzing potential environmental impacts of the MSCP
and various Subarea Plans prepared to implement this Program, also analyzed potential
environmental impacts of the OVRP Concept Plan.
A summary package has been prepared (Attachment 9) that contains those pages of the Final
EIRlEIS which address the OVRP Concept Plan specifically. The Plarming Commission has
previously reviewed a copy of the Draft MSCP EIRlEIS. Volumes 2 and 3 of the MSCP Final
EIR/EIS, which included with the Draft EIRlEIS (Volume I) make up the complete Final
EIRlEIS, are being provided for the Commission's review. A copy of the complete MSCP Draft
EIRlEIS is available in the Plarming Department for review by Plarming Commission members.
The City of Chula Vista, acting as a "Responsible Agency," is required to determine that the
MSCP EIR/EIS is adequate for its purpose, consider the enviromnental effects of the Otay Valley
Item No. _, Page NO.2
Meeting Date 8/12/98
Regional Park Concept Plan project contained within the MSCP Final EIR/EIS, adopt mitigation
measures and make certain findings before taking action on the OVRP Concept Plan. Copies will
need to be returned to staff after the meeting for City Council distribution.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plarming Commission adopt attached Resolution PCM-91-08 recommending that the City
Council adopt the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan in accordance with the attached Draft
City Council Resolution.
MAJOR ISSUES:
I. Concerns have been expressed through the public input process about what property rights
an individual has on property located within the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan
boundaries. Does the present zoning and General Plan designation still apply? Policies
have been included in the Draft Concept Plan that assures property owners that adoption
of the Concept Plan does not change the underlying zoning or General Plan designations
and that land development would continue to be permitted subject to existing zoning
standards.
2. Concerns have been expressed about whether properties within the Concept Plan
boundaries will be acquired regardless of a property owner's desire to sell. Policies
contained within the Concept Plan state that property will only be acquired from "willing"
sellers; however, donations of land or exactions linked to development projects may result
in further acquisitions.
3. Does the Concept Plan establish management control over properties acquired and included
into the planned regional park? The Concept Plan does not establish long-term
management control over properties acquired for inclusion into the regional park.
Individual jurisdictions will obtain title to properties through land assembly efforts and
long-term management and operational control will need to be decided by the three
jurisdictions before the preparation of master plans that will implement the regional park.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
Plarminj1 Commission Workshop - On September 17, 1997 the Planning Commission conducted
a public workshop to discuss the status of the Otay Valley Regional Park plarming effort and
review the Preliminary Draft Concept Plan. The Planning Commission accepted the information
report and directed staff to proceed with the Draft Concept Plan through a public hearing process.
Community Plarming Groups Recommendation - The Focused Plarming Area (FP A) of the Otay
Valley Regional Park includes portions of the Southwest and Otay Valley Road Redevelopment
Item No. _, Page No.3
Meeting Date 8/12/98
Areas in Chula Vista. A Preliminary Draft of the Concept Plan was presented as an information
item to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area Committee in November 6, 1995. These
planning groups and many other plarming and advisory groups (11 total) in the three jurisdictions
have reviewed the Concept Plan during various stages of its development, and all have generally
recommended approval of the plan. Appendix "C" (page 72) of the Concept Plan lists the various
groups and the Concept Plan review dates.
OVRP Citizen Advisory Committee (CAO Recommendation - On January 17, 1997 the CAC
voted (12-0-1) to recommend that the OVRP Policy Committee approve the Preliminary Draft
Concept Plan, with modifications.
OVRP Policy Committee Recommendation - On July 18, 1997 the Policy Committee voted (3-0)
to accept the Draft Concept Plan with modifications, and directed staff to proceed to the Pia nning
Commissions and City Councils/Board of Supervisors of each jurisdiction for adoption of the
Concept Plan.
County of San Die~o Plarmin~ Commission Recommendation - On December 19, 1997 the County
of San Diego Plarming Commission voted (6-0) to recommend that the County Board of
Supervisors adopt the Concept Plan.
City of San Die~o Plarming Commission Recommendation - On April 30, 1998 the City of San
Diego Planning Commission voted (6-0) to recommend that the City of San Diego City Council
adopt the Concept Plan.
DISCUSSION:
Planning History
The concept of creating a regional park in the Otay Valley was fust introduced to the City Council
by former Mayor Greg Cox in 1989, the Mayor recommended that the planning effort for the park
be a cooperative one involving the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the County San
Diego. Since that time, the three member agencies have adopted a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement (JEPA), (Attachment 1), a Focused Planning Area (FPA),( Attachment 2), and a Goal
Statement (Attachment 3).
In 1990 a staff team representing each jurisdiction (Joint Staff) developed a "Progress Plan" which
served as a basis for further planning efforts, and in 1995 Joint Staff presented a Preliminary
Draft Concept Plan to a Policy Committee for review. The Concept Plan designates generalized
park uses, or Elements, throughout the Concept Plan area, which is smaller than the FPA. On
July 18, 1997 the Policy Committee, consisting of a representative of each jurisdiction's elected
Council or Board, accepted the Draft Concept Plan (Attachment 10), with modifications and
directed staff to proceed to the Planning Commissions and City Council/Board of Supervisors of
Item No. _, Page No.4
Meeting Date 8/12/98
each jurisdiction for adoption of the Concept Plan. Attachment 4 provides a more comprehensive
description of the Plarming History.
Project Description
The OVRP Concept Plan is a framework plan for the implementation of an II mile regional park
extending from the San Diego Bay to, and including, the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. This
Concept Plan has been developed through the cooperative efforts of the County of San Diego, City
of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. The following is an excerpt from the goal statement
contained within the Concept Plan which is intended to guide the implementation of the Concept
Plan.
"Otay Valley Regional Park will represent one of the major open space areas
within the southern area of San Diego County linking south San Diego Bay with
Lower Otay Lake. The park will fulfill the need to provide a mix of active and
passive recreational activities while protecting environmentally sensitive areas,
protecting cultural and scenic resources, and encouraging compatible agricultural
uses in the park..." (Excerpt from the OVRP Goal Statement (Attachment 3).
The Draft OVRP Concept Plan provides policy direction for land acquisition and development of
the regional park, and specifically implements the OVRP Goal Statement by:
. Establishing a park boundary, providing opportunities for alternative boundaries, and
noting areas for consideration for future inclusion within the park;
. Protecting environmentally sensitive areas and important cultural resources by designating
open space/core preserve areas;
. Designating areas for active and passive recreational development opportunities;
. Recommending a multi-use trail system with staging areas, viewpoints and overlooks and
linkages to recreation areas, other adjacent public lands and regional open space and trail
systems; and
. Recommending interpretive centers for environmental and educational programs.
The Concept Plan is divided into the following five geographic Segments:
I. South San Diego Bay Interstate 5. Planning issues which were considered in the
preparation of proposals for this segment include consistency with the proposed National
Wildlife Refuge (discussed in Related Plarming Efforts below), coordination with the
Item No. _, Page No.5
Meeting Date 8/12/98
Bayshore Bikeway planning effort, and allowing planning flexibility consistent with the
Southwest and Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Areas within the City of Chula Vista.
2. Interstate 5 to Interstate 805. Much of the area within this Segment has recently been
publicly acquired for inclusion in the OVRP, including Recreation Areas No.2, No.5,
No.6, and part of No.7, and much of the Open Space core. Planning considerations
include preservation of the floodplain and steep slopes, and the provision of recreational
opportunities.
3. Interstate 805 to Heritage Road (Paseo Ranchero). The dominant factors influencing Plan
recommendations in this Segment include consistency with the City's Draft MSCP Subarea
Plan, the Coors Amphitheatre and White Water Canyon Park (both located in Recreation
Area No 9). Also included in this segment is consideration for potential future park uses
of the Otay Landfill, which is designated a Park Study Area.
4. Herita~e Road (Paseo Ranchero) to Otay Lakes Vicinity. Within the City's portion of this
Segment, finger canyons on each side of the Otay Valley within the Otay Ranch, and Wolf
and Salt Creek Canyons are designated as Open Space/Preserve Areas, consistent with the
Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) and City's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan.
Coordination with the Otay Ranch planning effort resulted in proposals for both Open
Space and Recreation opportunities within portions of the valley in this Segment.
5. Otay Lakes Vicinity. This Segment encompasses both upper and lower Otay Lakes,
except for designation of the existing Recreation Area uses, including the Lower Otay
County Park and City of San Diego Fishing facility are specifically allowed to continue
per the City of San Diego's adopted MSCP Subarea Plan. The remainder of this Segmen t
is designated Open Space/Preserve Area.
Environmental Review
The MSCP Final EIRlEIS contains within the project description, the conceptual goals of the
OVRP regarding riparian habitat preservation/corridor areas, trail system, recreational uses, and
special study areas (Section 2.2.8 of the EIRlEIS). In addition, the OVRP was addressed in each
of the discussion areas of the joint enviromnental document.
The MSCP Final EIRlEIS determined that there would be no significant impacts to Land Use
(Page 4.2-54 of the EIRlEIS) and Population and Housing (Page 4.6-15) posed by the OVRP.
The EIRlEIS determined that because the OVRP Concept Plan was conceptual and without
specifics, the plan posed potential significant impacts to sensitive biological species (Page 4.3-
162), wildlife corridor (Page 4.3-231), traffic circulation (Page 4.4-13), and public services and
utilities needed to serve potential active recreational uses (Page 4.5-19). The joint document
concluded that with adherence to the MSCP guidelines, and with subsequent park project
Item No. _, Page No.6
Meeting Date 8/12/98
specifics, these potentially significant impacts to sensitive species (Page 4.3-197), wildlife corridor
(Page 4.3-235), traffic circulation (Page 4.4-15) and services/utilities (Page 4.5-20), would be
mitigated to less than significant.
Included in the Commission's packet as Attachment 9 is a "Summary of MSCP Pinal EIR/EIS
Analysis of the Draft OVRP Concept Plan," which includes those pages from the EIR/EIS that
specifically address potential enviromnental impacts expected with implementation of the OVRP
Concept Plan. Subsequent project-level environmental analysis will be necessary when master
plans for the implementation of the Concept Plan are developed for approval.
The Plarming Commission has previously reviewed a copy of the Draft MSCP EIR/EIS (Volume
1). Volumes 2 and 3 of the MSCP Final EIR/EIS, which included with the Draft EIR/EIS make
up the complete Final EIR/EIS, are being provided for the Commission's review. A copy of the
MSCP Draft EIR/EIS (Volume I) is available in the Planning Departtnent for review by Plarming
Commission members. The City of Chula Vista, acting as a "Responsible Agency," is required
to determine that the MSCP EIR/EIS is adequate for its purpose, consider the environmental
effects of the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan project contained within the MSCP Final
EIR/EIS, adopt mitigation measures and make certain findings before taking action on the OVRP
Concept Plan. Copies will need to be returned to staff after the meeting for City Council
distribution.
Consistency With Other Land Use Plans
The Concept Plan's proposed Open Space/Core Preserve areas are consistent with the Park and
Open Space recommendations of the General Plan, the Montgomery Specific Plan, the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP) , the Otay Mesa Community Plan, the Otay Mesa-Nestor
Community Plan and the MSCP Framework Plan.
Joint Staff has identified incorrect or misleading statements in the Draft Concept Plan, regarding
the location of proposed Recreation Areas relative to the MSCP Multiple Habitat Planning Area
(MHPA); portions of some of the proposed Recreation Areas are located within the MHPA. These
proposals are consistent with the MSCP guidelines because some passive recreation uses, such as
trails and viewing areas are permitted within the Preserve. Por clarification purposes, revisions
to the description of Recreation Areas in Chapter 3 are proposed (see Attachment 6).
Some Recreation Areas are proposed on sites that have been designated for land uses other than
Park or Open Space in the above mentioned plans and Chula Vista land use plans, based on the
potential for public acquisition and the suitability of these sites for recreation as well as other uses.
The Concept Plan recommends opportunities for development of trails, recreation sites, and the
preservation of natural resources. The following clarifying language is included in the Concept
Plan Executive Summary (Page 2):
Item No. _, Page No.7
Meeting Date 8/12/98
"Much of land within the Concept Plan is privately owned and has development
potential based on existing zoning, land use plans and other development
regulations. The Concept Plan does not change existing zoning, land use plans or
add new development regulations. It does not preclude private development. It
provides policy directions for the jurisdictions for coordinated land acquisition and
development for the Regional Park within this framework of private property
rights. "
Related Planning Efforts
Integral to the Concept Plan preparation process has been the consideration of the many related
planning and development efforts. Two of the more influential efforts are the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (Service) proposal for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, (NWR) and the
General Development Plan (GDP) for the Otay Ranch.
All or portions of each of the three plarming Units of the NWR including Otay-Sweetwater,
Vernal Pools, and South San Diego Bay are included within the proposed park boundaries. The
Concept Plan proposal for the location of Recreation Area No. 1 may potentially conflict with the
NWR proposed preferred alternative; however, OVRP Joint Staff and Service staff have discussed
this issue and are confident that it can resolved in a mutually beneficial marmer which implement
both planning efforts. (Refer to Attachment 7, Letter from the Service, Regional Director to Greg
Cox, Chairman, County Board of Supervisors).
A major portion of the proposed Otay Ranch GDP preserve area encompasses much of the Otay
Valley and is also included in the proposed park boundarie s. Both plarming efforts are consistent
with the resource preservation policies and land uses proposed by the Concept Plan.
Park Management
The JEPA only addresses the planning and acquisition for the regional park. As such, the Concept
Plan does not specifically address park management. The Concept Plan does refer to the potential
future need to consider management, maintenance and operations options as land is acquired,
funding is obtained and park development proceeds.
Because much of the land within the OVRP is designated part of the MSCP, management for
habitat values and individual species, consistent with the MSCP Framework Plan and individual
Subarea Plans, will be required. The City will retain management responsibility for OVRP lands
acquired within our jurisdiction until alternative management agreements are reached by the JEP A
member agencies.
Item No. _, Page No.8
Meeting Date 8/12/98
Code Enforcement Responsibilities
Based on historical precedence, some open space code enforcement impacts such as illegal trash
dumping, encroachment on public land by adjacent private property owners, and unauthorized off-
road vehicle activity may occur. Responsibility for enforcement within the OVRP will be shared
by the three cooperating agencies, with each agency being responsible for enforcement within
their respective jurisdiction.
Fiscal Impacts
All costs associated with the preparation of this Concept Plan have been shared by the County of
San Diego and the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego. All City of Chula Vista costs have been
charged to the General Fund.
Conclusions
Adoption of the OVRP Concept Plan will represent a significant milestone in implementing the
vision of a regional park serving residents and visitors to this unique part of southern San Diego
County. The Concept Plan is a policy document that will provide direction and guidance in park
land acquisition, development efforts and the evaluation of proposals that may affect the park. It's
adoption by the three member agencies will signal their commitment to support the establishment
and development of the park. The Concept Plan will be used to support grant applications to
private and public sources for [mancial support for acquisition, future plans or studies, and park
development, as well as support the efforts of volunteer groups and nonprofit organizations such
as the Friends of Otay Valley Regional Park.
A TIACHMENTS:
1. Otay Valley Regional Park Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
2. Otay Valley Regional Park Focused Planning Area Map
3. Otay Valley Regional Park Goal Statement
4. Planning History
5. Proposed Draft Language for Chapter 4
6. Proposed Draft Revisions to Chapter 3
7. Letter from the Service, Regional Director to Greg Cox, Chairman, County Board of Supervisors
8. Summary of MSCP Final EIRJEIS Analysis of the Draft OVRP Concept Plan
9. Draft Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan
(h:\home\planning\frank\ovrp-pc.rpt)
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-91-08
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
THE OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan is a comprehensive document
prepared jointly by the County of San Diego and the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing for
the purpose of considering adoption of the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said document
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m.
August 12, 1998 of hearing in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Plarming
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, program-level enviromnental review of the Concept Plan has been
accomplished through the City of San Diego's Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan EIR/EIS
(Report No. LDR 93-0287) ("MSCP EIR/EIS"), which was certified as Pinal on March 18, 1997 by
the Council of the City of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, with respect to the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan the MSCP EIR/EIS
concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts which could not be mitigated
to a level of "less that significant."
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista has considered all maps,
exhibits and wrtten documents contained in the file the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan on
on record in the City of Chula Vista, and has any and all oral and written presentations given at the
public hearing;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby
recommends that the City Council: I) determine that the MSCP Pinal EIR/EIS is adequate for
purposes of adopting the OVRP Concept Plan, 2) consider the environmental effects of the OVRP
Concept Plan contained in the MSCP Pinal EIR/EIS, 3) adopt the necessary CEQA findings pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and 4) adopt the OVRP Concept Plan in the form presented;
all in substantial accordance with the terms and conditions of the attached Draft City Council
Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of the Resolution be transmitted to the City
CounciL
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this August 12, 1998, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Patty Davis, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
(H,IHOMEIPLANNlNGIFRANK\OVRP-RES.PC)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
THE OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN WHICH INCLUDES
THE ENTIRE OTAY VALLEY EXTENDING 11 MILES FROM SAN DIEGO BAY
TO UPPER AND LOWER OTAY RESERVOIRS
WHEREAS, the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors and the Cities of San Diego and Chula
Vista entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ("JEP An) in 1990 for the cooperative joint planning
of concept plan for the creation of a regional park for the Otay Valley, and
WHEREAS, the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan ("Concept Plan") is a comprehensive
document prepared jointly by staff of the County of San Diego and the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista,
and
WHEREAS, a Policy Committee made up of one elected representative from each jurisdiction's
governing Board or Council recommended that said Concept Plan be forwarded for consideration of
adoption by said governing Board and Councils on July 18, 1997, and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Plarming Commission held a public hearing on August 12,
1998 and voted _to_recommend that the City Council adopt a draft of this Resolution, and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, acting as a "Responsible Agency," is required to determine
that the MSCP EIR/EIS is adequate for its purpose, consider the enviromnental effects of the Otay Valley
Regional Park Concept Plan project contained within the MSCP Pinal EIRlEIS, adopt mitigation measures
and make certain findings before taking action on the OVRP Concept Plan.
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said Concept Plan and notice
of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within an area greater than 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing in accordance with
Government Code Sections 65358, 65090 and 65091(a)(I) and (2) and Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 19.06.010, 19.07.010 and 19.12.070; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact ReporttEnviromnental Impact Statement ("MSCP Pinal
EIR/EIS") was prepared by the City of San Diego and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
("USFWS") ( ) as Lead Agencies that analyzed the Multiple Species
Conservation Program ("MSCP") at a project-level and the Draft Concept Plan at a progranunatic-level,
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter
closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the City Council,
the Council: 1) determine that the MSCP Pinal EIR/EIS is adequate for purposes of adopting the OVRP
Concept Plan, 2) consider the environmental effects of the OVRP Concept Plan contained in the MSCP
Final EIR/EIS, 3) adopt the necessary CEQA findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and
4) adopt the OVRP Concept Plan in the form presented.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
(H:IHOMEIPLANNINGIFRANKHlOVRP-RES.CC)
/'""\J I r\'....j,i"~I' 1 ...,
MLICATE
This copy must be
returned te Ci~J
Clerk, San Diego
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT AMONG THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE
CITIES OF CHULA VISTA AND
SAN DIEGO
FOR PLANNING AND ACQUISITION
FOR THE OTAY VALLEY
REGIONAL PARK
THIS AGREEMENT, dated for
Of~d
convenience as of the
<..30-t:L
day
1990 among the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego,
and the County of San Diego, existing under the laws of the State
of California (hereinafter referred to individually or cOllectively
as Public Agencies) .
WIT N E SSE T H
WHEREAS, the Public Agencies are each el'~.powered by law to
acquire and hold property and to plan and design public facilities
and appurtenances for park purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Public Agencies desire to coordinate acquisition,
planning and design of the Otay Valley Regional Park for the
benefit of their citizens and the public; and
WHEREAS,
it
is
believed
that joint
cooperation
and
participation among the Public Agencies will be mutually beneficial
and in the public interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Public Agencies, Agree as follows:
SECTION 1.
Purpose.
This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of Article
1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the
State of California commencing with Section 6500, (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act") relating to the joint exercise of powers
<) ~) r' L' ') ()
NT NO ... ~ ( ,) U .- ,
1 DOCUME APR :3 01990
F6~WCE OF THE CITY CLERI< ATTACHMENT 1
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA
common to public agencies. The Public Agencies possess the powers
referred to in the above recitals. The purpose of this Agreement
is to. exercise such powers jointly by coordinating acquisition,
planning and design of the Otay Valley Regional Park. Operation
and maintenance of the acquired park land are not cover.ed by this
Agreement.
SECTION 2. Term.
This Agreement shall become effective when executed by all
parties and shall continue in full force and effect for 25 years
from the date hereof or until terminated by any of the agencies
upon 30 days written notice to the other agencies. At the
expiration of the term provided for herein, any money appropriated
by the Public Agencies for the coordination of this Agreement which
is not spent shall be returned to the parties in proportion to
their respective contributions.
SECTION 3.
Boundaries.
The boundaries of the territory within which the Public
Agencies shall exercise their powers under this agreement shall be
the Focused Planning Area as defined by the Focused Planning Area
Map which will be developed and adopted by the agencies subsequent
to the approval of this agreement. Adoption of the Focused
Planning Area shall not be construed to affect the uses to which
any property may legally be devoted. The Focused Planning Area
boundaries will be established only after public review, noticed
hearings, and approval by the Public Agencies. All Public Agencies
shall proceed as expeditiously as possible in identifying the park
2
ATTACHMENT 1
boundaries and exercising their powers to plan and design a park.
Adoption of the Focused Planning Area is not intended to create,
per, se, a potential for a determination that subsequent
encroachment or development .within the Focused Planning Area
results in a significant environmental effect under the California
Environmental Quality Act. Recognition of the Focused Planning
Area boundaries is not intended to constitute an announcement Df
the Public Agencies I intent to acquire, by purchase or
condemnation, any particular parcel of property located within said
boundaries, but rather is intended to facilitate continued planning
for potential future park development.
SECTION 4. Policy Committee.
A Policy committee consisting of three elected
representatives appointed respectively by the San Diego County
Board of supervisors, the Chula Vista City council and the San
Diego City Council shall set the policies for the administration
of this Agreement. The representative from the County of San Diego
shall be a member of and appointed by the County Board of
Supervisors. The representative from the City of Chula Vista shall
be a member of and appointed by the City Council. The
representative from the city of San Diego shall be a member of and
appointed by the city Council. ,Appointment to the Policy Committee
shall be for a term not to exceed the appointee's current term in
office. A quorum for the purposes of conducting business will
consist of two members of the Policy Committee. In the absence of
3
ATTACHMENT 1
a quorum, a single member present may move to adjourn.
The Policy Committee may adopt bylaws, rules and regulations
.._-, -.
as required to conduct its meetings and business.
The Policy Committee shall conduct regular meetings at least
annually and at such other times as may be determined by the
Committee or provided for in its bylaws.
The Policy Committee shall appoint a Citizens Advisory
Committee and regulate its activities.
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950-54961)
shall govern the proceedings, noticing and general activities of
this Policy Committee.
SECTION 5. citizen Advisory Committee.
The citizen Advisory committee shall consist of thirty
members to be appointed by the Pol icy Committee. The Citizen
Advisory Committee shall select from its membership a chairperson
and a vice-chairperson. The citizen Advisory Committee membership
shall be comprised of members from the community, members of
community organizations', property owners and others as determined
by the Policy Committee. The purpose of the citizen Advisory
Committee is to advise the Policy Committee by facilitating the
transfer of information between a broad-based group of concerned
community members and the Policy Committee.
The citizen Advisory Committee members shall serve at the
pleasure of the Policy Committee for a term to be set by the Policy
Committee. A quorum for the purpose of conducting business will
consist of a simple majority of the members of the citizen Advisory
4
ATTACHMENT 1
Committee. In the absence of a quorum, a single person present may
move to adjourn_
'The Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950-54961)
shall govern the proceedings, noticing and general activities of
this citizen Advisory Committee.
SECTION 6. Administration.
This Agreement shall be administered by the Public Agencies.
This Agreement shall be administered on behalf of the County of San
Diego by the Director of Parks and Recreation; on behalf of the
city of San Diego by the Director, City Planning; and on behalf of
the city of Chula vista by the city Manager or his/her designee per
written designation.
The powers of the Public Agencies under this Agreement shall
be subject to those legal restrictions Hhich the County of San
Diego has upon the manner of exercising said pO\oler pursuant to
California Government Code section 6509.
The County of San Diego agrees to act as lead agency and
schedule meetings, prepare agendas, record minutes, maintain
records, and conform to other legally required processes pertaining
to records, related to the planning and design of the otay Valley
Regional Park on behalf of the Public Agencies.
SECTION 7. Privileges and Immunities.
All of the privileges an immunities from liability, exemptions
from laws, ordinances and rules, all pension, relief, disability,
workers' compensation, and other benefits which apply to the
activity of officers, agents, or employees of any of the Public
5
ATTACHMENT 1
Agencies when performing their respective functions within their
territorial limits, shall apply to them to the same degree and
extent while engaged in the performance of any of their functions
and duties extra-territorially under this Agreement.
SECTION 8.
Records and Accounts.
The Public Agencies shall be strictly accountable for all
funds and report all receipts and disbursements made by the Public
Agencies-rn acquiring real property for the Otay Valley Regional
Park.
SECTION 9.
Title to Property.
All right, title and interest to the real property acquir~d
for the otay Valley Regional Park pursuant to the coordinated
efforts of the Public Agencies shall belong to and be vested in the
acquiring Publ ic Agency, 1. e., the County of San Diego, the City
of Chula vista, or the City of San Diego. Upon termination of this
Agreement, all right, title and interest to the real property
comprising the otay Valley Regional Park shall remain in the
acquiring Public Agency.
SECTION 10.
Notices.
Any notice or notices provided by this Agreement or required
by law to be given or served upon the Public Agencies may be given
by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid,
addressed to the Director of Parks and Recreation, County of San
Diego, at 5201 Ruffin Rd., suite P, San Diego, CA 92123 or
Planning DireCtor +io-e-----b-e- \r~
det e r"'1 i.J:1.eG.-By~-j,.E-y--€-0ti'l"lei-J:--p~ab-'$p'a":ttti-r!gT-;--CTET-c5rsa-n-i5Ie-go-at-
6
ATTACHMENT 1
,
City Administration Building, 202 C Street,
Fou..rth Floor, San Diego, Cl). 92101
or City Manager, City
of Chula vista at 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 or to such
V \ \JJJ.I
~AN
address as the Public Agencies may subsequently specify in writing.
c-JCT--s-ai-d--not-rc-e-s--IDaT--b-e---pe-rs=J:-IT-5~-'o"ed--\:lpon--the--f7rrector-o'f-
~=k~-a~~Gr~~-€ik1t-~~an-~re~,---------------------------------
'--t.o-~_dB.J:.ermin.ecL~:t--€+t:-y--ecr1:!nd:-J:--pBT-Wb'-;5potttj:lTgT-;--(:)J:.-"'tne--C-i't:'r
-Ma-fta~~
SECTION 11.
Governing Law.
This Agreement shall in every respect be binding upon the
parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. This
Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of California.
SECTION 12.
provisions Required by Law.
Each and every provision of law and clause required by law to
be inserted in this Agreement shall be deemed to be inserted herein
and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though it were
included herein, and if for any reason any such provision is not
inserted, or is not correctly stated, then upon application of any
party the Agreement shall forthwith be physically amended to make
such insertion or correction.
SECTION 13.
Partial Invalidity.
If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof
to any person or circumstances shall to any extent, be invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder Of this Agreement, or the application
of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as
to which it is invalid or unenforceable, shall be affected thereby,
and each provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced
7
ATTACHMENT 1
,
to the fullest extent permitted by law.
SECTION 14. Entire Agreement.
-This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the
parties. No term or provision hereof may be changed, waived,
discharged or terminated unless the same be in writing, signed and
executed by the parties to the Agreement;
8
ATTACHMENT 1
"
IN WITNESS WREREO?, ":he ~~yti,=s heretc have c:::used this
Agreement to be executed and attested by their_proper officers
thereunto duly authorized, as of the date first above written_
CITY
OF lHULA
~,~')
U U
VISTA
~. tx"
Mayor /
ATTES~: ;'7
~/!I!!{; () /d~cl!()f
/ City Clerk
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
,,\~ \-~
~~~ City ~Bnager
."'SSIST/>,NT TO THE CiTY MANAGEr;
ATTEST:
city Clerk
~
b"'" /
Apprc1'5d and/or autl'iOnz.M 'j \,1.e ...03rJ .
0" Su~'YtSUfS (:f the CYuiitY of ~i1 Diazo
/ ~3() - '10 (77)/
a-~ I). ~._
DIE7/~
~~~~
.~
cler91f~B:i~}7~~rvisors
C;-::t v' fJ':-!' ~~."t! t:'! S:~I,'J.",,!!t1'"
09/l~/29
O. "~i!"'C.")O
I\'t. { ,).J.-
~
ATTACHMENT 1
t-.t" :" ;-'\0 \" L.:.Lr
111 Lw-vL-U1Ctt/L
1/251yo
~:.... ,......., ~ ._./' .~_._, ,", ,,""'''! :....~.' f"("\, ''',e-,!
., .~\c
. ",C" ~
, ~oc",,,,
<(
<(
"?
N
(J)
~
~
~
i.;,.,
~
a:
~<(
..JW
<cCC
z<C
O~
-z
~-
wZ
a:Z
><C
W..J
..JD.
..JC .
<(W~
.>0015
::)Z
~o~
~O~
OU-b
~
! ;
--
ATTACHMENT 2
OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK (OVRP)
GOAL STATEMENT
Adopted by the OVRP Policy Committee: June 1, 1990
"Otay Valley Regional Park will represent one of the major open space areas within the
southern area of San Diego Gounty linking south San Diego Bay with Lower Otay Lake.
The park will fulfill the need to provide a mix of active and passive recreational activities
while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, protecting cultural and scenic resources,
and encouraging compatible agricultural uses in the park.
To insure that Otay Valley Regional Park meets the diverse goals of a regional park,
attention shall be focused not only on providing facilities and protecting resources, but on
adjacent land uses to insure compatible development, buffering, and linkages with other
regional resources.
A comprehensive management plan shall be implemented that will not only address the
long term management of the park, but will also provide for the protection of visitors and
park neighbors, develop environmental and recreational programs, and enhance park/open
space activities and resources."
ovrp\goalstmt
ATTACHMENT 3
OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK PLANNING HISTORY
The concept of creating a regional park in the Otay Valley was first introduced to the
Mayor and City Council by former Councilmember Bob Filner in a memorandum dated
April 6, 1988, recommending that the planning effort for the park be a cooperative one
involving the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista and the County of San Diego.
On February 24,1990 a park planning workshop was conducted by staff representing
the three jurisdictions (Joint Staff). The workshop was attended by approximately 85
participants composed of community members, property owners, special interest
groups, and local agency representatives. The workshop generated preliminary
information about existing resources and issues in the area, and recommended goals.
On April 30, 1990 the City Council adopted the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
among the County of San Diego and the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego for
Planning and Acquisition for the Otay Valley Regional Park (JEPA, Attachment 1). The
JEPA was also adopted by the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego that
year. The JEPA established a three member Policy Committee consisting of a County
Supervisor, the Mayor of Chula Vista, and a San Diego Councilmember; the current
representatives are Supervisor Greg Cox, Mayor Shirley Horton, and Councilmember
Juan Vargas, respectively. The JEPA also established a 30-member Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) whose pUfpose is to advise the Policy Committee.
The JEPA requires that a Focused Planning Area boundary (FPA) within which the
public agencies shall exercise their powers under the agreement be established and
adopted by the agencies. Both the FPA (Attachment 2) and Goal Statement
(Attachment 3), which describes the regional park mission and guides the
comprehensive planning effort, were approved by the Policy Committee on June 1,
1990. In order to establish a stronger commitment to the park planning effort, on
October 2, 1992 the Policy Committee recommended that each agency adopt the FPA
and Goal Statement. The FPA and Goal Statement were approved by the City Council
on December 8, 1992, and subsequently approved by the County and the City of Chula
Vista. The FPA and Goal Statement have served as parameters for regional park
planning efforts and acquisition stfategies since that time.
In October, 1990 the Policy Committee accepted the OVRP Progress Plan prepared by
Joint Staff, and directed Joint Staff to work with the CAC, property owners and other
interested parties to use the Progress Plan as a basis for creating a Concept Plan that
would be adopted by the three member agencies. The Progress Plan had served as a
basis for the Concept Plan, and as a guide for property acquisitions and working with
related planning efforts during the ensuing years.
- 1 -
ATTACHMENT 4
During the time period of 1993-1995 Joint Staff prepared early drafts of the Concept
Plan, and revised these drafts based upon public input and recommendations of the
CAC and Policy Committee. In 1995, the Policy Committee reviewed an early draft
map for the Concept Plan and directed that a descriptive, accompanying text be
prepared and that the Concept Plan be completed after additional public review and
comment. On January 17, 1997 the CAC voted 12-0-1 to recommend approval of the
Preliminary Draft Concept Plan map and text with the addition of two policies. On
February 21, 1997 the Policy Committee voted 3-0 to approve modifications to the
Preliminary Draft Concept Plan recommended by both the CAC and Joint Staff. The
Policy Committee also directed Joint Staff to conduct a property owner's forum and
public meeting to provide additional opportunity for public input prior to the PC taking
further action. This forum was held on May 17, 1997.
On June 26,1997 the City of San Diego Planning Commission conducted a public
workshop to discuss the status of the Otay Valley Regional Park planning effort and
review the Preliminary Draft Concept Plan. The Planning Commission accepted the
information report and directed staff to expand the Preliminary Draft Concept Plan to
provide a discussion of park ownership, acquisition and implementation stfategy. Joint
Staff has prepared this discussion for inclusion in Chapter 4, Future Actions, of the
Final Draft Concept Plan (see Attachment 4).
On July 18, 1997 the Policy Committee accepted the Draft Concept Plan, with
modifications and directed staff to proceed to the Planning Commissions and City
Councils/Board of Supervisors of each jurisdiction for adoption of the Concept Plan.
On December 19, 1997 the San Diego County Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend to the County Board of Supervisors adoption of the
Concept Plan. The adoption process will include consideration of the Concept Plan by
the three jurisdiction's Planning Commissions and City Councils/County Board of
Supervisors.
- 2-
ATTACHMENT 4
PROPOSED DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR CHAPTER 4
Insert the following text on page 54, after the section titled Interim Actions
and before the section titled Future Park Administration and Management:
"PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND ACQUISITION METHODS
Public Ownership
At the time of Concept Plan adoption, portions of the OVRP within the proposed
Boundary were already publicly owned including most of the Otay Lakes Vicinity
segment and various properties located west of 1-805. These areas total
approximately 4,300 acres, or roughly 50% of the proposed Regional Park, not
including Alternative Boundaries. Some of these properties have been publicly owned
for a long time, while others were acquired through mitigation, land swaps, State grants
and local agency funding.
Additionally, a portion of the South Bay Marine Biology Study Area in the Salt Ponds
vicinity is leased from the U.S. Navy by the County, and the Otay Landfill is owned by
the County. These Park Study Areas total over 540 acres, or approximately 30% of the
total 1 ,850 acres of the OVRP Alternative Boundary areas.
Various proposed Recreation Areas throughout the OVRP have already been privately
developed or are in the planning stages as commercial ventures consistent with the
Concept Plan goals and policies. They include a golf practice facility in Recreation Area
1, an amphitheatre and water park in Recreation Area 9, and an air sport center in
Recreation Area 16. These sites and facilities may continue operation or may someday
be publicly acquired and converted to other park recreation uses.
Acquisition Methods
It is the general policy of the OVRP joint public agencies to acquire properties only from
willing participants. Landowners within the OVRP who do not wish to sell their property
or any other interest in their property are under no obligation to negotiate with or sell to
the individual Of joint public agencies.
Recognizing that the joint public agencies have limited monetary resources for
acquisition and development, additional outside funding sources including federal, state
or private grants will be sought. Other acquisition methods may be accomplished
through donations, exchanges (land swaps), transfers (dedication through the
discretionary development process), mitigation for on- and off-site development
projects, and establishment of a mitigation banking program.
- 1 -
ATTACHMENT 5
Potential methods to acquire or otherwise incorporate property into the Regional Park
include the following:
. Fee Title Acquisition - acquisition by outright purchase would transfer all property
rights owned by the landowner to the acquiring agency(ies).
. Easements - the landowner transfers some property rights to the acquiring
agency(ies) as specified by mutual agreement. Conservation, trail corridors and
public access are some of the types of easements that could be considered.
. Leases and Cooperative Agreements - by mutual agreement a landowner can
lease specified development and management rights for all or portions of the
property to the OVRP agency(ies) for reimbursement. Cooperative agreements
may specify shared responsibilities.
Future implementation of the Concept Plan may also be accomplished through the
complementary efforts of the Multiple Species Conservation Program, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service proposed San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (both discussed in
Chapter 1). Also complementary, the Otay Ranch designated Preserve area (see
Chapter 2) includes approximately 1,000 acres that are contiguous with the OVRP, and
a maximum of an additional 400 acres of Otay Ranch will be dedicated for recreational
uses within OVRP."
ovrp\implemnt.txt 4/21/98
-2-
ATTACHMENT 5
PROPOSED DRAFT REVISONS TO CHAPTER 3, PAGE 28
Recreation Area
Revised third, and new fourth paragraphs:
"Recreation Areas are generally located outside of the boundaries of the MultiDle
Habitat Planning Area (MHPA} of the MSCP. Recreational development within the
MHPA boundary will be passive recreation only. consistent with MSCP guidelines. and
serve as a transition between preserved areas and those developed with active
recreation uses.
Many Recreation Areas have existing private development potential, consistent with
zoning, planned land uses and other development regulations, including the potential
for private "md public recreational development. Both public and private recreational
developments may implement this Element of the Concept Plan."
ovrp\mscprec.rpt 4/16/98
ATTACHMENT 6
I
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
911 NE. 11th Avenue
,Portland. Oregon 97232-4181
I" ru',!'I.YREFF:RTO
FWS/ARW-RE
,L\PR I 5
1("".,
t.~'- -
Mr. Greg Cox
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
San Diego County
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335
San Diego, California 92101
Dear Mr. Cox:
Our Refuge Manager Dean Rundle recently met with staff of San Diego County and the cities of
San Diego and Chula Vista regarding our overlapping boundaries for Otay Valley Regional Park
(OVRP) and South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge Unit (South Bay Refuge) proposals.
We believe that our proposals are compatible and complementary, and we want to assure you
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) will work with the County and both cities to
meet the goals of both proposals.
Our South Bay Refuge proposal has only one potential conflict with the OVRP Concept Plan:
the OVRP Plan proposes new ball fields at the south end of the Egger-Ghio and Fenton (now
City of San Diego) properties immediately west ofI-5, in the extreme southeast comer of our
South Bay Refuge proposal. Such developed facilities would not be compatible with the mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) or the purposes of the South Bay Refuge.
However, the Service will work wilh you to realize the OVRP Concept Plan as proposed.
If the Service acquires these properties first, we would be willing to negotiate a land exchange
with the County or one of the cities for other property within one of our approved acquisition
boundaries. The County of San Diego has lands within our Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pools
National Wildlife Refuge units that we would like to acquire, and the City of San Diego has land
within the Vernal Pools unit and South Bay Refuge proposed boundary. We are confident that
our respective realty specialists would be able to negotiate a mutually satisfactory exchange.
We also mi.ght be interested in discussing some joint management and development in the area in
question. The new SouthBayRefuge, if approved, probably would require new public access
-." '.- .'- _. .....; '..'., _'" ," ',_._.".._., ,0. ....
ATTACHMENT 7
The Honorable Greg Cox
2
sites, and perhaps some administrative, interpretive, or maintenance facilities. Decisions about
these sites and facilities would be made, with public input, during a future comprehensive
conservation planning effort. One option is that we could partner with you to develop a facility
with two sides: a Service-owned and operated South Bay Refuge visitor facility on one side,
with OVRP-owned and operated sports facilities on the other.
I also appreciate your concern regarding completion of the Bayshore Bicycle Path through our
proposed project area. We anticipate that the bike path would follow the existing railroad right-
of-way around the salt ponds. The Service does not intend to acquire any real property interest in
this right-of-way on behalf of the South Bay Refuge.
We understand that there are competing proposals for use of the right-of-way and that it may not
be the permanent route of the bike path. If the bike path cannot follow the existing railroad
grade, the Service will work with local governments to find an acceptable alternate route through
the Egger-Ghio and Fenton areas. Ifwe acquire the Egger-Ghio and Fenton properties, our
ultimate goal will be to restore wetland and upland habitats in the area. The land is highly
disturbed, and any future restoration will require extensive earth moving. We anticipate that we
would be able to design restoration dikes and water control structures to include compatible
routes for a bicycle path through the area.
Another valuable benefit of Service management of this area is assistance to the City of San
Diego in its responsibilities under the Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). If the Egger-
Ghio and Fenton properties are acquired by the Service, our Refuge staff would be responsible
for compliance with MSCP monitoring requirements on our land. This would assist the City of
San Diego in meeting habitat protection and monitoring requirements of the MSCP, and reduce
the burden on local government.
We hope that you will support the Service's proposal for the South San Diego Bay National
Wildlife Refuge Unit with boundaries as proposed. We think it is wise that both plans continue
to include the area in question in their planning boundaries. Perhaps we will be able to leverage
each other's resources, and partner in the acquisition of these lands from willing sellers. The
Park and Refuge would complement each other by providing wildlife, open space, and
recreational opportunities for citizens of all the South Bay area communities.
ATTACHMENT 7
The Honorable Greg Cox
3
Thank you for your continued interest in our proposed South San Diego Bay National Wildlife
Refuge Unit. Please contact Dean Rundle at the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex
headquarters at (760) 930-0168 if you need more information.
Sincerely,
ATTACHMENT 7
ATTACHMENT 8
SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (EIS) ANALYSIS OF THE
DRAFT OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK (OVRP) CONCEPT PLAN
The following attachment is an extract of the MSCP Final EIR/EIS, prepared by the City of San
Diego and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as "Co-lead Agencies." This
extract has been compiled by the City of Chula Vista Planning Department as a summary of the
analysis contained within the MSCP Final EIR/EIS regarding the Draft OVRP Concept Plan.
This summary is not intended to alter or replace the MSCP Final EIR/EIS or circumvent
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, but rather to assist decision makers
with understanding the content of the MSCP Final EIR/EIS analysis as it pertains to the Draft
OVRP Concept Plan. The City of Chula Vista will be acting as a "Responsible Agency" in
Certifying the MSCP Final EIR/EIS for any and all discretionary actions it takes that are covered
by this document, such as adoption of the MSCP Plan, the City's Draft Subarea Plan and the
Draft OVRP Concept Plan.
The MSCP Final EIR/EIS, including the attached extract, was prepared as both a Programmatic
and Project level analysis for actions proposed. Programmatic level analyses, which require
subsequent enviromnental analyses before implementation, has been completed for the MSCP Plan
and the Draft OVRP. Project level analyses have been completed for Subarea Plans which are
intended to implement the MSCP Plan, including the City of Chula Vista's.
The Draft OVRP Concept Plan consists of the identification of a proposed regional park
boundary, within which is contained a core area containing biologically sensitive open space and
habitat, a proposed interconnecting regional trail system, trail staging areas, proposed active and
passive recreational areas and one or more nature interpretive centers. Final siting and
development of trails, staging areas, recreation areas and interpretive center(s) will be subject to
guidelines of the MSCP Plan and related Subarea Plans. It should be noted that subsequent
environmental analyses will be conducted prior to the adoption of OVRP master plans and
individual project implementation plans.
The entire MSCP Final EIR/EIS documents are on file within the Planning Department and are
available at your request. It is expected that the MSCP Plan and the City of Chula Vista Subarea
Plan will be brought forward for review and adoption late this year or in early 1999.
ATTACHMENT
MSCP DRAFT EIRIEIS EXTRACT
Pages containing the following sections have been extracted from the MSCP Final EIR/EIS.
These sections include all discussion with regard to the Draft Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP)
Concept Plan. The Draft OVRP Concept Plan project description is included in Chapter 2,
Section 2.2.8.
Pages from the MSCP Final EIR/EIS are grouped under the following headings: Executive
Summary, Summary of Biological Resource Impacts and Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan
- Mitigation. The Executive Summary contains a summary table which identifies whether the
Draft OVRP Concept Plan will result in Significant Environmental Impacts under a range of
different MSCP preserve scenarios (alternatives). Note that each of the MSCP alternatives
include the Draft OVRP Concept Plan and that in each case a finding of "Less than Significant"
is identified. The Summary of Biological Resource Impacts discusses potential environmental
impacts associated with the Draft OVRP Concept Plan. Finally, the Otay Valley Regional Park
Concept Plan - Mitigation includes the identification of mitigation measures necessary to assure
a finding of "Less than Significant. "
Listing of attached pages, followed by actual pages from the MSCP Final EIR/EIS:
REVISIONS TO MSCP DRAFT EIRIEIS
REVISIONS TO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary Table ES-4, (page 2).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(Pages ES-l through ES-24)
REVISIONS TO SECTION 1.0 - PURPOSE AND NEED
Table 1 - 1 (Page 3)
ES-16 - ES-18 TABLE ES-4
2
SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Chapter 1.0: Purpose and Need
Table 1-1 Decisions/Actions Addressed in the Recirculated Joint Draft EIR/EIS
(Page 1-11/12).
1.5.3 Local Jurisdictions (Pages 1-13/14)
Chapter 2: Alternative Inc. The Proposed Project
2.2.8 Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan (Figure 2-17)
(Pages 2-46> 51)
Chapter 3: Affected Envffonment
3.2.6.6 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement of Otay Valley Regional Park
(Pages 3-28/29)
3.5.7 Park Facilities (Page 3-44)
Chapter 4.1: Approach to Analysis
IMPACT ANALYSIS PER ISSUE STATEMENT
TABLE 4.1-1 Outline For Each Impact Analysis (Page 4.1-3 >6)
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE PER ISSUE STATEMENT(Page 4.1-6)
Chapter 4.2: Land Use
B.I-8 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement of Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept
Plan (MHPA Project Impact Analysis - Issue 1) (Page 4.2-53).
B.2.l City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan (CSS Scenario Impact Analysis - Issue 1) (Page
4.2-54)
3
B.1.8 Joint Exercise of Powers Authority (Agreement) of Otay Valley Regional Park
Concept Plan (MHPA Project Impact Analysis - Issue 2) (Page 4.2-80).
B.1.6 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement of Otay ~ Valley Regional Park Concept
Plan (MHPA Project Impact Analysis - Issue 3) (Page 4.2-102).
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
B.1.8 Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan (MHPA Project Impact Analysis - Issue
I) (Pages 4.3-115/116).
Special Districts
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan - Analysis of Significance (Issue I)
(Page 4.3-162).
4.3-0VRP-l
4.3-0VRP-2
Special Districts
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan - Mitigation (Issue I) (Page 4.3-197/198).
4.3-0VRP-l
4.3-0VRP-2
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
B.1.8 Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan (MHPA Project Impact Analysis -
Issue 2) (Page 4.3-231).
B. THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS - ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE (ISSUE 2)
OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN - ANALYSIS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
4
4.3 OVRP-3 (Page 4.3-233/234).
OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN - MITIGATION
4.3 OVRP-3 (Page 4.3-235).
4.3.2.4
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION (ISSUE 2)
(Page 4.3-235/236).
Chapter 4.4: Transportation/Circulation
B.1.8 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement of Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan
(MHPA Project, CSS Scenario, BP Scenario Impact Analysis - Issue 1) (Page 4.4-13).
4.4.1.2 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE (ISSUE 1)
4.4-0VRP-1 Access and Parking Requirements for OVRP: (Page 4.4-14)
OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL (PARK) CONCEPT PLAN - MITIGATION
4.4-0VRP-l Access and Parking Requirements for OVRP: (Page 4.4-15)
4.4.1.4 SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL AFTER MITIGATION (ISSUE 1) (Page 4.4-15)
Chapter 4.5: Public Services & Utilities
B.l.8 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENTOF OT A Y V ALLEY REGIONAL
PARK CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT, CSS SCENARIO, BP SCENARIO
IMPACT ANALYSIS - ISSUE I) (PAGE 4.5-15/16).
Chapter 4.6: Population & Housing
B.l.8 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT - OT A Y V ALLEY REGIONAL
PARK CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS - ISSUE I) (Page
4.6-15).
B.1.8 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT - OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL
5
PARK CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS - ISSUE 2) (Page
4.6-37).
Chapter 6.0 Cumulative Impacts
6.2 PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS (6.116.2)
(h:\ho",.\ploDRm,lmooplovrpee<p..lUm)
6
Revisions to MSCP Draft Joint EIJUFJS
REVISIONS TO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to comment numbers 16(m) and 53(n), the following revised language has be,.,n
incorporated in the Executive Summary Table ES-4, pages ES-7 6 - ES-18.
TABLE 54
SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
'..i~#'~#~~ i~;i;~_;;II~~S;;i;';-0ii~~.~1~i;B1!E~~~=
';:~fi~;ii.?e;;~~il, .............i....i.................................MiL.....t:'t~I....~I.~I.. .....Mi=DII!li!~~:i!... ...1.. W~D[...I...Mi.ii..i..~~.~....~ii~n.......I.!I~ani'
... h.......;.:.:...:.:.:.:.:;.,::::::::::::::::,,:_::,:,_:z;:::-,-~:;:::::;::::;:::::::;::;':';':"':':' _ o.upWIHJ; MlUIf__', .......&1 .;JIIIIU D II: ._I~"'UU . :IIIIliI.,......
ISSUE 1: Would !be ........=.ldtian at the prop..... project effecIivI!Iy proIeCt species and habitats? /Direct Impam to Vogetation Communities)
5:.,.':fi-..l
hot
IIIitigtted
..........
i~
ISSUE 1: Would the ..=,tootiuo at tile proposed project effecIivI!Iy protect species and habitats? (Indirect Impacts to CDVI!n!d Species)
Joint Exercise at PowtO' Agn!ement at Otay Signifu:ant
Valley Revional Park COIIC!!J! Plan
NotAna/y11!tf
&:1:1.':1)_..1
JDint Exercise at Power AgTIOIt1eII\ at Dtay
Significant
Valley Regional Park Can:ept Plan
hot
IIIitigtted
~
~oifUiil
ISSUE 1: Wauld !be .....,=.t.tion at the prop..... project effecIivI!Iy prutecl species and habitats? (Indirect Impacts to Vegetation Conmmitiesl
Not Ana/yz1!1f
S:tI..:fi~.l
JDint Exercise at PowtO' Avreoment at Dtay Significant
Valley Regilmal Park Can:ept Plan
hot
IIIitigtted
~
!;..,;r....;rt
Not AnaIyzsf
1/2/97
Pg.2
levisions tc MSCP Draft Joint ElR/ElS
REVISIONS TO SECTION 1.0 - PURPOSE AND NEED
-
In response to Comment 53(g), the following revised language has been incorporated into Table 1-1.
TABLE 1-1
DECISIONS/ACTIONS ADDRESSED IN THE RECIRCULATED JOINT DRAFT EIR/EIS
FEDEIW.
USFWS X
STATE
CDFG X
LDCAl
Cllulav",.t!I
-
DelMa
SIn Diogo"
SInbo
Caomy If SD
SPECIAL
DISTRItTS
DIay we
x X'
X X'
X X'
X X'
x X'
X X'
X
X
X' x- X
x-
x- X
x-
X' X.
X
X
X
X'
X
x-
x-
X'
DamtianIry _ not _ in !hi pII'riDusIy distributed Draft Joint BRJEl5.
A.._.do._..." 1he faIowing City If SIn Doego Community PIans..._ in 1iio _Joint BRJElS:
Carmel Valley North City Fu1ure UriBizing Framework Plan
IIancIIo Peiiosquitas East Eliott
r_RinrVIIey B_C""",,
DIay Mesa Concluding Donnery Ranc!I. Rabinhaod Ridge. ond CaIifomia remn:esl
Tha:~ot.CIdIY~~;~~''''''_~''I.uiii_''';-1IId..:;~""t;:",a~"-;:-;-:--~.~~~:~~..'''li~_8I''~~.C~';~.~~'Q;-r1i~~WI--;';~
by.-'thiftJB1EIS;;;Y~f*-;~;du'~.Gr al::;;'~;";.Qi;miiWtirifir...cEDA;
1/21'J?
Pg. 3
Revisions to MSCP Draft Joint EII-7S
6. In response to Comment number 91 (b), the following revisions have been made to Section 3.5.7
page 3-44:
3.5.7 PARKJ{E.E~~6)~k1i FACILITIES
Park facilities are generally classified as either passive or active ~recreatibha:T;faejJi!!~. Activl
parks generally are developed parks associated with school facilities or residential development
These parks generally have playing fields or play areas and contain limited native species 0
features. Passive parks generally are located within identified jurisdictional preserve or resourc(
conservation areas and are not generally associated with urban development. Regional pari
facilities within the study area include the San Dieguito River Regional Park, Black Mountair
Regional Park, Los Peiiasquitos Canyon Preserve, Mission Trails Regional Park, Sweetwater Rive
Regional Park, and the TIjuana River Valley Regional Park and Estuary. A Focused Planning Are;
has been approved by a Joint ~;Powers Authority ~~irt consisting of the City of Sar
Diego, City of Chula Vista, and County of San Diego for a proposed Otay River Valley Regiona
Park.
,,\qtjMe.'.recieatTona!ifaG!ljti~G$.fed~jtfiii:Jithe.j&tSE~dy,:area'al~,.jnclUdeJitiotQffi.eCi;off~at
ye1irGlenaGi~@R~cnt)'al!Sj.~)I;,astQIiDpfpl\.--andjhuntiiig<JacliJti~i:tam.aj:la~el0~
1t[e~,ifj;ijfi;itl1e;1SGUtB~i;ti&'iJ~fttbe$fuay.;a~seii#or;"'@R~'actiVitje5>tl)ro'tiji~E!Ei;
Q.fi6:';i!S=.<@~iJiliit~e$th'a~ilSii:itiJiZeqiPVN~bicl~:ar!!;gel)~r.aJI~jctedEfO*"estrOOfT
fa:Tm~~if'-""'=~~';"'OOri' .:~mtres,..lrtili'T;(IitO'5[j --'i:tQ/n"'n. 'ri~lnnWi:I
e!. . _ _Q"""T~~''''''''. ..... g;;a.. ..,. _, . '~_ PP-Q, _ .P1~. ~
!Mit1f~~lu'.iaGlia:<;::~~Dti~;;;;;'~""'moJ';'1>Bmffive:f.j;;1litie..mdliEi1;loiIdii,;;,iL~
. . . ,,'. , . .. .'., I,.' ,....~J;;I.,r.W,Lw;... " . .~ ""'"""""--
furiiE!~;';~-;.;1ffaWiie1Da~r~'=~-ettteli;~a'. aved;';';P-~N'remGI~
. f _ _... ..' . ... .~:mp... ..." ;p - _ __ . ~ .
7. In response to Comment 43(aa), the following revisions have been made to Table 3.6-7:
TABLE 3.6-7
1990-2005 AVAILABLE VACANT LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL USE (ACRES)
STUDY AREA JURISDICTIONS
Cm VISta 1,421 513 137 8 1,284 1,413
ClIIIII13IIo 0 0 0 0 0 0
DelMar 17 16 0 0 17 17
EI Cijao 111 50 39 6 72D 105
I~ Beach 4 3 2 0 2D 4
18 Mesa 145 71 40 1 1050 144
1.!111111 Grave 74 51 12 0 62D 74
National City 84 65 45 2 390 82
poway 2.747 2.290 2.059 43 688D 2.704
San Diego - City 15,046 11,792 8.269 161 6.m 14,885
Sarna 1,482 1,299 821 18 661 1,484
San Diego - County' 117.986 111,144 102.873 73.652 15,113 44.334
TDul 139,117 127,284 114,297 73.891 24.82D 65.226
1 1ndDd.. unincorporated lands within MSCP study area only.
,!?1Ct7 ""0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(Please refer to the List of Acronyms in the Table of Contents and the Glossary provided in Section 8.4
for definitions of terms used in this section.)
PROJECT lOCATION
The MSCP study area occupies approximately 582,243 acres (approximately 909 square miles) in
southwest San Diego County and includes the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar,
EI Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Poway, and Santee, as well as a large
portion of the unincorporated area of southwestern San Diego County. The southern boundary of the
MSCP study area is the international border with Mexico. Cleveland National Forest lands form much
of the eastern boundary while the Pacific Ocean forms the western boundary, and the San Dieguito
River Valley forms the northern boundary. Naval Air Station Miramar, the Point Loma Naval
Complex, and other military lands are within the MSCP study area but are being planned separately.
Conservation planning is also being conducted to the north of the study area by a coalition of nine
North County cities in conjunction with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (the
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program [MHCPj) and in the eastern portion of San Diego County (the
Multiple Habitat Conservation and Open Space Program).
PURPOSE AND NEED
The MSCP study area contains much of the current or proposed urbanization in the Southern County;
consequently, its remaining native habitats are most threatened by development. Twelve major
habitats in the study area are considered sensitive by federal, state, or local agencies because they
have been severely reduced in distribution as a result of urbanization. Some of these habitats, such
as coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral, Torrey pine forest, and
southern interior cypress forest, are found primarily in San Diego County, and all or a large portion
of their U.S. distribution falls within the MSCP study area.
San Diego County contains approximately 200 plant and animal species that are federally and/or state
endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed or candidates for listing, or otherwise considered sensitive.
Over half of these species occur in the MSCP study area, although this area comprises only about 20'\'0
of the total acreage in the county. Recent federal listings and proposed listings of species in the study
area underscore the importance and urgency of habitat preservation in order to avoid species
extinctions and further listings.
At the same time, the federal listing of the California gnatcatcher as threatened has restricted the
region's ability to accommodate future growth and development in coastal habitat areas. The special
rule under Section 4(d) of the federal Endangered Species Act allows some development to continue,
restricted to 5'\'0 of all coastal sage scrub habitat in the range of the gnatcatcher, while habitat
conservation plans are underway. The MSCP targets the highest quality coastal sage scrub for
08/07/96
5-1
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Executive Snmm!lry
preservation, while allowing development of less important sage scrub areas. Once approved, the
MSCP Plan and constituent subarea plans will replace the Section 4(d) restrictions ~n impacts to
coastal sage scrub.
PROPOSED PROJECT - MHPA
The proposed project is the assembly and management of a preserve for conservation of biological
resources within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) as developed under the Multiple Species
Conservation Program. Public acquisition of private lands from willing sellers will be focused within
the MHPA. The MHPA was cooperatively designed by the participating jurisdictions and special
districts in the Study area, in partnership with the wildlife agencies (USFWS and CDFG), property
owners, and representatives of the development industry and environmental groups. The biological
goal for preserve design has been preservation of as much of the core biological resource areas and
linkages as possible. Another goal has been to maximize the inclusion of public lands within the
preserve. Economic goals in designing the preserve have been to make the preserve affordable and
to share the costs among all benefactors. As a result, the MHPA includes the majority of public habitat
lands in the study area. Habitat management plans for military holdings, regional public facility
providers, and some special districts are being planned separately from the MSCP. Although military
lands are included within the MSCP study area, they are not included within the MHPA. The
Department of the Navy is preparing a habitat conservation plan that will identify Habitat Management
Zones at Miramar. The Navy has also prepared Comprehensive Natural Resource Management Plans
for NAS Miramar and the Point Lorna Naval Complex.
Using these common goals, the participating jurisdictions and special districts prepared Subarea Plans
for their portions of the MHPA based on biological, economic, ownership, and land use criteria and
individual methods of implementation. Consequently, the MHPA has different levels of preservation
associated with different areas. The MHPA includes property set aside as mitigation for major
. development projects as a result of negotiations among property owners, wildlife agency staff,
jurisdiction staff, and environmental groups. Within some of the County's unincorporated areas, as
well as other areas within the MHPA, neither preserves nor planning areas are designated; instead,
selected lands have been pre-approved by the wildlife agencies as the preferred areas for
compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts. Most major habitat patches designated as open
space in general or community plans also are included. Some areas within the MHPA are already
permanently preserved and managed for their biological resources. Other portions are planning areas
within which the ultimate preserve will be sited, and thus the preserve will be smaller than the area
included in the MHPA.
The MHPA conserves 171,917 acres of vacant land, including 167,667 acres of habitat, and 4,250
acres of other vacant lands that contribute to preserve design, which is over half of all habitat lands
08107/96
E5-2
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Executive Snmmary
in the MSCP study area. The MHPA also conserves important portions of all the vegetation
communities represented in the subregion, including 62% of all coastal sage scrub in the MSCP study
area. This conservation is focused in the biologically most important areas, with nearly three-fourths
(73%) of the core biological resource areas and linkages conserved in the MHPA. Each Subarea Plan
contributing to this total describes a process for allowing development outside the preserve to be
mitigated by conservation inside the preserve, and a method for the interim protection of habitats in
the MHPA until a preserve plan is finalized and lands are acquired or conserved through the
development process.
Three-fourths of the habitat acres conserved in the MHPA are comprised of coastal sage scrub and
chaparral, with wetlands and grasslands comprising another 17%. Much of the MHPA is comprised
of small habitat patches with a large interface between native vegetation communities and developed
areas. Habitat management techniques have been identified to minimize potential adverse biological
effects of development along these edges.
SUBAREA / OTHER PLANS
In order to implement the proposed MHPA, local jurisdictions will rely on their land use authority
,--
provided through their General Plans and zoning ordinances. Specific preserve system boundaries
and implementation procedures would be established through the preparation of jurisdiction-wide
Subarea Plans, based on the MSCP Plan. All jurisdictions and agencies participating in the MSCP will
consider adoption of the Plan at the programmatic level.
Adoption of Subarea Plans is currently proposed by the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, San
Diego, Santee, the County of San Diego, and the Otay Water District, in order to implement the MSCP
Plan. Adoption of these Subarea Plans by the appropriate local jurisdictions are actions addressed in
the Joint EIRlEIS. Also addressed are implementing actions proposed by the City of San Diego and the
County of San Diego. In the City of San Diego, these include Progress Guide and General Plan
Amendments, amendments to seven community/area plans (Carmel Valley, North City Future
Urbanizing Area, Rancho Penasquitos, East Elliott, Otay Mesa, Tijuana River Valley, Beeler Canyon
Future Urbanizing Area) and approval of a cornerstone lands conservation bank agreement. In the
County of San Diego, adoption of a biological mitigation ordinance is proposed.
Finally, the County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, and the City of San Diego, working together
as the Otay Valley Regional Park Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (jEPA), have developed a Draft
Concept Plan for the Otay Valley Regional Park. This Concept Plan is also a'ddressed at a
programmatic level in this document.
08/07/96
ES-3
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Executive Snmm"ry
Al TERNA TlVES
In addition to the MHPA, four alternatives are analyzed in detail in this Joint EIR/EIS: the CSS-Scenario,
the BP-Scenario, the Pl-Scenario, and the No Action/No Project Alternative. These alternatives are
summarized on Table ES-1 and described below.
TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MHPA AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES
MHPA' 194,318 183,798 171,917
Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario' 110,600 94,900 84,900
Biologically Preferred Scenario' 224,089 185,738 167,000
Pubflc lands Scenario' 209,900 163,900 147,000
SOURCE: ' City of San Diego, 1996a.
, City of San Diego, 1995f; Volume I, Chapter 5
Alternatives to the proposed Subarea Plans are also analyzed in this document. Subarea Plan
alternatives include the CSS-Scenario, the BP-Scenario, and the No Action/No Project Alternative. The
Pl-Scenario is not analyzed for the Subarea Plans since jurisdictional or Subarea Plan level data were
not generated for this scenario. Alternatives are not analyzed for individual implementing actions such
as community or general plan amendments or implementing ordinances. Alternatives to these actions.
are included in the overall MSCP Plan and Subarea Plan alternatives. Furthermore, alternatives are
not identified for the Otay Water District Subarea Plan and the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept
Plan.
Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario (CSs.:Scenario)
The Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Scenario was developed to meet the minimum criteria for satisfying the
NCCP Conservation guidelines for coastal sage scrub and to establish a preserve of 100,000 acres or
less in size. This scenario is intended to provide the minimum acreage that could support populations
of three NCCP target species: the California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren birds, and
orange-throated whiptaillizard. The planning area for the CSS-Scenario encompasses approximately
110,600 acres, or 19% of the total MSCP study area. Of this total, approximately 94,900 acres are
habitats and the rest are developed, disturbed, and agricultural areas. It is assumed that approximately
08107/96
ES-4
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Executive SlImm:lry
84,900 acres of habitats within the CSS-Scenario would be preserved for biological resources in
conjunction with subsequent subarea plans. It is assumed that approximately 10,000 acres of habitat
within the CS5-Scenario would be disturbed as part of future subarea planning. The locations of
potential disturbance would be determined as part of the subarea planning process.
Biologically Preferred Scenario (BP-Scenario)
As part of the biological analysis, core resource areas were identified. The core biological areas were
linked, in some instances by non-native habitat, to create the Core and Linkage Area. For the most
part, the Biologically Preferred (BP) Scenario represents the Core and Linkage Area. The only portions
of the Core and Linkage Area excluded from the BP-Scenario are a few connections that link
potentially imponant biological areas to the east of the MSCP study area. These areas were excluded
based on a target total acreage for the BP-Scenario that was under consideration at the time the
BP-Scenario was developed.
The BP-Scenario includes most of the core biological resource areas and habitat linkages identified
in the MSCP study area as well as all public lands supporting biologically imponant habitat. The
planning area for this scenario encompasses approximately 224,090 acres or 40 percent of the total
MSCP study area. Of this total, approximately 185,738 acres are habitats and the rest are developed,
disturbed, and agricultural areas. It is assumed that approximately 167,000 acres of habitat within the
BP-Scenario would be preserved for biological resources in conjunction with subsequent Subarea
Plans.
Public lands Scenario CPl-Scenario)
The Public lands (Pl) Scenario includes:
1..
All vacant publicly-owned land (including military lands, city-owned lands, Bureau of
land Management [BLM] lands, etc.); it should be noted that military lands were
considered under this scenario although, as described previously, military lands are
not now included in the MHPA and are the subject of other resource conservation
planning efforts by the Department of the Navy;
2.
All land designated as open space in an existing General Plan or community plan;
3.
All land committed to open space by private landowners on development or specific
plans;
08107/96
E5-5
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Executive Snmmary
4. Linkages between these open space areas, based on the linkages shown for the C55
scenario (it is assumed that half of these areas would be preserved based on a target
acreage for the PL-Scenario under consideration at the time this scenario was
developed).
The planning area for this scenario encompasses approximately 209,900 acres. Of this total,
ap;xoximately 163,900 acres are habitats and the rest is developed, disturbed, and agricultural areas.
It is assumed that approximately 147,000 acres of habitat within the PL-Scenario would be preserved
for biological resources based on percent conservation threshold established for the PL-Scenario.
No Action / No Project Alternative
Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, a subregional Section 10(a) (1) (B) permit would not be
issued to local jurisdictions and activities involving take of listed species on non-federal lands
prohibited under Section 9 of the ESA would require individual permits. The MSCP Plan as proposed
would not be implemented. Proposed land use designation changes necessary to implement the
MSCP Plan would not be required; however, changes in land use designation may still be necessary
as the General Plans and/or community plans of local jurisdictions in the MSCP study area are
updated. The No Action/No Project Alternative assumes that the impact on sensitive habitats/species
would be evaluated and mitigated on a project-by-project basis, as is presently done.
Under the No Action/No Project alternative, the existing land use and environmental regulation
process would be required for all public and private projects proposed within the MSCP study area
this process includes. Over the long-term, the 4(d) process described above may not be available
since it is an interim process based on continuation of adequate progress toward the preparation of
an NCCP. Existing regulatory practices require mitigation for impacts to sensitive species and habitats
resulting in lands being set aside for open space preservation. Analyses completed for the MSCP Plan
indicate that the amount of land that would be conserved within the MSCP study area under the No
Action/No Project alternative would be similar to that which would be conserved under the proposed
MHPA (171,917 acres). The configuration of preserved lands under the No Project alternative would,
however, follow the pattern of project-by-project planning and would be characterized, as they are
presently, by fragmentation, poor design or no linkages, and island preserves resulting in increasing
risk of species decline and endangerment. This project-by-project pattern of planning would likely
occur on both public and private lands within the MSCP study area under the No Action/No Project
alternative. Less fragmentation would occur on public lands, when compared with private lands,
under the No Action/No Project alternative since a substantial portion of these lands are already
designated for open space, parks, and preserves. Public lands owned by special districts and agencies
whose primary purpose is not open space or resource protection could, however, be subject to the
type of piecemeal project-by-project planning that has historically occurred.
08/07/96
ES-6
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Executive Snmm"ry
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Environmental categories analyzed in detail in this document include the following: land use,
biological resources, regional transportation/circulation, public services and utilities, and
population/housing. The analysis results and conclusions for each of these environmental categories
are summarized in the following narrative and tables.
The tabular summaries for each environmental category express the level of significance for each
identified action both before and after. mitigation.. A summary is provided for each issue statement
analyzed for the particular environmental category. Impacts for which the conclusion after mitigation
is significant and not mitigated are highlighted on the summary tables. Narrative descriptions for
impacts regarded as significant are provided in this Executive Summary only for the proposed project,
the MHPA. The reader is referred to Chapter 4.0 of this document for complete discussion of the
alternatives.
As shown in the summary tables, alternatives were not analyzed for certain actions addressed in this
Joint EIR/EIS. ~e PL-Scenario was not analyzed f<;J" ;5ubareaPlans -~dresse? in this document because
....-.. ','. .. - '-'-~' '- - '- -.. - .. - --. ~- . -": "- -',
quantitative dati were notaliailable at" the Subarea Plan level for ~is scenario:' Likewise, alternative
scenarios were not evaluated separately for the City of San Diego and County of San Diego
implementing actions. These actions are considered to be analyzed in the context of the overall
Subarea Plans for the alternative scenarios. Alternatives to the Otay Water Dis1rict Subarea Plan and
the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan have not been identified separately from the overall
MSCP Plan alternatives analyzed in this document
As discussed in Section 4.1 of this document, both program level and project level analyses have been
conducted for the actions addressed in this document Progra!!1.&ejal1aIYses.have been completed
for the heading s.ho\Vi1. <;s..:t1.SC0~~~' o.r\tj);,,~u.re~i~!.~;:; ~;'jP~ l"'v~1 ~alyses;i1a~e ~~
completed for the hea~.mg shown as ~SUBARENOTHER PLANS:()n the siJmmary tables and for the.
- __',' "n _._ _' -. ._, ,".. .... _.' . _ "': _ '. '-', __ _., ,._.._, . ........_,
various actions unda' that headingwitb the.exception- ofthe'Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Pian.
A program level of analysis is provided for the Concept Plan.
The No Action/No Project Alternative is not shown on the summary tables. No significant
environmental effects have been identified for the No Action/No Project Alternative. This alternative
would not, however, take advantage of some of the benefits afforded under the proposed action.
land Use
Table ES-2 provides a summary of the land use impact analysis. As shown in Table ES-2, three issues
are analyzed in the land use section: 1) consistency with General Plan and community plan
environmental goals; 2) effects on adjacent existing and planned land uses; and 3) effects on
designated important farmlands and on sand and gravel resources.
08107/96
E5-7
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Executive Snmm:.ry
TABLE ES-2
SUMMARY OF LAND USE IMPACTS
Impac. tLOOeI.. .byAllemativ.i .....J ........... iP.. .. '...r.(.......~ Pmi... ct................... ...1............. ~. .......... S.II~~crub.... ........ i...I.... B. ...i.....Iag.. ...... ieaDyP!",I. ......ITe........... ~/. ....p. ....bII.. ..,.c.u-'-"--a' ,.......1
] . .MHPA", ... ...>...S..n8"..... .t........Scen.r"'.. .. ,..........
d.llct Categ.~&~~~Are. .... ..,......B.ID''''1 /./...Atteri../li......B.r.;;.~.i..j..i....Af1Ir.......1· BeiDiiJ. ..Attet/BOfare ..... ...'....AIte.......J
~''" ... .... ..M'ttig.tiOn. .Mitig.tiou..tllitiPti.nlMitigotiOn/Mitig.1iDD1M'l1iglltioo.Mitigoti.nMitiptio.!
I ISSUE 1: Would ii;e~ pri,jieiii:$Dit ii1.iaini miViiiib isisCiiiiiiiiiIifiitb 1i1lislliiimJ Piiiiir r.;;;;;;';;';~ipiii[wjiIiiiti],.#i&.iU..II
existing 11I1I'irm1m6IJtaJ plln. Df mlJlllbor dlie: aad CtJuaty,portkipot:il1gagencie:. Of DtlJlffJIJ/i&y mandate:. illt:luJling JIffIjlamlDl,.?" .....
MSCP PIAN I s\;'ofu~~ I I s~~~ I Is~ofu~~~ I I s~= I
SUBAREAlOTHER PlANS
City ofCllJla V'osta.Subara Plan
less than
significant
less than
:ignificant
less than
significant
Less than I
signifieant
Less than I
.ignificant
Less than I
significant
Significant I ~':!I;~
Not Analyad
I less than
significant
I less than
significant
I less than
significant
I SigriiIicant& ~&
City .r San Oi!go Subarea Pian Significant notlllil~~bod Significant iiot~.;m".1t.1
City of San Diego Implementin1i Action - I less than
Progress Guid. and Gene;aJ Plan Amendments signiftcant
City of San Oiegolmplenening Action - Conmmity Plan Amendments
CamEl Vaney CIIIIIJIIIIity Plan I ~=
North City Future Urbanizing Area I ~..M::
Rancho Pefiosquitos Ctlllmlnity Plan I Significant
I Significant
I Significant
I less than
:ignificant
I less than
Beeler Canyon Future Urbani2ing Area significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
Il.essthan
:ignificant
I less than
significant
I less th.n
significant
Joint Exercise of Power Agt!I!IIOnt of OIay Valiey I less than
R.gional Park Concept Plan significant
ISSUE 2: Would the propD.od pmj6ct conflict witbldjlr:enr exi:ting Ind p/annod /aad uses aad adjailJing apprarodJpmposod SIIbs."uont
derolapmont?
City of Coronado Subarea Plan
City of Del Mar Subarea Plan
Dtay Mesa CIIIIII1IJJIity Plan
SiII';;t.l;;.if&
1!I!t~,.6gOted
Sfy'ut'.;;i"f&
DD!1nitiII1Ited
S~&
nDhnitigated
Nor Al18lyad
East Elliott CIIItIIIIIIIity Plan
IIjW1118 River Valley CIIIIIIIIIJIity PI.n
City of San Diegolmpleroentilg Action:
C.merstooe UmIs .
County of San Diego - Subarea PI.n
less than
significant
less than
significant
Less than I
significant
Less than I
significant
Not Analyzod
City 01 SanI!e Subarea Plan
County of San Oi.go - l""ienEnting Acti.ns:
Bi.logy Mitigation Ordinance
OIay WaII!r District
ilDiAnolyied
No significant impacts were ilentifoed f.r the MSCP Plan. Subarea Plans, and Special Districts under Issu. 2. As a result. mitigation is not ,equired.
luue 3: Would tl1e f!'Dpasod project odromJlyoffeet foftD/aad: of Prime. Statawide. I.D&aL UIIi"ue, ., Graziag uad itnportJ1nce BS definod
by the c.lifamia Dopa/tllJont Df Constulllltio. important nftD/lnd Muppmg Pmg/'UJ11? Would the project adv"r:eIy itnpuct future
utn&tioD sf RIId .lId!f1Bvel tesDDn:es? .
Th. Subarea/Oth., Plans
No signiflCllll impacts were identified for the MSCP Plan. Subar.. Plans, .r Special Districts under Issu.3. As a ,esuh. no mitigation is requir.d.
OB/07/96
<C 0
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Executive Snmm"ry
With respect to consistency with General Plan and community plan environmental goals, this Joint
EIRlEIS concludes that implementation of the proposed City of San Diego Subarea Plan could
adversely affect the ability of the City of San Diego to achieve housing affordability goals incorporated
in the General Plan. Measures are not proposed at this time to mitigate this impact and it remains
significant and not mitigated. In addition, implementation of proposed amendments to the Rancho
Pefiasquitos Community Plan, the Gtay Mesa Community Plan and the East Elliott Community Plan
could affect siting and timely provision of facilities planned for the plan areas due to reductions in
dwelling units that represent a potential funding source for capital improvements. Measures are not
proposed at this time to mitigate these impacts and they remain significant and not mitigated. No
other significant impacts associated with this issue are identified in this joint EIR/EIS.
With respect to effects on adjacent existing and planned land uses, this joint EIR/EIS concludes that
flexibility has been incorporated into the proposed MSCP Plan and Subarea Plans to minimize or avoid
impacts. No significant impacts are anticipated.
With respect to effects on designated important farmlands and on sand and gravel resources, this joint
EIRlEIS concludes that policies have been incorporated into the proposed MSCP Plan and Subarea
Plans that minimize or avoid impacts. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Biololi[ical Resources
Two issues are analyzed in the biological resources section: 1) effects of the proposed action on
species and habitats; and 2) effects of the project on wildlife movement. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 provide
summaries of impact conclusions before and after mitigation for these issues. Table ES-3 is the impact
and mitigation summary pertaining to direct impacts to covered species. Table ES-4 is the impact and
mitigation summary for direct impacts to vegetation communities/habitats and other resources, as well
as indirect impacts. Table ES-4 also summarizes conclusions regarding effects on wildlife movement.
With respect to effects of the proposed action on-species and habitats, this joint EIR/EIS concludes that
the proposed project would have significant direct effects on most of the plant and animal species
included on the Covered Species List (see Table ES-3) due to issuance of incidental take permits.
Significant direct impacts to vegetation communities would also occur in conjunction with incidental
take of listed species. In addition, indirect effects to species and habitats are identified due to edge
effects associated with the overall preserve design and increased development pressure outside the
preserve. As identified in Section 4.3 of this joint EIR/EIS, for the proposed project (the MHPA), these
impacts would be reduced to a level below significance through measures incorporated in the
proposed MSCP Plan and Subarea Plans. These measures include preserve design features
incorporated in the MHPA as well as preserve management guidelines and land use planning tools
incorporated in the MSCP Plan and Subarea Plans. These features are described in detail in Section
4.3 of this document.
08/07/96
E5-9
MSCP Plan Draft EIRJEIS
Executive Snmm,,'"Y
TABLE ES-3
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES
. .. :"..lmpact Leel byAhornative.
. 1.l'ror..~::j.ct ....
...... ... ..1 M~~::..IMi=O~
toas1llSIJl~Scrubl.BiOlogiCI1lY h.lm.d
... . Se.nano...... .. .. ScenarIO .
. ... .11"'- . ....1. ..' . .1'. .. ... ., . .
. . ... ..ure'.. . . After. .. Bel"",. AItor
. Mitigwoo .. Mnigotiim · MitigatioD MitiptiDn
.Pliblic iandsSeenario
M~:~DII Mi:::~';'"
JnipmC3tegory....dAr.a
ISSUE 1: Would the impl.m.ntltion 01 the propos.d project eff.ctiv.ly protect speeies and hlbitats? (Direct Impacts to Covered Sp.cies]
San Diego thDrlHlilt (AUnthDmint/18 iJicifDfia) Significant Less than I Significant S"qjiifii:IiJt& Significant Less than Sipnificant ~~i~~
PErCE significant jiot";'!iJJ!1t<I significant
Shaw's apave IAgave shawfi) Significant Less than Significant Significallt& Not Not Not Not
"I significant noi",'~ significant significant sipnificant sipnificant
San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumilal Significant less than Sipnificant S-,gDificaDt& Significant less than Sipnificant less Iban
"t - sipnificant not~~ significant sipnificant
Aphanisma IAphanisma bfitDidesl Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not
"I sipnificant SignifICant significant sipnificant sipnificant significant sipnificant significant
0.1 Mar manzanita IArctDstBphy/Ds glandulDsa var. Significanl less than Significant ~';;;;r..:.;.ji& Not Not Not Not
crassifDua) significant not.;,;';,~~1 significant significant sipnificant significant
PEl
Dtay manzanita IArr:tI1staphylDS Dt8yensis) Not Not Significant Si\;........& Not Not Significant S;",iI.:~&
.1 significant significant Dot;;';r..~...<I significant significant ~
Coastal dunes niJk.vetch IAsrngaJus 18/Ier var. titJJ Significant less than Significant Signitmt.& Significant less than Sipnificant Less than
PElCE sipnifitant not:;iir~.:".t significant significant
Encinitas baa:haris lBaccharis ..=.1 Significant Less than Significant ~& Significant less than Sipnificant Sigutfo:ant:&
PErCE significant ~~~,,~.! significant IIII.!~
N.vin's blrberry lBerberis naviniiJ Not Not Not lna\y2ed Not onaIymI Not analyzed Not ana\y2ed Not ana\y2ed Not lnalyzed
Non. sipnificant sipnificant
Thread-I.aved brodiaea IBrodiaea filifD5a1 Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not
PT/CE significant sipnificant significant sipnifant significant . significant sipnificant significant
Orcutt's brodiaealBroDl8ea DrCJJ11ilJ Significant less Ibln Significant SigriifiCiiit& Significant less than Sipnificant less Iban
"J significant !JOI;;;,;""i;.,t significant significant
D.... reed grass (CaJa/7J8grostis densal . Not Not Not Not Not Not Not I Not
None significant significant significant sipnificant significant significant significant significant
Dunn's maripusalily ICaJochoft1JS donnilJ Not Not Significant siQ.;t.;~;;f & Not Not Significant I~j;;.~
./CR Sipnificant Sipnificant 1III.!~1t<I significant significant
SI.nder.pod jewelflower (CaulaJTtill1s stenourpus) Significant less than Significant Less than Significant I less than Significant I Sig..ir.;:;;;t&
./CR significant significant significant ~1It~~
lakeside ceanothus (CeanDtilus cyaneusl Significant less than Significant S~& Sipnificant less than Sipnificant SigmliCliii&
.1 significant ~ot..i!iJo""'" significant ~l,~-;r.;a~
Wart.stemmed coanothus (C.anothus venvcosus) Significant less than Significant less than Not Not Sipnificant Less than
./ significant significant significant significant significant
Satt marsh bin!'s.beak (CDrrfyIaJTtill1s /7J8ritimus ssp. Significant less than . Significant Si.,~r.....i& Not Not Sipnificant s;Dnm..,.nt&
maritimusl significant not.!'J!!iJI~ sipnificant significant I!I!!~
FElCE
Drant's bird's-beai: (CDrrfylaJTtill1s Dn:ut6anusl Significant less than Significant ~~~I Not Not Significant I S;g,oE.:::", &
"I . significant significant significant n~.9!.1i9~ .
08107/96 E5-, 0
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Executiv~ Snmm"TY
TABLE ES-3 (continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES
Del Mar Mesa sand-aster (Co",thmgyne 5Iaginifolia
var. linifolia)
PT/
T ecate cypress ICupmsus forbesiiJ
"/
Shon.leaved dudleya Wudley. bloclunaniae spp.
b",vifoli.)
PE/CE
Variegated dudleya Wudleyo vatieg'lal
"/
Sticky dudleya Wudley. viscid.)
"/
Pahner's ericameria (fricameri. p.1meri ssp. p.lmen)
"/
San Diego buttlll>a!lery fEryngium .rislufarum var.
pIIishiiJ~'",,","
FE/CE
Coast waUflower fErysimum'm1I1Dphilum}
"/
San Diego barrel cactus lFemcactus ritidescens)
., . ~I''::~'' . .'---
DtiY implant Vlerri11Jni. CDnjugensl
PE/CE
Hean.leaved pitcber sage Uepecl1inia carrftDpbyll.)
"I
Gamier's pitcber sage Uepechinia g.nrlenl
"/
NunaD's lotus UO/r1S nuttallianusl
"/
Feb.leaved monanlella (MonardeR. bypoleuca ssp.
l.nar'l
"I
wmowy monardeDa (Mon.rdell.linoides ssp.
vimineal
PE/CE
San Diego goldenstar (Muill. c1evel.mIiiJ
"/
Prostrate navarretia W.varreti. fossali$)
PTI
Dehosa bear.grass WoIina interrer.1
PT/CE
Snake chona (Opunti. p.rry; var. serpentin.)
"/
08/07/96
< Prup"M~~e~.. . . c..~~;:JoS~nJb IBiOklg~a~~efarred .
...,.:r=n.I.Mi:::~O~. .M~J;:;;~~i.'~~::6...I.::~:=mIMi=~~ ...
Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less ilian
significant significant significant
Pub=lantls Soellario .1
I. I
.. Before After :.
Mitigiitio,;MitiliatWi!
Significant Less than
significant
Not Not Significant SfgDilZia! & Not Not
significant significant ~31I!d significant significant
Significant Less than Significant S"'IIm~'& Significant Less ilian
significant !!.ot.o1!ivdlbd significant
Significant Less than Significant
significant
Significant Less than Not
significant significant
Significant Less than Not
significant significant
Significant Less than Significant
significant
Not Not
significant significant
Significant Less than
significant
Significant Less than
significant
Significant Less than
significant
Not Not
significant significarit
Significant Less than
signiflCOllt
Signifu:ant Less than
significant
Not
significant
SiQiifieam&
not.;;ili,j;,iII!
Less than
significant
SigniIiiint 8i
!!!'~
SVoiir. :;:;,&
n.o!~
S;y..rwd:&
notnitigated
Nat analyzed Not anaiy2ed
Not
significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Less than
significant
Not
significant
Not
significant
5igiiffcaaa.
not D".;;<'o.iJ
Significant Less than
significant
Not Not
significant significant
Not Not
significant significant
Significant Less than
significant
Not Not
significant significant
Not Not
significant significant
Significant less ilian
significant
Not Not
significant significant
Not Not
significant significant
Not Not
significant significant
Not anaiyzed Not analyzed
SignifICant less than Significant s~nitiC3irt& Not Not
significant ~ ".~y~ted significant significant
Significant Less than Significant ~~~I Significant Less than
significant significant
Significant Less than Significant ~~~.r:a;d&1 Not Not
significant _.~ significant significant
Significant less than Significant Sig'ut.;,;;;.t& I Significant Less than
significant notlJ!itig~ significant
Significant I less than Significant I Signilica!tt&1 Significant I loss than
significant not nitigatetl significant
Significant i;j;,;~;i&
~.IiIo.bod
Significant Siyi~L&
not~1bd
Significant I Less than
significant
Significant $i,p;U;;:';;"&
~!@
Significant SiQUjff~&
D1tC;~;iii!
Significant Less than
significant
Not I
significant significant
Significant I S".;;;~.f&
lIohiiitjy~1iid
Significant I Less than
significant
Significant I SignmcaDi'&
~
Significant I ~J
Not I Not
significant significant
Not analyzed I Not analyzed
Significant I Less than
significant
Significant I ;~
Significant I ~&
1nD!~
Significant I Significant &
notmitigatetl
Not
Significant; less than
! significant
E5-11
MSCP Plan Draft EIRJEIS
';;-::-,"",'..:',-:",:,')':-::' .: ,..:::.,;.".;-::::,:-....--....-.
Imp8ciCat."v.,andAraa .... ...
I California Orcun grass IOrcutria ca!ffom;a)
FEICE
Torrey pine (Pinus rorreranB)
'1
San Oiogo mesa mint (fogogrne .bramsiiJ
FElCE
Otay Mesa mint (fogogyne nutffusCDI.)
FElCE
Smal~leawd rose IROSB minutifoli8)
..ICE
San Miguel savory ISarufl!ja chand/en)
None
Gander's bunerweed lSenecio ganden)
'/CR
Narrow-leaved nightshade lSol811ll1D tenuiJobatum)
'1
Executive Snmm"ry
TABLE ES-3 (continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES
.P~~~:z~(.ctili C~~':joScrub "'IJI~;~!~0~j~ ...... ~Jblitlands&e,,;ri~i
...........i...I~~I~i;~~~I~=:t~~I~;l';'~I..~=-~.IM~~~.. ..~;::.....I..;~....
Significant Iw. than I Significant I.Siy.~.;;..ti 8. I Significant I Less than Significant I Less than
sl!Jnificant 1UII...I'u,'I~11 significant significant
Significant Less than I Significant s~;~".~'f&1 Not I Not Not I Not
significant ~ significant significant significant significant
Significant s':''':~ Significant ~~ Significant I !:~~ Significant s':''::
Significant Less than Significant SigiJifi3d & Not I Not Significant S/W.o;-......:&
signifttant 1III!~~Ii;;1t\J significant significant i!t!t~
Signifn:ant :"ir= si~nt Si9:t.,t Sign~~ I sign~~nt Significant ~if=
Signifn:ant Less than I Not analyzed Not analyzed Not analyzed I No! analyzed Not analyzed I No! analyzed
significant
Not Not Significant SigiiifiCaIIt.& Not I Not Significant I Less than
significant significant ~ significant significant significant
S'1QIIifn:ant Less than Significant !!ijjiiilallt& Not Not S' nificant I~.. jjfi/::,,;&
signifitant !i.ot~..;Iii;~'.<1 signifn:ant signifu:ant I!J DoIiiiiIiIiiiiod
Significant ~:& Signifitant Significant I.~..~...."ft-,~.._..
imt:::.,;;..,..;;! .. ..
Parry's tetracoCQIS [TetraCDtCllS diO;CllS)
"/
Not Not Not I Not
significant signifitant significant signifitant
Thome's hairstreal< butterfly (MitrJura tilO11leJ) Not No! Significant SijjiifiCaiIt80 Not Not Not Not
"I significant Significant ~ot:i;.,~.b.d signifttant signifitant significant Sigllificant
San Diego fiiiY" sbrimp IBranr:l1inettB sandiegoensisl I Signifn:ant Less than Not analyzed Not analyzed Not analyzed No! analyzed Not analyzed I No! anliyzed
PEI~" r ..~_.. significant
Riv!rsid. tBiry sbrimp IStrepfDcepba/US wpDtlDm1 Signifu:ant Less than Significant SigiiIi:aO! & Significant Less than Significant I Less than
FE! ~'<~~ _ - J significant tiat~ significant significant
-- -
~.....,,:...........~. ............ SignifICant Less than Significant SiiJi~,f& Significant Less than Significant s;UDifiCliit&
Arroyo southwestern toad lBufo mitroscapbus
califDmit:IJS) " . significant !!'I;~...I'" significant nDl";;~~
FE/SSC
Cardomia red-Iegged frog IRan. BumfB dfBytDm1 No! Not I No! Not I Not Not Not I Not
FTlSSC significant significant significant significant signfficant significant significant significant
Southwestern pond turtle (CIemmys marmofB1JJ Significant Less than Significant SiVo~....a& Significant Less than Significant Less than
p.llida) signifn:ant lIot;,.,;""I.;1 significant significant
"/SSC
San Diego homed lizard (fl1ryntJSD/118 coronatum Significant Less than Significant Sig;.r...... & Significant Less than Significant SitP....~.i&
bIainvilleJ) significant ~~ significant nIJ!.~.~>>.JI;!I
"/SSC
Orange-throated whiptail (CnemidopbofUS Significant Less than Signifitant SiD,,i...-;t 8. Significant Less than Significant I ~&
l1yperytl1rus /mIdingil significant ~..,j&~b;oj signifitant n~~,j....11!id
"'SSC
08/07/96
ES-12
MSCP Plan Draft EIRJEIS
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3 (continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES
P",p;~~!~~ .....i!..... ~:!~fo~~pIh)'~ijl~~a~~IT~~ i.pJb~~b~.;,;S~;;.,rio
;r~I~~~~~..I~r;@~j~;~~.li;i~~~I...Mi=O~.. ....~:~::io~...I...;~~..
Significant sqji,jriCaut & I Significant Less Iban Significant Less than
not~aIeI! significant significant
Significant I S. ~iUr.....;r&1 Not Not Not I Not
'!"I..!!!!!9a11!1! significant significant significant. significant
~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
significant significant significant significant significant significant
Significant ~=~ Significant s~= Significant I ;:~~~~
~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~
significant significant significant significant significant significant
Significant ~ !II Significant Less Iban Significant I Siy.~iiZ;.....&
n,Dt~ significant not"';~1id
Significant Less Iban Significant Less Iban Significant I Less than
significant significant significant
Not Not
significant significant
Calffomia brown pelican (Pelecanu. Dct:itiemali. Significant Less Iban
califDmicusJ significant
FElCE
Reddish egret IEgmra tufescen.) Significant Less than
'I significant
Whit..faced ibis (Pegatli. chi/u) Significant Less Iban
'/SSC significant
Canada goose IJJfilnta canadensi.) Significant Less than
None significant
Bald eagle rHaliaeetJJs leucocephalu.) Significant Less than
FT/CE significant
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneu.) Not Not
-'SSC significant significant
Cooper's hawk IAccipirer coDpetili Significant Less than
-ISSC significent
Swainson's hawk IJJUIs1 swain'Dnn Not Not
-ICT significant significant
Ferruginous hawk lJJureD regaD.) Not Not I
'ISSC significant significant
Gold!n eagle IAquila cl1rysaetos) Not Not I
BEPAlSSC significant significant
Ameritan peregrine falcon Ifalco peregrinus anatum) Not Not I
FElCE signifitant significant
Light.ioGted clapper niiI 'IIallus long/rom levipes) Significant Less Iban I
FElCEc.. .,,-,' significant
Western sitoWyplaver (Chafildrius alexam/rinus Significant Less than
nirosDs) significant
FTISSC
Mountain plover fChafildrius mDntanus) Not Not
CI significant significant
Long-biDed curlew Wumeniu$ amencanus} Not Not
"ssc significant significant
Elegant tern IS/ema elegans) Not Not
'/SSC significant significant
California least tern fStema amillarum IJrowml Significant Less than
FElCE significant
Burrowing owllSpeoryro cunicularia hypugaea) Significant I Less than
'/SSC significant
Southwestern willow flycatcher fEmpidDnax trall/ii Significant I less than
extimus) significant
FElCE
08107/96
Not Not Not Not
significant significant significant significant
Not Not Not Not
significant significant significant significant
Significant Lesslban Not Not
significant significant significant
Not Not Not ~
significant significant significant significant
Significant Sifnifii:aitt& Not Not
riot.ui!iiio!18i! significant significant
Significant Sigiiijicaaf& Not ~
not~ significant significant
Not Not I
significant significant
Significant SiiiDfficaiil& I
not !ni!i@d
Signfficant I ~~~I
Significant I ~~;~I
Significant less than I
significant
Significant oognffit:aitt &
nolJl1itig~
Not Not
significant significant
Significant Less than
significant
Not I Not
significant significant
Significant less than
significant
Significant Less than
significant
Not Not Not Not
significant significant significant significant
Not Not Not Not
significant significant significant significant
Not Not Not Not
significant signifitilnt significant significant
Not Not Not Not
significant significant significant significant
Significant Less than Signfficant I oognificant&
significant not.@ig~
Significant Less tIw1 Significant I Siiinifitant'&
significant IUIt nitigated
,
ES-13
MSCP Plan Draft EIRJElS
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3 (continued)
. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES
.;...;.-<.-.,.,'.,.....,... '-. ."""':':"::'::.".,-",'
. ....."..... - ...'...."......,....
----, ...... - .,' ,-",-"'- ',"
ImpaotCatevm:Y ..ndArea .
Coastal cactus wren ICampyJoryncilus
brunn.ieapiOus CDuesJl
"fSSC
California 9'~""'td.. l,Po5optila caIifomka
r:a5fomir:a)
FTlSSC
Western bluebinllSiali8 mexir:ana)
None
least Bell's vireo IVI/IJD beIJii pusifJuiJ
FElCE
California rufous.crowned sparrow 1AimDpiJi/a
ruficeps r:anescens)
C2ISSC
Belding's Savannah sparrow l,PaSSettUius
sandwicilensis belJiingtl
"fCE
X Large-billed Sanonab sparrow I,P.-us
. sandwicl1ensis 1I1S/1It1JS)
"fSSC
Trii:oloieil~ IAgelaius tricDlJJrl
"ISSC-
Ame,itan badver (1 uid.. tBxus)
-ISSC
Proposed Project
.MHPA.
":=~I~i=~~1
Significant
Less than
significant
I
Coostat Sig~ Scrub .1 ,Biologically P!'ferred .
.':. 'Sconer'o'.:x," "',,". .:SeeR"",,.:::.: .:.,.
-"- . ./. '. .1.... '.' ,., . "'. ,
.B.""e...... '. Afte,' .. Before.... After...
Mitigatio~ . Mibgaliml Mitigam,;,Mifigali~11
Significant less than Not Not
significant significant significant
.:P.bti~ !ands Sc....'io .
::~::6.;,1.,~==.
Significant Less than
significant
Significant Less than Significant ~& Significant Less than Significant s;;,;~iiCaot &
significant not,.~~ significant not.DiitiPtId
Significant Less than I Significant SioiiJli.::',,' & Significant Less than Significant Less than
significant not.wi!fg!boCI significant significant
Significant Less than I Significant 5iUiiIiCaitt& Not Not Significant ~.-::d'i
significant !!.uf;;;6w-dibd significant signiflClnt oofiiililOWiI
Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant less than Significant ~t:&
significant . significant significant iiot'Wiljji\iil
Significant Less than Significant S"rg@ii:aDt& Not Not Significant ~Ji....d&
significant iiOtudtiii.ttd signifitant significant !!ot!'!1!1Ji.ibod
Significant Less than Significant ~ & Not Not
significant iiot.;~'\;.fo4t signifitant significant
Significant Less than
significant
Not Not
significant significant
Mountain 600 !Felis conc%rl Not Not
-IProtecled significant significant
S..theririillle _ WdDCOiJeus llemiarws fu5ginata) Not NDt
-/game species -- significant sivnifooant
08107/96
Significant SigiiifiCam& Significant Less than
.~ significant
~ --
Not Not Not Not
significant significant signifooant significant
Sivnificant ~& Not Not
nOtJ;;j~ signifocant significant
Significant ~& Not Not
nutual.....I..4'I significant significant
Not Not
significant significant
Significant I Less than
significant
Not Not
significant significant
Not I Not
significant significant
Not I NDt
significant significant
ES-14
Coastal'SageS<rub ,Biologi<allyPmerred .
Sceitario . , . . 'Scenario . : Public lands ~""'''i~
';;;~tCategetyJlndAr~ . '.. ...... ... .'.. '.'.I':::.;,I...;:~~~=~I~i=D~~::~eo~1 Jgn:~..~~::",f"..~:"
Would the implementation of the pmposed project effectively pmtect species and habitats? IDirecllmpacls to Non-covered Species'
I s~: I I S:ffi~~ I I ~;~~:n~ I. I :~~:~ I
I
I
I
I
MSCP Plan Draft EIRJEIS
Executive Sllmm",'"Y
TABLE ES-4
SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
I less than
Progress Guiie and General Plan Amendments significant
City of San Diego Implementing Action - Conmlllity Plan Amendments
I less than
significant
I s~nn::
I less than
significant
I less than
significant
I less than
significam
I less than
significant
I less lhan
signilicam
less than
significant
less than
significanl
less than
significam
less than
significant
less than
signfficant
less than
significant
ISSUE 1:
MSCP PLAN
SUBAREAIDTHER PLANS
City of Chula VISta Subarea Plan'
City of Coronado Subarea Plan
City of Del Mar Subarea Plan
City of San Diego Subarea Plan
City of San Diego Implementing Action -
Carmel Valley Community Plan
North City Future Urbanizing Area
Rancho ""ii..quit.. Conmmity Plan
East Elliott Community Plan
Otay Mesa Community Plan
ITJU'" RiV1!r Valley Conmunity Plan
Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area
City of San Diego Implemenling Action -
Comemone lands
City of Samee Subarea Plan
County of San Diego Subarea Plan'
County of San Diego - Implemenling Action:
Biology Mitigation Ordinance
Olay Water Oistril:! -
Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Olay Valley
Regional Park ConCl!!ll Plan
08107/96
Less than
signfficant
less than
signfficam
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
less than
signfficant
less Ihan
significant
less than
signfficant
less than
significant
Nor Ana/yzlll
- NotAna/y111fJ -
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
less Ihan
significant
i.!ss than
significant
Not Analyzed
Nor AnalyzHd
E...'"-lS
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Executive SlIrnrn,,'1'
TABLE ES-4 (continued)
SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
. ......i.ImpEtleveibi~,ts.~(.(..f.~jf(:.::~ij~~...... ...Tj~~,~~i.;:i~~:'::I0I~~~bfiCI.amlSJ:.k.~ri~i.
.1m~~~.&.tqmy.a~~4~.(........ ............(i.,.~r~!;I!W!.... ...~~~lt~rt~~.....~tl:~i~I.~~! ...~::if.;;...,..,1:i:!
I ISSUE 1: Would Ihe implementation 01 the proposell project effectively prote:t species and habita1s?~ Vegetation Communities]
I MSCP PLAN I S~nmeant I ;:.~t~:; I Signm:ant I ~'~~~I Signmcant I s~~:; I Signmeant I~::~z:;
SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS
CityolChulaV'ISta~i>Jm,'-
Significant Less than
signifieant
Significant less than
signmcant
Significant :~ I
S~nmcant Less than I
signmeant
C~y 01 San Diego Implementing Action - Commun~y Plan Amendments
Less than
Significant signifieant
Signifieant Less than
significant
Smnifi- Less than
.. _m significant
Significant Less than
signmcant
Significant Less than
significant
Smnifi--- less than
.. _n significant
S;"","-- less than
,.,.,,_n significant
o..nifi- Less than
~. _n significant
Smnifi-nt Less than
." - significant
Less than
Signmeant signmcant
Less than
Signmeant signmeant
Less than
Speant
City 01 Conmado Subarea Plan
city 01 Del Mar Subarea Plan
City of San Diego Subarea Plan
Carmel Valley Community Plan
North City Future Urbanizin!i Area
Ranclm Peilasquit.. CDIIIIIIIIIity Plan
East Elliott CDlllllllnity Plan
Olav Mes.a Community Plan
"JUana RivEr Vaney Community Plan
Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area
City 01 San DEgo bnplementing Action -
Cornerstone lands .
City of Santee Subarea Plan
County 01 San Diego Subarea Plan'
County of Sa. Diego - Implementing Actions:
Biology Mitigation Drdinance
Dtay Water District
x
Joint Exercise 01 Power Agreement of Olav Valley
Regional Park Concep\ Plan
OBlO7/9&
Signmeant
sinnifrr:mt
~~
.iifiiiitiiiit!d
Significant
~;";<;=-:-Iii
~~~
';;'I~
Siy.mi:dutl.
;(;,,'~,';i"~'
119!c~...,;:a
~.r.;";;;"&
iiOt~j";';'"
Si;.n--::':'I'&I
"-''-'''''-"-''''-''
itot~
S~nifltant
Significant
Less than
significant
less than
signmcant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
,,'--
,:,:~'!DJii#!1/
Significant
Signmeant
SignifICant
Significant
Significant
--'
4-NoiA18IyzI!d]; _
Significant
.~~:1~:;:-"1!t1
NOtJ.IitigateiI
~=:I
Significant
Significant
Less than
significant
less than
significant
Not A..lymf
SignifICant
Not A..lymf
.
E5-1&
MSCP Plan Draft EIRJEIS
TABLE ES4 (continued)
SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Executive Snmm"ry
. '. impati level by AItema1iwe........Pr.Po=:~ojett .1 . Coas~":,:s.:nm '.~ieIOg=,:Zerr~ ioufdic LandoSceBaria
IIOpa~tCategerJ~~Ar.a ... ... ..... .... .M~:::"ill.ti~::~1 M:::..I~i~=o~I'::i~o~I.u::~~,:::;:; IMi~::~
ISSUE 1: Would the implementation of the proposed project effectively prote:1 species and hallitats~~~~ Covered Species]
MSCP PLAN I S....;;; I less than I S. ifi I Significaot&1 S. ifi - I less than I Less than I
",."canl significant Ign cant ..ij ,;~;;'::i~ '!In cant significant significant
SUBAREAIOTHER PLANS
less than
Significant Significant
significant
S'ognificant Less than S'ognificant
significant
Significant less than Significant
significant
Significant Less than Significant
significant
City of San Diego Implementing Action - Community Plan Amendments
Less than
Significant
significant
Significant less than
significant
Significant Less than
significant
Significant Less than
significant
Significant less than
significant
Less than
Significant
significant
Significant Less than
significant
Less than
Significant
significant
less than
Significant Significant
signmcant
Less than
Significant Significant
significant
Less than
Significant
significant .
S. nifi Less than
'g cant si nifu:ant
Ii .~
Significant .. .-
City of Chllla V'1Sta Subarea Plan'
City of Cornn..o Subarea Plan
City of Del Mar Subarea Plan
City of San Diego Subarea Plan
Carmel VoUey Community Plan
North City Future Urbanizing Area
Rancho Peiiasquitos Community Plan
East Elliott Conmmity Plan
Dtay Mesa Community Plan
"JUana River Valley Conmmity Plan
Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area
Implementing Action -
City of San Diego Cornerstone Lands
City of Santee Subarea Plan
CountY of San Diego Subarea Plan'
County of San Diego - Implementing Actions:
Biology Mitigation Drdinance
Dtay Water District
-\
Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Clay VaUey
Regional Park Concept Plan
08107/96
_ -Significant
~!~~ Significant
Si~&1
~';';';;;i~ Signfficant
Si~;i;jt:::r &1
~iJi~;':;j Significant
I ~~'~=I Significant
I ~=~I Significant
Less than
~ufiwllll
Less than
significant
less than
significant
Less than
significant
". ~.
Not An8/yzed
Not Analyzed
Less than
significant
less thantsignificant
Not Analyzed
Nor Analyzed
E~17
MSCP Plan Draft EffilEIS
TABLE ES-4 (continued)
SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Executive Summary
~JI!ISJ::~.jeot ..I.Cu~:;'":Ui~ .'.i~I.9:=I:",ad.. .'Pliblic1andsbariu'"
Impactc.,I..,...,8ndAr~a' . .... .......i,:ti~:..I~~~:LIM::.nl~=;,;M=~..I~~.....,:::..I~::ti.;..
ISSUE 1: W.uld the implementati.n of the propused projeot e!feoti..ly protect species and habitats? Pndireot ImpltlS to Vegetation C.mmunitiesl
MSCP PLAN I S~nmcant I s::'~~ I Signmcant I ~'~~~I Signmcant I :~::~ I ~~~::;t I
.....'.. -,.
.... -... .- ..-.-....-.-.........
. . . .... 1mp..1 Level byAltmlatiYe.. .
SUBA~ERPLANS
City of CImIa VISta Suba... Pian' Significant '= than Significant'
significant
City .f C.ronado Suba... Plan Significant :..:.~ Significant
City .f Del Mar Subarea Plan Signmcant ::..~ S~nificant
C. S S b P S.,-......t '= than S. -"'-
rty of an Dieg. u area Ian .,."om. signifltan! '1I,""...n!
City .f San Diego Implementing Actions - Community Pian Amendmen!
C Y-'I C . P S. nifi I Less Ihan
anJEI ~ ey ommuMy Ian '11 can! . nifi n!
slg lea
C Futu Smnificant '= Ihan
Norltl ity re Urbanizing Area .. s~nifican!
Less than
Raru:l1o Pefiasquitos Conmmity Plan Significant signmcant
Less than
East Eliiot! Cllllllllllnity Plan Significant signmcan!
Smnificant '= than
Dlay Mesa COllllllnity Plan ~ signmcant
Smnifican! '= than
TlJUana River Yalley Conmmity Plan ~ significant
Smnifican! '= than
BeeI!r Canyon Fuiure Urbanizing Area ~
significant
City of San Dieg. bnplementing Action- Significant '= than
C.rnerst.ne Lands significant
Smnificant '= than S' m
City of Sa_ Subarea Plan .. significant '1In can!
-' S..........n! Less than S. ifica
C.unty of San Diego Suba... Plair ,"''''- significant '1In n!
C.unty of San Diego - Implementing At:tions: Significant Less Ihan
Biology Mitigation Drdinance significant
Less than
Dtay Water District Significant ~q.n;f;Mlnt
J.int Exercise of Power Agreement of Dlay Yalley Significan! r ~~~~..;.,;t&
Regi.nal Parle C.nceat Plan nutriitiiJated
08107196
_. Significan!
~. Significant
~.-~~~..~I...I
~
~i;;.I~
~.&I
~~:;r~~~
Signmeant
Signmcan!
Nor Aoa/yzsf
~~~i~
~~.~.&
nOt mitigated
Signmcant
Signmeant
'= than
significant
'= Ihan
signmean!
'= than
significant
'= than
signmean!
Not An./yzsf
'= than
significant
'= than
significant
Nor Analyzed
Nor Analyzed
ES-1S
ISSUE 2: Would the implementation of the proposed MSCP affect the movement of any resident or miumory WIldlife species?
MSCP PLAN I less than I I S'gnificant I Sig. ''::'':''''1. &/lesS than I
significant '!!tI!c~ significant
less than I
significant
I
I
Implementing Actions - Progress Suide and less than
Seneral Plan Amendments significant
Implementing Actions - Conununit'( Plan Amendments
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
';'-".> -....'..,.',",....'.........:;..
.' ".. . --- , ,..---
... ............,.......... ..... ,'-
Impact Levelby:A1ternatiYe .
......;:-.- ...........--..,-....,....,..-.
..c.':.:.....:....,..,...... "..,',-""'-,""","
...........-.....--..... .......-...... "'-'-,
Impact.Category "ad Area ::..
SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS
City of CluJla VISta Subarea Plan' ,
City of Coronado Subarea Plan
City of Del Mar Subarea Plan
City of San Diego Subarea Plan
Carmel Valley COlllllllnity Plan
North City Future Urbanizing Area
Rancho Pei\asquhos Cormxmity Plan
East BOot! Conmmity Plan
Otay Mesa COR1IIIInity Plan
Tijuana River VaDey CDIIIIIIII1ity Plan
Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area
City of San Diego Implementing Action-
Cornerstone Lands
City of Santee Subarea Plan
County of San Diego Subarea Plan'
County of San Diego - Implementing Actions:
Biology Mhigalion Ordinance
Otay Water District
Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Otay VaDey
Regional Park Concopt Plan
08/07/96
Executive Sl1mm:llj'
TABLE ES-4 (continued)
SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
ProP~~::Auj.al~..-:~:'~~b .1 BiuI09~J::erredl
. .~ti~:::..IMi::~ 1M.=nl.Mi=o.IM=~:.1 ~~o~ I
c..... . .... ~.,
Pu&lic Lands Scimario .
Belo"'l. . .Aiter .
Mitig_ . Mitigalimt
I .. ISiDDfficaoii-&
Significant ~i,;g;.~
Significant
;?jjj._ ,<less than
r.t~::':'.:'1 significant
S~tiif":;;;d& less than
Ji.u~ significant
SijjDifiCiint&llesS than
~,.t~!!>i!! significant
S'...;fi;~'4&llesS than
~.g ~';_",,!bOf significant
Not Analyzed
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Nor Analyml
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
ISigllificant... -&1
not mitigated
I Sigmroi:ant &1
no!~
Significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
Not Analyzed
Significant
Less than
significant
Significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
Less than
significant
Not Analyzed
E5-19
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Executive SlImm"ry
With respect to effects of the proposed action on wildlife movement, this joint EIR/EIS concludes that
the proposed project (the MHPA), would not significantly affect wildlife movement with the exception
of tne South Metro-Lakeside-jamul segment of the County Subarea Plan. For this segment, criteria
have been incorporated into the County Subarea Plan to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
For the MSCP Plan and Subarea Plans, linkages have been incorporated into proposed preserve
designs that would accommodate wildlife movement and minimize impacts.
Regional Transportation / Circulation
No significant impacts to regional transportation/circulation have been identified for the proposed
MHPA or alternatives.
Public Services and Utilities
Table ES-5 provides a summary of the public services and utilities impact analysis. One issue is
analyzed in the Public Services and Utilities section concerning the effects of the project and the
provision of public services and utilities.
With respect to the overall MSCP Plan, the analysis presented in this joint EIRlEIS concludes that
detailed information is not available on a regional level regarding how public service facilities such.
as parks, schools, fire stations, and police station sites, considered incompatible with the core and
linkage areas of the preserve, might be relocated, or if existing facilities could be expanded to
accommodate potential loss of these facilities. As a result, the potential for loss of a public service or
recreational facility due to incompatibility with the preserve is considered to be a significant and not
mitigable impact of the project at the program level.
This joint EIRlEIS also identifies significant and not mitigated impacts for this issue for the East Elliott
and Otay Mesa Community Plan areas, related primarily to the elimination of a school site and park
site in Otay Mesa and uncertainties regarding provision of City services to remaining residents planned
for East Elliott. In the absence of information regarding how these issues may be addressed in future
community plan updates, impacts would remain significant and not mitigated.
08/07/96
E5-20
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
:'.'...:...-....::. - . - ,'"
:-....::.::.'-.:-:.......:.-. -"'-. '::-::-'-"
Impa1:tLev~1 hy Allemative .
MSCP PLAN
SUBAREA/DTHER PLANS
r' _' ,'0' .. ~'. :'_ ,_
City of ChuIa yita Subarea Plan
City of Coranado Suharea Plan
City of Del Mar Suharea Plan
City of San Diego Suharea Plan
Implementing Actions - Progress Guide and
General Plan Amendments
Carmel Valley Community Plan
North City Future Urhanizing Area
Rancho Penasquit.. Cllllllllnity Plan
East Elliott Community Plan
Dlay Mesa Community Plan
"JUana River Valley COII1IIIIJnity Plan
Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area
City of San Diego Implementing Acrion -
Cornerstone lands
City of Sant.. Subarea Plan
County of San Diego - Subarea Plan
County of San DiegD -Implementing Actions:
Biology Mitigation Ordinance
Dlay Water District
Joint Exen:ise of Power Agreement of Dlay
Valley Regional Park Concepl Plan
08/07/96
Executive Snmm!lry
TABLE ES-5
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Less than I
signifitarrt
Less than
significant
less Ihan
significant
Less than
significant
less than
significant
Less Ihan I
significant
Less than
significant
less Ihan
significant
Less than I
significant
I less than I
significant
I Less than I
significant
I Less than I
significant
I less than I
significant
Proposed Project .j. . Coastal Sage sCruhl Biologically Preferred.' .P.~blii: La. nds s~enarjol
... MHPA .: Seenaria . Scenario .....,
Impact Catag';ry~nd Area . . M~~~~'; fiMi::~on j~=on .jMi~:a~ I. M~~:~onl Mi~o.:J:::~n I M"~:~onl
Issue: Would the propo$ed project have an effect upon the need for Dr the provision of pubuc services and utirrties
I ~nificantl ISi~1
Significant -...!!!noC Significant .::.!!!not~ Significant
~ ~
Implementing Acrions - COIIIIJIInity Pia. Amendments
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Not Ana/yzetl
Significant
SignificaIit 8;
not~
S;gDifi;.J,T&
n.o!i@igi!ed
Signifrcant
less than
significant
Less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
Less than
significant
I less than
significant
I Less than
significant
Less than I
significant
Less than I
significant
Not AMiyzsJ
Significant
Less than
significant
Signiiicartt
:"&IIoC
,~,;ny._1t<I
IS~Dt
Significant: & iioi-=-.
'!'itiV~
Not Ana/yzSIJ
Not Analyzed
E5-21
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Executive Snmm"ry
Population / Housing
Three issues are analyzed in the population/housing section: 1) effects of the proposed action on
planned/existing housing in the region; 2) effects of the proposed action on distribution, density, or
growth patterns; and 3) a generalized economic analysis of the overall MSCP Plan. Issue 3 is not
represented in Table ES-6.
With respect to effects on planned/existing housing, the analysis presently in this joint EIRlEIS
concludes that implementation of the overall MSCP Plan and Subarea Plan would not significantly
affect planned/existing housing in the region. Significant efforts would occur within two individual
community plan areas in the City of San Diego, the Carmel Valley and East Elliott Community Plan
areas which would lose 39% and 70% of planned housing units, respectively. No measures are
proposed to mitigate identified impacts at this time and impacts remain significant and not mitigated.
With respect to effects on growth patterns, this joint EIR/EIS identifies no significant adverse effects for
the overall MSCP Plan or Subarea Plans. This conclusion is based on quantitative analysis of
development shifts that may occur with implementation of the MSCP Plan as well as analysis of
measures incorporated in the MSCP Plan and Subarea Plans to minimize or avoid impacts to land use
distribution and growth patterns.
With respect to the generalized economic analysis, this joint EIR/EIS concludes that implementation
of the overall MSCP Plan would result in net positive economic effects. The economic analysis
compares the proposed project to the No Action/No Project Alternative and the conclusion of net
beneficial effect is based on that comparison.
08/07/96
E5-22
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Executive Sllmm!lry
TABLE ES-6
SUMMARY OF POPULATIONIHOUSING IMPACTS
..1... P~blic bndsScena'io.
. . ../'..... . ..,. . .1..... .,.... ...,... . .,./
Mf::~nftr.i=onM~ti-::J.,~:~Mf:~~~ .Mi::o~~f=nMi:::~
,c.::;,-.":_,,':::'-:"':-':'-.'",: ....:__::.:.;;:,.,;-_:>:.:.-,;....:.'.
. In,~ l:ategory and.Area .
POPULATION ANO HOUSING -I$$oe 1:
MSCP PLAN AREA
SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS
City of ChuIa YISta Subarea Plan
City of Coronado Subarea Plan
City of Oel Mar Subarea Plan
City of San Oiego Subarea Plan
Implementing Acrions - Pragress Guide and
General Plan Amendments
;._,-';.";'::",-,--,-,
Biologically Preferred
;::::'/,:)/Scenario':' .
Would the propDsed MSCP Plan affect planned/existing Dousing in the region and/or adjacsnt tDnlDJunities
Dr affect the $lIJ1ply?
I less than
significant
I less than ,
significant
I Significant &/tess than I
not mitigated significant
I Significant
I J:"~~
Less than
significant
less than
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
No change
I less than
significant
I less than
significant
I
. Not: An8/yzetI
No change
No change
less than
significant
I. Significant I~~
less than
significant
Implementing Acrions - Cnll1llJ!lity Plan Amendments
CamI!I Valley Community Plan
North City Future Urbanizing Area
Rancho peiiasquit.. Community Pia.
East Elliott Community Plan
Otay Mesa Community Plan
Tijuana River Valley Conmmity Plan
Beeler Canyon future Urbanizing Area
City of San Oiego Cornerstone lands
City of Santee Subarea Plan
County of San Oiego - Subarea Plan
County of San Oiego - Implementing Actions:
Biology Mitigation Ordinance
Otay Water District
Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of OIay Valley
Regional Park Concept Plan
08/07/96
Significant .SignifiCant &
not mitigated
No Change
less than
significant
Significant Sig~&
not.,.;tiV"tid
. '- \
Not Ana/yzetl- ,
Less than
significant
No Change
No Change
No Change
less than
significant
less than
significant
Less than
significant
I No Change I
I No Change I
I less than
significant
I less than
significant
less than
significant
less than
significant
Not Analyzed
Not Ana/yzetl
e5--23
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-6 (continued)
SUMMARY OF POPULATION/HOUSING IMPACTS
{4~0~~:~~ii"tijg~~~~~(ub_._..I..i~fl~;~arr.e;(~f~~1andsS~""/~~I
M~J;:o~l~i~~~~j~~~~ltt...l..-~~~~nJI~~t:~~I....~~~~..j.~:.";;.;~I
POPULATION AND HOUSING - luue 2: Would the proptlSed MSCP PI.n liter the pi Inned lotltion, distribution,/knsity. or growth pltttl/71 at the
population spacifiCllly within the study I,... IR/I, g..erally within the region?
MS"P PLAN AREA I less than I Less than Si nifi I Signiftcant&ILess than I
" signifIcant signifICant g Icantnatllitig<<ted significant
SUBARBVOTHERPLANS
City of Coronado Subarea Plan
No Change
No Change I Less than
significant
No Change I Less than
significant
I Less than Not Anllymf
No Charrge significant
less than I Less than
significant significant
City of CiIIIa VISta Subarea Plan
less than
signifrcant
City of Oel Mar Subarea Plan
I less than
significant
I lass than
significant
Implementing Actions - Progress Guide and I Less than
General Plan Amendments significant
Implementing Actions - Cllllllllnity Plan Amendments
Cijy of San Diego Subarea Plan
Carmel Vallay CIIIIIIIIIIIIity Plan less than
significant
North City Future Urbanizing Area No Change
Rancho Peiiasljuit.. COIIIIWIIity Plan less than
significant
East Biiott Community Plan Less than
significant
Otay Mesa Community Plan less than
significant
rquana River Valley CDlllllllllity Plan No Charrge
Beeler Canyon future Urbanizing Area No Change
City of San Diego Comemone lands No Change
City of Sant.. Subarea Plan less than less than
signfficant significant
County of San Diego - Suba... Plan less than less than
significant significant
County of San Oiego - Implementing Actions: Less than
Biology Mitigation Ordinance significant
OIay Water Oistrict No Change
Joint Exen:ise of Power Agreement of Otay Valley No Change I
Regional Pm Concept Plan
Not Analyzsl
less than
significant
Less than
significant
Not Analyzed
Not Analyzsl
08/07/96
E5-24
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 1.0: Purpose and Need
This Joint EIRlEIS is an informational document intended to provide public decision-makers, responsible
or other interested agencies, and the general public with an assessment of potential environmental efiects
of tne proposed project and alternatives. Specifically, this Joint EIR/EIS will serve the following purposes:
1. Evaluate the adequacy of the mitigation alternatives for the proposed take permit,
including the proposed Multi-Habitat Pianning Area (MHPA) project and four alternative
habitat conservation scenarios: Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario, Biologically Preferred
Scenario, Public Lands Scenario, and No Action/No Project Alternative.
2. Address land use, biological resources, regional transportation and circulation, public
services and utilities, and population and housing impact issues associated with approval
of discretionary actions listed in Section 1.5 of this document.
3. Evaluate the growth inducing and cumulative environmental efiects associated with
implementation of the MSCP.
4. Provide an environmental data base that will allow future environmental documents to
focus on those key issues identified in this Joint EIR/EIS as concerns for preparation of
future Subarea Plans.
5. Allow the co-lead agencies to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide, as
well as project level, mitigation measures.
1.5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE
The federal, state and local decisions to be made to implement the proposed MSCP Plan are summarized
in Table 1-7. These decisions/actions are analyzed in this document, summarized below, and described
in greater detail in Section 2.0.
1,5.1 USFWS
The decision to be made by the USFWS is whether to issue or deny incidental take permits for listed
species and for unlisted species should they become listed in the future. The USFWS may issue an
incidental take permit putsuant to Section 1 O(a)(l )(B) of the FESA conditioned on implementation of a
habitat conservation plan as submitted by the applicant or conditioned on implementation of the
applicant's habitat conservation plan together with other measures specified by the USFWS. In reaching
its decision, the L'SFWS must consider 5 factors, specifically:
1.
Is the proposed take of covered species included within the incidental to an otherwise
Jawiu I activity?
A're the impacts of the proposed taking of covered species minimized and mitigated to the
maximum extent practicable?
Has the applicant ensured that adequate funding will be provided to implement the
measures proposed in the habitat conservation plan?
2.
3.
C'.......~:
~ _ ~ 1
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 1.0: Purpose and Need
TABLE 1-1
DECISIONS/ACTIONS ADDRESSED IN THE RECIRCULATED JOINT DRAFT EIR/EIS
_1111__-
~l.
FEDEIIAl
USFWS X
STATE
CDF. X
LDCAl
CiliaI'ISU
Conmado
DelMar
San DiegD..
Somee
County of SD
SPEtlAl
DISTRICTS
D1>yWD
x X.
x X.
x X-
X X-
X X-
X X-
X
X
X- X. X
X.
X
X.
X
X
X
X-
X-
X-
X
X
X.
X-
X-
Discreti_1Y _ not ,dd....III inllle pmi.us~ distrilxnlll Droit Joint ElRIEIS.
Amendments to IIIe tDilDwing City ot Sin Diego ColIIIIUIity Plans Ire IdJiressld in this R_ee Joint EIRIEIS:
ClrmeI VIlIy N.nh City FII!Dre Uri>ani2ing Frlnwork Pill>
Roncho PeiiIs1pritDS East E~DIt
TI)UIIIa River VIDIy Beeler Canyon
D1>y MIS.lintIuding Dennery Ranch. R.binI11IDd Ridge. and _ 10rrltlSI
4. Is the proposed take such that it will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery
of the covered species in the wild?
5. Ate there other measures that should be required as a condition of the permit?
The proposed S~ion 1 0(a)(1 )(B) permit would include the listed species on the Covered Species List in
Table 2-2 of this document. It is the intent of this Plan to preclude the need for futute listings, however,
unlisted species in Table 2-2 would be included on the permit and, should they be listed, authorization
for their incidental take would become effective concurrent with their listing as threatened or endangered
under FESA. For an unlisted species to be included on the Covered Species List (Table 2-2), it must be
8/22'96
1.72
MSCP Pla11 Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 1.0: Purpose and ~eed
treated as if it were listed. In addition, federal approval of the MSCP as an NCCP is required as part of the
FESA Section 4(dJ Special Rule established for incidental take of the California gnatcatcher.
Other decisions to be made by the USFWS include execution of Implementing Agreements (lAs) with the
appropriate jurisdictions. All of the IAs were not complete at the time of publication of this Drait Joint
EIPJEIS. Because an IA is a legal contract to ensure that all actions in the proposed Subarea Plans will be
implemented, the effects of the IAs should be the same as the effem of the corresponding Subarea Plans.
If late submission of IAs reveals effects not analyzed in this Drait Joint EIR/EIS, the USFWS would reopen
the public comment period.
1.5.2 CDFG
The decision to be made by the CDFG, as the Trustee Agency, is whether the Joint EIR/EIS for the MSCP
Plan and the Subarea Plans tiered to the MSCP Plan (as NCCP Plans) adequately disclose the impacts to
wildlife resources that would occur as a result of implementing the MSCP; and the adequacy of the
mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts to wildlife resources to less than significant levels.
Approval by CDFG of the Subarea Plans tiered to the MSCP is an action addressed in this Joint EIR/EIS and
is required by the NCCP Act of 1991. The Joint EIR/EIS must document assurances for the conservation
and management of endangered, threatened, rare, candidate and other identified species which are
specified to be coveted by the Subarea Plans and MSCP Plan (PRC Section 2B35)'
1.5.3 LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
In order to implement the MSCP Plan, local jurisdictions would rely on their land use authority provided
through their General Plans and zoning ordinances. Specific preserve system boundaries and
implementation procedures would be established through the preparation of jurisdiction-wide Subarea
Plans based on the MSCP Plan. The proposed implementation structure therefore requires approval of the
MSCP Plan, including carrying out the obligations as set forth in the Plan by the local jurisdictions and
agencies within the MSCP study area (see Section 2.1).
All jurisdictions and agencies participating in the MSCP (see Section 2.1) will consider adoption of the Plan
at the programmatic level. The environmental analyses for this discretionary action are listed in each
section as "The MSCP Plan." In addition, distinct project level actions, including adoption of Subarea
Plans, will be considered separately by the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Santee, Coronado, Del Mar,
the County of San Diego, and the Otay Water District in order to incorporate the preserve boundaries
shown on the MSCP Plan into adopted land use plans and implement the MSCP Plan. These actions are
addressed in the joint EIR/EIS under the heading "The Subarea/Other Plans." In addition, the County of
San Diego is proposing a Biological Mitigation Ordinance which is addressed as a separate discretionary
action in this document, while the City of San Diego is considering Progress Guide and General Plan
amendments, community plan amendments, and a Cornerstone lands Conservation Bank Agreement.
Finally, the County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, and the City of San Diego, working together
B/22/96
7-73
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 1.0: Purpose and Need
under the Otay Valley Regional Park Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement UEPA), have developed a Concept
Plan for the Otay Valley Regional Park. This Concept Plan is also addressed in this document at a
programmatic level.
Actions proposed by the various jurisdictions to implement the MSCP Plan and addressed in this document
are described in detail in Section 2.0. The MSCP Subareas are illustrated in Figure 1-4.
With regard to the City of Poway, the City adopted its Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/NCCP Plan on
August 1 S, 1995, and has since received its permit/management authorization from the wildlife agencies.
In preparation for these actions, the City of Poway completed the necessary CEQA documentation and
USFWS completed the necessary NEPA documentation.
1.6 SCOPING PROCESS
1.6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Development of the MSCP Plan has involved public input. Numerous participation activities provided
community and intetagency involvement, including a scoping meeting formation of the "MSCP Plan
Working Group," distribution of information packets and handouts, newspaper articles, and presentations
to local governments and citizens' groups.
In May 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the City of San Diego (City) published public
notices of availability of and solicited comments on the Draft joint ElRlEIS for Issuance of a Permit to Allow
Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species within the Multiple Species Conservation Program
!MSCPJ Planning Area in San Diego County, California. In response to the notice, the Service and the City
received 72 written statements.
In general, the comments made in the 72 letters fall into six categories:
1. Evaluation of the impact analyses performed in the EIR!EIS;
2. Concems regarding private property rights;
3. Mapping errors;
4. Request for specific changes to the EIR/EIS
5. Evaluation of preserve design and/or management
6. Concems regarding the multi-species planning concept.
The May 1995 Draft Joint EIR!EIS will not become Final due to project changes which warrant issuance
of an entitely new document with new analyses. Generalized responses to the six categories of comments
are ptovided r;low. Where still applicable to the revised MSCP Plan, the text of this recirculated Draft
Joint EIR/EIS also incorporates responses to issues raised by the previous letters of comment. A new
comment period will be opened with the issuance of the new draft Joint EIR!EIS providing the opportunity
for comment on the new draft Joint EIR/EIS.
8/22/96
7-1~
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 2: Alternatives Inc. the Proposed Project
The South County Segment of the Subarea Plan contains one alternative design (Figure 2-73), This
alternative design involves two separate land areas described below:
University Site: The County's approved land-use plan identifies a potential university site in the
Otay Ranch portion of Salt Creek. This area is designated for preservation in the proposed MHPA.
The university site alternative incorporated in Alternative 1 of the County Subarea Plan comprises
288 acres.
Greg Smith/SNMB Parcels: These are parcels within the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Mountains
portion of Otay Ranch. The Proctor Valley portion of O'-.ay Ranch is an inverted L located north
of Proctor Valley Road. The area within the San Ysidro Mountains portion of Otay Ranch is the
area south of Otay Lakes designated for development in the approved Otay Ranch plan.
Under the South County Segment of the Subarea Plan, both of these areas would be conserved. Under
Alternative 1 to the Subarea Plan, they would not be conserved and would not, therefore, be included in
the MHPA, but would be available for development in conformance with the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan.
2.2.6.2
County of San Diego Implementing Action
The County will adopt the proposed Biological Resource Protection Ordinance (BMO). The County will
enter into the Implementation Agreement with the Wildlife Agencies. The proposed BMO is described in
Section 2.2.6.1.
2.2.7 OT A Y WATER DISTRICT SUBAREA PLAN
Figure 2-16 depicts the Otay Water District Subarea Plan. The Otay Water District Subarea Plan identifies
land that will be managed by the District for conservation purposes, and describes water provision facility
improvements that will be mitigated by permanent conservation of habitat on District lands. The District
plans to permanently preserve 230 acres of habitat within an area identified as the San Miguel Habitat
Management Area (HMA).
Conserved lands will function as components of the MSCP preserve system; ownership and habitat
management responsibilities will be retained by the District.
2.2.8 OT A Y VAllEY REGIONAL PARK (OVRP) CONCEPT PLAN
The OVRP Concept Plan is depicted in Figure 2-77. The OVRP Concept Plan diagram (please see
appendix) consists of the identification of a proposed regional park boundary, within which is a core area
containing environmentally sensitive open space, a proposed interconnecting regional trail system, trail
s-.aging areas, proposed recreational development areas, and potentially one or more nature interpretive
8/22/96
2-46
.. w
~~ c:: ""
::;) .-
l~! 0 .
...: u: N
I C>
I z-
f E
-~-~~@=-=-=
--7
'f'
I "i~
I "
",.._---- _I__~""
4:....... \.
,
'....--
--
--.
rV~
/
,
,
.
.
,
.
- ----=
=
i!i
w
~
~
::
=
~
z
C>
;::
::!
E
W
-
E
S
M
C>
L
C>
E
L
z
C>
;::
::!
E
:::
E
@~D~
"
~
M
C>
L
C>
E
L
-
- E
E C E
C Ii! C>
"
Z " "
" C> ~
C> .
. : C>
z w
c -
E L
C :
L ~
S .. -
- "
M .. ~
C> Z M
L ::; C>
C> L
.. :; C>
L .. E
L
I
I
,
I
I
::!
E
..
~
:!i
_w
J
I
I
I
....
::!
E
C
-
"
;:
M
-
..
E
L
M
~
C>
"
Z
Z
"
;::
:::
M
=
;!
S
M
C>
L
C>
..
L
.111
::!
E
C
-
"
;:
M
-
..
E
L
M
-
~
"
..
"
"
..
Z
E
..
L
r'-~_
,
,....,
."
""
..
~
E
..
"
z
is
=
M
"
~
M
"
L
"
..
L
=
C>
C>
~
s:
..
"5
t;
'0
-
f1
'"
~
~
'"
co
~
~
c:..:>
Cf.)
:iE
-
E
...
~
C>
Q
~
~
c:
co
'';:;
...
>
~
C)
en
c:
co
c:..:>
en
C)
.;:;
C)
c..
Cf.)=
..E =
.:- =
- .-
-= =
~ =
,=
:::2 >-
w =
cc=
w =
>
>-
=
-
C
=
=
-
Q.
-
Q,
=
"
=
=
~
-
Q.
=
>
C
-
.:.:::
~
=
Q.
-
c:
'0
~
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 2: _AJternatives Inc. the Proposed Project
centers. Also included in the Drait Concept Plan are special study areas which will require future analysis.
The iollowing are elements of the Drait Concept Plan:
(1) The "core area" of the proposed regional park consists of wetland areas (including the Otay River,
permanent and seasonal ponds and vernal pools), steep slopes, biologically sensitive areas subject
to pteservation and resource enhancement, and habitat linkages. The boundaries of this area are
consistent with the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) boundary contained within the drait
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). It may permit some active and passive recreation
uses, such as trails, consistent with the guidelines of the MSCP and the relevant Subarea Plans.
(2) The proposed "regional trail system" will include hiking, bicycling and equestrian trails, and is
intended to link to other regional trails including the Bayshore Bikeway to the west, and serve as
an integral part of the envisioned Chula Vista Greenbelt trail system, an 28-mile trail system
encircling the City oi Chula Vista, and parts east of the Otay Reservoirs. Trails within the Otay
River Valley will utilize fire and utility roads wherever possible in otder to minimize impacts and
will be located under the guidelines of the MSCP and relevant Subarea Plans.
(3) The "proposed recreation areas" identiiied on the drait Concept Plan include both existing and
proposed active and passive recreation sites. Many of these sites also contain existing private
development potential through zoning or development approvals and will rL'quire additional land
use analysis prior to adoption of a regional park master plan. These areas are located outside of
the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) of the MSCP and development will be subject to the
preserve guidelines of the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego and County Subarea Plans ior
siting and deVelopment adjacent to the MSCP preserve. The iollowing areas ate identified on the
Drait Concept Plan:
. Open space sites located on previously disturbed benches north of the Otay River, within
the Otay Ranch, on both sides of the proposed SR-125 (approx. 150-200 acres).
Note: The approved Otay Ranch RMP calls for the provision of a maximum of 400 aCtes
of active recreation, to be emphasized within the Otay Valley (within the area defined as
the Otay Ranch management preserve). These sites, and the special study area site located
_ south of the river (listed below) may contribute to the acreage required by the RMP.
.
Gun Club/Bird Ranch: These sites have been a gun club and ranch and would not be used
ior habitat management purposes under the drait Concept Plan (approx. 100 actes).
.
Lower Otay County Park: An existing but closed campground; to be reiurbished (approx.
70 acres).
.
Existing public boat ramp and picnic facilities located on the west side of Lower Otay
Lake, north of the Lower Otay County Park.
8/22'96
2-49
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 2: Alternatives Inc. the Proposed Project
. Existing Olympic Training Center Boat House/Boat Ramp located on the west side of
lower Otay lake: May be considered for joint use by Olympic athletes and members of
the public.
. The existing County Air Park, located east of lower OtayReservoir, south of Otay lakes
Road: used as a landing field and observation atea for gliders and parachutists (approx.
60 acres).
. The Otay Rios Industrial Park located south of the river and west of Otay Varley Roadl
Heritage Road: planned for a multi-purpose amphitheater and watet patk on disturbed or
prior development land (approx. 200 acres).
. Undeveloped agricultural/open space (eucalyptus grove) sites located south of the river
and on each side of Interstate 805 (approx. 50 acres).
. Undeveloped residentially-designated site located north of the river, west of Interstate 805
and south of existing tesidential development along Rancho Drive (approx. 20 acres).
. Existing agricultural use and undeveloped open space sites located south of the river
between Hollister Street and Beyer Boulevard (approx. 30 acres).
. The existing golf practice facility and go-cartslundeveloped open space sites located south
- of the river between Interstate 5 and Hollister Street (approx. 27 acres).
. Existing undeveloped open space sites located south of the river between Nestor Creek
and Interstate 5 (approx. 25 acres).
(4) A "natute interpretive center" is envisioned near the salt ponds located at the mouth of the Otay
Rivet. In addition, the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP), Phase I, calls for a nature
interpretive center to be located within the open space preserve on the Otay Ranch. Development
of a nature interpretive centet will be subject to the guidelines of the MSCP and related Subarea
Plans for siting as development within the preserve. In the case of a natute interpretive center
located on the Otay Ranch, siting and development will be subject to the guidelines of the RMP.,
(5) The following are identified as "special study ateas" on the draft Concept Plan and are located
outside the MHPA boundaries of the MSCP. A determination of appropriate land uses for these
areas, including consideration of recteational uses, will be subject to future analysis:
.
Existing rock quarry on Rock Mountain, east of the mouth Qf Wolf Canyon: the quarry
operation is expected to continue for approximately 50 years, after which the site may be
considered for other land uses (approx. 135 actes)
8/22/96
2-50
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 2: Alternatives Inc. the Proposed Project
. Undeveloped open space site located on previously disturbed bench south 01 the Otay
River, and east of the Bird Ranch within the Otay Ranch (approx. 30-50 acres).
. Existing mineral extraction(oatching operations and agricultural use sites located north of
the Otay River, west of Beyer Way and Hermosa Avenue and south 01 Main Street. These
sites will be subject to luture study to determine its local/regional recreation or private
development potential (approx. 25-50 acres).
. The Otay Landlill, located approximately '/2 mile nortn 01 the Otay River. With ultimate
closute of the landfill, potential active/passive recreation opportunities will be studied
(approx. 500 acres).
Analysis of the Draft OVRP Concept Plan in this document has been completed at a programmatic level.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES
2.2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS
Nine alternatives were explored in deriving the proposed project: Core and Linkage Scenario, Modilied
Public Lands Scenario (MPL), Modified Multiple Habt.at Scenario (ivlMH), Multiple Habitat Scenario (MH),
COa5".a1 Sage Scrub Scenario (CSS), Biologically Prelerred Scenario (BP), Public Lands Scenario (PU and
No Action/No Project. Five ofthese altematives (Core and Linkage, MPL, MMH, MH, and "No Take")
were eliminated at difietent stages of the process for the following reasons:
Core and Linkages: This scenario is a derivation 01 the 6P-Scen,uio. It was never formally analyzed,
quantified, or included in a document. It was reviewed in-house to attempt to improve the capture 01
linkages for the Biologically Preferred Scenario. The core areas of this alternative are identical to that of
the Biologically Preferred Scenario, however, additional linkages were added to improve the connectivity
of the BP-Scenario to eastem portions of the county and to areas outside the MSCP study area. This
altemative was not selected for detailed analysis due to its similarity to the BP-Scenario.
MPl: This scenario is a derivation of the Public Lands Scenario. It was never formally analyzed or
published in a document; however, used in-house, it provided the lirst of two building blocks for the
creation of theMHPA. This alternative was not selected for detailed analysis due to its similarity to the PL
and MHPA altematives, both of which are addressed in detail in this document.
MMH: This scenario is a derivation of the Multiple Habitat Scenario. It was never formally analyzed or
published in a document; however, used in-house. it provided the second of two building blocks for the
creation of the MHPA. This alternative was not selected for detailed analysis because of its similarity to
the MHPA which is addressed in detail in this document.
8/22/96
2-51
MSCP Plan Draft: EIR/EIS
Chapter 3: Affected Environment
3.2.0.0
Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Otay Valley Regional Park
The Otay Valiey Regional Park Focused Planning Area, including the Otay River Valley and all drainages
into the valley, is located in the southem portion of San Diego County and 4 miles north of the United
States Mexico International Botder. The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) is being planned by a Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement OEPA) between the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego and the City
of Chula Vista.
The Focused Planning Area (FPA) of the Otay Valley Regional Park was adopted by the San Diego City
Council and the County Board of Supervisors in 1993. The FPA extends approximately 13 miles east from
San Diego Bay, includes Otay Lakes, and encompasses portions of the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista
and the County of San Diego. Also in 1993, the Chula Vista City Council adopted the FPA within Special
Study Areas (SSA) identified within the areas of Wolf, Salt Creek and Poggi Canyons. Policies and
guidelines were developed which address the concerns of the City of Chula Vista regarding development
in these areas.
The OVRP ,.an have developed a draft "Concept Plan" which was considered by a Policy Committee
comprised of one elected official from each of the three affected jurisdictions (City of Chula Vista, City of
San Diego, County of San Diego) on Aptil 3, 1995. The draft Concept Plan consists of the identification
of a .proposed regional park boundary, within which is a core area containing environmentally sensitive
open space, a proposed interconnecting regional trails system, trail staging areas, proposed recreational
development areas, and potentially one or more nature interpretive centers. Also included in the Concept
Plan are special study areas which will require future analysis.
The "core area" consists of wetland areas (including the Otay Rivet), biologically sensitive areas subject
to preservation and resource enhancement, and habitat linkages. The boundaries of the core area are
consistent with the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) boundary contained with the draft Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP). The core area may permit some active and passive recreation uses,
consistent with the _guidelines of the MSCP.
The proposed "regional trail system" is intended to link to the Bayshore Bikepath to the west and serve as
a continuing link to regional trails furthet east. Trails within the Otay River Valley will utilize existing fire
and utility roads wherever possible in order to minimize impacts.
The "recreational development areas" identified on the Concept Plan include both existing and proposed
active and passive recreation sites. Many of these sites also contain existing private development potential
through zoning or development approvals and will require additional land use analysis prior to adoption
of a regional park master plan.
A "nature interptetive center" is envisioned near the Salt Ponds located at the mouth of the Otay River.
In addition, the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 1 (RMP), calls for a nature interpretive
center to be located within the open space preserve on the Otay Ranch.
8/2Z'96
3-28
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 3: A1Tected Environment
The following are identified as "spedal study areas" on the draft Concept Plan (depicted as cross-hatched
areas on the diagram). A determination of appropriate land uses for these areas will be subject to future
analysis:
8/22/96
.
Open space sites located on previously disturbed benches north and south of the Otay
River, within the Otay Ranch. The approved Otay Ranch RMP calls for the provision of
a maximum of 400 acres of active recreation, to be emphasized within the Otay Valley.
These sites will be subject to future special studies to determine the appropriate use of this
open space.
.
Potential recreational development site located north of the Otay River, west of Beyer
Way. This site will be subject to future study to determine its local/regional recreation or
private development potential.
.
The Otay Landfill, located approximately V2 mile north of the Otay River, with ultimate
closure of the landfill potential active/passive recreation opportunities will be studied.
3-29
MSCP Plan Draft Effi/EIS
Chapter 3: Affected Environment
3.5.6 SCHOOL FACILITIES
School facilities include elementary, middle, and high school sites and facilities. School facilities and
services are provided by school districts within the MSCP study area. School district boundaries do not
generally coincide with either the MSCP study area or the governmental boundaries. School districts
within the MSCP study area for grades kindetgarten through 12th include Cajon Valley Union, Chula Vista
Elementary, Del Mar Union, Escondido Union, Lakeside Union, La Mesa-Spring Valley, Lemon Grove,
Santee, San Ysidro, Solana Beach, Sweetwater Union High, Coronado Unified, Poway Unified, and San
Diego Unified School Districts. Enrollment within the study area was over 300,000 in 1993. School
districts in the study atea generally experience overcrowding and have future plans to either expand
existing facilities or incorporate new facilities in conjunction with tesidential development
3.5.7 PARK FACILITIES
Park iacilities are generally classified as either passive Ot active parks. Active patks generally are developed
parks associated with school facilities or residential development. These parks genetally have playing
fields or play areas and contain limited native species or features. Passive parks generally are located
within identified jurisdictional preserve or resource conservation ateas and are not generally associated
with urban development Regional park facilities within the study area include the San Dieguito River
Regional Park, Black Mountain Regional Park, Los Peiiasquitos Canyon Preserve, Mission Trails Regional
Patk, Sweetwater River Regional Patk, and the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park and Estuary. A Focused
Planning Area has been approved by a Joint Powers Authority consisting of the City of San Diego, City of
Chula Vista, and County of San Diego for a proposed Otay River Valley Regional Park.
3.5.8 NATURAL GAS
Natural gas facilities are generally owned by private utilities and include ttansmission pipelines and
associated easements. Natural gas distribution within the study area is provided by the San Diego Gas and
Electric Company (SDG&E). New distribution facilities are ptimarily proposed in the southern portion of
the study area on the Otay atea. SDG&E has an approved HCP.
3.5.9 ELECTRICITY
Electrical facilities are owned by a private utility and include transmission towers and associated corridors,
power generation plants, and transmission stations. Electrical service in the study area is provided by San
Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). SDG&E has one power generation plant in the study area which is located
in Chula Vista. Major powet transmission facilities are located within major utility easements located
throughout the study area. These easements are owned by SDG&E and additional power facilities are
added in conjunction with power demand.
8/22/96
3-44
MSCP Pian Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.1: Approach to Analysis
This section, 4.0, Environmental Consequences, forms the scientific and analytic basis for the evaluation
of the proposed project and altematives. It consists of the following components:
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The ctiteria for determining significance provide a threshold for which a significant impact occurs. The
criteria differ between issues.
ISSUE STATEMENT
In accordance with the City of San Diego scoping letter distributed with the June 7, 1996 Notice of
Preparation (Nap) for this Recirculated Draft Joint EIR/EIS, Issue Statements have been identified to focus
the analysis of each environmental category (Land Use, Biology, etc.). For some environmental categoties,
more than one issue statement has been identified. Impact analyses, significance determinations, and
mitigation recommendations are provided for each Issue Statement
IMPACT ANALYSIS PER ISSUE STATEMENT
All phases of the project are considered when evaluating its impact on the environment For the proposed
project, this includes the MSCP Plan's MHPA and the Subarea Plans' implementation of the MHPA which
include policy statements and implementing actions, as well as preserve boundaries unique to each
jurisdiction. The MSCP Plan's MHPA and altematives are analyzed at a program level. The Subarea Plans
and implementing actions are analyzed at a project level. As illustrated in Table 4.1-1, two headings are
utilized to separate these aspects of the project: (A) The MSCP Plan and (B) The Subarea/Other Plans.
These (A) and (B) headings are retained for all subheadings throughout this section as shown in Table 4. 7-1.
It should be noted that an (A) heading denotes a program level of analysis while a (8) heading- denotes a
project level of analysis. An exception to this format is the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan as
noted below.
Under The Subarea/Other Plans heading, eight entities are listed as having prepared subatea or othet plans.
In addition, the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego have specific implementing actions which
are individually be analyzed. For example, to implement the proposed City of San Diego's Subarea Plan,
amendments ate ptOposed to seven community and other plans, as well as to the City's Progress Guide and
General Plan. To implementthe County's Subarea Plan, adoption of a Biological Mitigation Ordinance
is proposed. Under both the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego headings, these specific
implementing actions are listed and analyzed. The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan is one
of the actions analyzed under the Subarea/Other Plans heading. It should be noted that the Concept Plan
is analyzed at a programmatic level in this document due to the general natute of the Concept Plan.
8/22/96
4.1.]
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.1: Approach to ADaJysis
TABLE 4.1.1
OUTLINE FOR EACH IMPACT ANALYSIS SECTION
IMPACT ANALYSIS PER ISSUE STATEMENT
A. THE MSCP PLAN -IMPACT ANALYSIS
A.' MHPA . PROPOSEO PROJECT
...
'"
'"
0>
'"
""
;:
A.2 COASTAl SAGE SCRUB SCENARIO
~
m
C
"'
~
""
z
""
-
-<
...
in
A.3 BIOLOGICAllY PREFERRED SCENARIO
A-4 PUBUC lANDS SCENARIO
A.5 NO ACTlONJNO PROJECT
B. THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS - IMPACT ANALYSIS
B.' MHPA. PROPOSED PROJECT
B.'.' cm OHHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN
B. '.2 cm OF CORONADO SUBAREA PLAN
B. '.3 cm OF DB. MAR SUBAREA PLAN
B.1-4 cm OF SAN DIEGO
8.1-4.' Subarea Plan
B.1-4.2 bnplementing Actinns
Pragness Guide and General Plan Amendments
Community Plan Amendments
. Carmel Valley Community Plan
. North City Future Urbanizing Area Framework Plan
. Ram:ho Paiasqu~os Colllllll1ity Plan
. East Elliott Community Plan
. Otay Mesa Cnmmunity Plan
. DIt1/1tJf)' &ncI1 Precise Pl8n
. RobinhDDd Ridge Precise Pl8n
. C61ifrnni6 TIfT1l&e$ Precise Pian
. rlJllana River VaUey Community Plan
. Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area
Comers11Jne Lands Conservation Bank Agreement
B.'.5 cm OF SANTEE SUBAREA PLAN
B. '.6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PLAN
B. '.6.' Subarea Plan
B.1.6.2 Implementing Action
Biological Mitigation Ordinance
...
'"
'"
..
"'
..
....
~
"'
c
"'
~
""
z
""
~
-<
...
in
8/22/96
4.1-4
MSCP PIan Draft EIRJEIS
Chapter 4.1: Approach to Analysis
TABLE 4.1.1 (Continued)
OUTLINE FOR EACH IMPACT ANALYSIS SECTION
B.l.7 OTAY WATER DISTRICT
B.l-S JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT ~ OTAY VALlEY REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN.
B.2 COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SCENARIO
B.2.l CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN
B.2.2 CITY OF CORONAOO SUBAREA PLAN
B.2.3 CITY OF OEl MAR SUBAREA PLAN
B.2-4 CITY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PLAN
B.2.5 CITY OF SANTEE SUBAREA PLAN
B.2.6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PLAN
8-3 BIOLOGICAllY PREFERRED SCENARIO
B.3.l CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN
B.3-2 CITY OF CORONADO SUBAREA PLAN
B.3.3 CITY OF OEl MAR SUBAREA PLAN
B.3-4 CITY OF SAN OIEGO SUBAREA PLAN
B.3-5 CITY Of SANTEE SUBAREA PLAN
B.3-6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PLAN
B-4 PUBUC lANDS SCENARIO (Analysis of this A"ematrIe .01 provided for Subarea Plans)
8-5 NO ACTlONlNO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
B.5-l CITY Of CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN
B.5-2 CITY OF CORONAOO SUBAREA PLAN
B.5-3 CITY OF DB. MAR SUBAREA PLAN
B.5-4 CITY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PLAN
B.5.5 CITY OF SANTEE SUBAREA PLAN
B_5-6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PLAN
.,.
..
co
..
'"
..
...
....
'"
<:
'"
,..
'"'
z
'"'
!<
en
;;;
. A Program level analysis is provided for the Otay Valley Regional Parle Co.cept Plan.
One of the primary requirements of NEPA analyses is the evaluation of project alternatives at a level equal
with that of the proposed project. As described in Section 2.1, Proposed Project, the MSCP Plan and
Subarea Plans consist of both geographic MHP A preserve boundaries and a variety of policy statements
and implementing techniques. For each envitonmental issue in Section 4.0, Environmental Consequences,
analyses are conducted for the proposed MHP A project as well as the fout alternative preserve scenarios:
Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Scenario, Biologically-Preferred (BP) Scenario, Public lands (pL) Scenario, and
No Action/No Project Alternative, as presented in Table 4.1.1. With tegard to the Subarea Plans which
implement the MHPA, the CSS Scenario, B-P Scenario, and No Action/No Project Alternatives are
analyzed. The Pl Scenario is not an analyzed alternative for the Subarea Plans due to the fact that
quantitative analyses of the Pl-Scenario wete not completed for individual jutisdictions, as well as the fact
that, in general, the PL-Scenario assumed implementation of the existing General Plans of the various
jurisdictions which would be similat to the No Action/No Project alternative. Alternatives are not analyzed
for individual implementing actions such as community or general plan amendments or implementing
ordinances. Alternatives to these actions are included in the overall MSCP Plan and Subarea Plan
. ., _ ':;';~~~t~-
8/22/96
4.1-5
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.1: Approach to .4.naJysis
alternatives. Furthermore, alternatives are not identified for the Otay Water District Subarea Plan and the
O"..ay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan.
For purposes oj the alternatives analysis, which also occurs under the Impact Analysis heading, it is
assumed that the policy statements and implementing techniques would be similar regardless of preserve
boundary configuration, except with respect to the No Action/No Project Alternative. It is recognized,
however, that cer..ain policy considerations would differ among the alternatives. For examples, the CSS,
BP and PL.Scenarios tepresent hard-line preserve alternatives with little flexibility regarding preserve
boundary and permitted uses. Conservation thresholds have been identified for the MHPA which provide
more flexibility. In addition, as described previously in Section 2.0, assumptions regarding military lands
differ between the MHP A and aliernative scenarios.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE PER ISSUE STATEMENT
Only significant impacts are highlighted in this section. For each significant impact, a significance
statement is provided and each significant impact is numbered in accordance with that of the individual
analysis section. As an example, Significant Impact #1 for the proposed MHPA in Section 4.2, Land Use,
would be summarized and listed as "4.2-MHPA-1" in this section. Impacts associated with alternatives are
noted as follows:
Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario - CSS-1 , etc.
BiologicallyPreferred Scenario - BP-1, etc.
Public Lands Scenario - Pl-1 , etc.
No Project Alternative - NP-1, etc.
Analyses of significance for the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan are designated as OVRP-1, etc.
Conclusions presented in this section ate limited to significant impacts.
MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PER ISSUE STATEMENT
The subheading format for this section follows that of the corresponding Analysis of Significance section.
Measures necessary to mitigate significant impacts of the project are provided with a numbering system
that corresponds to those provided in the Analysis of Significance section. For this Dtaft Joint EIR!EIS,
mitigation recommendations are provided with minimal information regarding monitoring and reporting.
More specific monitoring and reporting requirements will be included in the Final Joint EIR/EIS for the
selected alternative and in the Mitigation, Monitoting and Reporting Program (MMRP).
With respect to mitigation monitoring and reporting for impacts to biological resources, it should be noted
that monitoring would occur at two levels. For the overall MSCP Plan, a Biological Monitoring Plan has
been prepared (City of San Diego, 1996c) that would monitor/report on overall biodiversity and function
of the reserve lands and lands that are proposed for the reserve. At the project level, individual
jurisdictions would provide monitoring of habitat loss/preservation in accordance with the requirements
8/22/96
4.1-6
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.2: Land Use
8.1-8 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT OF OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
(OVRP) CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS-ISSUE 1)
The proposed MHPA would result in substantial portions of the Otay River Valley floodplains and some
upland areas being preserved in open space. The proposed MHPA includes a majority of the Focused
Planning Area (FPA) iorthe park. An objective of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement OEPA) established
to pian the park, is to provide a combination of natural open space, passive recreation, and active
recreational uses.
Uses planned within the Otay River Valley (see Figure 2-171, would need to be consistent with Otay Ranch
RMP Policy 6.2, presented below.
Policy 6.2
Active recreational use acreage within the Preserve shall not be greater than 400 acres and shall
be consistent with the resource protection and enhancement goal, objectives and policies of the
RMP.
Standards:
1) Siting and design of active recreational uses shall be subject to review and
comment by the Preserve Owner/Manager in consultation with the JEPA of the
Otay Valley Regional Park and shall be consistent with plans for the Otay Valley
Regional Patk when adopted.
Guidelines:
1)
Active tecreation ateas should be located in previously disturbed, non-sensitive
areas.
2)
- Active recreation uses should be readily accessible from existing and planned
public roads and should not intrude into core areas within the Preserve.
3)
Active recreation uses should be clustered to minimize the extent of the edge
between active recreation uses and sensitive resources within the Preserve.
4)
Limited commercial uses/activities related to active recreation may be allowed
within the 400 acres designated for active recreation.
5)
Public parks and recreation facilities may be operated commercially by private
operators within active recreation areas.
8/22/96
4.2-53
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.2: Land Use
6) Emphasis shall be placed on providing the majority of the active recreation in the
Otay River Valley to the extent that this is consistent with an Otay Valley Regional
Park Plan, as may be adopted.
As discussed in Section 2.0, the core area of the park consistS of natural open space cortidor, the
boundaries of which are consistent with the MHPA. The concept plan for the park identifies existing and
proposed facilities that would be located within the park boundaries. These facilities include proposed
recreation areas such as a Gun Club/Bird Ranch, Lower Otay County Park, as well as proposed recreation
sites on existing agriculture and undeveloped open space. Other facilities include a nature interpretive
center and proposed recreation on special study areas including existing extraction operations and the
Otay Landfill. It is the intent of the Concept Plan to locate all of these facilities outside of the boundaries
of the MHPA. As shown in Figure 2-5, potential active recreation sites have been excluded from the City
of Chula Vista Subarea Plan. Existing quarry operations in the City of San Diego have also been excluded
from the City Subatea Plan.
As described above, the Concept Plan requires that all proposed facilities would be excluded from the
preserve and designed to be compatible with the preserve. The Concept Plan also requires that the 400
actes of active recteation required by the RMP be designated as a special study area. Due to the
consistency of the Concept Plan with the intent of the MSCP and the Otay Ranch GDP, significant land
use impacts are not anticipated.
In summary, no significant impacts are identified for the OVRP Concept Plan at the Subarea/Other Plans
level(project level of analysis) under Issue One. As a result, this discretionary action is not discussed further
in Sections 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.3.
B.2 COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SCENARIO (THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS IMPACT
ANALYSES-ISSUE 1)
B.2.1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN (CSS SCENARIO IMPACT ANALYSIS-
ISSUE 1)
Table 4.2-2 illustrates the type of land use conversions required under the Coastal Sage Sctub Scenario
within the City of Chula Vista. As shown in Table 4.2-2, up to 78 acres of land designated for urban uses
could be pteserved as natural open space under the Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario.
In genetal, the CSS Scenario land use plan would correspond to the open space greenbelt identified in the
City's General Plan. The boundaties of the CSS Scenario generally correspond to the more important
drainages within the City General Plan boundaries including Otay River Valley, Poggi Canyon, as well as
landforms such as Mothet Miguel Mountain. As a result, the alternative is regarded as consistent with the
environmental goals of the General Plan regarding preservation of open space.
8/22/96
4.2-54
MSCP Pian Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.2: Land Use
Mother Miguel and San Miguel Mountains. Land use impact associated with WRMP facilities have been
previously addressed in the EIR completed for the Plan. However, public facilities and utilities are regarded
as conditionally compatible uses with core linkage and buffer uses by the MSCP Plan. The Subarea Plan
requires that projects within designated MSCP core, linkage and buffer areas be designed and maintained
according to Chapter 6 of the MSCP Plan (pg. 39). In addition, the Subarea Plan incorporates measures
related to adjacent uses such as requiring seasonal restrictions on the initiation of construction to avoid
breeding seasons (pg. 41). Perimeter fencing shall be placed around the limits of disturbance for
construction sites (pg. 40). When projects are completed, such as pipelines, the area disturbed will be
revegetated to assute that subsequent long-term operations do not significantly affect nearby vegetation
or habitats through erosion, siltation, or dusting (pg. 42).
In summary, no significant impacts are identified for the City of San Diego OWD Subarea Plan at the
Subarea/Other Plans level(project level of analysis) under Issue Two. As a result, the discretionary action
is not discussed further under this issue.
B.l.8 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AUTHORITY OF OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS -ISSUE 2)
With implementation of the Concept Plan, urban uses would be located adjacent to sensitive biological
resources. As shown in Figure 2-17, active recreation areas and staging areas would be located within the
River Valley. Recreational uses could create compatibility impacts with preserve tesources related to noise
and lighting. The Otay Rivet Valley Park would be subject to the preserve guidelines of the City of (hula
Vista, City of San Diego and County of San Diego Subarea Plans. Each plan contains measures required
to address compatibility issues related to adjacent land uses. With implementation of these measures into
the proposed recreation areas, it is anticipated that impacts telated to compatibility would be avoided. As
a tesult, significant impacts are not identified for the OVRP under this issue.
B.2/B.3
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SCENARIO/BIOLOGICALLY PREFERRED SCENARIO
(THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS IMPACT ANALYSIS - ISSUE 2)
The analysis provided above for the MHPA-Proposed Project would apply to the alternative scenarios. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
B.4
PUBLIC LANDS SCENARIO (THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS IMPACT
ANALYSIS - ISSUE 2)
The analysis of this alternative is not provided.
8/22/96
4.2-80
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.2: Land Use
8.1.4.2
County of San Diego Implementing Actions
Biological Mitigation Ordinance: The provisions of the BMO regarding extractive operations and
agriculture are listed above under the Subarea Plan analysis. In general existing agticultural operations and
extractive operations would be exempt from the requirements of the BMO. As a result, it is not anticipated
that implementation of the SMO would significantly impact agriculture or the ability to extract mineral
resources within the County.
8.1.5 OTAY WATER DISTRICT (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS-ISSUE 3)
No features of the OWD Subarea Plan would impact existing agriculture and mining operations or
preclude the implementation of planned operations. The proposed Subarea Plan contains preserve
management guidelines for facilities proposed in accordance with the OWD Water Reclamation Plan.
Impacts of the Water Reclamation Plan have been addtessed in a sepatate EIR prepared by the District.
District lands to be included in the pteserve area are limited to the San Miguel HMA. The HMA consists
of district property that is planned to be utilized fot open space and district facilities. Neither the District,
the City of Chula vista or the County of San Diego identify the HMA as a potential site for agricultural or
mining operations.
In summary, no significant impacts are anticipated for the OWD at the project level. As a result, this
discretionary action is not discussed further in this section.
8.1.6 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT OF OT A Y RIVER VALLEY REGIONAL
PARK CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS -ISSUE 3)
The Otay River Valley contains important farmlands as well as MRZ-2 areas. Agricultural and mining
operations currently exist within the Valley. Implementation of the Concept Plan would require conversion
of land with the potential to be farmed or mined to permanent open space or recreational uses.
It is not anticipated, however, that implementation of the concept plan would adversely impact agricultural
and mining operations within the Valley. Existing mining and agricultural operations within the valley such
as the 135-acre tock quarry on Rock Mountain and 20-2S acres of existing mineral extractionlbatching
operations and agricultural use sites located north of the Otay River would be permitted to continue as
exclusions from the park. In addition, the River Valley park has historically been identified as a potential
site for active and passive recreational uses by the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego and the County
of San Diego. Extensive farming and mining within the Focused Planning Area have never been
anticipated by these jurisdictions. As a result, significant impacts ate not identified for the Concept Plan
under this issue.
8/22/96
4.2-102
MSCP PIan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
could potentially affect approximately 42-acres of coastal sage scrub. Potential impacts associated with
the longer-term Phase 2 and 3 projects have not been specifically defined.
.As described previously, the OWD Subarea Plan proposes establishment of the 230.5-acre San Miguel
Habitat Management Area (HMA) as a mitigation bank to compensate for impacts associated with
construction of OWD projects. The San Miguel HMA includes approximately 184 acres of coastal sage
scrub, of which approximately 61 acres would be committed for mitigation for Phase 1, 5-year ClP projects
and other projects such as the Otay Interconnect pipeline project. With this commitment, approximately
123 acres of coastal sage scrub would remain to be banked as mitigation for Phase 2 and 3 ptojects. This
is regarded by the biologists preparing the OWD Subarea Plan as sufficient acreage to mitigate for long-
term coastal sage scrub impacts.
For impacts to riparian and vernal pool habitats, the Subarea Plan notes that separate permit processes
would be followed. These include the permit requirements of both the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers and
CDFG, as well as USFWS if endangered species are involved.
These measures incorporated in the OWD Subarea Plan would ensure that impacts to biological resources
associated with construction of OWD facilities would be minimized or avoided the maximum extent
feasible and that adequate mitigation would take place for unavoidable impacts. With these features
incorporated in the Subarea Plan, impacts to habitats or sensitive species are anticipated to be less than
significant.
In summary, no direct or indirect impacts wete identified for covered species and vegetation communities!
habitats under the MHPA for the Otay Water District Subarea Plan. Therefore, no additional discussion
is provided in Section 4.3.2.2.
B.1.8 OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT
ANALYSIS - ISSUE 1)
The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan identifies a variety of uses that could be permitted
within the park. These uses include the following:
.
up to 400-acres of active recreation;
Provision of a regional trail system;
Provision of a nature interpretive center;
Potential recreational development sites;
City of San Diego MWWD's Water Reclamation Facility (which has been the subject of
a previous EIR, Lettieri-Mcintyre 1994)';
Proposed roads crossing the Otay River: a) Paseo Ranchero; b) La Media Road; c) State
Route 125; and d) Alta Road';
Other local roads and trails within the park for local access'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8/22/96
4.3-175
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
'These uses are not specifically proposed as part of the Draft Concept Plan but would be permitted uses whhin the
park. These uses are also identified as permitted uses in the relevant Subarea Plans whhin which they are located and,
if developed, must be designed in accordance with the biological principles and guidelines of the relevant Subarea Plans.
A variety of sensitive habitats are located within the Concept Plan area including wetland habitats such
as southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub and sensitive upland habitats such as coastal sage scrub and
maritime succulent scrub. Federally listed bird species have been observed within the Concept Plan area
including least Bell's vireo and California gnatcatcher as well as other sensitive plant and animal species.
Although the OVRP Concept Plan, and other planning documents such as the City of Chula Vista Subarea
Plan, the City of San Diego Subarea Plan and the County of San Diego Subarea Plan, call for location of
uses in non-sensitive area, in the absence of additional information, it anticipated that development of
permitted uses as identified in the OVRP Concept Plan could result in significant impacts to sensitive
biological resources.
Although these existing uses currently occupy disturbed ateas, conversion of these existing uses to active
or passive recreational uses could result in significant impacts to sensitive biological resources within the
Concept Plan atea. In the absence of more definitive information regarding plans for the conversion of
these existing uses, these impacts are regarded as significant.
In summary, direct impacts were identified for covered species and vegetation communities/habitats, and
indirect impacts to sensitive species and vegetation communities under the MHPA fot the Otay Valley
River Park Plan. Please refer to Section 4.3.1.2, .4.3-0VRP-1 through 4.3-0VRP-2 for an analysis of the
- significance of these impacts.
B.2 COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SCENARIO (THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS IMPACT
ANALYSIS - ISSUE 1)
B.2.1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN (CSS SCENARIO IMPACT ANALYSIS-
ISSUE 1)
Direct Impacts to Covered Species (CSS Scenario - Issue 1)
Under the proposed state and federal actions addressed in this document, species on the Covered Species
List could be legally taken by the City of Chula Vista where they, occur outside the boundaries of the
preserve (refer to Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2). The species included on the Covered Species List are
considered to be directly affected by the take authorizations.
Plant species on the Covered Species List that are represented (or expected to be represented) by
populations within the City of Chula Vista Subarea include:
8/22/96
4.3.116
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
would occur to the following habitats within the City of San Diego Subarea: coastal
sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, chaparral, southem matitime chaparral, coastal
sage scrub/chaparral mix, grassland, freshwater marsh, riparian forest, oak riparian
forest, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, oak woodland, Tecate cypress forest,
eucalyptus woodland, open water, natural flood channel, and disturbed wetlands. .
Under Alternative 1, considerably greater direct impacts are expected to the coastal
sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, chaparral, grassland, freshwater marsh, riparian
scrub, and Tecate cypress forest (see Table 4.3-77). In addition, this alternative results
in significant impacts to overall preserve design and configuration by substantially
increasing fragmentation. Direct impacts from the proposed Subarea Plan are
consistent with the MHPA Scenario.
4.3.MHP A.23a, b Indirect Impacts - It is anticipated that conservation measures implemented under the
County of San Diego Subarea Plan and the County's BMO would provide some
protection for biological resources. However, indirect impacts to covered species,
uncovered species, and sensitive vegetation communities/habitats would result from
permitted uses within the preserve, edge effects from uses adjacent to the preserve,
and increased development pressure outside the preserve. These impacts are
considered significant.
Under Alternative 1, indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources likewise, are
considered significant.
Special Districts
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan - Analysis of Significance (Issue 1)
4.3-0VRP-l Implementation of permitted uses in the OVRP Concept Plan could adversely affect
sensitive wetland and upland resources within the concept pi_an area. In the absence of
more definitive information regarding the location and design of these uses, these impacts
are regarded as significant.
4.3-OVRP-2 Conversion of existing uses in the OVRP Concept Plan area to passive or active
recreational uses could adversely affect sensitive wetland and upland resources within the
concept plan area. In the absence of more definitive information regarding the location
and design of these uses, these impacts are regarded as significant.
8/22/96 4.3-162
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
. Avoidance, if feasible, of specific sensitive species (e.g., listed, rare, or
narrow endemic) as a first priority and a limit of disturbance where some
impact is unavoidable.
. Impacts to less sensitive species will be mitigated on a habitat basis unless
the impact results in substantial reduction of the viability of the affected
popu lation or species as a whole.
2. Guidelines for land uses adjacent to the MHPA preserve as described in Section
5.0 of the County Subarea Plan, and which include the following:
. Landscaping of manufactured open space should consist of native species.
. Areas with heavy human use (e.g., ballfields) shall be located to the extent
feasible away from the edge of the preserve.
. Lighting within 100 feet of the preserve shall be confined to areas
necessary to ensure public safety.
. Fencing along the pteserve boundary, though not mandatory, should be
used to provide a barrier to fire, invasive species, and uncontrolled human
access.
4.3-MHPA-23b Indirect Impacts - Under Alternative 1, indirect impacts to covered species, uncovered
species, and vegetation communities would be reduced through the application of
standards, ordinances, and policies identified in the County of San Diego Subarea Plan
and BMO, but not to a level below significant. The potential development of the 288-
acre university site and the Gteg Smith/SNMB parcel would not only result in
considerable impacts to sensitive species and habitats, but would diminish the integrity
of the remaining spatial configuration of preserved lands within the southern portion of
the County of San Diego so that surrounding populations of target species wou Id have
a reduced likelihood of long-term viability.
Special Districts
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan - Mitigation (Issue 1)
4.3-0VRP-1
Prior to development of permitted uses, impact analyses will be completed by a
qualified biologist to evaluate the effects of the proposed use on wildlife movement
within the Otay River Valley. If requited, mitigation measures shall be developed and
implemented in accordance with the tequirements of the Subarea Plans of the City of
San Diego, the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego, as well as the City RPO
and the County.
8/22/96
4.3.197
MSCP Pian Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
4.3-OVRP-2
Prior to conversion of existing uses to passive or active recreation, impact analyses will
be completed by a qualified biologist to evaluate the effects of the proposed use on
wildlife movement within the Otay River Valley. If required, mitigation measures shall
be developed and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Subarea
Plans of the City of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista and The County of San Diego, as
well as the City RPO and the County BMO.
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SCENARIO - MITIGATION
City of Chula Vista
4.3-CS5-6
4.3-CS5-7
4.3-CSS-8
8/22/96
Direct Impacts to Covered Species - The determination of whether impacts to covered
species were adequately mitigated are described above in "Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario -
Mitigation, 4.3-CS5-1." Significant impacts to 12 of the 15 plant species and 24 of the 29
animal species identified in the Analysis of Significance section are not mitigated under
the C5S-Scenario.
Plant species to which impacts are not mitigated include the following: San Diego thorn-
mint San Diego ambrosia, Orcutt's brodiaea, Dunn's mariposa lily, salt marsh bird's-beak,
T ecate cypress, San Diego button-celery, San Diego barrel cactus, San Diego goldenstar
(expected), snake cholla, California Orcutt grass (expected), and Otay Mesa mint
(expected).
Animal species to which impacts are not mitigated include the following: salt marsh
skipper, Thome's hairstreak, Riverside fairy shrimp, arroyo southwestern toad (expected),
southwestern pond turtle, orange-throated whiptail, San Diego homed lizard, tricolored
blackbird, western snowy plover, northern harrier, reddish egret (expected), California
brown pelican, southwestern willow flycatcher (expected), long-billed curlew, Belding's
Savannah sparrow, large-billed Savannah sparrow, coastal California gnatcatcher, light-
footed clapper rail, western bluebird, California least tern, elegant tern, least Bell's viteo,
mountain lion, and southern mule deer.
Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities/Habitats - Vegetation communities and
habitats that support the sensitive species addressed above would not be adequately
mitigated. In the context of the CSS Scenario, no measures are available to mitigate direct
impacts to vegetation communities/habitats occupied by these species.
Indirect Impacts - Potential indirect impacts to sensitive habitats and sensitive species
would be minimized thtough the application of standards, ordinances, and policies
identified in the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan. Section 6.0 Land Use Considerations
of the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan identifies existing federal, state, and city
4.3-198
MSCP Plan Draft EIRJEIS
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
conservation area and mitigation bank for construction of OWD facilities. The San Miguel HMA is located
within an area identified as a portion of a core biological resource area by the MSCP Resource Document
(City of San Diego, 19951) and provides connectivity in the vicinity of San Miguel Mountain. This feature
of the OWD Subarea Plan would have beneficial effects with respect to wildlife movement.
In summary, no direct impacts to wildlife movement are expected from the Otay Water District Subarea
Plan. Therefore, no additional discussion is provided in Section 4.3.2.2.
B.l.8 OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK (OVRP) CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT
IMPACT ANALYSIS - ISSUE 2)
The OVRP Concept Plan area occupies essentially all of the Otay River Valley from Savage Dam at the
southem boundary of lowet Otay lake to San Diego Bay. The Otay River Valley has been identified as
a regional wildlife corridot (Ogden, 1992) and important to wildlife movement in the South County area.
least Bell's vireo, a federally-listed migratory bird species on the Covered Species list, has also been
observed in the Otay River Valley. As described previously, the proposed OVRP Concept Plan lists a
variety of uses that could be permitted within the Concept Plan area including passive and active
recreation uses, a nature interpretive facility and regional trails. Facilities such as road crossings and the
Otay Valley Water Reclamation Facility would be permitted within the park but are not prop.osed as part
of the Draft Concept Plan. The Concept Plan also notes that existing uses within the concept plan area,
such as the rock quany, Gun Club and Otay landfill, could be converted to active or passive recreational
uses. In general, it is anticipated that these uses would be located in existing non-sensitive areas within
the concept plan area, however, in the absence of more specific information it is assumed that such uses
could be located in biologically sensitive areas. In addition, any uses within the Otay River Valley,
whether within biologically sensitive or disturbed areas, could adversely affect the overall use and function
oithe valley as a regional wildlife corridor.
In summary, direct impacts to wildlife movement are expected from the Otay Valley Regional Park
Concept Plan. Please. refer to Section 4.3.2.2, 4.3-QVRP-3 for an analysis of the significance of this impact.
B.2, B.3, B.5 CSS SCENARIO/BP SCENARIO/NO ACTION NO/PROJECT (THE SUBAREA!
OTHER PLANS IMPACT ANALYSIS - ISSUE 2)
The Subarea Plan analyses fot these scenarios for this issue would be the same as for the overall analysis
for these scenarios under the MSCP Plan.
B.4 PUBLIC LANDS SCENARIO (THE SUBAREA/ OTHER PLANS IMPACT ANALYSIS-
ISSUE 2)
Analysis of this alternative not provided.
8/22/96
4.3-231
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
BIOLOGICAllY PREFERRED SCENARIO - ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The BP-Scenario would adequately protect habitat linkages, which provide for wildlife movement, due to
the inclusion of 33% of the linkage area within the preserve and an additional 67% in linkage ateas outside
the preserve. The BP.Scenario would adequately provide for habitat linkages and impacts therefore are
considered not significant.
PUBLIC LANDS SCENARIO - ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.3.Pl-24
Impacts to wildlife movement resulting from isolation of habitats - The Pl-Scenario
would fail to capture 84% of the habitat linkages in the study area. Although a portion of
the 84% of linkage habitat not located within the preserve would be provided some
protection by existing regulations for wetlands, rare habitats, and physically constrained
lands, a large amount would not receive such protection. Impacts to habitat linkages
which provide for wildlife movement therefore would be considered significant.
NO ACTION/NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE - ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Undet the No Action/No Project alternative, patterns of development are anticipated to continue in the
same manner as the past. Some wildlife cottidors and linkages would be protected through the application
of existing regulations for wetlands, rare habitats, and physically constrained lands. Indirect impacts to
habitat linkages which provide fDr wildlife movement would therefore be considered not significant.
B. THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS - ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE (ISSUE 2)
No significant impacts relating to Issue 2 were identified for the MHPA and alternatives.
OTAY VAllEY REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN - ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.3 OVRP-3 Construction of permitted uses and conversion of existing uses to active or passive
recreation within the concept plan area could adversely affect wildlife movement within
the Otay River Valley, an identified regiDnal wildlife corridor.
4.3.2.3 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING (ISSUE 2)
A. THE MSCP PLAN - MITIGATION (ISSUE 2)
MHPA - PROPOSED PROJECT - MITIGATION
4.3-MHPA-25 County of San Diego Subarea Plan Metro-lakeside-Jamul Segment: Linkages within the
Metro-lakeside-jamul segment would be subject to the Biological Mitigation Ordinance
8/22'96
A i_';>~
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
8/22/96
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
(BMO), which sets forth planning guidelines designed to preserve significant biological
tesoutces. With regard to habitat linkages, the County Subarea Plan Policy is to minimize
habitat fragmentation, provide for transit of animals and plants, maintain genetic and
demographic exchange between populations, permit dispersal, and facilitate the rescue
of small populations from local extindion. These features will be considered in the review
of specific ptojects to ensure consistency with the Subarea Plan. The following design
parameters will be the basis for establishing project compliance:
.
Habitat linkages, rather than just corridors, will be maintained where possible.
.
Existing movement corridors within linkages will be identified and maintained.
.
Corridors with good vegetative and/or topographic cover will be protected.
.
Regional linkages that accommodate ttavel for a wide range of wildlife species
will be seleded.
.
The width of a linkage will be based on the biological information for the target
species, the quality of habitat within and adjacent to the linkage, topography, and
adjacent land uses.
.
The corridor must provide refuge for animals during the day. Wider linkages are
preferable and narrow corridors should be relatively short Corridors should be
. as square in dimension as possible. Corridor widths greater than 1,000 feet are
recommended for large mammals and birds, such as mountain lion, bobcat, and
mule deer.
.
Visual continuity should be provided in the movement corridor.
.
Cotridors should have a low level of human intrusion, especially at night, and
should be shielded from lighting and noise.
.
Physical barriers, such as roads, should be minimized. Roads crossing cortidors
should have 10-feet high fencing that channels wildlife to underpasses.
.
Where feasible at wildlife crossings, road bridges tather than tunnels should be
construded. Box culverts should not be used. Sound attenuation and soft bottom
substrates, vegetated if possible, will be provided.
.
Where continuous linkages cannot be provided, archipelago corridors suitable for
birds and some mammals may be used for short distances.
4.3-234
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SCENARIO - MITIGATION
4.3-CSS-24
Impacts to wildlife movement resulting from isolation of habitats - In the context of the
preselVe design envisioned under the CSS-Scenario, guidelines and ordinances identified
in the subarea plans would reduce impacts to wildlife movement However, these
measures do not reduce impacts to a level below significant because too little land likely
could be conselVed to protect important linkages.
PUBLIC LANDS SCENARIO - MITIGATION
4.3-PL-24
Impacts to wildlife movement resulting from isolation of habitats - In the context of the
preselVe design envisioned under the PL-Scenario, no mitigation measures are available
that would avoid significant impacts to wildlife movement. The impact is regarded as
significant and unmitigable.
B. SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS - MITIGATION (ISSUE 2)
No significant impacts relating to Issue were identified for the MHPA and alternatives, therefore, no
mitigation measures are recommended.
OTAY VAllEY REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN - MITIGATION
4.3 OVRP-3 Prior to development of permitted uses or conversion of existing uses to passive or active
recreation, impact analyses will be completed by a qualified biologist to evaluate the
effects of the proposed use on wildlife movement within the Otay River Valley. If
required, mitigation measures shall be developed and implemented in accotdance with
the requirements of the Subarea Plans of the City of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista and
the County of San Diego, as well as the City RPO and the proposed County BMO.
4.3.2.4 SIGNIFICANCE lEVel AFTER MITIGATION (ISSUE 2)
Impact 10
THE MSCP PLAN .
MHPA.Proposed Project
County of San Diego Subarea Plan Metr..lakesid..Jamul Segment
impacts to wildlife movement
Coastal Sage Scrub See.ario
4.3.MHPA.24
4.3.CSS.24
8122196
Description
Significance Level
Before Mitigation
Significance Level
After Mitigation
Significant
less than significant
Impacts to wildlife movement due to isolation of their populations
because of poor connectivity
Significant
Signifircant and not
mitigable
4.3-235
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 4.3: Biological Resources
Imoatt ID
Description
Public Lands Scenario
4.3.Pl.24
Impacts to wildlife movement due to isolation of their populations
booa... of poor connectivity
THE SUBAREAlDTHER PLANS
OVRP Concept Plan
4.3-DVRP.3
Oovelopment of permitted uses within Otay River Valley, a regional
wildrrie corridor.
8/22/96
Significance Level
Before Mitigation
Significant
Significant
Significance Level
After Mitigation
Significant and no!
mitigable
less than significant
4.3-236
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 4.4: Transportation/Circulation
In summary, no significant impacts are identified for the OWD Subarea Plan at the Subarea/Other Plans
leveHproject level of analysis) in this section. As a result, this discretionary action is not discussed further
in Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3.
B.l.8 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT OF OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT, CSS SCENARIO, BP SCENARIO IMPACT
ANALYSIS - ISSUE 1)
As shown in Figure 2-17, facilities proposed by the Concept Plan are designed to accommodate existing
and planned roadways that extend through the focused planning area of the park. PtOposed recreation
areas would be located outside of planned alignments for SR-125, La Media road, Alta Road, and Paseo
Ranchero. Due to the flexibility incorporated in the Plan, impacts of the Concept Plan to circu lation
facilities proposed by the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista would be avoided.
The following.uses could be permitted in the park in accordance with the Concept Plan (see Figure 2-17):
. 400 acres of active recreation
. Otay Rio Industrial Park
. Nature interpretive center
. Special Study areas that involve developing recteation uses on existing mining and landfill
sites once the operations are completed.
Access requirements for these facilities have not yet been determined. As shown in Figure 2-17, recreation
areas, interpretive center and special study areas would be located in proximity to planned or existing
roadways. It is anticipated that, if required, vehicles could access park uses froni the planned roadways
shown in Figure 2-17. However, specific requirements for access from the majot roadways have not been
determined. In addition, parking requirements for the recreation facilities have not yet been analyzed. Fot
example, the design of the interpretive center could involve a parking area. It is anticipated that
development of permitted uses could require additional access and parking which has not been identified
by the Concept Plan. The Concept Plan requires that subsequent analysis of the tecreation areas and
special study atea uses be conducted in association with the Master Plan process. It is anticipated that the
subsequent analysis would generate specific measures related to traffic and parking beyond that required
by the Concept Plan and Chula Vista Subarea Plan. However, in the absence of additional information
regarding the location of the access and parking facilities, this is regarded as a significant impact of the
Concept Plan.
For a discussion of significant impacts associated with the implementation of the OVRP Concept Plan
please refer to Section 4.4.1.2. Specific impacts related to the Concept Plan are identified as 4.4-0VRP-l.
8/22/96
4.4-13
MSCP Plan Draft EIRJEIS
Chapter 4.4: Transportation/Circulation
B.2 NO PROJECT/NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS IMPACT
ANALYSIS - ISSUE 1)
B.2.1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA/CITY OF CORONADO/CITY OF DEl MAR/COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO/CITY OF SANTEE (NO PROJECT/NO ACTION IMPACT ANAlYSIS-
ISSUE 1)
No features of the No Project/No Adion Altemative would limit future construdion of transportation
facilities identified by the relevant general plans of these jurisdidions, and no significant impacts ate
identified.
B.2.2 CITY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PLAN (NO PROJECT/NO ACTION IMPACT
ANALYSIS - ISSU E 1)
No features of the No Project/No Adion Altemative would limit futute construdion of facilities identified
within the City of San Diego and no significant impacts are identified.
Undet this altemative the transportation facilities would be implemented in accordance with the General
and Community Plans of the City. As a result, proposed classification changes of the City in Rancho
Peiiasquitos, East Elliott, and Otay Mesa, would be avoided.
4.4.1.2
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE (ISSUE 1)
A. THE MSCP PLAN - ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
No significant impacts were identified for the MHP A and alternatives.
B. THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS - ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
No significant impacts were identified for the MHP A and altematives.
4.4-0VRP.' Access and Parking Requirements for OVRP: It is anticipated that potential development
. of an amphitheater and water park on the Otay Rio Industrial Park site, 400 acres of adive
.recreation in the Otay River Valley, including a potential golf course, as well as
development of recreation uses on existing mining and landfill sites once operations are
completed, could require additional access and parking which has not been identified by
the Concept Plan. In the absence of additional information regarding the location of these
facilities, this is regarded as a significant impad of the Concept Plan.
Please refer to Sedion 4.4.1.3 for a discussion of mitigation requitements for 4.4--0VRP-l.
8/22196
4.4-14
MSCP Plan Draft EIRfEIS
Chapter 4.4: Transportation/Circulation
4.4.1.3
MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING (ISSUE 1)
A. THE MSCP PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant impacts were identified for the MHPA and alternatives. Therefore, no mitigation measures
are recommended.
B. THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant impacts were identified for the MHPA and alternatives. Therefore, no mitigation measures
are recommended.
OT A Y VALLEY REGIONAL CONCEPT PLAN - MITIGATION
4.4-0VRP.1 Access and Parking Requirements for OVRP: Specific access and parking requirements .
for facilities allowed within the patk ate not identified in the Concept Plan. Prior to
development of allowable uses or conversion of existing uses to passive or active
recreation, further analysis of access and parking requirements shall be conducted by the
City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. If required, mitigation
measures shall.be developed in accordance with the Quality of Life standards of the City
of Chula Vista and the road segment, level of service and parking standards of the County
of San Diego and the City of San Diego.
4.4.1.4 SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL AFTER MITIGATION (ISSUE 1)
Impa:t Identification
Oescription
Significance Level
Before Mitigation
Signifrcant
Significance Level
After Mitigation
4.4-DVRP.1
Access and Parking Requirements for OVRP
less than significant
8/22'96
4.4-15
MSCP Plan Draft EIRJEIS
Chapter 4.5: Public Services & Utilities
B.1.6.2
Implementing Actions for County of San Diego Subarea Plans
Biological Mitigation Ordinance: Implementation of the BMO would not adversely impact the ability of
the County to provide adequate public facilities. The SMO states that any essential public facility, project
or recreational facility is exempt from the requirements of the ordinance ptovided that all possible
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the facility or project and there are no feasible, less
environmentally damaging location, alignment or nonstructutal alternatives that would meet project
objectives. The facility must also be consistent with adopted community or subregional plans. Based on
the language contained in the otdinance it is anticipated that individual project applicants may need to
considet relocating some planned public facilities to avoid resources. However, it is not anticipated that
the ability of the County to implement public facilities determined to be necessary by the Public Facility
and Recreation elements would not be significantly affected by the BMO.
In summary, no significant impacts are identified for the County of San Diego SMO at the Subarea/Other
Plans level{project level of analysis) in this section. As a result, this discretionary action is not discussed
furthet in Sections 4.5.1.2 and 4.5. 1.3.
B.1.7 OTA Y WATER DISTRICT (MHPA PROJECT, CSS SCENARIO, BP SCENARIO IMPACT
ANALYSIS - ISSUE 1)
No features of the Otay Water District Subarea Plan would preclude implementation of planned public
facilities. The proposed Subarea Plan contains preserve management guidelines for facilities proposed to
CtOSS the preserve as a part of the OWD Water Reclamation Plan. The preserve management guidelines
are not intended to preclude implementation of these facilities.
District lands proposed to be included in the preserve are limited to the 230 acre San Miguel Habitat
Management Area (HMA). Neither the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the County of San Diego
Circulation Element, the Sweetwater Community Plan, or the OWD propose to locate public facilities
within the San Migue! HMA. In accordance with the preserve management policies of the Subarea Plan,
some passive recreation uses would be allowed within the HMA. It is concluded, therefore, that
implementation of the Subarea Plan preserve system would not adversely affect planned public facilities.
In summary, no signiticant impacts are identified fot the OWD Subarea Plan at the Subarea/Other Plans
level(project level of analysis) in this section. As a result, this discretionary action is not discussed further
in Sections 4.5. 7.2 and 4.5.1.3.
B.1.8 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT OF OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT, CSS SCENARIO, BP SCENARIO IMPACT
ANALYSIS -ISSUE 1)
As discussed further in Section 4.2, Land Use, planned active recreational uses in the Otay Valley area may
be incompatible with cteation of a preserve in the Otay Valley. The Concept Plan prepared for the OVRP
8/22196
".5-15
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 4.5: Public Services & Utilities
identifies potential active recreation areas in the Otay Valley as special study areas. The active and passive
recreational facilities, as well as the staging areas identified by the Concept Plan are included as a part of
the City of Chula Vis-.a, County of San Diego and City of San Diego Subarea Plans. Development of active
recreational uses and staging areas shown in Figure 2-77 were determined through the combined efforts
of the three jurisdictions. The Concept Plan is, therefore, consistent with the goals of the General Plans
regarding provision of recreation facilities within the River Valley and would not preclude implementation
of any planned recreational facilities.
Implementation of the recreational uses permitted by the Concept Plan would be consistent with the
objectives of the MSCP. The environmentally sensitive open space areas designated by the Concept Plan
are consistent with the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. Areas planned for recreation in
accordance with the Concept Plan have been excluded from the preserve boundaries. In accordance with
the requirements of the MSCP Plan, uses permitted within "core open space" areas would be limited to
some active and passive recteation uses such as trails that would be designed in accordance with the
MSCP Plan and the relevant Subarea Plans.
Public Facilities: The following uses could be permitted in the park in accordance with the Concept Plan
(see Figure 2-77):
. 400 acres of active recreation
. Otay Rio Industrial Park
. Natute intetpretive center
. Special Study areas that involve developing recreation uses on existing mining and landfill
sites once the operations are completed.
Specific public facility requirements of these recteation uses and special study areas have not yet been
determined as a part of the Concept Plan. It is anticipated that the proposed park uses would create a
demand for additional utilities and services. Proposed active recreation areas and the interpretive center
could involve facilities that require sewer and water utilities. In addition, all of the facilities permitted by
the Concept Plan would require police and fire service. Due to the proximity of the proposed facilities to
urban areas including the City of Chula Vista and the Otay Mesa area, it is anticipated that utilities could
be extended to the park uses and that police and fire service could be made available. However, due to
the absence of information on specific utility and service requirements and the potential effect on existing
service levels in the area, the demand for public facilities generated by the proposed park uses is regarded
as a significant impact of the Concept Plan.
For a discussion of significant impacts associated with the implementation of the OVRP Concept Plan
please refer to Section 4.5.7.2. Specific :mpacts related to the Concept Plan are identified as 4.5-0VRP-7
in Section 4.5.7.2.
8/22/96
4.5.16
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 4.6: Population & Honsing
meet the 1990-2005 growth forecast. Therefore, no housing density changes (Table 4.6-5) are anticipated
irom the planned growth patterns in the subarea.
In summary, no significant population/housing impacts have been identified for the County of San Diego
Subarea Plan - MHPA at the Subarea Plan Level (project level analysis) for this issue. Therefore, no further .
discussion is provided in Section 4.6.1.2.
B.1.6.2 County of San Diego Implementing Action
Biological Mitigation Ordinance: Implementation of the proposed Biological Mitigation Ordinance would
require individual projects to mitigate for impacts to sensitive areas. This may require project redesign to
avoid construction in those areas and may result in density and development reallocations to maintain
development project goals. No quantitative numbers are available for impact analysis. However, the
Biological Mitigation Ordinance and the County planning process have a built-in degree of flexibility to
accommodate these tedistributions. No significant impacts are anticipated.
B.1.7 OTAYWATER DISTRICT (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS-ISSUE 1)
The Otay Water District Subarea Plan contains preserve management guidelines for facilities proposed to
cross the preserve as part of the OWD Water Reclamation Plan. District lands proposed to be included
in the preserve are limited to the 230-acre San Miguel Habitat Management Area (HMA). No tesidential
development is planned in the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the County of San Diego Circulation
Element, of the Sweetwatet Community Plan on the Otay Water District lands. Therefore, implementation
of the Otay Water District Subarea Plan would. not have a significant impact on population and housing
patterns.
B.1.8 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT - OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS - ISSUE 1)
The Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan identifies potential recreation areas primarily in undeveloped
areas that ate designated for open space, industrial or commercial development within the Otay Valley.
Since, tesidential uses ate not planned within the park and the Concept Plan would be consistent with the
objectives of the MSCP, population and housing patterns would not be affected and no significant impacts
are anticipated.
B-2 COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SCENARIO (THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS IMPACT
ANALYSIS -ISSUE 1)
Analyses of privately-held vacant lands within the Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario boundary were conducted
for jurisdictions with subarea plans. The effects of preserve conservation on planned development lands,
the ability of a jurisdiction to meet projected 1990-200S residential development land forecasts and
projected housing densities were evaluated and presented in Tables 4.6-7 and 4.6-8. Among the six
subareas, the net available developable lands total 85,718 acres. The SANDAG 15-year forecast (1990-
fU.,-,/Oj:.
4.6-75
MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS
Chapter 4.6: Population & Housing
B.1.7 OTAY WATER DISTRICT (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS -ISSUE 2)
No residential development is planned in the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the County of 5an Diego
Circulation Element, of the Sweetwater Community Plan on the Otay Water District lands. Therefore,
implementation of the Otay Water District Subarea Plan would not have a significant impact on population
location, distribution, density or growth patterns.
B.1.8 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT - OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
CONCEPT PLAN (MHPA PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS - ISSUE 2)
The Otay Valley Regional Patk Concept Plan identifies potential recreation areas primarily in undeveloped
areas that are designated for open space, industrial or commercial development within the Otay Valley.
Since, residential uses are not planned within the Park and the Concept Plan would be consistent with the
objectives of the MSCP, population location, distribution, density or growth patterns would not be affected.
B.2 COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SCENARIO (THE SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS IMPACT
ANALYSIS - ISSUE 2)
Analyses of privately-held vacant lands within the Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario boundary were conducted
for jurisdictions with subarea plans during the 1994 MSCP alternatives evaluation phase. As discussed
previously undet Issue 1, comparisons of these acreages against total available private lands in those
jurisdictions were presented in Table 4.6-7. The alternatives evaluation focused primarily on habitat lands
targeted for conservation, land ownership and the remaining developable private land within each
alternative planning scenario. Separate population and housing projections were not identified for areas
within the Coastal Sage Scrub preserve boundary. However, the shift in acreage from land within the
preserve previously designated for potential residential development to lands outside the preserve provides
an indication of changes in future population characteristics.
B.2.1. CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN (CSS SCENARIO IMPACT ANALYSIS-
ISSUE 2)
From Table 4.6-7, the CSS Scenario projects that no development would be shifted to lands outside the C55
Preserve Planning Area. Although Chula Vista would still experience a shortfall in the 1990-2005
residential land growth forecast, no changes are anticipated to occur to population characteristics in the
MSCP study area, or the region from implementation of the CSS Scenario.
In summary, no significant population/housing impacts have been identified for the City of Chula Vista
Subarea Plan - CSS-Scenario at the 5ubarea Plan Level (project level analysis) for this issue. Therefore, no
further discussion is provided in Section 4.6.2.2.
8/22/96
4.6-37
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
6.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
NEPA defines "cumulative impact" as "the impact on the environment wh;-:h results from the incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
tegardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor but collectively signiticant actions taking place over a period
of time." And, as required by Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts shall be
discussed when they ate significant The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the
impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as gteat detail as is
provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards
of practicality and teasonableness. The following elements, summarized from CEQA Guidelines Section
15130 (b), ate necessary to an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts:
. a list of past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or
cumulative impacts;
. a summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects; and
. a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects.
6.2 PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
In addition to the MSCP Plan, a variety of other conservation plans are currently underway in San Diego
County as described in detail in Chapter 11 of the MSCP Resource Document (see Section 4. 7 for locations
of public libraries where Resource Document may be found) and summarized below. Most notably, three
subregional habitat planning efforts are currently underway in the San Diego region, as well as others in
Orange and Riverside counties. The three San Diego County plans are being developed as NCCP Plans.
These include the MSCP in southwestem San Diego County, the MHCP in northwestem San Diego County
and the County of San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation and Open Space Program. These three
subregional plans, when implemented, will create a habitat preserve system that provides coordinated
coverage for the 4,200-square mile county.
A focused effort has been made to assure the coordination of these programs in all key scientific, public
policy and finance/acquisition strategy aspects through the Implementation Strategy Subcommittee of the
MSCP, the SANDAG Regional Conservation Coordinating Committee and the expanded MSCP Policy
Committee. Additional effort has also been applied to achieving coordination between the MSCP and
other habitat conservation and open space plans, such as the Conservation Plan for the Least Bell's Vireo
and Riparian Habitat on the Sweetwater and San Diego Rivers and Master Plans for the San Dieguito River
Valley Park and the Otay Valley Regional Park, as described below.
&'22196
6./
MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS
Chapter 6: Cnmulative Impacts
. North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP): Encompasses approximately
654,000 acres in northern San Diego County and is patterned ailer the MSCP; three Subarea Plans
are currently underway - the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, the San Marcos Biologi:al
Resources Management Plan, and the Poway Subarea Plan. The County of San Diego intends to
process its portion of the MHCP as an amendment to the /V'SCP at a later date.
. County Multiple Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan: Encompasses unincorporated areas
of the County not included within the MSCP or MHCP study areas; current effort.5 are concentrated
on developing a biological data base. The Cities of Oceanside, Encinitas, Vista and Carlsbad are
curtently preparing Subarea Plans as part of the MHCP planning effort.
. SANDAG Regional Conservation Coordination Committee: A committee sponsored by SANDAG
to coordinate mapping and regional conservation efforts; efforts to date have concentrated on
establishment of standardized mapping classifications, development of conservation guidelines and
exploring financing opportunities.
. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park: Encompasses a 55-mile stretch of the San
Dieguito River including public lands and lands still to be acquired; a park concept plan has been
developed and has undergone envitonmental review that calls for natural open space and both
passive and active recteation within the park boundaries.
. Otay Valley Regional Park JEPA: Encompasses the Otay River Valley watershed from Otay Lakes
west to the Pacific Ocean; a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement OEPA) has been established to
coordinate planning efforts for a park, including natural open space and passive and active
recreation.
. Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Programs: An NCCP has been approved in the
Central/Coastal Subregion of Orange County and an NCCP is underway in the Southem Subregion;
the San Diego MSCP and MHCP have been determined to be NCCP equivalents; the County of
Riverside is pursuing a multi-species conservation planning effort that may be coordinated with
the NCC? program.
. SDG&E and County Water Authority (NCCP) Programs: SDG&E has completed an NCC? for
SDG&E properties within the San Diego Region. The County Water Authority (CWA) is currently
preparing an NCC? for ONA properties within the San Diego Region.
8/22196 6-2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chair Davis, Members of the Chula Vista Planning Commission
VIA:
FROM:
Martin Miller, Senior Planner (Acting)
DATE:
August 7,1998
SUBJ:
PCM-99-02: Otay Valley Road Name Change
Staff has determined that additional information needs to be investigated on this subject and that the
public hearing scheduled for August 12, 1998 should be canceled. Once all relevant information is
available, this project will be rescheduled for public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission cancel the public hearing, direct staff to pursue the
additional information and return to the Planning Commission at an advertised public hearing on this
matter.
H:\HOME\PLANNINGIMARTIN\OVRNC\CANCEL.I\.1EM
MEMORANDUM
August 6, 1998
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
VIA: Robert A. Lejter, Director of Planning and Building
FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinato
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Environmental Consultant ~
SUBJECT: EastLake Trails/Greens Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(EIR-97-04)
Transmjtted herewith js the EastLake Trails/Greens Draft Subsequent Envjronmentallmpact
Report (DSEIR). The DSEIR began public review on July 24, 1998. A shortened review period
was granted by the State, therefore, public review will end on August 26, 1998 at the Planning
Commjssion hearing. This memo is intended to give you a brief summary of the DSEIR which
may be of assistance in revjewing the document. The public hearing before the Plannjng
Commission on August 26 will be to take public comment on the document and to fonnally close
the public review period. The Commission will not take any fonnal actjon ofthe SEIR or the
project at that hearing. Comments raised by the Commissjon and the public at the August 26
hearing will be incorporated into the Final SEIR along with written responses to the comments.
This document js a "Subsequent EIR", which means that jt js tiered off prevjously prepared
ElRs. Both EastLake Trails and Greens have been previously addressed in several EIRs,
including the original Master EIR for EastLake (EIR 81-3), the Final EIR for EastLake Greens
SPA and the EastLake Trails prezone and annexation (ElR 86-4). Although the Trails was
addressed in the previous documents, specific impacts for the Trails were not adequately
addressed because plannjng for that portion of the project had not progressed to a stage where
sufficient detail was available to do a complete impact analysjs. Therefore, although many jssues
have been addressed prevjously an SEIR was requjred for thjs project for two reasons; one, to
detennine jfthe previous environmental review was still accurate jn light of the more detailed
plans that are now available; and two, in order to make a detennination that the infonnatjon
contained in the previous documents was still timely and to the extent that it was not, to update
it.
This memo provides a brief summary of each issue that could have a significant effect (impact)
on the environment as a result of the project. In some cases the analysis has concluded that in
fact there will not be a significant effect. A significant effect (impact) js defined in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as:
EastLake EIR
-2-
August 6, 1998
"A substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical
condjtions wjthin the area affected by the project includjng land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic
significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a
significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a
physical change may be considered in detennining whether the physjcal change js
signjficant."
Each section ofthe SEIR contains the criteria that were used in the analysis to determine ifthe
project would have a significant effect. When revjewing the document, you may wish to give
particular attention to the potential impact areas that have been detennined to have a significant
impact.
Section 1 of the SElR contains the Introduction and Summary. In this sectjon you will find a
complete summary of all significant impacts and the corresponding mitigation measure. The
summary also indicates jf the mitjgation measure reduces the jmpact to less than sjgnificant or jf
significant, not mitigated impacts remains after mitigation.
The summary also identifies those impacts that are project specific and which are cumulatjve.
The distinction between cumulative and project specific impacts js a major jssue jn this
document. A cumulative impact is one in which the project contributes to the jmpact along with
all ofthe other projects reasonably being anticipated in the vjcjnity. If the project results in a
cumulatjve impact, it means that by jtselfthis project would not have resulted in a signjficant
impact (effect). However, when it is considered with all of the other projects currently
antjcjpated, together they all result in a significant impact. Several cumulative impacts do have
mjtigation measures proposed (i.e. traffic jmpacts). However, in some cases the cumulative
impact is beyond the control of anyone developer to mitigate. In those cases either regional
solutions are identified as mitigation measures, or the result is a significant unmitigated impact.
Section 2 contains the Envjronmental Setting. Its purpose js to give some general background
about the physical setting of the site as it pertains to the analysis of impacts. Section 2 contains
several graphjcs includjng Figure 2-2 (pg. 21), which is a general location map of the project sjte,
and Figure 2-3 (pg. 22), whjch is an aerial photo of the sjte and vjcjnjty.
Section 3 is the detailed proj ect description that is analyzed in the SEIR. It is important to note
that the SEIR analyzes the applicant's proposal as origjnally submitted. There may be some
changes to the SPA applicatjon that js ultimately reviewed by the Planning Commissjon. The
following is a brief project description:
The project involves two EastLake neighborhoods known as EastLake Greens and
EastLake Trails Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans. The Greens neighborhood, which
has an adopted SPA, consists of 853.2 acres and contajns a wjde range of resjdential
densities and other support services. The EastLake Trails nejghborhood, whjch does not
EastLake EIR
- 3 -
August 6, 1998
have an adopted SPA, consists of 322.2 acres and contains residential land use
designations for the most part with the exception of a 15 acre commercial site.
In 1992, the EastLake and Baldwin Companies completed a land exchange involving
three parcels known as the "Land Swap" parcels. As a result of this transaction, one of
the "Land Swap" parcels has been added to the Otay Ranch GDP. The remaining two
parcels are now proposed to be jncorporated jnto the EastLake Greens SPA and the
EastLake II GDP. The two "Land Swap" parcels proposed to be added at this time
consist of 141. 7 acres.
The purpose ofthe currently proposed planning program is to jncorporate the "Land
Swap" parcels into the EastLake II GDP, EastLake Greens SPA and other associated
documents; and to replan the land use distribution and adopt a SPA plan, with associated
regulatory documents for the Trails neighborhood.
Section 4 of the SEIR is the actual impact analysis. It is djvided jnto ten sub-areas. Each section
deals with a specjfic issue such as land use, traffic/circulation, etc. The followjng js a brief
summary of each of those sections:
Land Use (4.1): The planning documents, such as the Cjty General Plan, Eastern Territories Area
Plan, EastLake II General Development Plan and EastLake Greens SPA plans, were used as the
basis for the analysis ofthe project and its conformance wjth the City's goals and policjes. The
proposed project was also compared to projects in the immediate vjcjnity to determine if it is
compatjble with exjsting development. The SEIR concluded that the changes for the EastLake
Trails and the "Land Swap" parcels are compatible with surroundjng exjsting and proposed uses.
The project does reflect the land use goals of the City's General Plan and the Eastern Territories
Area Plan. Therefore, jt concluded that there would be no significant land use jmpacts as a result
of the project.
Transportation/Traffic Circulation (4.2): Several street segments and intersections were analyzed
jn the traffic section. The segments and intersections to be analyzed have ejther been identified
as "regionally significant arterials" based on the State's Congestion Management Program or
were determined by City staffto be the most likely segments and jntersection that would be
impacted by the proposed project.
A variety of scenarios were modeled to determine both the project specific impacts on the
circulation system and the cumulative impact ofthjs project combjned with others on the system.
The basis for the modeling effort is the current street system wjth the average daily traffic
volumes that currently exist. Subsequent models had various new streets and intersections,
jmproved streets and intersections and rreeway additions (i.e. SR-125) and jmprovements added
for each as those improvements which were antjcipated to be in place. These additjonal
components that were added to the various models are based on the General Plan Circulatjon
Element. A description of each one of the scenarios can be found on pages 54-56 of the EIR.
EastLake ElR
-4-
August 6, 1998
Beginning on the next page are tables that address the jmpacts that were identified for each
model. Note that the tables are divided into cumulative and project specific impacts. The tables
are based on the theoretical "Volumes to Capacity" ratio methodology, not on actual existing
conditions. The significance criteria for determining the level of impact is discussed on pg. 54 of
the SEIR. The levels of service addressed jn the EIR are based on the Traffic Technical Report
prepared by LLG. The analysis in the Traffic Report is based on the "Volume to Capacity
Ratjos" methodology. This methodology is more conservative for establishing levels of service
than some others addressed in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
For this methodology the theoretical capacity of a given street is estimated based on the number
oflanes and classification. The theoretical capacity for two different streets is the same if they
both have the same number of lanes and classification, regardless of other factors such as grades,
side fictions, turn lanes or other environmental factors. The analysis then projects anticipated
volume based on land uses and compares it to the theoretical capacity of the roadway.
Depending upon the percentage of capacity that is projected a Level of Service is applied to the
segment. The following are ratjos for Volume to Capacity for Levels of Service:
A = .6 D .9
B = .7 F = 1.0
C = .8
Each year the City's Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) reviews the Traffic
Monitoring Program (TMP) to assess compliance with the City's thresholds which are part ofthe
Growth Management Thresholds. The TMP uses the "Average Travel Speed" methodology as
described in the HCM. Average travel speed studies can be used easily for existing conditions
however, do not lend themselves to projections for future development. The GMOC uses
average travel speed studies based on actual field measurements of travel time. Typically, traffic
reports prepared for environmental documents use "Volume to Capacity Ratio" to provide a
worst case scenario for EIR analysis sjnce the "Volume to Capacity Ratio" is considerably more
conservative for long range projections than the "Average Travel Speed" method of analysis.
When using the "Average Travel Speed" methodology, the performance of each segment is
assessed by conducting field surveys which measure the average time jt takes for a vehicle to
travel a signalized arterial segment. Intersections are not addressed in the TMP. Observed
Average Travel Speed studies show that many segments operate at a better level of service than
would be calculated by the volume to theoretjcal roadway capacity methodology. In most cases
these studjes show that the actual capacity of a segment is higher than what was estimated as the
future capacity for the traffic study assumptions.
The 1997 TMP has not jdentified any segments that are currently operating at unacceptable
levels of service. All segments are operating with less than two hours of LOS D. It has
jdentjfied potential areas of future concern. The SEIR has identified segments and intersectjons
that are currently operating below theoretical acceptable levels of service (see pages 50 - 53 of
EastLake ElR
- 5 -
August 6, 1998
the SEIR). These segments have all been identified in the TMP as potential areas of future
concern. Based on actual studies ofthe current operation of each of these segments, according to
the volumes to capacity ratio, all are currently operating at acceptable levels of servjce.
Since these segments have been identified as areas of future concern, for the most part they have
already been identjfied in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Two areas of concern
have been identified in the TMP. The first one is East "H" from I-80S to Terra Nova Drive
eastbound and westbound and the southbound ramps from I-80S to East "H" Street. The second
area of concern is Telegraph Canyon Road from I-80S to Paseo del Rey, the northbound and
southbound ramps to I-80S from Telegraph Canyon Road and westbound Telegraph Road near 1-
805.
Projects are currently underway or about to begin in both ofthese areas to address the capacity
jssue. A City CIP project to widen the overcrossing and ramps at East "H" Street and I-80S is jn
this year's budget with construction anticipated to begin prior to the end of the calendar year.
The jnterchange at Telegraph Canyon Road and I-80S is in the current ClP budget and will begin
construction prior to the end of 1998 with completion by the end of 1999. Restriping and other
improvements to increase capacity along Telegraph Canyon Road will also be accomplished
during that time frame.
The following charts detail both the project specific and cumulative impacts for each model year.
Year 2000 (without SR-125) Project Specific Impacts - Cumulative Impacts
Street Segment:
East H Street, I-80S to Terra Nova
Telegraphy Canyon, I-80S to Paseo del Rey
LOS
E
F
Intersections:
East H Street/I-80S southbound ramps
Telegraph Canyon Rd./I-805 northbound ramps
PM/F
AM and PM/F
Freeways:
I-80S between East H Street and Bonita Rd.
E
CMP Arterials:
East H Street (I-80S to Otay Lakes Road)
Telegraph Canyon Rd. (I-80S to MedjcaI Center Dr.)
E
E
The impacts to traffic are not project specific (see pg. 58 ofthe SElR). The mitjgatjon
measures for these cumulatjve impacts are discussed on page 58 of the traffic section and on
EastLake EIR
- 6-
August 6, 1998
pages 81 of the traffic mitigation section.
Year 2005 without SR-125 - Cumulative Impacts
Street Segments:
East H Street, I-80S to Terra Nova Drive
Otay Lakes Rd., East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Rd.
Olympic Parkway, I-80S to Paseo Ranchero
Intersections: None
LOS
E
E
F
Freeways:
Several Segments ofI-80S
CMP Arterials:
E and F
Olympic Parkway near I-80S
E
E
East "H" Street near I-80S
Year 2005 (with SR-125) - Cumulative Impacts
Street Segments: None
Intersections: None
Freeways:
Several Segments ofI-80S
CMT Arterials: None
E and F
The jmpacts to traffic are not project specific (see pg. 60 - 69 of the SEIR) for Year 2005 wjth
or without SR-12S. The mitigation measures for the cumulative impacts to freeway jmpacts are
discussed on page 69 of the traffic section and on page 82 ofthe traffic mitigatjon section.
Year 2010 (with SR-125) Project Specific Impacts
Otay Lakes Road and Lane Avenue
LOS
AM and PMIF
Intersection:
These impacts to traffic are project specific (see pg. 69 ofthe SEIR) for Year 2010 with SR-
125. The mitigation measures for this project specific impact is on page 74 ofthe traffic section
and on page 80 of the traffic mitigation section.
EastLake EIR
- 7-
August 6, 1998
Year 2010 (with SR-125) Cumulative Impacts
Segments:
Otay Lake Road, SR-125 to EastLake Parkway
EastLake Parkway, Otay Lakes Road to Clubhouse
Drive
LOS
E
E
Lane Avenue, Proctor Valley Road to Otay Lakes Rd..
F
Freeways:
Several sections ofI-805
E and F
F
1-805, north of East "H" Street
The impacts to traffic are not project specific (see pgs. 69 - 74 of the SEIR) for Year 2010 with
SR-125. The mitigation measures for the cumulative impacts to freeway impacts are djscussed
on page 74 ofthe traffic section and on page 82 of the traffic mitjgatjon section.
Buildout Impacts (with SR-125) Cumulative Impacts
Street Segments:
EastLake Parkway, north ofOtay Lakes Road
EastLake Parkway, Otay Lakes Road to
Clubhouse Drive
LOS
F
E
Intersections: None
Freeways:
1-805 north of East "H" Street
F
The impacts to traffic are not project specific (see pgs. 74 - 79 ofthe SEIR) for the Buildout
condjtion. The mjtigation measures for the cumulative jmpacts to impacts are discussed on page
81 ofthe traffic section and on page 83 of the traffic mitigatjon sectjon
Biological Resources (4.3): The majority of the project site has been used for agricultural
purposes for the past several years. Therefore, virtually no biological resources exjst on-site with
the exceptjon of the Salt Creek Corridor. On page 86 of the SEIR is Figure 4.3-1 whjch is the
vegetation map for the sjte. It shows the jurisdictional wetlands, the non-wetland jurisdictional
waters, the approved wetland mitigatjon area for Olympjc Parkway and the agricultural uses on
the site. The Salt Creek corridor runs north-south along the eastern boundary of the Trails. The
northern and southern portions of the corridor are described separately in the document (see page
87 - 89). Grading for the proposed community park will significantly impact the Salt Creek
EastLake EIR
- 8 -
August 6, 1998
corridor (see page 93 of the SEIR). Mitjgation is proposed as discussed on page 94.
fIydrolo~y/Drainage (4.4): The proposed grading plan would alter existing runoff patterns by
leveling hills and filling in on-site drainages. The project area does contain an existing detention
basin in Salt Creek, north of Olympic Parkway at the southern end of the site. In additjon, the
project plans incorporate a second detention basin upstream of the exjsting basjn within the Salt
Creek corridor. The project would increase the amount of runoff and would have potentially
signjficant impacts to water quality (see pages 101 - 105 ofthe SEIR). Mjtjgatjon measures are
proposed to reduce all impacts to less than significant (see page 105 of the SElR).
Landform AlterationlVisual Quality (4.5): Pages 110 - 116 contain photographs of the sjte. As
discussed in pages 117 through 123 ofthe SEIR, the proposed project will have a significant
jmpact on landform and visual quality. These impacts were anticipated in previous EIRs for the
site. Components ofthe SPA such as the Design Guidelines, etc. will mitjgate this jmpact as
discussed on page 124 of the SEIR.
Noise (4.6): Based on the City's noise standards, significant noise impacts would occur as a
result of vehicular nojse associated with adjacent roadways. Pages 128, 130 and 133 of the SEIR
contain Figures 4.6-1, 4.6-2 and 4.6-4 whjch show the "Future Noise Contours wjthout
Mjtigation" for the Trails and both "Land Swap" parcels. Various methods such as berms, walls,
etc. can be used to mitigate these types of noise impacts. Figures 4.6-3 on page 132 and Figure
4.6-5 on page 137 show the location and heights of proposed sound walls which would mitigate
the impacts of vehicular noise on the project.
Cultural ResourceslPaleontological Resources (4.7): Impacts to the identified significant
archaeological sites and prehistoric sites have been adequately mjtigated (see page 139 ofthe
SEIR). There is still the potential for paleontological resources which could be djscovered
during the grading operations. Page 140 of the SEIR contajns mitjgation for any potential
impacts to these resources.
Air Quality (4.8): The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General
Plan and therefore the Regional Air Quality Standards (see page 151 of the SEIR). As a result,
there is no djrect project impact on air quality. There is a cumulatjve jmpact on air quality
because the San Diego Air Basin is a non-attajrnnent area, therefore, any increase incremental
increase in pollution if considered a significant cumulative impact. In addition, the project has
the potential to create short term air quality impacts during the construction phase. Pages 151
through 152 ofthe SEIR contain mitigation measures for short-term project related impacts and
long-term cumulative impacts. As discussed on pages 152 - 153, mitigation measures will
reduce the short-term jmpact to less than significant, however, long term impacts can not be
mitigated to a level less than significant.
Public Facilities (4.9): This section ofthe document describes the existing public facilitjes and
those existing facilities that will need to be upgraded, and additjonal facilitjes that will need to
be constructed to serve this project. The facilitjes section addresses Water (see pages 154 - 155
and pages 161 -167), Sewer Services (see pages 156 - 158 and pages 167 - 173), Educational
EastLake ElR
-9-
August 6,1998
Facilities (see pages 158 - 159 and pages 173 - 177), Parks and Recreations (see pages 159 - 160
and pages 177 - 180), Police (see page 160 and page 180) and Fire (see page 161 and page 180).
As discussed on page 181 ofthe DEIR, there are significant impacts to some public facilities,
however, mitigation measures are proposed (see page 182- 184) to mitigate all impacts to less
than significant.
Threshold Analysis (4.10): The Cjty has adopted a Growth Management Ordinance that contains
Quality of Life Threshold Standards. These thresholds set levels of service or maintenance for
11 faciljties and improvements, and are used as the basis to determine the need for new or
upgraded facilities to mitigate for impacts of a new development. This section of the SEIR
consjders each one of the 11 servjces and determines what, if any, improvements are needed as a
result ofthis project. The Threshold Analysjs section addresses Fjre and Emergency Medjcal
Service (page 186), Police (pages 186 - 187), Traffic (pages 187 - 188), Parks and Recreation
(pages 188 - 189), Water (pages 198 - 190), Drajnage (page 190), Sewer (pages 190 - 191), Ajr
Quality (pages 191 -192), Economics (pages 192 - 193), Schools (page 193) and Libraries (page
194).
Section 5 ofthe SElR contains the "Other Requjred CEQA Sections" as mandated by State law.
These items are Cumulative Impacts (5.1, pages 195 1-99), Growth Inducement (5.2, pages 199-
200) and Significant Irreversjble Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved jn the
Proposed Action Should it be Implemented (5.3, page 200). CEQA requjres that the decision-
makers consider the djscussions in these sections, along wjth the rest of the contents of the SEIR
in making their final decision on the proj ect.
Section 6 of the SEIR is the "Alternative" section which is also mandated by CEQA. The two
alternatives involved are the:
. "No Project" alternative (page 201) which would result in the land be left in an
undeveloped condition; and
. "Development Consistent with the Adopted Plans" which would result in no changes
being adopted for the General Development Plan. The commercial designations would
remajn and the number of dwelling units would jncrease by 90 units from what js
currently proposed.
Also available for your revjew are the appendices Ijsted in the Table of Contents in the SEIR. If
you wish to review any ofthese appendices, please call Marilyn Ponseggi at 585-5707.
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MARIL YN\EASTLAKE\EIRMEMO.WPD