Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2002/09/26 ~\f?- -,-: -- ~~~ em OF CHUlA VI~TA DcpartIncnt of Planning and Bu.ilding Date: September 26, 2002 To: City of Chula Vista Resource Conservation Commission Via: Marilyn RF Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator A-~ From: Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager \r Subject: Responses to Oral Communications Presented by Otay Land Company (OLC) on July 1,2002 Over the last several months, we have encountered substantial confusion, misunderstandings and misstatements about the history and the substance of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) Preserve Conveyance Plan, The goal of this memo is to elarily the history, the racts and the ISSUeS, On July 1,2002, ML Jon Rilling (Otay Land Company. LLC) spoke to the RCC ullder oral communications. The focus of his presentation relatcd specilically 10 cOll\eyancc plan and 111l' method in which it was being implemcntclL The main issLles presented by:vlr Rilling arc prO\ldcd below (in bold), Responses and clarifications provided hy the City are provided after each issue, OLC ISSUE: City has unilaterally approved a conveyance plan that is lIot in effect. Response: In February 1998, the Otay Ranch Company rcquested both the City or Chula Vista and County of San Diego Planning Depm1ments to amend the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan and expand the preserve conveyance area, County staff mcmbers were notified ofthe request and the matter was discussed with them on several occasions prior to the City's action to approve the proposed amendments, On July I, 1998, the County ßoard orSupervisors Otay Ranch Subcommittee was briekd 11\ County Planning staff regarding the ract that the Chula Vista City Coullcil had approved thc proposed amendments, and that the lIS Fish and \Vild1ICc SCT\'icc and C~¡\ljÒrnii.1 rkV~¡rtIllL'111 of Fish and Cìamc had IT\'ie\vcd and supported the proposed amendments. On April 28, 1999, Robert CappeL Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for the Countv, recommcnded that the Goard or Super\ Isors accepl the' ,kcllcatilJll DC land \\ Ithln 11m I expanded conveyance area in conjunction with approval of an allocation of "coastal sage scrub loss allotment" to the Otay Ranch Company and City ofChula Vista, In his report to the Board of Supervisors, Copper wrote "the City ofChula Vista and County Department of Planning and Land Use are preparing amendments to the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve Conveyancc Plan (part of the Resource Management Plan, Phase 2), anticipated 10 be heard by the Board of Supcrvisors in late June 1999," The Board 01' SupenlSors acted 011 Ihe recomlllcndation and approved the requested al1ocation of coastal sage scrub credIts Subsequent to the City's action to approvc the proposed RMP amendments, proper1y owners began to convey land within the expandcd conveyance area to the City through irrevocable offers of dedication (10Ds), Prior to accepting any of these 10Ds, they were forwarded to County staff for their review and approval, and each of the 10Ds was signed ami accepted by County staff prior to being accepted by the CiW This practice continued until the City and County werc notifìed in latc 2001 by another Otay Ranch property owner that the Counly had never approved the 1998 amendments, and questions were raised regardIng the appropriateness of accepting the rODs for the expanded conveyance area Since that time, the City and County staffs have worked together to resolve the Issues resuiting from the Llct that the County statTnever followed through in bringing forward the proposed amcndments to its Planning Commission and Board olSupcn]sors On August 7, 2002. the County Board 01 Supervisors approved illl ;.!nlcndmcI11 10 the Rcsollrcc ;\1,magcmcnt PL1n conslstcnt \v1111 the amcndmcnt approvcd b}' ¡]ll' CII\' 111 ] \)<)i) OLC ISSUE: County nevcr acted Ion the conveyance amendment! and "as actually misled I" a fcw statcments by City staff membcrs that are on the County Planning Commission transcript on pages 2] and 34. Response: When the status of this proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Resource :vLtnagemenll'¡dn was discussed with the County Planning Commission in Septemher ] 999. Rick RosalcL Principal Planner for the City of' Chula Vista. along with several starT memhers tì'om Ihc County Depanment of Planning and Land Usc. addressed qucslions regarding the status oj' the Otay Raneh Resource Management Plan, and amendments to that plan that had been approved by the City in 1998 but had not yet becn acted on by the Countv, rv1r Rosaler ne\'er indicated that the City had any intention of acting unilaterally \\]th regard to thesl' alllendlllt'nts, and in fact County staIT\\'<ls cont!llulIlg to mcet and correspond \\lIh C\l~/ SL.¡jj on a regular basis regarding the status of proc\..'SSlIl~ or ¡11L' pr,)po:;('d JI1~('llllllh..·!'t,-; )1\ th COllnty, 0 - OLC ISSUE: The policy in the RMP states that the County and City have to act jointly to approve any amendments to the conveyance plan. And when they do thaI, it has 10 be in conjunction with the specific plan. Response: As we move forward on the implementation of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan more detailed planning has resulting in the need to revisit aspects of the RMP, Implementation of the RMP is very complex and as we proceed on implementation, refinements to the various processes addressed in the RMP are being evaluated Although the RMP, as a policy document, lays out some of the proccsses for amcndments, it contains conflicting policies on this subJecL \\ 11Ich result III amblgultv With the activation of the POM City and County staff are contlnumg to work on resolving these ambiguities and inconsistencies so that in the 1~lture the process l'or amendments by both jurisdictions is cleareL OLC ISSUE: When the City ofChula Vista approved the plan in 1998, they did so because the original developers (Baldwin and the Otay Ranch Company) stated that they didn't have the abilily to dedicate open space to a preserve. However, thev had a discounted pav offagreemelll that gave them the ability to buy back open space from the Estate. Response: According to the Otay Ranch Company, the agreement hetween Baldwin and the Estate did not give Baldwin "an option." "the right" or "the ability" to purchase open space lí'om the Estate, but rather the agreement acknowledged the opportunity to "negotiate in good faith" the sale of approximately ISO acre of open space land somewhere in tbe westem portion ofOtay RanclL According to the Otay Ranch Company the negotiations failed The McMillin Companies also testifïed before the County Planning Commission that they had tried to acquire open space from the Estate during the same time period, McMillin's offer to purchase open space was not accepted by the Estate, At that time, the Estate prefelTecl to sell their entire holdings of approximately 5.(J(JO acres, rather than just their open space areas. 0 -) OLC ISSUE: Otay Land Company are ready and willing sellers of initial conveyance land to satisfy the obligations ofthe RlVIP 1 and 2. That is a very strong issue in our compan~' because we initially took control ofthe property with the intention of buying excess mitigation to sell to other developers. Response: On June 8, 1998, the City ofChula Vista City Council held a public hearing and approved an amendment to the RlVIP 2 to expand the conveyance plan area, At that time, the Estate owned a portion of the land within Salt CreeL Representatives of' the Estate were present and participated at this public hearing, Otay Land Company then purchased the Estate's propeny (which included portions of' Salt Creek) three months aftcr Chula Vista adopted the I ()')S Conveyance plan amendmcnt Otay Land Company is a parly to a Development Agreement with the City of' Chula Visla which requires that Otay Land Company to "comply with any existing or yet to be adopted Preserve Conveyance Plan," In addition, the Development Agreement clearly states that the RlVIP I and RMP 2 "may be amended from time to time," This language not only demonstrates that the City of Chula Vista has reserved the right adopt and amend the conveyance plan, but that the Otay Land Company is contractually bound to comply with any amendments to the plan. OLC ISSUE: Habitat in Salt Creek is not being dedicated. It's still one of the most valuable resources in the City. Response: Salt Creek is just one of' live "keystone" parcels, or important hahitat areas, Identified in tk 1993 Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan adopted by the City Council and the Board 01 Supervisors, The others are: · A vernal pool area on the Otay Mesa · Riparian restoration areas in the Otay Rivcr Valley · Gnatcatcher population areas in Central Proctor Valley · Gnatcatcher population areas in San Ysidro Mountain These areas were aJ] vic\\'ed as being or high importance to the slate and federal \,¡Idllle' agencies, and no further ranking of conveyance prÌorttlcs was adopted at that tlllll' Additionally, the City continues to enforce the obligation to convey open space, Consistent with the requirements of'the RMP. the property Q\\ners arc allowed to de\ clop 1'1JllL and In exchange they arc required to con\'Cy" habitat land in one O!'thl' jJ\'t.' key'stone p,-II"CL'b Into IlìL' 'I preserve, Concurrent with the development of SP A One, property owners have conveyed keystone parcels, which have included gnateateher habitat in Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Mountain. As noted above, the habitat in Salt Creek, Proctor Valley and San Y sidro is Coastal Sage shrub was all detemlined to be of high value in the initial Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, and subsequently biological reports do not dispute these conclusions, Additionally, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan restricts the use of all the land within Salt Creek to open space-related land uses, and 341 acres of Salt Creek have already been set aside in perpetuity to the City by the developer of Village 11 The Citv of ('hula Vista has also entered into an agreement with Otay Ranch Company and Otay Land Company to facilitate acquisition of all the remaining property in Salt Creek, SUMMARY: In summary, the plan for conserving open space in Otay Ranch is not being diluted or jeopardized, but is being fully implemented by the City and County, as ref1eeted by the recent action of the Board of Supervisors to approve the amendments to the Resource Management Plan consistent with the amendments approved by the City in 1998, To date, the City and County have aClJulred over 1,700 acres of the 11,375 acres of open space planned in the Otay Ranch, and this latest acquisition of the Salt Creek area will bring the total to over 2,000 acres, The City is proud of our accomphshments III this area, and hope that these explanations clarify several of the issues that have been distorted over the past several months, 5 Conservation Banking California, with the support of the US Department of Interior, has developed a new initiative for protecting endangered species and enabling development As a comprehensive "ecosystem" approach, entire natural systems will be protected, This will simultaneously ensure survival of not only threatened and endangered species, but all other interdependent species in the area, This Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) process requires developers, environmentalists, state and local governmental agencies to voluntarily agree on which specific areas will be preserved and which will be developed, Such certainty is very valuable to both development and environmental interests because it provides predictability on sensitive species issues. Once habitat areas are designated and mapped, developers know they can build outside the preserve even if their land has at risk species on it Environmentalists know biological assessments have taken place and that sufficient land will be set aside in permanently protected habitats to ensure the viability of all the species inhabiting those areas. BankAmerica became interested in NCCP because some repossessed properties had important ecological value. We believed that conservation was their highest and best use. However, no easy mechanism existed to achieve that value, BankAmerica, together with several major Southern California landowners and conservation groups, submitted a proposal to the California Resources Agency recommending that a fÌamework be established for Conservation Banking, With required approvals, this concept would allow landowners of all sizes who own ecologically valuable land to place their property in a conservation bank and receive value for doing so, When other parties wish to develop their property but regulatory agencies have imposed conditions requiring them to provide comparable habitat areas as a condition of approval, they may buy "credits" from the conservation bank Conservation banking provides remuneration for landowners who might otherwise have difficulty developing ecologically valuable land. Also, it allows a quicker and easier method of mitigation for developers. And conservation banking enables financing of preservation areas in cases where often the only other alternative is acquisition by a public agency at taxpayer expense. Such purchases are increasingly difficult in this era of fiscal constraints, Conservation groups support it because its use is envisioned mainly where regional biological planning, such as NCCP, has already taken place, Therefore, a conservation bank acquisition fits into a larger species protection plan to which all parties have agreed. For more information on how to create a Conservation Bank, a catalog of active Conservation Banks in California is available online through the California Resources Agency CERES and write to Andy McLeod, Office of the Secretary, The Resources Building, Sacramento, CA 95814. Bank of America, N.A. Member FDIC. Equal Housing Lender © 2002 Bank of America Corporation. All rights reserved, CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION BANKING Conservation Banking A conservation bank generally provides threatened and endangered species habitat that is permanently protected and managed for its natural resource values. In order to satisfy the legal requirement for mitigation of environmental impacts from a development, a developer can buy habitat credits from a conservation bank, or in the case of wetlands, a mitigation bank. Conservation banks must be approved by the resource agencies, such as the Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mitigation Banking Mitigation banking is the same concept as conservation banking, but is specifically for wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement undertaken to compensate for unavoidable wetland losses. Use of mitigation bank credits must occur in advance of development, when the compensation cannot be achieved at the development site or would not be as environmentally beneficial. Mitigation banking helps to consolidate small, fragmented wetland mitigation projects into one large contiguous site which will have a much higher wildlife habitat value, Conservation and Mitigation Banking Policies State's Official Policy for Establishing a Conservation Bank Lands Not Acceptable for Conservation and Mitigation Banking Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Bank Conservation and Mitigation Banking Procedures Process for Developing a Conservation Bank Conservation Bank Implementing Agreement Checklist Conservation and Mitigation Banking Agreement Review Process Department of Fish and Game Contacts for Conservation/Mitigation Banking Brief Report on Conservation Banking A Catalogue of Conservation Banks in California: Innovative Tools for Natural Resource Management Federal Conservation Banks Page California Environmental Resouces Evaluation System Page Revised: Tuesday, 16-0ct-01 13:50:09 http://www.d fg.ca, gov/hcpb/conplan/mitbank/mitbank.shtml ~v~ ¡,-/, :~- :: ----- ~_:E~~ CITY OF CHUIA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER September 4, 2002 Jim Holman, Editor San Diego Reader 1703 India Street San Diego, CA 92101-2517 Dear ML Holman: This letter is in response to your August 8, 2002 article" Promise-Breakers" by Nancy Fay. Unfortunately, your reporter did not get the facts straight in this terribly disjointed and misleading article. 1, It is not true that proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan would have resulted in the loss of open space in the Salt Creek area; and 2, It is not true that the City of Chula Vista had unilaterally changed the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan in 1998, and had not consulted with the County of San Diego prior to accepting properties within an expanded open space conveyance area, With regard to the first misconception, that there was some risk that the Salt Creek parcels would not be conserved, the facts are as follows: 1, Salt Creek is just one of five "keystone" parcels, or important habitat areas, identified in the 1993 Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan adopted by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors, The others are: · A vernal pool area on the Otay Mesa · Riparian restoration areas in the Otay River Vallêy · Gnatcatcher population areas in Central Proctor Valley · Gnatcatcher population areas in San Ysidro Mountain These areas were all viewed as being of high importance to the state and federal wildlife agencies, and no further ranking of conveyance priorities was adopted at that time, 2. The City continues to enforce the obligation to convey open space. The "deal" is still the same; Otay Ranch Company (and now McMillin, Brookfield, and other property owners) are allowed to develop land, and in exchange they are required to convey habitat land in one of the five keystone parcels into the preserve, 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910, (619) 691<5031' (619) 409-5884 g?;. Po',: ~>:N¡rTII'r r~r~'::'r'r'I,:rj P,lPI'1 Jim Holman, Editor September 4, 2002 Page 2 3. The "substituted other land-further away and with less value" conveyed by the Otay Ranch Company involved keystone parcels of gnatcatcher habitat in Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Mountain, As noted above, the habitat in Salt Creek, Proctor Valley and San Ysidro is Coastal Sage shrub was all determined to be of high value in the initial Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, and subsequently biological reports do not dispute these conclusions. 4, The Otay Ranch General Development Plan restricts the use of all the land within Salt Creek to open space-related land uses, and 341 acres of Salt Creek have already been set aside in perpetuity to the City by the developer of Village 11. All the remaining open space in Salt Creek will be required to be conveyed to the Preserve Owner Manager as further development in Otay Ranch occurs, With regard to the second issue, suggesting that the City of Chula Vista had acted without the knowledge or concurrence of the County of San Diego in this matter, the facts are as follows: 1, Otay Ranch Company requested both the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego Planning Departments to amend the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan in February 1998, several months before the City Planning Commission and City Council approved the request County staff members were notified of the request and the matter was discussed with them on several occasions prior to the City's action to approve the proposed amendments, 2, On July 1, 1998, the County Board of Supervisors Otay Ranch Subcommittee was briefed by County Planning staff regarding the fact that the Chula Vista City Council had approved the proposed amendments, and that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game had reviewed and supported the proposed amendments. 3, On April 28, 1999, Robert Copper, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for the County, recommended that the Board of Supervisors accept the dedication of land within this expanded conveyance area in conjunction with approval an allocation of "coastal sage scrub loss allotment" to the Otay Ranch Company and City of Chula Vista. In his report to the Board of Supervisors, Copper wrote that "the City of Chula Vista and County Department of Planning and Land Use are preparing amendments to the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve Conveyance Plan (part of the Resource Management Plan, Phase 2), anticipated to be heard by the Board of Supervisors in late June 1999," The Board of Supervisors acted on the recommendation and approved the requested allocation of coastal sage scrub credits. 4, When the status of this proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan was discussed with the County Planning Commission in September 1999, Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner for the City of Chula Vista, along with several staff members from the County Department of Planning and Land Use, CITY OF CHULA VISTA Jim Holman, Editor September 4, 2002 Page 3 addressed questions regarding the status of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, and amendments to that plan that had been approved by the City in 1998 but had not yet been acted on by the County, Mr. Rosaler never indicated that the City had any intention of acting unilaterally with regard to these amendments, and in fact County staff was continuing to meet and correspond with City staff on a regular basis regarding the status of processing of the proposed amendments by the County. 5, Subsequent to the City's action to approve the proposed RMP amendments, property owners began to convey land within the expanded conveyance area to the City through irrevocable offers of dedication (I OD's). Prior to accepting any of these 10D's, they were forwarded to County staff for their review and approval, and each of the 10D's was siqned and accepted by County staff prior to being accepted by the City, This practice continued until the City and County were notified in late 2001 by another Otay Ranch property owner that the County had never approved the 1998 amendments, and questions were raised regarding the appropriateness of accepting the 10D's for the expanded conveyance area, Since that time, the City and County staffs have been working together to resolve the issues resulting from the fact that the Cou nty staff never followed through in bringing forward the proposed amendments to its Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, In summary, the plan for conserving open space in Otay Ranch is not being "thrown away," but is being fully implemented by the City and County, as reflected by the recent action of the Board of Supervisors to approve the amendments to the Resource Management Plan that were approved by the City in 1998, while at the same time the City of Chula Vista entered into an agreement with Otay Ranch Company and Otay Land Company to facilitate acquisition of all the remaining property in Salt Creek. To date, the City and County have acquired over 1,700 acres of the 11,375 acres of open space planned in the Otay Ranch, and this latest acquisition will bring the total to over 2,000 acres, We are proud of our accomplishments in this area, and hope that you will check your facts more closely in the future prior to publishing articles that distort this record unnecessarily and unfairly, -- Sincerely, Ø~~~¡ David D. Rowlands, JL City Manager cc: Supervisor Greg Cox Randy Goodson CAO Walt Ekard Bob Leiter Mayor and City Council Ann Moore Michael Beck Kim Kilkenny CITY OF CHULA VISTA City of Chula Vista Recent Environmental Accomplishments Related to Planning and Development Review (Prepared by Planning and Building Department - September 2002) Energy Conscrvation and Air Quality Improvement 0 An Air Quality Improvement and Encrgy Conservation Pilot Program was completed, and Air Quality Improvement Plans were adopted for Eastlake III, Otay Ranch Village 6, and Otay Ranch Village 11, containing new energy conservation measures, and leading to the development of guidelines for future projects. 0 The Building Division is implementing Energy Conscrvation under Titlc 24 of the Unifom1 Building Code, and is providing expedited processing of projects meeting certain energy conservation criteria, The City has received State rccognition for its efforts in this arca, 0 The Building Division has implemented a streamlined building pennit process for the installation of solar panels, 0 A "Neighborhood Electric Vchicle" pilot program is being conductcd in Otay Ranch starting on September 14. 0 Planning Division staff has developed a proposed Transportation Demand Management Program for Eastern Chula Vista, and has rcquested grant funding from San Diego County Air Pollution Control District to fund thc implementation of this program, Open Space and Habitat Conservation 0 The City has received 341 acres ofprescrve as part of the dedication of the University Site, and has recently entered into an agrcement with developers to acquire 440 acres in the Salt Creek Arca of Otay Ranch, Thcse acquisitions will bring the total amount land conserved in the Otay Ranch Preserve to over 2,000 acres. . Approximately 200 acres of open space, including 48 acres of Otay Tarplant, was preserved in San Miguel Ranch, 0 Approximatcly 15 acres of wetland habitat were created as part of the Poggi Canyon Creek restoration project, which was implcmented in conjunction with construction of Olympic Parkway, 0 Approximately 58 acres of native habitat restoration occurred within Otay Ranch, . A 3-acre native habitat nursery has been cstablished in Otay Ranch. The plants from the nursery are being uscd to rcvegetatc portions of thc Otay Ranch preserve, Water Conservation . A Water Conservation Pilot Program was completed, and Water Conservation Plans were adopted for EastLake III, Otay Ranch Village Six and Otay Ranch Village Eleven, providing additional water conservation measures for these proj ects, and leading to the dcvelopmcnt of water conservation guidelines for future projects, 2