The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2000/09/11 - - . COUNCIL AGENDA STATE1\IENT Item:, / g Meeting Date 09/12/00 ITEM TITLE: Report: Update on the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoXJ SUBMITTED BY: Director o[Planning and Buildingß ( .., v REVIEWED B'Y: City Manager 1~ t" The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive, long term habitat conservation plan which addresses the needs of multiple species and the preservation of natural vegetation communities in South San Diego County. The Subarea Plan for the City of Chula Vista is the policy document through which the South County program is implemented locally. The Subarea Plan will fonn the basis for federal and state pennits to allow development where impacts to sensitive species habitat could occur. City of Chula Vista staff have responded to a variety of issues identified by th~ Wildlife Agencies. A revised Draft Subarea Plan will be brought forward to Council for adoption in October. This report provides Council with an update on activities undertaken to complete the plan, future steps to be taken, and issues being addressed. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the MSCP Update Report. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: A briefing is scheduled for the Resource Conservation Commission on September 11, 2000. Recommendations will be presented to Council at its joint public hearing with the Planning Commission scheduled for October. DISCUSSION: Back~round On August 19, 1999, a City Council workshop was held to review the status of the City's MSCP Subarea PIan. At that time, Planning and Building Department staff reviewed the principles of a draft Subarea Plan which had been forwarded to the Wildlife Agencies (US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department ofFish and Game) for review. /g -I - -" Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 09/12/00 Subsequent to the Council workshop, Planning and Building Department staff and consultant have been working with staff from the WildJife Agencies, as wel1 as other MSCP "stakeholders," to complete a final draft Plan. During this time a number of milestones have occurred. In September, 1999 the City received written comments from the Wildlife Agencies on the City's Draft Subarea Plan. After subsequent revisions to the plan and various meetings with the Agencies to resolve issues, a revised Draft Subarea Plan was issued for public review and comment on February 16,2000. After receipt of several letters of comment, including a joint letter from the Wildlife Agencies, staff prepared responses and amended the draft where appropriate. The City then sponsored a two-day retreat on June 22 and 23 with the Wildlife Agencies to expedite the resolution of a number of major outstanding policy issues. The retreat was attended by key City management staff, Wi1dlife Agency staff, representatives ITom the development community, and environmental interest groups. Each major policy issue was discussed until agreement was "reached. Issues The following is a synopsis of the major issues resolved with the Wildlife Agencies and incorporated in the latest Draft Subarea Plan. 3. Plan Implementation Covered Projects The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan will be implemented principally through "hard-line" project plans. Several large-scale projects are named as "Covered Projects" and will meet MSCP goals through existing or future SPA's and related project documents. These include: Sunbow II Rancho Del Rey (SPA III) Rolling Hills Ranch (Salt Creek Ranch) - conditionally covered Bella Lago - conditionally covered Otay Ranch San Miguel Ranch - upon annexation Coverage for these projects is based on the assured dedication (through a conservation open space easement and/or fee title) of the open space related to each Covered Project, implementation of project-specific mitigation programs, and implementation of preserve management described in the Subarea PIan. Implementing Ordinances In addition to implementing the plans and conditions of Covered Projects, the City has committed to adopting amendments to the City grading ordinance prior to issuance of Take authorization. Restrictions on clearing and grubbing will either be incorporated into the revised grading ordinance, or a separate clearing and grubbing ordinance will be adopted to / r; -~ - .- Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 09/12/00 include regulations on clearing and grubbing of sensitive biological resources. Amending the grading ordinance wi11 ensure that all projects, both within and outside of Covered Project areas, will comply with the requirements of the Subarea Plan. Two new ordinances wi11 also be required to be adopted prior to issuance of Take Authority~ a Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance (HLIT) and Cattle Grazing Abatement Ordinance. The HLIT Ordinance v.:i11 establish mitigation standards and regulate development projects located outside of Covered Projects, which may have an impact on Covered Species and sensitive habitat. The Cattle Grazing Abatement Ordinance will implement the Otay Ranch Range Management Plan. b. University Site A University Site redesign will be incorporated into the Subarea Plan that meets key consistency requirements with the MSCP Subregional Plan previously adopted by the City and County of San Diego. The University redesign m~ets three critical objectives: · the redesign adds approximately 50 acres for University development east of Salt Creek Canyon · the redesign does not result in any new significant environmental impacts · the redesign offers equivalent or better biological value, and · the redesign is consistent with the objectives of Policy Option 2, as described in the MSCP ?ubregional Plan EIRÆIS The University site redesign provides for equal or better preserve design and biological function of the MSCP Preserve by improving conservation through the addition of 92.4 acres of habitat and by providing two significant additional wildlife movement features. By meeting the objectives noted above, the redesign provides additional benefits to conservation and meets the requirements of the MSCP Subregional Plan for adjustments to the boundary of the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (M1IP A) under the "Like or Equivalent" exchange concept. It should be noted that the University Site redesign eliminates a proposed road through Salt Creek Canyon which would have connected the western and eastern parcels. This proposed road raised major concerns by the Wildlife Agencies and environmental groups, and staff agreed to its removal in order to reach resolution on a number of other critical issues related to infrastructure in the Otay Ranch preserve. Staff is convinced that there remain alternative access points to the eastern parcel to allow it to function adequately as part of the overall University Site. c. Special Protections for Narrow Endemic Species The South Bay area includes specific geographic and climatological conditions that support species with limited habitat ranges. The draft Subarea Plan provides for special protections )-:¿--3 - - Page 4, Item: Meeting Date: 09/] 2/00 for these species, referred to as "narrow endemic species," through conditional coverage requirements for Rolling Hil1s Ranch and BeUa Lago, and through the requirement for establishment of an Otay Tarplant Preserve on San Miguel Ranch. Nonetheless, the Wildlife Agencies have indicated through their comments that narrow endemic species require additional measures to ensure that their long-term viability is maintained. At the retreat, agreement between Agencies staff and City staff was reached on the foUowing principles for additional protections to narrow endemic species. Development Areas Development areas within covered projects are authorized for Take of covered habitats and species, including narrow endemic species, by the Subarea Plan. Development arèas located outside of Covered Projects will be required to limit impacts to covered narrow endemic species to 20% of the project area, except as expressly authorized by the Wildlife Agencies pursuant to the Subarea Plan. Preserve Areas Impacts to covered narrow endemic species throughout the Preserve wi]] be limited to 5%, except as expressly authorized by the Wildlife Agencies pursuant to the Subarea Plan. d. Infrastructure The City of Chula Vista has been particularly thoughtful in its effort to plan for the inevitable growth that will occur in this part of the region. The City spent many years in a cooperative planning effort with the County, directing urban development into areas adjacent to existing public infrastructure, to avoid "leap-frog" development, and creating more compact, urban patterns which allows for conservation of larger, inter-connected habitat areas. Having accomplished this planning goal, City staff was concerned that the comments received by the Wildlife Agencies on its Subarea Plan would preclude the ability of the City to insure the extension of the public infrastructure necessary to these communities, which have been planned and designed to support the acquisition and management of the Preserve. At the retreat agreement was reached on designations of Planned Facilities vs. Future Facilities, and an annotated list for the Planned Facilities was reviewed and accepted. Planned Facilities will be permitted fully through Take Authorization pursuant to the Plan, subject only to narrow endemic species restrictions within the Preserve. Impacts to covered species and habitats from Future Facilities will be limited to 2 acres per project, and a cumulative 50 acres, as well as narrow endemic species impact restrictions. e. Otay Valley Regional Park! Active Recreation Areas City staffwas concerned that the comments from the Wildlife Agencies staffwith regard to the active recreation areas designated for the Otay Valley Regional Park would preclude development of these areas as viable recreation sites. The City and Agencies have agreed to work cooperatively together to detennine the final configuration for development of the active recreation areas in the Otay River Valley. The overall acreage to be developed for )~_U '..J I .- ...." -.. - - Page 5, Item: Meeting Date: 09/] 2/00 active recreation uses, now stated within the Plan as 246 acres, will not be reduced. If configuration of the sites must be adjusted to avoid covered narrow endemic species and/or habitat, the overalJ acreage may be increased to the equivalent of the 246 acres in order to insure the City's ability to develop the intended uses, incJuding playing fieJds and other recreational facilities. f. Boundary Adjustments The MSCP Subregional Plan provides that boundary adjustments to the Preserve may be made without amendment of a Subarea Plan, if certain equivaJency findings can be made. Such findings are to be made by the City and must have concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies. Experiences with boundary adjustments in other local jurisdictions which have been brought to our attention, raised concern that the Agencies have not discriminated between mapping refinements and legitimate boundary adjustments, making concurrence to even the smallest of mapping changes an arduous process. At the retreat, Agencies' staff and City staff agreed upon language that differentiates between "mapping conflicts" and "boundary adjustments," and on a process for notifying the Wildlife Agencies. a National Wildlife Refuge e." The Agencies' staff and City staff have agreed to language, to be incorporated into the Subarea Plan text, that will enable the City to fully support the transfer of certain Preserve land, located east ofOtay Reservoir, into the USFWS San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The language will provide that prior to transfer of lands to the USFWS, any easements required to insure construction of infrastructure and trails necessary to support development designated by the City and/or County General Plan will be specifically incorporated into related transfer documents. b. Preserve Management Studies City staff has agreed to undertake two special studies related to preserve management: a baseline biological survey for the City's central preserve, and completion of the Otay Valley Management Study discussed with Council at the August 19, 1999 MSCP workshop. The primary purpose of both studies will be to define biological management "functional units" for these two preserve areas, and to determine on which species and/or habitats the management in a particular biological functional unit will focus. i. Preserve Funding Assembly of the Chula Vista Preserve does not rely on public acquisition of private property. The Preserve system will be acquired through the entitlement process and/or pursuant to agreements between landowners and Wildlife Agencies. If land acquisition funding does become available, the City may elect to acquire land to add to the Preserve. Management of the Preserve will be funded through various sources. The MSCP )g-5 - - Page 6, Item: Meeting Date: 09/] 2/00 Subregional Plan estimates an average per acre management cost of$50 (year 2000 dollars), adjusted annuaUy for inflation. Consistent with the ImpJementing Agreements (contractual agreements granting take permit authority) of the County and City of San Diego, the Chula Vista ImpJementing Agreement will commit the City to management activities in the Preserve not-to-exceed $SO/acre. Additional management activities may be undertaken by the City, and staff has committed that the City wilJ seek other funding to augment this budget. Such additional funding may incJude grants, support of a regionaJ Preserve Management funding program, or other resources not known of at this time. Schedule for Plan Adoption and Issuance of Take Authoritv The Draft Subarea Plan has been rewritten to reflect the above points of agreement. A Draft Implementing Agreement (lA) has been completed by the City Attorney, and a draft Addendum to the MSCP EIR/EIS has been completed by the Planning Department. An application for a USFWS 1 O(a) 1 (b) pennit has also been prepared, and will be forwarded to the Agencies with the Plan, IA and Addendum. The following outlines staff s understanding of the remainder of the process that will lead to the issuance of Take permit authority from the Wildlife Agencies to the City: September, 2000 Submittal of final Plan, LA., Addendum and application for Take permit authority to the Wildlife Agencies October 17, 2000 Joint Planning Commission/City Council bearing to consider adoption of the final Subarea Plan and Addendum October- City Attorney negotiation with USFWS Solicitor re: Implementing November 2000 Agreement. Preparation of Draft Findings and Biological Opinion by USFWS staff. November- Publication of Federal Register Notice (30 day comment period) December 2000 January 2001 Issuance of Take Authority to City FISCAL IMP ACT: None at this time. Fiscal impacts will be addressed when the Plan is forwarded for Council action. Attachment: MSCP Subarea Plan Map (H:\HOME\PLANNING\DUANE\AGENDA statement update 9-12.DOC) )6-h -!. I <:> 8 III GI r~ StilL .... c: III I T ! L I o A." ø !i A.Î .æ f' ~ . 8 .- JO .a J :II' 0 J IJ'~ W II j 'I~, J + 8~ ~ · ¡ 0 fl o~, > · ~ :li!J ,~ ~ H .~ ~~ ~ U · ~ 0 -. " r · oBi .. ! ~o °õ Õ.2 ! · ~ c' ¡ ~'.! i! <:> ë3 A. GlA. iõ 'I ° & ¡"US ~ en ~ .tl I Gll EuSA. I , i ~s ~~ ~~ i Jill , u = nhUU !UE ~ A.. .. ~ 0 IHEJ III III ~ II !I 1/ A. l I ~ I ~ i J ¡ ! ~ = , c & I t if!!! c: ~:::¡. c 1 r=;;: il].!fdii¡ 1-- ... I ~ J ~ · ~ j ¡ ß I 1 .",;", i i ~ I i I ~ 8 ~ â ~ , "C »!l!-!J~~.j C';'; &ei&.3......:I:I ) j ~~ ;¡ ~~DD.I.D --{ I ;" - ~,J r-- " .95~ ~ f-L- .....-- I A "'~ II .. r.... rv, ~. , II ........ r{¡ !J-r --~ =- , ,/f ...L-L I -=-,¿ ~ ( L:. I E:!!!.F Ä ./ I J ,., ~ ft"lf 1/-- j I c' . ~%i Z?..r ~ '0 - I! -- -1 r;1!\ _____ [) µ ~, .", ~ , 1 I "- ~ 1''' d" {' 1 ~ """" , ÔJ \. ,. -"- \ ~ " ~ '" ,'" -'< 1 ( __1 r I ~ ,,~ ,,'~~ ».... . l 111 ~, :x _ I ~ ' "f{ ì¿:l~t .. ~ ~ ~ 1'8 ,'" I I --'I' ~a t" ., 'i~ i '¡ L- ,I / [t¡, =- '! CD..~ ~ _I _ . - - h! I' L A. CD ..... -Y '" ,_ "" ~ .. .::::\"... ¡ '-. ~~ J ,.~~~ II p~ I ~ :E.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,!'! ~~~~:è" [ I CD C !tÇ,;.(j "",\>\.. _'" ~ I .. . .... ... L' ' · C 8 ~ ~-;:J '::: ~ ~~ «:\ U '~ .- CD 'I ~ ~, ~\\ _ - ,! ~\" I ~ > A. "I~ ""'~, '~' ~,~ i Â~ .,,' ~'" 'f ~ .! .... .... --. ~ ,\\-j, fi ~,- ~ ! .c CD '~~ ¿~ L let . i U ~ '1", . . 1 CD ¡ , ,'" ex ~ "" , '---' .... CD ~ ~~. ~'. 'I("..n ~ ~ -~', - I I 0 ~ I' I,.... œ ~' 1.:< I .,;- J2 : '") ~, i ' ..) II ~1!5~ It _ Ua I - W ~ sf i I u . ~ -~ ~~- . ~ . I \ AA~_ .' . -~- , L