HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1995/06/12COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 6/13/95
TEEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Plan and Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~~~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_No~
The City of San Diego has released the draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for
public review. Our staff has completed a preliminary review of the Plan, and has also solicited
public input regarding the draft Plan. The following report contains City staff comments
regarding the draft Plan and EIR/EIS, as well as comments received from property owners and
the Resource Conservation Commission, and a status report regarding major unresolved issues.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the attached draft
letters to the City of San Diego regarding the draft MSCP Plan and EIR/EIS.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission met on May 8 and May 22, and made numerous
comments on the draft MSCP Plan (see Attachments N and O). Staff has incorporated the
majority of these comments in the draft letters discussed below. However, several other RCC
comments will be further reviewed with the Commission at its meeting on June 12, in order to
clarify the RCC's position on these issues, and any additional comments will be forwarded to
Council at your meeting on June 13.
The Planning Commission received a staff briefing on the MSCP at its meeting on May 24;
however, no formal action or recommendations were provided at that time.
DISCUSSION:
On March 28, staff provided the City Council with a Council Agenda Statement which included
an executive stttnmary of the draft MSCP Plan, and discussed the review process for the Plan
and EIR/EIS. Since that time, City staff has been involved in extensive review of the draft Plan.
In addition, our staff has been working with MSCP Program staff from the Ciry of San Diego,
as well as staff from the other participating jurisdictions (primarily San Diego County, Poway,
and Santee), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) to identify and attempt to resolve major issues which have been raised in our
review of the draft Plan. Staff provided Council with a status report regarding these issues for
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 6/13/95
your meeting of May 23, and Council agreed that staff should return to Council at a public
hearing on June 13, with final written comments regarding the draft Plan and EIR/EIS, while
also providing an opportunity for obtaining additional public comments.
Staff has now prepared the attached draft letters to the City of San Diego regarding the draft
MSCP Plan and draft EIR/EIS (see Attachments A and B). The following report discusses the
major issues which are addressed in those letters, as well as indicating the status of resolution
of [hose issues. In preparing these letters, we have incorporated comments received from
various City departments, property owners, the Resource Conservation Commission, and outside
agencies (see Attachments C through O).
In addition, the MSCP Policy Cotttmittee, which includes elected officials from all participating
jurisdictions, including Mayor Horton, met on June 2, and reviewed a set of draft policy
statements establishing principles to be incorporated in the final draft Plan (see Attachment P).
The Policy Committee conceptually approved several of these principles, while action on certain
others was deferred until additional information could be provided. These policy statements
have been referenced in several of our comments regarding the draft Plan and EIR/EIS.
Given the number of maior unresolved issues we are recommendine that the Citv Council
authorize us to reouest additional time to resolve these issues prior to comnletton of the final
EIR/EIS for the MSCP Plan If additional time is not provided to resolve these tssues. the Ctty
would need to consider other alternatives which are discussed at the end of thts report.
MAJOR ISSUES REGARDING DRAFT MSCP PLAN
The following is a summary of the major issues which are addressed in our draft letter regarding
the draft MSCP Plan:
1) Preserve Desien
In November 1994, the City Council endorsed a draft "Multi-habitat Planning Area"
(MHPA) map for evaluation in the draft MSCP Plan and EIR. The MHPA map was
prepared by staff of the participating local jurisdictions, and depicted a 164,000 acre
regional preserve system that was generally consistent with adopted local general plans
and specific plans. In preparing our input into this MHPA map, our staff relied on the
existing City General Plan (i.e., "open space" designations on the Land Use Diagram)
as well as adopted General Development Plans, Sectional Planning Area Plans, Resource
Management Plans, and tentative maps, to determine specific geographic areas to be
considered for inclusion within the MHPA boundary.
In reviewing the draft MSCP Plan, which is based on the MHPA boundary,
representatives of both USFWS and CDFG have once again indicated that there are
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 6/13/95
several specific locations in the draft Plan where the proposed "preserve design" (i.e.,
location and configuration of areas to be included within a permanent habitat preserve)
is inadequate to meet the requirements for protection of proposed covered species,
including the California Gnatcatcher (see Attachments C and D).
Otay Ranch
The wildlife agencies have specifically indicated that there are deficiencies with regard
to the proposed preserve design of Otay Ranch, and that these deficiencies are so
significant as to make the overall regional plan unacceptable. In discussions with
USFWS and CDFG regarding the issues addressed in this letter, City staff has taken the
position that the preserve design should reflect the City's adopted plans, and that the
City's plan review and environmental review process, which was based upon expert
testimony and scienti5c studies (e.g., wildlife corridor studies), has included extensive
consideration of preserve design issues.
City and County staff have now held three meetings with County staff, the project
applicant, and the wildlife agencies to discuss these issues. While the wildlife agencies
have suggested that there may be opportunities for the Federal and State governments to
provide assistance in acquiring certain key areas which they have deemed to be essential
to the preserve system, they have not varied from their positions that development areas
south and east of Lower Otay Lake, major portions of the resort area, and development
areas in the southern portion of Proctor Valley should be preserved and the approved
Otay Ranch General Development Plan should be modified to delete development from
these areas. This position is similar to the position transmitted to the City Council
during the public review period on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
Environmental Impact Report.
City and County staff have continued to take the position that the Otay Ranch Plan, both
on its own merits and in the context of the overall regional habitat plan contained in the
MSCP, is adequate to protect key core populations of California gnatcatchers, and that
other site-specific species issues have been adequately dealt with through Plan
requirements, fmdings of fact, and mitigation measures. Given the significance to the
overall Otay Ranch Plan of the changes proposed by the wildlife agencies (which staff
has estimated could eliminate up to 3,651 dwelling units and various other major project
components including most of the resort village) and given the significance which the
wildlife agencies have placed on resolving the issues pertaining to Otay Ranch, staff feels
that it would be productive to continue discussions with the wildlife agencies to attempt
to resolve these issues. However, it should be recognized that continued negotiations
will require a further extension of the deadline for revisions to the draft MSCP Plan,
which the City of San Diego has currently set for June 22. Therefore, staff is
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 6/13/95
recommending that we request additional time to allow for continued negotiations
regarding Otay Ranch preserve design issues.
San Miguel Ranch
Another key component of the proposed preserve system in the Chula Vista General Plan
Area is San Miguel Ranch. The draft MSCP Plan designates the entire Northern Parcel
of San Miguel Ranch within the MHPA boundary, and also designates portions of the
Southern parcel within the MHPA. However, it should be recognized that the property
owner (Emerald Properties) will be requesting consideration by the City Council of a
General Plan Amendment which would allow for transfer of density credits (up to 357
dwelling units) from the Northern Parcel to the Southern Parcel, which would potentially
have a substantial impact on the overall design and character of the currently approved
San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan.
The issues pertaining to this transfer will be evaluated through processing of a General
Plan Amendment, General Development Plan Amendment, and Sectional Planning Area
Plan which are currently being initiated by Emerald Properties. However, it should be
recognized at this time that the City has made no commitment toward approval of such
density transfers, and that this matter needs to be further evaluated in the context of an
MSCP Subarea Plan (see discussion below) and further processing of this project.
Other MHPA Boundary Issues
In addition to the issues described above regarding Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch,
staff has received comments on several other site-specific issues regarding the draft
MHPA boundary:
1) Eastlake Development Company has raised concerns regarding the designation of
a portion of Salt Creek through its property within the MHPA boundary. This
project has not gone through SPA-level planning analysis, and there are legitimate
concerns raised by Eastlake regarding the applicability of an MHPA boundary
designation in this area (see Attachment E). Based on our review of this
information, City staff concurs that this area could be deleted from the preserve
area boundaries, although it is recognized that the approved General Development
Plan calls for park improvements along Salt Creek in conformance with the City's
Greenbelt concept.
2) Otay Water District has requested that its "use parcel" north of Salt Creek Ranch
be removed from the MHPA boundary, in that a portion of it is planned for
future expansion of water district facilities, and the remainder is designated for
preservation through the State's Natural Community Conservation Program,
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 6/13/95
which is viewed by the District as a different type of preserve designation (see
Attachment F).
3) James Algert, representing owners of property adjacent to San Miguel Ranch, has
raised concerns about the MHPA designation of properties adjacent to San Migue]
Ranch (see Attachment G).
4) The owners of the Dauz-Gorman parcel located on Telegraph Canyon Road
adjacent to Otay Ranch, as well as owners of properties located southwest of the
Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch, have raised concerns regarding the City's
"Open Space" designation in the General Ptan for their properties, and we would
anticipate that they would have similar concerns regarding the corresponding
designation within the draft MHPA boundary.
In addition to these site-specific issues, there was also a general concern raised by several
City departments and property owners regarding the use of a "100% preserve area"
designation, due to the fact that this would provide no flexibility regarding placement of
utility facilities, roadways, or other modifications which may be required at the project
level of analysis. There are also specific concerns regarding "buffer requirements"
contained in the draft Plan, which could place further land use restrictions on areas
located outside of and adjacent to the proposed preserve areas. Finally, there are also
concerns regarding the specific listing of "compatible land uses" in preserve areas and
buffer areas, which in certain cases may not be
City's "open space" designation in the General
Summary -Preserve Design Issues
consistent with uses permitted under the
Plan.
Based on the various issues and concerns raised above regarding the draft MHPA
boundary, and the status of our analysis of these issues, staff at this time is
recommending the following approach be taken in the revised draft MSCP Plan:
1) Areas which have already been placed in preserve ownership, or which already
have SPA Plan, Resource Management Plan, or equivalent level of approval,
would be given a "90% preserve area" designation;
2) Areas which have not received SPA Plan level approval, but for which draft
conservation agreements are currently being prepazed, would be placed in a
category entitled "future 90% preserve azeas," and would be redesignated as
"90% preserve areas" once written agreements among the wildlife agencies, City,
and property owners are obtained (only the San Miguel Ranch project area falls
into this category at this time);
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 6/13/95
3) Areas which are designated in the City's General Plan as "open space," but which
do not meet the criteria above, will be designated as "special study areas," and
their designations will be refined through further analysis to be conducted at the
subarea plan level to determine the extent of resources to be protected and the
feasibility of acquisition;
4) Areas which are designated as "open space" in the General Plan, but where it has
already been determined that the area is not appropriate for inclusion in a habitat
preserve system due to its isolated location or other non-preserve use, will be
removed from the MHPA boundary at this time.
Attached is a map which shows these revised designations (see Attachment Q).
2) Subarea Plans
As discussed above, the draft MSCP Plan includes a Multiple Habitat Planning Area map
which provides generalized designations of areas which would be placed into a regional
preserve system. However, the wildlife agencies have indicated that, in order for them
to provide local jurisdictions with authority to issue individual petmits pursuant to the
Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, and specifically in order to receive permit
authority for Coastal Sage Scrub habitat loss in accordance with the State Natural
Community Conservation Program, it will also be necessary to prepare "subarea plans"
for each local jurisdiction. These subarea plans would provide greater detail regarding
preserve design configuration, adjacent land uses, and other detailed planning issues. It
had originally been our understanding that these more detailed plans could be prepared
subsequent to the adoption of the MSCP Plan, and that there would not be any further
environmental documents necessary for adoption of these implementation plans.
However, subsequent to the release of the draft MSCP, we were notified that in order
to be able to use the EIR/EIS for the adoption of a local subarea plan, it would be
necessary for the subarea plan to be included in the final draft MSCP Plan. In addition,
the USFWS and CDFG have just recently provided the local jurisdictions with a specific
listing of the required contents of a subarea plan, and it appears that these subarea plans
could require preparation of a significant amount of additional documentation, and will
also require more direct input from affected property owners.
We have already begun discussions with two of the major property owners within our
General Plan area (Baldwin Company, majority owner of Otay Ranch, and Emerald
Properties, owner of San Miguel Ranch) regarding the process and time requirements for
preparation of subarea plans affecting their properties. Another area where the City has
begun "subarea planning" efforts is the Otay Valley Regional Park focussed planning
area, where work is continuing on OVRP Concept Plan by a joint planning team with
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date 6/13/95
representatives from the City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and County of San
Diego. It is our intent that the final draft OVRP Concept Plan will serve as the MSCP
subarea plan component for the Otay River Valley.
Based on our understanding from the wildlife agencies that the contents of the subarea
plans should be able to be developed by us and reviewed by them fairly quickly, we are
requesting in our letter that adequate time be provided to our City to prepare a subarea
plan which conforms to these requirements prior to completion of the final EIR/EIS for
the MSCP, thus allowing us to avoid additional environmental impact report
requirements. By preparing a subarea plan and corresponding agreements at this time,
we also feel that additional areas may be able to .be added to the MHPA boundary as
"90% preserve areas" prior to final adoption of the Plan.
3) Imolementing Agreement
In addition to the MSCP Plan and subarea plans, each jurisdiction would be required to
enter into an implementing agreement with USFWS and CDFG in order to obtain
permitting authority. A model implementing agreement is included in the draft MSCP
Plan. Planning Department staff has worked with the City Attorney's office to review
this model agreement, and the City Attorney's office has prepared a memorandum
outlining specific issues and concerns with regard to the draft agreement (see Attachment
H).
The policy statements approved by the MSCP Policy Committee on June 2 (specifically,
Principles 1 through 7) address many of these same issues. We are requesting in our
letter that the Model Implementing Agreement be substantially revised to respond to the
concerns expressed in the memorandum from the City Attorney's office, as well as the
principles endorsed by the Policy Committee.
5) Financing
The section of the MSCP Plan dealing with "Preserve Assembly and Operation" (Section
3.3, pages 3-46 to 3-87) is a critical component of the overall MSCP Plan, and addresses
the long-term financing requirements for the proposed Plan, along with various options
for meeting these requirements. Because of the complexity of the overall Plan, and the
controversy surrounding the issue of regional facility financing and taxation, this section
of the Plan has primarily dealt with options and cost estimates, rather than providing
specific recommendations regarding these issues.
The policy statements approved by the MSCP Policy Committee on June 2 provide some
further policy direction regarding how the long-term financing program for the MSCP
Page S, Item _
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Plan will be developed. Specifically, the following principles regarding financing were
conceptually approved by the Policy Committee:
Principle 8. The lack of future state and federal funding shall not be a basis for the
revocation of a jurisdiction's petmits.
Principle 9. The lack of future state and federal funding shall not be a basis for
increasing conservation required by local jurisdictions or new
development.
Principle 9.5 The lack of future local funding shall not require increases in mitigation
requirements from private development.
Principle 10. Conservation targets by jurisdiction are established in the MSCP Plan, and
each jurisdiction should be able to determine the extent to which habitats
will be conserved through the development process or acquired through
other sources.
For inclusion in the MSCP, local jurisdictions should prepare refined
estimates of how these targets will likely be achieved through:
1. mitigation
2. local development regulations
3, nonfinancial mechanisms (such as Transfer of Development Rights)
4. acquisition
Principle 11. Locally based funding options should be described in the MSCP Plan.
These shall be subject to voter approval.
Principle 12. The recommended sources for local public fundine to be discussed in the
final draft MSCP Plan would include a countywide assessment dtstrtct as
a first choice and a recionwide vublic utility service fee as a contineencv.
both of which shall receive voter approval or an advisory vote.
(underlining added).
We feel that the principles stated above need to be directly addressed in the preparation
of the final draft MSCP Plan, and would note that the local conservation targets which
are suggested in Principle # 10 cannot be fully determined until further clarification is
obtained on other aspects of the financing plan, such as state and federal shares. We also
feel that the issues regarding governance of a regional financing program, as well as
other aspects of regional plan implementation, have not been adequately addressed in the
Page 9, Item _
Meeting Date 6/13/95
draft Plan. We would recommend that prior to any commitment being made by the City
toward a regional funding source as described in Principle #12, a determination should
be made as what regional entity (existing or new) would be responsible for making policy
decisions regarding such a program, and how it would be administered. We also feel
that such a funding program should be further evaluated in the context of other regional
facility needs (e.g., regional transportation) which may require consideration of similar
types of funding programs.
At the Policy Committee meeting on June 2, a representative of the USFWS made two
important clarifying points related to financing and plan implementation:
1) the permit authority granted to any single jurisdiction through this MSCP Plan
will be limited, to the extent that a local funding source is not established at the
time the implementing agreements are approved. In other words, unless the local
jurisdictions are willing to guarantee financing of all of the "local share" of an
acquisition and maintenance program, the amount of incidental take of habitat that
will be authorized for any single jurisdiction will be limited to some intermediate
level. The specific mechanism to be used in establishing and implementing this
intermediate level of control, and how it would be applied locally, have not been
determined.
2) USFWS will be asking for status reports regarding implementation plans from all
jurisdictions participating at the time that the final MSCP Plan is completed. If
it is determined that a jurisdiction is not making diligent progress toward
implementation of the MSCP or other acceptable multi-species plan, that
jurisdiction's current "interim loss permit authority" pursuant to the 4 (d) rule for
the California gnatcatcher may be restricted or eliminated.
In response to these points we feel that it is extremely important for the wildlife
azencies to clarify how the level or amount of incidental take is to be determined in
relation to local fundine availability and Plan implementation status. both on a short-term
and longer-term basis.
6) Mitigation Banking
In response to an inquiry made by Council at the May 23 meeting, the draft MSCP Plan
does address "mitigation banking" as a local option for preserve assembly, and provides
a brief description of the various mitigation banking approaches that are available (see
Attachment R). In our evaluation of this concept, we feel that mitigation banking may
be a viable option for the City for properties where the amount and type of land proposed
for preserve appears to exceed that which would normally be required for mitigation of
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date 6/13/95
proposed development. We will be pursuing this concept further in the sub-area planning
process.
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR/EIS
Attached is a drafr letter prepared by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator, which
provides detailed technical comments regarding the drafr EIR/EIS for the MSCP Plan.
SUMMARY
This report summarizes several of the major issues which we have identified in our review of
the draft MSCP Plan and EIR/EIS. Given the complexity of issues which are involved in this
plan, and the regional nature of the planning approach, it is understandable that there are still
a number of unresolved issues at this point in the process, and we are hopeful that most if not
all of these issues can be resolved through further analysis and negotiation.
However, as stated earlier, we feel it is important for the City to request that we be given the
opportunity to resolve certain key issues, including resolution of disagreements regarding the
MHPA boundary for Otay Ranch and completion of a Chula Vista subarea plan, prior to the
completion of the final EIR/EIS for the MSCP Plan. Therefore, we are recommending that in
our letters regarding the draft MSCP Plan and draft EIR/EIS, we request additional time to
resolve these matters. If Council concurs with this approach, we will continue to meet with
representatives of the wildlife agencies, the County, affected property owners, and the MSCP
staff and consultants, to:
I) prepare a detailed work program and timeline for completion of a revised draft MHPA
boundary, and draft subarea plan;
2) return to Council with a work program and status report regarding this effort.
ALTERNATIVES
If the City were to choose not to continue its participation in the MSCP Plan, other options
which could be considered are:
1) Developing a "subarea plan" in conformance with the State Natural Community
Conservation Program (NCCP), either as an independent local jurisdiction or in
coordination with the County. In pursuing this option, much of the data and analysis
developed in the MSCP Plan could be utilized; however, the focus of an NCCP-based
plan would probably be directed toward Coastal Sage Scrub habitat and related species,
rather than the multi-species approach taken in the MSCP Plan;
Page 11, Item _
Meeting Date 6/13/95
2) Reverting to "project by project" review by the wildlife agencies, without a formal
regional or subarea plan.
Neither of these options are recommended at this time. However, if the major issues discussed
in this report cannot be resolved, staff will return with further information regarding these
options.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff review and participation in this program is supported by the General
Fund at this time. It should be recognized that future implementation of this program could
result in significant additional local costs, which will need to be further evaluated prior to any
final actions being taken by the City Council on this matter.
Attachments
A. Letter to Dave Flesh, Ciry of San Diego, re Comments on MSCP, dated lone 5, 1995
B. Letter to ]. Kovac, Ciry of San Diego, re Draft EIR/EIS for the MSCP Plan
C-D Letters from USFWS, April 13, 1995 and April 14, 1995
E. Letter from K. Wright, Eastlake Development Company, May 17, 1995
F. Letter from Keith Lewinger, otay Water District, dated May 30, 1995
G. Letter from ]. Algert, Algert Engineering, May 31, 1995
H. Memo from Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney, May 17, 1995
I. Memo from J. Lippitt, Director of Public Works, April 14, 1995
J. Memo from C. Gove, Fire Marshal, re Draft MSCP Plan, May 4, 1995
K. Memo from loe Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager, Community Development Department, April 27,
1995
L. Memo from Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project, April 28, 1995
M. Memo to less Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation, April 19, 1995
N-O Resource Conservation Commission Minutes of May 8 and May 22, 1995
P. Draft Policy Statements, MSCP Policy Committee, June 2, 1995
Q. Map Delineating Proposed Revisions [o Multiple Habitat Planning Area Boundary for Chula Vista General Plan
Area
R. Summary of Mitigation Banking Systems, Draft MSCP Plan, pp. 3-84, 3-85.
F:NOMEIPLANNING WANCYUt5CP2.Al1
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT
June 8, 1995
Dave Flesh
MSCP Project Manager
City of .San Diego
Clean Water Program
401 B Street, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Subject: Final Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan
Dear Dave:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Public Review Draft MSCP Plan. The City of
Chula Vista's comments include concerns raised by the Planning Department, Fire Department,
Community Development Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, Otay Ranch Project
Team, City Attorney, Resource Conservation Commission, and various property owners, and
have been reviewed by the City Council. I am attaching a copy of the City Council Agenda
Statement regarding this matter, which provides further explanation regarding many of our
comments.
Given the large number of unresolved issues regarding the draft MSCP Plan, we aze requesting
that the City of San Diego provide us with additional time to resolve these issues prior to
completion of the fmal EIR/EIS for this project. We would like to meet with your staff at your
earliest convenience to discuss the status of these issues in further detail, and work with you to
develop a time line for resolution of these issues.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Multiple Habitat Planning. Area Boundary
As discussed in the attached Agenda Statement, we have several major issues with regazd
to the draft Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) boundary for the Chula Vista
General Plan Area which are unresolved. Based on our evaluation to date, we aze
requesting that the following modifications be made to the MHPA boundary for the
Chula Vista Planning Area:
Dave Flesh
-2- June 8, 1995
1) Areas which have already been placed in preserve ownership, or which already
have SPA Plan or equivalent level of approval, should be given a "90% preserve
area" designation;
2) Areas which have not received SPA Plan level approval, but for which draft
conservation agreements are currently being prepared, aze being designated as
"future 90% preserve areas," and would be redesignated as "90% preserve azeas"
once written agreements among the wildlife agencies, City, and property owners
are obtained;
3) Areas which are designated in the City's General Plan as "open space," but which
do not meet the criteria above, are being designated as "special study areas," and
their designations will be refined through further analysis to be conducted at the
subarea plan level to determine the extent of resources to be protected and the
feasibility of acquisition;
4) Areas which are designated as "open space" in the General Plan, but where it has
already been determined that the area is not appropriate for inclusion in a habitat
preserve system due to its isolated location or other non-preserve use, are being
removed from the MHPA boundary at this time.
Attached is a map which shows these designations (see Attachment B).
Based on the current status of resolution of those issues, we are also requesting that the
City of San Diego provide us with additional time to accomplish the following:
a) continue discussions with the wildlife agencies, County of San Diego, and
property owners to resolve preserve design issues pertaining to Otay Ranch, and
enter into a preliminary written agreement regarding preserve design for this
project;
b) continue discussions of a similar nature regarding preserve design issues for the
San Miguel Ranch project, and enter into a preliminary agreement for this
project;
c) identify other properties within our Planning Area which are currently proposed
to be designated as "special study areas," where subarea plans could be prepared
relatively quickly and such areas be redesignated as "90% preserve areas" in the
fmal Plan;
d) complete a draft subarea plan for the Chula Vista Planning Area, taking into
account the other actions described above.
Dave Flesh -3-
2. Financing and Preserve Assembly
June 8, 1995
As discussed in our Council Agenda Statement, we feel that a significant amount of
additional work is required in order for a viable overall fmancing and preserve assembly
plan to be completed.
Specifically, we feel that the Policy Principles approved by the MSCP Policy Committee
on June 2 which deal with "Financing" (Principles 8 - 12) need to be directly addressed
in the preparation of the final draft MSCP Plan, and would note that the conservation
targets which are suggested in Principle # 10 cannot be fully determined until further
clarification is obtained on other aspects of the financing plan, such as state and federal
shares.
We also feel that the issues regarding governance of a regional financing program, as
well as other aspects of regional plan implementation, have not been adequately
addressed in the draft Plan. Prior to making any commitment toward a regional funding
source as described in Policy Principle # 12, we would need to have a better
understanding as to what regional entity (existing or new) would be responsible for
making policy decisions regarding such a program, and how it would be administered.
We also request that any such funding program be evaluated in the context of other
regional facility needs (e.g., regional transportation) which may require similar types of
funding programs in the future.
Finally, at the MSCP Policy Committee meeting on June 2, a representative of the
USFWS made two important clarifying points related to Plan fmancing and
implementation:
1) the permit authority granted to any single jurisdiction through the MSCP Plan will
be limited, to the extent that a local funding source is not established at the time
the implementing agreements are approved;
2) USFWS will be asking for status reports regarding implementation plans from all
participating jurisdictions at the time the final MSCP Plan is completed, and will
be evaluating the status of each jurisdiction's "interim loss permit" authority
under the 4 (d) rule at that time.
In response to these points, we would like to receive further clarification regarding the
level or amount of incidental take is to be determined and allocated, both on a short-term
and longer-term basis.
Dave Flesh -4- June 8, 1995
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
• Page 1-3, Figure 1-2, depiction of the jurisdictional boundary of the City implies
that the City has land use control over the port lands, lands owned by the school
districts, and the water districts, which it does not. (Planning)
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF MSCP STUDY AREA
• Page 2-10, The Plan implies that the core area is not fragmented. The Eastern
Chula Vista core area includes many developed areas which aze shown on the
MSCP Plan. This needs further examination in light of the plan's goal that 70-
80% should be useable and that according to page 3-43, "If percentages of each
core azea included in the preserve design aze less than 70 to 80 percent, then the
difference must be justified with biological data showing that biological viability
and functions are being maintained, as appropriate for selected species and
habitats." (Planning)
3.0 CONSERVATION PLAN
• Page 3-2, Covered Species - A provision should be added that would allow for
the automatic extension of the City's take authority to those species that are
presently "covered" by the MSCP but have not yet been listed as a protected or
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the federal
and state government should not be allowed to ask for new mitigation measures
for such species. The Model Implementing Agreement only provides that the
MSCP shall be deemed to be adequate to support an application for such a
permit. This means that any time an additional covered species is subsequently
listed as protected or endangered the City would have to apply for a new "take"
permit. (Attorney)
• Page 3-9, Provide an overlay of the plan with species locations and include in the
report. (Resource Conservation Commission)
• Page 3-34, There are several bay species that are not covered and no additional
protection for numerous covered species is being provided through the MSCP;
hence, they should not be covered or the Port District should be requested to be
an active participant in the program (list of species on page 3-24). (Resource
Conservation Commission)
Dave Flesh
-5- June 8, 1995
• Page 3-40, the numbers for target species are inconsistent with the table listed on
page 3-30. (Resource Conservation Commission)
• Page 3-42, Based on Table 3-8, the probability of extinction after 200 years of
implementation of the MSCP does not meet the goals established in the draft plan.
(Resource Conservation Commission)
• Page 3-43, the draft MSCP identifies "biological core azeas" and "linkages" and
further requires that the preserve design include 70% to 80% of these areas. The
identified core areas and linkages affect every major current Community
Development project, including the Midbayfront project, the MCA
Amphitheater/City Corporation Yard, the Veteran's Home, the Lower Sweetwater
Valley project, and properties along the Sweetwater and Otay Rivers between I-5
and I-805. Three major issues exist with respect to the application of preserving
a specified percentage of habitat within these areas. First, all of the core/linkage
areas include land within other jurisdictions. Limitation on development within
these areas would require allocation of allowable development percentages by
jurisdiction or be complicated by oversight by a regional authority. Second,
resource quality varies from one core/linkage area to another. It does not seem
reasonable to apply a blanket percentage of preserve area to all core/linkage areas
since some resources may require protection of not only the resource area, but
a substantial buffer from development as well. Others may require direct
protection of the resource, allowing a significantly greater proportion of
development. Third, some core/linkage areas contain a greater quantity of habitat
than others. For instance, some core areas may be laced with developable land
while others contain more contiguous habitat. Universal development limitations
would not recognize these differences. (Community Development and Planning)
• Page 3-43, Although it appears that the core/linkage azeas have been established
for solid habitat planning reasons, the actual boundaries appear to be quite
general. Community Development has a great concern over application of
specific limitations on development within these imprecisely delineated areas. We
would suggest that the core/linkage concept be retained as a preserve planning
tool, but that there not be a limitation on development within those azeas as
currently depicted in the draft plan. (Community Development)
• Pages 3-43 and 3-95 discuss that the covered species are "open to change
depending on biological data" yet the implementing agreement says otherwise.
This is general and vague; the plan should define how new data should be
incorporated upon agreement between participating agencies. (Resource
Conservation Commission)
Dave Flesh
-6- June H, 1995
• Page 3-43, Pampas grass should be listed as invasive exotic plant. (Resource
Conservation Commission)
• Page 3-45, Buffer Areas -The plan calls for adequate buffers depending on
adjacent land uses and resources. They indicate edge effect studies suggest a
minunum of 150 feet. More information is needed on the location and use of the
150-foot buffer. The general development plan for the Otay Ranch includes a
requirement for an Overall Design Plan. An element of this plan is a dominant
skyline landscape treatment. Some specific landscape materials in this plan may
be in conflict with the MSCP. (Otay Ranch)
• Page 3-45, Preserve shape that minimizes edge effects (p.3-45) -The Otay Ranch
Preserve area has detailed studies that justify the preserve boundary. Vertical as
well as horizontal separation should be considered between the development area
and the preserve. (Otay Ranch)
• Page 3-45, Management Feasibility -Land uses within and adjacent to preserve
have to comply with compatibility guidelines. These guidelines need to be
reviewed in relationship to the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. (Otay Ranch)
• Page 3-65, Compensating Mitigation -The Otay Ranch has already determined
"compensating mitigation" as part of the Phase 1 RMP and will further identify
specific mitigation under Phase 2. Avoidance, impact minimization and
replacement have all been determined in the RMP. We are concerned that
additional mitigation will be required beyond the requirements of the RMP.
(Otay Ranch)
• Page 3-67, Although this section deals with the public financing of long-term
maintenance of natural habitat, would it not be appropriate to include funding that
would cover the cost of brush management as well. (Fire)
• Page 3-90, paragraph I, it will be important for us in the future during the
Implementing Agreement and Subarea Plan stage to assess the impact of the
MSCP Plan upon the City's existing and future infrastructure and public works.
Also, it will be important to examine whether certain infrastructure systems, such
as sewer or other utility lines will be accommodated within the planned habitat
areas. (Public Works)
• Page 3-90, the second paragraph under Section 3.4.1 titled Subarea Plan
Approval indicates that subarea plans may be prepared by developers using the
adopted MSCP Plan as a framework plan and incorporating its guidelines. Since
the boundaries of the biological core areas and linkages is not clearly defined in
the MSCP Plan, there may be a conflict between the developers' subarea plan and
Dave Flesh -7- June 8, 1995
the city's plans of Infrastructure, Public Facilities and Circulation Element
development. (Public Works)
• Page 3-90, Subarea Plan Approval - We are concerned as to whether the Phase
2 RMP will satisfy the Subarea Plan requirements. Criteria for the subazea plan
needs to be established to ensure the RMP is consistent with the wildlife agencies'
plans for subareas. (Otay Ranch)
• Page 3-95, Preserve Management -Additional information is needed on the
Preserve Management to ensure the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner Manager is
consistent. We are concerned about conflicts with the goals of the Otay Ranch
GDP for the Preserve Owner Manager. (Otay Ranch)
• Page 3-95, MSCP Plan Amendments and Data Base Updates -The Otay Ranch
Project Team is concerned about adding additional species to the Plan after its
adoption. The Otay Ranch has a 30 to 50 yeaz build out and needs more
assurance these rules will be consistent and not changed. (Otay Ranch)
• Page 3-96, Annual Accounting and Biological Monitoring -The RMP requires
monitoring and reporting on the preserve. We are concerned about consistency
in reporting standards and that efforts not be duplicated with the Phase 2 RMP
reporting. (Otay Ranch)
4.0 COMPATIBLE LAND USE ACTIVITIES AND PRESERVE MANAGEMENT
GUIDELINES
• Page 4-1, Some activities listed for inclusion or exclusion make sense, and some
don't. Of concern relating to the Otay Valley Regional Park is the identification
of the placement of active recreation in the buffer zone. This may or may not be
possible in the western reach of the regional park where the concept plan is
proposing recreation directly adjacent to existing development to north, and the
riparian zone of the south. An insufficient buffer zone occurs here to
accommodate active recreation based on the requirements and descriptions in the
text. (Parks & Recreation)
• Pages 4-2 through 4-4 -How was Table 4-2 on page 4~, areas of compatible
land uses, compiled; i.e., land fill is used as buffer but could bring other feral
animals; utility roads are not compatible with preserve; low density residential is
compatible with preserve. How is compatibility determined? Exercising a pet
in a preserve is not compatible with endangered species. (Resource Conservation
Commission)
Dave Flesh
-8- June 8, 1995
• Page 4-3, Hang gliding, off-road vehicles, and other land use compatibility issues
should be reviewed. (Resource Conservation Commission)
• Page 4-3, It appeazs that the MSCP will not preclude the JEPA and the City of
Chula Vista from utilizing the Otay Valley as a portion of the "Greenbelt" and
the OVRP. Specifics regarding the proper location, site planning and impacts of
active recreation is an issue that will have to be addressed to determine if the
areas that have been indicated on the OVRP Concept Plan for recreation are
acceptable. (Parks & Recreation)
• Page 4-4, Section Four of the document contains a section that addresses the issue
of land uses in the Core Area, Linkages and Buffer Area. Table 4-1 and 4-21ist
uses for general activities and recreational activities, respectively. The text and
Table 4-2 lists recreational activities that may or may not be compatible or
conditionally compatible with the MSCP Core, Linkage and Buffer azeas. (Parks
& Recreation)
• Page 4-5, Single houses, cattle grazing, agriculture, and streets are considered
compatible in the plan. However, they are a major conduit for the spread of
invasive species and should only be allowed in coordination with exotic species
removal programs. (Resource Conservation Commission)
• Page 4-5, Roads change the management requirements due to edge effects, "swath
of death" (a term used by some biologists referring to an area where animals may
be killed), increase access to preserve azeas in such a major way that it should be
addressed. (Resource Conservation Commission)
• Page 4-7 -Guidelines for Preserve Management Activities -Fire Management -
To fire officials, this section is most critical. Fire Management Plans should be
detailed and very specific. (Fire)
• Page 4-9, the fencing standards described here are not consistent with the fencing
for the Otay Ranch listed in the Overall Design Plan. (Otay Ranch)
• Page 4-11, Management plans are also identified as a requirement of the MSCP
Program. How would this requirement "mesh" with the OVRP and Otay Ranch
Preserve Owner Manager Programs? (Parks & Recreation)
• Page 4-17 -This is an area where fuel management is mentioned, but not in the
context of brush management and hazazd abatement. (Fire)
Dave Flesh -9- June 8, 1995
6.0 STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES, IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND
ENVII20NMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
• Page 6.0 -Liability -There are a number of liability issues with respect to
implementing the MSCP. As a result of the recent Supreme Court decision of
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 94 D.A.R. 8803 (June 27, 1994), the Endangered
Species Act has come under intense scrutiny. Consequently, we can not predict
with a great degree of certainty the outcome of a challenge to the MSCP at this
stage of its development. However we do know that such a challenge would be
expensive to litigate and if the City was to receive an adverse judgment, it could
be quite costly. In addition, the MSCP requires the City as well as other
jurisdictions to design mitigation policies which could result in permit exactions
being imposed that may be held by a court of law not to be roughly proportional
to the project's impact. In essence the federal and state governments are
spreading the risk of liability from a "takings" downwards to the local
jurisdictions. Our office has repeatedly requested that the federal and state
government indemnify the City. This request has been refused. At the very
least, the federal and state governments should provide the City with an opinion
or a representation in the Implementing Agreement regarding the legality of the
MSCP and its implementation. (Attorney)
• Page 6-1, Statement of Assurances -This section should also address brush
management for life safety considerations. (Fire)
• Page 6-1, Assurances - A definition of extraordinary circumstances is needed to
understand when additional species or land might be added to the Plan. The Otay
Ranch, as a long-term project, needs better assurance that the Plan will remain
consistent. If the biological data is updated every year, is there the potential for
extraordinary circumstances. (Otay Ranch)
8.0 CITY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PRESERVE PLAN
• The success of skylights at road crossings is not known at this time. Please
provide performance studies for the success of skylights at road crossings as used
on Route 52 prior to their installation. (Resource Conservation Commission)
• Page 8-21 Section 8.6.2, paragraph 2, states that "The Olympic Training Center
is planned for the west side of Lower Otay Lake. " The text needs to be corrected
to indicate that the majority of the project has been graded. (Planning)
• Page 8-21, Inclusion of a Subarea Plan for San Miguel Ranch, Otay Ranch,
Eastern Territories and the Rivers and Bays of Chula Vista are needed. These
are being prepared for submittal. (Planning)
Dave Flesh -10- June 8, 1995
A MODEL IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
• On page 12 of Attachment A -The Model Implementing_A regiment, the Plan
states that "Local jurisdictions and other participating local jurisdictions shall
determine whether or not geographic and in-kind mitigation requirements will be
waived for any particular public or private development project." The inference
here is that the plan as it is proposed can be adopted even if some of the
jurisdictions involved choose to not participate. If that occurred, a new plan
would be needed. (Planning)
• Attachment A, page 2, Implementation Agreement -Key exhibits that were to be
attached to the document including the Assurances Policy and the Specific
Biological Monitoring Obligations are not included. They need to be included.
(Planning)
• Severabilitv -The Model Implementing Agreement should include a severability
clause which would provide the City with protection from the actions of other
participants in the MSCP. In other words, the City should have a guarantee that
its "Take" permit would not be jeopardized by the actions or inactions of other
local jurisdictions. (Attorney)
• Withdrawal -The Implementing Agreement should include a provision that would
allow the City to withdraw from the MSCP should federal or state laws or
regulations change. This is particularly important because of the recent
discussions by the Legislature regarding the future of the Endangered Species
Act. In addition, should the federal or state government require modifications to
the implementation of the MSCP due to "unforeseen circumstances" the City
should have the right to withdraw from the MSCP. (See the comment on
unforeseen circumstances below.) In addition, our withdrawal from the MSCP
should be allowed without penalty or liability and there should be a guarantee that
our withdrawal would not impact previous "take" permits issued by the City and
relied on by property owners. (Attorney)
• Page 9, Unforeseen Circumstance -The Model Implementing Agreement gives
the federal and state government too much discretion to change the terms of the
MSCP. Specifically, the Model Implementing, Agreement provides that the
federal and state governments could seek additional mitigation from the City if
there is an "Unforeseen Circumstance. " The term "unforeseen Circumstance if
far too ambiguous and should be more strictly defined. In addition the City
should be allowed to withdraw from the MSCP if we disagree with a subsequent
change in the terms of the MSCP. (Attorney)
Dave Flesh
-11- June 8, 1995
• Properly Functioning -The Model Implementing Agreement provides that
additional land or financial compensation or other form of mitigation will not be
required so long as the MSCP is "properly functioning." Therefore it is critical
that the term "properly functioning MSCP" be defined to our satisfaction in the
Implementing Agreement. (Attorney)
• Annexed Lands - We will need to clarify in our Implementing Agreement how
annexed lands will be handled. Currently, the federal and state government has
represented that take authorizations can only apply to land within the land use
jurisdiction of the local entity. We will need to clarify that once land is annexed
to the City, the City's take authorization will automatically apply to that land and
that we can include this land in our subarea plans. (Attorney)
We have provided you with only our preliminary review of the MSCP and Model
Implementing Agreement. We anticipate having additional questions and
comments upon our further review of these documents. (Attorney)
• Attachment A, Page 12 -Several references were made to "non in-kind
mitigation"; the plan's priority system of land acquisition should be determined
and compensation through like-kind mitigation required when possible. (Resource
Conservation Commission)
• Page 13, Funding -The local jurisdictions are being requested to provide a faz
greater level of commitment to fund the MSCP than either the federal or state
governments. In fact, the Model Implementing Agreement does not adequately
obligate the federal or state government to provide funding for the MSCP. In
addition it is unclear whether a lack of funding by the federal or state
governments would be considered to impact the "proper functioning" of the
MSCP. (See comment 7 below.) It is our understanding that federal officials
have represented that the local jurisdictions would not be "harmed" if the federal
government should not be able to adequately fund the MSCP. However this
representation is not reflected in either the MSCP or the Model Implementing
Agreement. Perhaps, the preserve land requirements should be decreased if the
federal government is unable to adequately fund the MSCP. In addition, a
provision should be added that the funding responsibilities of the federal and state
governments shall not have an impact on the "proper functioning" of the MSCP.
(Attorney)
Dave Flesh -12- June 8, 1995
If you have any questions on the above, please feel free to contact me at 691-5101, or Barbara
Reid, Associate Planner, at 691-5097.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Attachments:
A) City Council Agenda Statement, dated June 13, 1995
B) Map showing proposed revisions to MHPA boundary for Chula Vista General Plan Area)
(m:\home\planning\nancy\Oesh.lV)
A1, ACHMENT B
June 5, 1995
John Kovac
City of San Diego
Development Services Department
Development & Environmental Planning Division
1222 First Street; Mail Station 501
San Diego, CA 92101
Subject: Draft Joint EIR/EIS Multiple Species Conservation Program
Dear Mr. Kovac:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above sited document. Our comments are as
follows:
Page ES-17 Biological Resources. Development of 400 acres of active recreational
uses in the Otay Valley within the boundaries of the Otay Ranch along
with the various transportation facilities crossing the valley will be
reviewed as Sectional Planning Areas within the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan are reviewed for this area. This subsequent review will
assure the greatest reduction of any potential environmental impacts.
Public Services/Facilities. The various public facilities shown on the
Chula Vista General Plan will be the subject of more detailed
environmental analysis when specific design and/or development proposals
are available.
Page 13 The implementation of the MSCP by the City of Chula Vista may involve
more than amendments to the Planned Community (PC) zoning standazds.
Other more conventional zone classifications may also have to be
amended.
Page 83 Fire Protection. The Fire Department has indicated that this section of the
EIR/EIS is vague and should specifically address the issue of brush and
fuel management. The Fire Department will also be reviewing with more
specific plans issues relating to: 1) siting of fire stations; 2) staffing; 3)
slope conditions; 4) brush management; and 5) water supply.
John Kovac
-2- June 5, 1995
Page 119 Figure 27. The residential development shown on the southern part of
Otay Rio Vista Business Park was not approved as part of that project
and, therefore, those development azeas should not be depicted on this
figure.
Page 201 City of Chula Vista. At the end of the paragraph following the first
bullet, there is an apparent typographical error duplicating several lines
unnecessarily.
Page 227 Table 39. This table should reference Figure 7 on page 36 and utilize the
same number and lettering system.
Page 239 City of Chula Vista. Please note our previous comments regarding the
transportation facilities crossing the Otay Valley. Additionally, in the
paragraph following the first bullet, the reference to Otay Lakes Pazk
Road should be changed to Otay Lakes Road.
If you have any questions about any of these comments, please feel free to contact me at 691-
5104.
Sincerely,
Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
(m:\home\planning\nancy\EIREIS.com)
ATTACHMENT C
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WJLDLIFE SERVICE
&ologinl Smites
Culsbxd Field Office
2730 Loker A.nnuc Wen
Cvlsbad, GliFomia 9200P
April 13, 1995
Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: MSCP Plan Preserve Design Issues for the City of Chula VisL•a
Dear Mr. Leiter:
During past meetings with the City of Chula Vista and other jurisdictions on
March 29 and April 6, 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and
the California Department of Fish and Game outlined issues for the MSCP Plan
including preserve design issues, At those meetings, the Service committed to
providing a written list to each of the jurisdictions summarizing these
issues. Enclosed is the summary of issues for your jurisdiction, separated
into major subregional issues and clarification or sub-area issues. The
Service would like to take this opportunity to commend the City of Chula Viste
on the progress made to date in resolving these issues.
Sincerely,
Gail C. Kobetich
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
1-6-95-HC-180
cc: Bill Tippets, CDFG
PRESERVE DESIGN ISSOES
EY JIIRZSDICTION
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game
have identified to the jurisdictions several subregional preserve design
issues of concern including tao under-represented habitat types, grassland and
vernal pools, and several specific areas, Otay Ranch, Del Mar Mesa
(Neighborhoods 8A, 4 and 5), Santa Fe Va11Ry areas, Fanlta Ranch, and City of
San Diego cornerstone lands. These issues are fuzther discussed below under
"Major Subregional Issue" heading. Other issues under •Clazification or
Subarea Issue" consist of either correction or updates of the MHPA map or
issues that can be resolved when the applicable jurisdiction applies for its
subarea plan.
•
Maj
1)
or Subre¢ional Ia
San Miguel CZTY OF CRIIL~ VZSTA
su
Ranch - Preserve adequate amounts of the Otay tarplant on San
Miguel Ranch or preserve additional imown locations
within the Otay River Valley area.
2) Otay Ranch - Resolve the zecent reduction of IOOX preserve areas to
90X protection and 400 acres of unspecified active
recreation within Otay River Valley. Resolve preserve
Clar
ificati
S
b design issues.
1) on or
u
Otay River -area Issue
Valley
Connection - Connect Dennery Canyon with Otay River Valley from 805
to Otay Ranch.
2) San Miguel
Ranch - Connect open space on north and south parcels of San
Miguel Ranch through SDG6E lands.
3) Lower
Sweetwater - Provide adequate habitat/floodway connection and
buffer on the River.
4) Amphitheater - Minimize noise impacts and revegetata adjacent slopes.
Naior Subre¢ional Issue
1) Otay Ranch Preserve Design - ![odification of Otay Ranch is needed to
address: California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, vernal pool species including
California Orcutt grass, Otay Hesa mint, San Diego fairy ahzimp, Riverside
fairy shrimp, prostrate navarretia, little mousetail, variegated dudleya, Otay
tarplant, San Diego thornmint and Orcutt's bird beak.
a) Road crossings
Otay River
Valley - Relocate State Route 125 rithin Johnson Canyon
consistent rith Caltrans moat recent proposals.
Delete Alta Road from O'Neal Canyon
b) Salt Creek - Relocate development from south and east of Hunte
Parkway and pull the parkway back away from Salt
Canyon to provide buffers and avoid impacts to habitat
in side drainages.
c) Otay Lake - Relocate development out of the areas south and east
of Otay Lakes, reduce development.'north of Otay Lakes
in the resort area including preservation of the K6-9
vernal pools and San Diego thornmint
d) Proctor
Valley - Relocate development from middle Proctor Valley area
to resolve preserve design and greater protection for
the gnatcatcher
e) lnverted L - Relocate development from northern and middle portion
of the inverted L
f) Grassland - Preserve additional grassland
Clarification or Subarea Issue
a) Revegetation - Salt Creek and portions of Poggi Canyon contain
important linkage areas in need of restoration 10-15
acre Poggi connection
b) Recreation - 400 acres of unspecified active recreation is proposed
in Otay River Valley. Active recreation should be
located at the •dge of the preserve rather than within
the preserve
e) Hubbard
Springs - Provide adequate preserve design and linkage
ATTACHMENT D
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND ~XRLDLIFE SERVICE ~ Z 4 "
Frnl~ical lervica
Grlsbau Fiel,i Officr - -' -" "'- -"'-- _
-'-30 Luke: Arena: rS4r
t~rlshad. Caiifn:m~ 7?OGh "--_. -..... _ __ _ _
April 14, 1995
Robert B. Copper
County of San Diego
Department of Planning and Land Use
5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B
San Diego, Ca 92123-1686
RE: Otay Ranch Development Plan and Multiple Species Conservation Progzam
Dear Mr. Copper:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and California Department of Fish
and Game (Department) (collectively referred to as wildlife agencies) received
your letter dated January 27, 1995, requesting specific guidance in regard to
areas of concern in the Draft Multi-habitat Planning Area (MHPA) map under the
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). In particular, your January 27
letter requested our position on the current Otay Ranch development plan and
its effects on our final approval of the MSCP plan. We provide herein our
response to this request.
It is our understanding that the Phase I-Progress Plan Alternative described
in the program Environmental Impact Report for Otay Ranch (EIR; Ogden 1992) is
similar to the Approved Recommended Plan, so our comments are based largely on
this alternative. This letter primarily addresses development bubbles and
preserve design rather than management issues. Although habitat management is
of concern to the wildlife agencies, thorough comments on management are not
incorporated into this letter.
A primary objective of MSCP and Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MRCP)
planning efforts are to preserve habitat in large, contiguous blocks and allow
smaller, less viable habitat patches to be developed. This approach is based
on several basic tenets of reserve planning as summarized in the Natural
Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP) Conservation Guidelines
(November 1993): a) Larger reserves are better, b) habitat should be
contiguous, and c) reserves should be protected from anczoachment of roads or
other human disturbances. The largest solid block of habitat in the MSCP
planning area occurs in the Otay area, largely on Otay Ranch and Otay Mountain
Aanch. Proposed development on Otay Ranch would fragment this large habitat
block and thus create serious problems for achieving the basic tenets upon
which the regional conservation program is based.
rl
_. .- IiPR i° 195 .
Mr. Robert B. Cooper 2
We have reviewed the Otay Ranch development plan with respect to the NCCP
Conservation Guidelines, MSCP regional preserve design, and target species
coverage. The location of proposed development bubbles creates significant
issues with the MHPA preserve design presented in the MSCP. These issues need
to be zesolved before the MSCP can be approved. We have outlined eight areas
of concern on Table 1, labeled A-H (enclosed), that correlate with locations
on Figure 1 (enclosed). The enclosed commentary provides details and our
concerns as they relate to the HSCP's target species and the MHPA preserve
design. These issues were previously identified by the wildlife agencies
during the Otay Ranch CEQA process.
The areas of concern include proposed development in the following locations
(please refer to Figure 1): A) South of Otay River Valley in the vicinity of
the J29-30 vernal pools, B) within and adjacent to Salt Creek, C) southeast of
lower Otay Lake, D) north of Otay Lakes in the vicinity east of the resort
development, E) resort development impacts on the thornmint population, F)
mid-Proctor Valley, G) northern and middle portions of the inverted L parcel,
and H) location of zoad crossings in Otay River Valley. The resolution to
these issues should be reflected in a revised MHPA map. Resolution of the
above issues will result in a biologically sound MHPA that would maintain a
solid habitat core for the seven key MSCP target species, including the
California gnatcatcher.
Our comments acknowledge your desire to pursue development in some
biologically valuable areas, such as lands on the Jamul Mountain parcel, north
of lower Otay Lake, the northern Proctor Valley area, and eastern portion of
the San Ysidro parcel. The proposed Otay-Sweetwatez National Wildlife Refuge
includes much of this area and, if funds become available, the Fish and
Wildlife Service may ultimately pursue purchase of the above mentioned
sensitive habitat areas in the Otay Ranch Area from willing sellers.
In summary, resolution of the Otay Ranch area issues is a key to long-term
success of any preserve alternative in fulfilling the primary goal of the MSCP
program. Resolution of these issues is also necessary for us to move forward
with approval of the MSCP. To this end, we recommend the MHPA be modified
consistent with Figure 1.
We look forward to wozking with the involved parties to develop an MHPA which
provides for appropriate development and preserves the biological integrity of
the Otay Ranch area. We would like to meet with the appropriate individuals
to begin the issue resolution process at their earliest convenience.
Mr. Robert Copper
3
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Otny Ranch plan, ae it relates
to the MSCP. If you have any questions or comments or if we can be of any
assistance please contact Gail Robetich at (619) 431-9440 or Ron Rempel at
(916) 654-9980.
Sincerely,
u~~~w~~ Jai ~`" %xV ~~~
Ron Rempel /Gail C. Robetich
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
f1-6-95-HC-132
Enclosures (4)
WILDLIFE AGENCIES' COMMENTARY ON THE
OTAY AREA OF THE MHPA
GENERAL PRESERVE DESIGN
The proposed development areas of greatest concern to the wildlife agencies in
terms of overall reserve design are the western Proctor Valley area and lands
surrounding lower Otay Lake. As shown on the currently proposed MSCP preserve
design alternative map (l4iPA), development bubbles in these areas encroach
well into the proposed reserve (Figure 2). The proposed development
incorporates recommendations made in the Baldwin Otay Ranch Wildlife Corridor
Studies report (Ogden 1992) by designing several wildlife corridors to run
between development areas. These corridors are designed to accommodate
movement of large mammals such as deer, coyote, and bobcat, and it is likely
that other types of wildlife would use such corridors. While the wildlife
agencies recognize the importance of maintaining habitat connectivity in these
areas, retaining corridors at the expense of large habitat blocks is a
strategy that should only be used for connections een core habitat areas
rather than within cores. It is important that habitat from Otay Mountain to
San Miguel Hountain be preserved in a solid block of core habitat that is not
dependent upon these constrained corridors which would be surrounded by
development and subject to edge effects.
In letters responding to the draft Program Environmental Impact Report for
Otay Ranch (EIR), the Service (November 8, 1992) and Department (October 5,
1992) recommended elimination of all development southeast of lower Otay Lake
and of portions of development north of the lake. In the joint
Service/Department letter to Robert Asher, dated November 11, 1994, regarding
the proposed MSCP preserve, we noted that proposed development southeast of
Otay Lake would retain only narrow fingers of linkage and would compromise
buffering and connectivity between Otay Mountain and Otay River Valley. We
also commented on connectivity between the south foot of Jamul Mountains and
Jamul Creek, which would be compromised by development at this interface. The
importance of preserving habitat north of the lake for preserve design
purposes has become increasingly apparent with progression of the MSCP
preserve design. The wildlife agencies maintain the position that all
development southeast of lower Otay Lake and most of the development north of
the lake should be eliminated due to incompatibility with the MSCP and NCCP
goal to preserve large, contiguous habitat blocks in core resource areas.
The Service's comment letter to the draft EIR recommended significant widening
of the wildlife corridors on the Proctor Valley parcel. The Service's
recommended alternative eliminated development in the "inverted L" and the two
southern residential bubbles in the Central Proctor Valley area. The
Department's letter in response to the draft EIR recommended elimination of
development on the northern and central portions of the "inverted L". The
City of Chula Vista and County justified development in these areas based on
a) avoidance of direct impacts to coastal sage scrub and steep slopes, and b)
incorporation of regional corridor consistent with Wildlife Corridor Study.
It should be noted that these comments were made during preliminary stages of
1
MSCP planning, and it has since become apparent that preservation of large
contiguous blocks of habitat (rather than preservation of narrow corridors)
between Jamul and San Miguel Mountains is a critical feature of successful
HSCP preserve design. The importance of this connectivity was noted in our
November 8, 1994, comment letter on the MSCP preserve design alternatives.
For preserve design purposes we maintain that the two southern residential
bubbles of central Proctor Valley should be eliminated. S7hile development
along the southern portion of the "inverted L" may be appropriate, we maintain
that development should be eliminated from the northern and central portions
to allow a greater degree of habitat contiguity between Jamul end San Miguel
Mountains.
The wildlife agencies are also concerned with the effects of proposed impacts
within Otay River Valley on reserve design. The Otay River Valley provides an
east/west habitat connection between large habitat blocks to the east and
severely depleted coastal resources to the west. The wildlife agencies
recommended minimization of road crossings over Otay Valley in the response
letters to the draft Program EIR and the Service also made this recommendation
in a letter to Charles Thomas dated April 23, 1991. Furthermore, both the
Service's and the Department's alternative project proposal maps (accompanying
comments to the draft EIR) excluded development from Otay River Valley. The
wildlife agencies maintain that proposed development should be reduced within
Otay Valley to benefit east/west habitat connectivity in the Otay area.
SPECIES COVERAGE
The wildlife agencies are currently evaluating the level of protection for
sensitive plant and animal species afforded by the proposed Multiple Species
Conservation Plan preserve design. Adequate protection within the MSCP area
could preclude the need to list as endangered or threatened some of the
species in the planning area which are currently proposed or are candidates
for federal listing. For species which are already federally listed, or
become listed in the future because a significant portion of the species'
range occurs outside the MSCP area, adequate protection under the MSCP plan
would mean that there would be no future planning or mitigation obligations
regarding these species other than what is stipulated in the plan. It is
therefore in the County's best interest to ensure that approved projects
adequately protect species for which "coverage" under MSCP is desired.
Thirty-one of the MSCP target species for coverage occur on Otay Ranch, and
the current Otay Ranch development plan could affect the coverage of 13 of
these species, as discussed below.
In assessing the adequacy of the current MSCP preserve alternative's coverage
of coastal sage scrub and its associated species, such as the California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila caiifornica), the wildlife' agencies found the level of
habitat preservation and preserve design in the Otay aces to be problematic.
Most of the high-quality coastal sage scrub in the MSCP planning area occurs
along a fairly linear, north-south swath that is confined between urban
development to the west and mountains to the east. Success of the NCCP
subregional plan is largely dependant upon keeping intact this linear
2
.:onfiguzation, which can be thought of as the "backbone" of the NCCP plan.
While some portions of this linear swath are already severely narrowed by past
ivelopment, several wider portions support core gnatcatcher populations such
~s in the Otay area, the maintenance of which is critical to the species'
long-term viability. The proposed development in the Proctor Valley and Otay
Ickes areas would extend across this linear configuration within a core
gnatcatcher population, dissecting it, reducing its habitat acreage, and
leading to indirect impacts resulting from the increased urban/wildlands
interface.
oastal cactus wre
Although the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan calls for no-net-loss of
cactus wren habitat on Otay Ranch, it relies on revegetation efforts to fulfil
this goal. Due to the uncertainty of success in re-creating cactus wren
habitat, the most prudent conservation strategy is to preserve existing pairs
of this species on Otay Ranch to the maximum extent practicable. Elimination
of development along the small drainages on the vest side of Salt Creek Canyon
and establishing adequate buffers, as discussed above for the gnatcateher,
should substantially increase cactus wren preservation in this area.
Western burrowin¢ owl and other target animal species occurring in grasslands
Service staff have reviewed the adequacy of MSCP protection for sensitive
wildlife that occur in grasslands and have found that the currently proposed
MSCP preserve design lacks adequate grassland protection. Significant
grasslands in the Otay area are not currently proposed to be preserved in the
MSCP plan. Adequate protection of certain species, such as the western
burrowing owl, grasshopper sparrow, ferruginous hawk and northern harrier,
depend on greater preservation of these grasslands. Approximately 555 acres
of gzassland would be developed under the Phase I-Progress Plan Alternative.
Most of the grassland on Otay Ranch occurs south of Otay Valley, where 376
acres would be directly impacted.
Preservation of all the grasslands on Otay Ranch south of Otay River Valley
and specified areas north of lower Otay Iake (Figure 1) would substantially
increase protection for the burrowing owl and its habitat, and it would also
provide benefits to the grasshopper sparrow and other grassland-dependent
species.
Vernal pool specie
MSCP target species that would be significantly impacted by loss of Otay Ranch
vernal pools include the State and federally endangered California Oreutt
grass (Orcuttia californica) and Otay Mesa mint (Pogogyme nudiuscula), the
federally endangered Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus wootoni), the
federally proposed San Diego fairy shrimp (Brschinecte sandiegensis), and the
Federal category 2 candidate little mousetail (Nyosaurus minimus asp. opus).
Proposed development, as reflected on the MSCP Multi-habitat Planning Area
map, would result in loss of the California Orcutt grass population in the J30
vernal pool complex on Otay Ranch. Otay Mesa mint would be impacted at the
3
southern edge of its population in pool complexes 29-30. Deletion of
development south of Otay Valley would avoid direct impacts to these species
(Figure 1, Area A).
As acknowledged in the final Program EIR, the distribution and occurrence of
San Diego and Riverside fairy shrimp on Otay Ranch is not well documented.
These species would be significantly impacted by development of vernal pool
complex J-30. Potential habitat for this species would also be destroyed by
proposed development north of lower Otay Lake and in the Proctor Valley area.
Elimination of development south of Otay River Valley, north of lower Otay
Lake, in the middle Proctor Valley area, and in the 'inverted L," as shown on
Figure 1, would avoid impacts to fairy shrimp or potential fairy shrimp
habitat in these areas.
Two individuals of little mousetail, one of the rarest vernal pool taxa in San
Diego County, were found in the K6 Vernal pools north of lower Otay Lake on
the Proctor Valley parcel. Vernal pools in this area would either be
destroyed by the proposed development or preserved as isolated fragments
surrounded by development. In Service and Department comment letters
responding to the draft EIR, we recommended preservation of the entire
watersheds for the K6, K8+ and K9 vernal pool complexes, and we recommended
against preservation of isolated vernal pool habitat fragments. Elimination
of development from areas north of lower Otay Lake, as described above under
discussions on gnatcatchers and general-preserve design, would resolve the
problem of isolating vernal pools in this area. A historical location of this
species would be impacted by proposed development south of Otay Valley in an
area recommended by the wildlife agencies for preservation.
San Diego thornmint
The San Diego thornmint (State endangered, Federal category 1 candidate) on
Otay Ranch constitutes a major population within the MSCP planning area (over
1,000 individuals). It is the southernmost U.S. population occurring in
unfragmented habitat. All known occurrences of this species on Otay Ranch
would be eliminated by the proposed development, with approximately 10,000
individuals lost as a result of the resort development.
Otav tarvlant (Hemizonia conjugens)
The Phase I-Progress Plan would impact 28X of the point localities for Otay
tarplant (State endangered, Federal category 2 candidate) on Otay Ranch. This
species is currently limited to approximately 12 populations in southern San
Diego County, and the survival of Otay tarplant is dependent upon its adequate
protection under MSCP. The largest population of this species occurs on San
Niguel Ranch, where Otay tazplant has the greatest probability of persistence
if left intact.
The Phase Z-Progress Plan would impact 28X of the point locations for Otay
tarplant. Because the point localities shown in the EIR do not necessarily
reflect plant numbers, it is possible that the current plan already protects
90X of the Otay tarplant population on the property. This merits further
investigation. If the current plan indeed impacts more than lOX of the Otay
4
::arplant on-site, elimination or relocation of the Public/Quasi-public
development in Ots~ River Valley and reduction of the number of road crossings
ever the valley aze likely to increase the level of Otay tarplant preservation
on the property to at least 90X. These modifications would be consistent with
the wildlife agencies' comments made in the past regarding reduction of
development in Otay River Valley to enhance habitat connectivity.
Other plant species:
Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegate). Otay Ranch supports one of 11 major
variegated dudleya populations in the lSSCP planning area. Although a majority
of the mapped locations for this species in the MSCP planning area occur in
fragmented habitat and are likely to be highly susceptible to indizect
impacts, variegated dudleya habitat on Otay Ranch is currently zelatively
unfragmented. The Phase I-Progress Plan would result in loss of approximately
30X of the point localities for this species on Otay Ranch. Elimination of
development south of Otay River Valley, southeast of Otay lake, and in
specified areas north of Otay Lake as shown on Figure 1 would substantially
reduce impacts on Otay Ranch to a level acceptable to the wildlife agencies.
Orcutt's birds beak (Cordylanthus orcuttianus). The one population of this
species on Otay Ranch would be lost by development south of the San Diego Air
Sports Center. Deletion of development east of lower Otay Reservoir, as
recommended above under the general preserve design and coastal sage scrub
discussions, would eliminate direct impacts to this species.
Narrow-leaved nightshade (Solanum tenuilobum). The proposed Otay Ranch
development would remove 38X of the mapped locations for this species on-site.
Elimination of development on the Proctor Valley parcel and the "inverted L"
as specified on Figure 1 would substantially reduce impacts to this species.
5
TABLE 1
RECOMMENDED CHANGES JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CHANGES
A.1 Eliminate development south To adequately preserve Otay mesa
of Otay River Valley. mint, California Orcutt grass,
little mousetail (historical
location), variegated dudleya,
prostrate navarretia, San Diego
fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy
shrimp, western burrowing owl, and
other grassland species.
B. Pull development back from To adequately preserve California
Salt Creek to provide gnatcatcher and coastal cactus
buffers and avoid impacts wFen.
to habitat in side
drainages.
C. Eliminate development To resolve general preserve design
southeast of lower Otay and coastal sage scrub/California
Lake gnatcatcher connectivity issues.
To adequately preserve Thorne's
hairstreak, willowy monardella,
variegated dudleya, San Diego
goldenstars, and Orcutt's bird's
beak.
D. Reduce development north of To resolve general preserve design
Otay Lake. and gnatcatcher/coastal sage scrub
connectivity issues. To reduce
edge effects to vernal pools with
little mousetail and potential
fairy shrimp habitat. To
adequately preserve variegated
dudleya, narrow-leaved nightshade,
and San Diego thornmint.
E. Design resort development To adequately protect a major
to avoid San Diego population of San Diego thornmint.
thornmint impacts.
F. Eliminate development from To resolve general preservn design
middle Proctor Valley area. and gnateatcher/coastal aage scrub
connectivity issues. To adequately
preserve narrow-leaved nightshade
and potential fairy shrimp habitat.
1 Letters on table correspond to designated areas on Figure 4
RECOl44ENDED CHANGES JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CHANGES
'! C. Eliminate development from To resolve general preserve design
northern and middle and gnatcatcher/coastal sage scrub
"inverted L" connectivity issues. To adequately
preserve narrow-leaved nightshade
and potential fairy shrimp habitat.
H. Reduce development and road To enhance preserve design and
crossings in Otay River connectivity along the river
Valley, including south valley. To adequately protect Otay
slope. tarplant.
~1 ~ ''
~' w ~
/~
>s
ctu ~ r~
~. l f
t~ .~
r...
e .. r''J •
,. ~ ~ ,i
,` .~ ~~ _
a w
..~
4 pay "~
per. "6~ ,'-,..
C. ,j Q \ 0" t
J ~: Z-. ~ _, r~ G.~
~' .. i111
~ ``- ' n~
l`/-
DRAFT _`,. ~.
~~~;
- 100% Habitat Preserve
~-~;- AO% Habitat Preserve
E= t10% Habitat Preserve
7D% Habitat Preserve
Pertxnt preservation
e~pppGes onty to
aibdat lands
°~ .
ti 1'
l~° Die;o
~•-
N.o..d o
~ "~
drapf(tlSme~D d•Oi~ seas adCrar rrhiCJr
fed 1af aaar~p aaaiht p4iOtsCl~M
os4 1m 1ae datlt Muttlpk tipeOGS
ttvaDan Program OWSCPI. Tae aio-
moo. rt u aot trterttled tau yi hods
rridon dte tlaes tfe .preserved (some
development erlt; be aNOrred), sad som
areas dumde tae reres nny Wtlnralyy
be eluded la tae ptesarve. Tae 615C
~d Bm E ~ SupeMsors for ~aOei
lad COaatY tlefdre t)ds edortaabon LS-
nsed ID npdm Imd use.
r
~/ BarnOary~ Area
~`~'~/~ Freeways N
~~,.•~~ Major Streams ~e
i :: Lakes and Lagoons Mors
^ 83gii=e 1
,...-w.-.r...~.::~
Multi-Habitat Planning Area
s
--- -- ---
r=
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ._.:
~~
~~
u
7 €'
:~'
P
~ C
Y TN
A C
O N
~ n
:~
9 A
~ A
0
~~
0
r
V
pf
n
a
w
0
n
S
s
. ~"~
. ~ iLv . ~, i ..
'` ~.
r
_-
`
f'
/ ~ , `
cg'
rt EFL r.
i'~-`~•,`~~r'..
..
' ~ ~
- :;!
_
r
ti171 sr
~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ =c ~~~`
~ •1 ~,_° ~
~..
~).~
..
2
M
M
6 1/ f, '~
~ I .III ~£. Ywa9~ ~° ~~ ~~~~ ~
;:~g ~ _
g gyy' ~ ~a 8 5 Z`46y•: >r €'~ ~. c`--'; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~` _r
O°V ~~~ ~=1 ^c ~.1 ~~y~~ QeRY B~ ~~~~ 8~ ~LCn
~~AA ye}p~V ~O E xx Fk ~ R ~a ~~tiV ~~y~ ~ G ~ T
1!'~ w ~l 33 q £ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ L ~J' C ~ Z '
~ ~. ^ i _ ~
ATTACHMENT E
May 17, 1995
Mr. Robert Leiter
Planning Director
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: The Comments of Eastlake Development Company re: The Draft Multiple
Species Conservation Program, Dated March I, 1995.
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Thank you for providing Eastlake Development Company with an opportunity to
comment on the draft MSCP.
In summary, our review of the MSCP and its included graphics shows that it
erroneously depicts portions of Eastlake on several Figures of the MSCP,
including 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 and 3.1 as either containing coastal sage scrub habitat type
on site, or depicting potential wildlife corridors along the Salt Creek area, which
transverses the Eastlake Project in a north-south direction.
As confirmed by the attached correspondence from Mr. Barry L. (ones, President
of Sweetwater Environmental Biologist, the Eastlake Project does not contain any
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, as the City of Chula Vista's prior Eastlake E1R's will
reflect. Commencing with the original Master EIR, the Eastlake site has been
noted as highly disturbed due to dry farming for literally decades. Accordingly, gll
of the Eastlake Project area is dominated by non-native grasslands and other flora,
which is not of a type considered to be a "sensitive habitat" within the MSCP.
We feel that the depiction of areas within the draft MSCP is neither necessary for
the purposes of a preserve contemplated by the MSCP, nor is it consistent with the
existing land use entitlements, which are subject to the Eastlake III General
Development Plan and Development Agreement.
While the General Development Plan may depict areas as open space, that
depiction cannot be equated to either the dedication of lands involved, nor legally
restrict the land uses to those the MSCP determines as compatible with a preserve.
A review of the land uses available to Eastlake pursuant to the adopted City Plans
for. the area (including the City's General Plan) will show there is a wide
divergence between the land use activities authorized by the City and the
"Compatible Land Use Activities and Preserved Management Guidelines,"
contained in Chapter 4 of the MSCP, and specifically, Table 4-1 "General
Compatibility of Land Uses and Management Activities Within and Adjacent to
Preserves."
~.
EASTIAKE
t)EVEL BEM
voo w~ Avenue
suite too
Cnuia ustc, C.P. 97Ct4
(610) 421-012)
FAX (619) 427•ta30
Mr. Robert Leiter
)\tay 17, ]995
Page Two
It is clear that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service anticipate that under the "Model Implementing
Agreement/Management Authorization", Attachment A to the MSCP, the City would "Establish
and maintain land use and development project permitting procedures and regulatory programs
necessary to implement the MSCP and this Agreement, as described in Section 7 of this
Agreement."
Section 6.2 of the Model Implementing Agreement thus requires (under the current draft MSCP
depictions of portions of Eastlake) that the City under take land use actions inconsistent with the
existing approved land uses within the Eastlake Plan area. For the reasons noted above, none of
the areas erroneously depicted in various Figures of the MSCP are necessarily desirable for
preserve purposes.
The following errors exist in the draft MSCP::Figure 2-1 (all references are to the draft MSCP)
depicts the possible existence of Coastal Sage Scrub, native grasslands and oak woodlands on the
Eastlake Property. ,
• ]n the Eastlake Village Center there is a temporary detention base in leading into the
Telegraph Canyon Channel. The areas may assume this area to be construed as a wetland,
when it is not.
• There is a eucalyptus grove in Salt Creek, not an Oak Woodland as depicted on Figure 2-1.
• Contrary to Figure 2-1, the dominant habitat type in Salt Creek are disturbed non-native
grasslands, with a small area of wetlands.
• There may be some coastal sage scrub on the park site south of the Olympic Training Center.
There is however, no coastal sage scrub along the westerly edge of upper and lower Otay
Lakes within the Eastlake Project.
Figure 2-4 also contains a number of erroneous depictions of habitat types or public land
ownership. This Figure shows public ownership of an area in Salt Creek north of Telegraph
Canyon Road (Otay Lakes Road). This depiction is inaccurate and contrary to existing plans for
the area. As noted above, the City's classification of this area is as "Open Space" cannot be
considered synonymous with the MSCP's determination of a land use which is compatible with a
preserve pursuant to MSCP Chapter 4. Nor is the area publicly owned.
Figure 2-3 similarly depicts the area within Eastlake west of upper Otay Lake, north of Otay
Lakes Road (Telegraph Canyon Road) as within public ownership. This area is not publicly
owned.
1•tr. Robert Leiter
l,tay ] 7, 1995
Page Three
Figure 2-7 depicts as "park and preserve" various areas throughout Salt Creek and along the
western edge of both upper and lower Otay Lakes. These depictions are inconsistent with the
existing adopted General Development Plan and Eastlake III Development Agreement for the
area. The City's depiction of some of these areas as "parks and open space" does not limit their
use in a manner consistent with the land use compatibility matrix contained in Chapter 4 of the
MSCP.
Figure 2-9 contains errors in its depiction of areas of Salt Creek north of Otay Lakes Road.
Although these areas are currently used for agricultural purposes, the City's adopted plan for these
areas does not require their long term use for agricultural purposes.
Figures 2-2 and 2-9 indicate that areas of Salt Creek are "protected land" with a low habitat value.
For the reasons stated above, this is untrue.
Figure 3-2 indicates that Chula Vista is to adopt a "hardline" preserve where 90% to 100% of
habitat is to be preserved. We are concerned with this designation because it is incorrect, yet
under the draft Implementing Agreement the City is required to plan the areas as if the depiction is
appropriate.
There are other inappropriate statements in the MSCP as it relates to areas within or adjacent to
Eastlake. For example, the extension of Orange Avenue will impact about 3 acres of wetlands
v.~ithin the southerly edge of Salt Creek. If there is any significant mitigation required for the loss
of the adjacent wetland area, we believe that there should be public participation in the long term
maintenance of any mitigation area, versus maintenance becoming the responsibility of Eastlake
Homeowners as assumed by the draft MSCP.
Finally, we would note that Figure I-3 indicates several areas in Eastlake as being "100% habitat
preserve", which is inconsistent with the current Eastlake III General Development Plan and the
Eastlake III Development Agreement.
In response to these inaccuracies, we request the City of Chula Vista correspond in writing to the
City of San Diego with respect to the MSCP and speciScally request corrections to Figure 1-3, 2-
l, 2-2, 2-4, 2-7, 2-9, 3-1 and 3-2.
Public ownership, the potential for a wildlife corridors, the presence of vegetation type or habitat
preservation value within the Eastlake Project are all erroneously depicted in the above draft
MSCP Figures.
Mr. Robert Leiter
May l7, 1995
Page Four
The City's failure to request clarification of these areas will undoubtedly cause it and Eastlake
Development Company problems in the future because pursuant to an Implementing Agreement,
required that the City modify its land uses as a matter consistent with the MSCP.
Thank you for an opportunity to comment on this draft.
Sincerely,
~'~~~
Katy y1 naht
Project T9anacer
CKB/K~~1'/jr/gmo
Attachment
cc Mayor Shirley A. Horton, City of Chula Vista
Councilman Jerry R. Rindone, City of Chula Vista
Councilman Scott D. Alevy, City of Chula Vista
Councilman John S. Moot, City of Chula Vista
Councilman Stephen C. Padilla, City of Chula Vista
John Goss, City Manager, City of Chula Vista
Craig K. Beam, Esq., Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
3838 Camino del Rio Norm. Suite 270. Son Diego. Cdnornia 92108 (619) 624-2300 Fax (619) 624-2301 ;
May 16, 1995
Ms. Katy R. Wright
Project Manager
Eastlake Development Company
900 Lane Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91914
Subject: Review of the Eastlake Project in relation to the Draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program.
Dear Ms. Wright:
I have reviewed the Eastlake Project in relation to the Draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP). Two specific issues are addressed in this review: 1)
refinement in the vegetation mapping; and 2) the existing condition of the proposed
comdor along Salt Creek and its potential long-term value for wildlife movement. Both
issues are discussed below.
I completed an on-site review of the MSCP vegetation map for the Eastlake Project on
May 12, 1995. Because of the large coverage area, the vegetation trapping prepared for
the MSCP is done at a fairly gross scale and is not intended to be used on a project
specific basis. Based on my site assessment, the primary discrepancy in the mapping
occurs in the northeast comer of the property. The MSCP reap shows several small
patches of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurring on the Eastlake ProjecK. My field review,
however, revealed that this errs is entirely non-native grassland and dry farmed
agricultural land dominated by non-native grasses and an invasive weed (sweet fennel
[Foeniculum vulgare]). Native sage scrub species wen essentially absent from this ana.
The only location on the property where any Diegaa coastal sage scrub occurs is in the
southeastern carnet, as depicted on Figure 2-1 of the MSCP.
I also reviewed the proposed corridor along Salt Creek (see Figure 3-1 of the MSCP)
which traverses the Eastlake Project in s north-south direction. This drainage primarily
supports non-native grassland and agricultural vegetation, with little or no wetland
vegetation occurring along the entire drainages Scattered patches of the non-native
tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) occur throughout. A box culvert approximately 12-feet high, 10-
feet wide and 100-feet long currently tuns under Otay Lakes Road. Eucalyptus trees and
existing farm buildings occur just downstream of Otay Lakes Road. Much of We
bidopicoi studies • wldite rtrcxgpement • tabitol restdotion • enviormentd rsseorcn . ropJOlary eortplionce
resouce Pianr+irq. ossesvTrent, and rrrripotion • rawpetatbn plorrvng. inpbmsntdion, and rtaneairp
Ms. Katy R. Wright May 16, 1995
Eastlake Development Company Page 2 of 3
topography along the drainage consists of very low gradient slopes with a poorly defined
wmdor.
The Multi-habitat Planning Area depicted on Figure 3-I of the MSCP is based on data
provided on Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2~ among others. It should be noted, however, that
Figure 2-2 (Habitat Evaluation Map) does not even rank the corridor, but simply shows it
in agriculture. Figure 2-3, the Core Biological Resource Area and Linkages Map does
not include Salt Creek as either a core biological resource area or key linkage for the area.
Figure 2-4 identifies the area along Salt Crcek as City owned, although it is my
understanding based on our conversations, that although this area has been identified as
open space on your General Development Plan, it has not been dedicated as open space at
this time.
In looking at the areas surrounding the .Eastlake Project, high quality habitats, in
particulaz Diegan coastal sage scrub, occur to the south and east. The Core Biological
Resource Area and Linkages Map (Figure 2-3) identifies these areas as core areas
connecting with the Otay River Valley to the south, Dray Lake to the east and the lama]
Mountains to the north. Significant undeveloped lands and redundant corridors through
existing Diegan coastal sage scrub occur just east of the Eastlake Project through these
areas
Based on my review of the MSCP maps and my on-site inspection, the proposed corridor
along Salt Creek does not appear warranted for the following reasons:
• it was not identified as a core area or key linkage on the Core Biological Resource
Area and Linkages Map (Figure 2-3);
• it does not support any high value habitats as noted on Figure 2-2 (Habitat
Evaluation Map);
• the ctnrent siu conditions do not provide vegetative cover for »se as s corridor,
and
• superior corridors occur to the east through high quality habitats and much larger
blocks of contiguous habitat.
I would like to add that multiple corridors within any preserve system are generally
preferred. However, given the present low wildlife value of the Salt Creek corridor, the
length of the corridor (in excess of three miles), and the far superior options for directing
wildlife movement through large blocks of habitat aad much shorter corridors to the east,
Ms. Katy R. Wright
Eastlake Development Company
May 16, 1995
Page 3 of 3
suggests that any efforts towards maintaining corridors within the region should be
directed towards areas to the east of the Eastlake project.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I may be of fiuther assistance.
Sincerely,
Barry. Jones
President
ATTACHMENT F
AP0U5ME~'
5
v,~ ~ m ...~editnfed to ~'onununify Sanire
~L 4 10596 JAMACHA BOULEVARD, SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9191'!
Spc~. TELEPHONE: 6)(FYt22, AREA CODE 819
May 30, 1995
Mr. Robert Leiter
Planning Director
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
f~
v
Subject: Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)/
Otay Wate istrict "Use Area"
Dear Mr er:
The Otay Water District (OWD) wishes to advise you that a portion
of the District's property known as the "Use Area" has recently
been established (through Section 7) as a 190.3 acre Coastal Sage
Scrub Habitat reserve bank known as the San Miguel Habitat
Management Area (HMA). This HMA lies within the State's Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) Subregional Planning Area
10.1. Consequently, the MSCP should not designate the Use Area as
part of the MSCP conservation area at this time. Nor should any
other designation be assigned that would encumber the current
planned and committed uses of this property. The remaining
(approximately 319) acres is planned for other uses, such as water
facility development, parks and/or other recreational endeavors and
should also be excluded from the MSCP at this time.
There are three (3) subregional habitat planning efforts underway
within the County of San Diego. The OWD is impacted by two of the
three different plans (City of San Diego MSCP-and county of San
Diego Plan). The District is willing to participate in these plans
in partnership with the lead agency under the designation of a
"regional public facility provider" as have SDG~E and CWA. The OWD
will be issuing comprehensive comments with regard to the two plans
and associated environmental documents before their close of the
review periods.
Please contact Michael F. Coleman, OWD's Environmental Specialist,
at 670-2293 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~"~
Keith Lewinger
General Manager
KL:sw
cc:DOUg Clarke Dan Mahanke
Mike Coleman Jim Peasley
Tom Harron Tim Stanton
umeAS~q.osao.DOc
JA /
m JUNCTION j:
~ ~
N Y ~
~ p ~Q CgMPo RO
Hµry ~
JAMACHA BASIN
' WASTEWATER RECLA-
QP / MATION FACILITY
P
~~~•
~~pY
y~ ~~
-~
SNt£7WATER ~ / /
RES. ~~_
~ / \ SAN MIGUEL MT.
SDG&E MIGUEL
SUBSTATION
SAN MIGUEL RD ~.~„
_ ~i
~~~~
EXIST. OWD USE AREA
::%
'O . ~
p0 ~
n~o f~
P
~4~ (YO
Q UPPER
U OTAY RES.
PROJECT LOCATION
scaLE: i"= 4000'
ALGERT ENGINEERING, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEYING, LAND PLANNING.
Since 1946
~^
May 31, 1995 ~L'~t~!:.
~~
..~~,0
P 21gyS
Mr. Bob Leiter ~N~v~~N^
Chula Vista Planning Department lr
2'76 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Ra: MSCP Draft, APN 585-130-18 anG 16
Dear Sirs:
We hereby request that the above referenced 5 acre parcels be
included with the adjacent former San Miguel Partner's properties
in the area designated as "developable". Our properties are at
least as developable in terms of vegetation and slopes as the
larger property. We would agree to create open .space lots for the
portions of our parcels with slopes exceeding 25~ as part of any
development plan. Planning for lots and access for our parcels was
included in the initial tentative map prepared by San Miguel
Properties. We did not initiate the deletion of those parcels from
their plans, and we intend to develop our properties in conformance
with the development of the larger parcel.
We will attend the public hearing at the City of Chula Vista on
June 13, 1995, and we wish to be informed of any other hearings
regarding the MSCP.
Sincerely yours,
`"'~7' I
J mes H. Alger ,
Owner of APN 585-130-18
and agent for Bill Scott,
owner of APN 585-130-16
JHA:kw
ATTACHMENT G
428 BROADWAY • CHULA VISTA • CA 91910 • TEL (619) 420.7090 FAX (619) 420-9139
ATTACHMENT H
DATE: May 17, 1995
TO: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
FROM: Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney
lN~-
SUBJECT: Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program
Our Office is in the process of reviewing the Public Review
Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP"), dated
March 1, 1995, and the Model Implementing Agreement, "Attachment
A", prepared by the City of San Diego. We intend on providing our
comments on the MSCP and the Model Implementing Agreement prior to
end of the public review period. However you have requested that
we provide you with a preliminary outline of our basic concerns
with respect to the MSCP and the Model Implementing Agreement.
Since the Implementing Agreement will serve as the document that
dictates how the MSCP will actually operate with respect to the
local participants we have focused our comments on this document.
We have the following comments:
1. severability. The Model Implementing Agreement should
include a severability clause which would provide the City with
protection from the actions of other participants in the MSCP. In
other words, the City should have a guarantee that its "Take"
permit would not be jeopardized by the actions or inactions of
other local jurisdictions.
2. Withdrawal. The Implementing Agreement should include a
provision that would allow the City to withdraw from the MSCP
should federal or state laws or regulations change. This is
particularly important because of the recent discussions by the
Legislature regarding the future of the Endangered Species Act. In
addition, should the federal or state government require
modifications to the implementation of the MSCP due to "unforeseen
circumstances" the City should have the right to withdraw from the
MSCP. (See comment Number 4 below.) In addition, our withdrawal
from the MSCP should be allowed without penalty or liability and
there should be a guarantee that our withdrawal would not impact
previous "take" permits issued by the City and relied on by
property owners.
3. Covered species. A provision should be added that would
allow for the automatic extension of the City's take authority to
those species that are presently "covered" by the MSCP but have not
yet been listed as a protected or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act. In addition, the federal and state
government should not be allowed to ask for new mitigation measures
for such species. The Model Implementing Agreement only provides
that the MSCP shall be deemed to be adequate to support an
application for such a permit. This means that any time an
additional covered species is subsequently listed as protected or
endangered the City would have to apply for a new "take" permit.
~~
Bob Leiter
May 17, 1995
Page 2
4. Qnforeaeea Circumstance. The Model Implementing Agreement
gives the federal and state government too much discretion to
change the terms of the MSCP. Specifically, the Model
Implementing Agreement provides that the federal and state
governments could seek additional mitigation from the City if there
is an "Unforeseen Circumstance." The term "unforeseen
Circumstance if far too ambiguous and should be more strictly
defined. In addition the City should be allowed to withdraw from
the MSCP if we disagree with a subsequent change in the terms of
the MSCP.
5. Funding. The local jurisdictions are being requested to
provide a far greater level of commitment to fund the MSCP than
either the federal or state governments. In fact, the Model
Implementing Agreement does not adequately obligate the federal or
state government to provide funding for the MSCP. In addition it is
unclear whether a lack of funding by the federal or state
governments would be considered to impact the "proper functioning"
of the MSCP. (See comment 7 below.) It fs our understanding that
federal officials have represented that the local jurisdictions
would not be "harmed" if the federal government should not be able
to adequately fund the MSCP. However this representation is not
reflected in either the MSCP or the Model Implementing Agreement.
Perhaps, the preserve land requirements should be decreased if the
federal government is unable to adequately fund the MSCP. In
addition, a provision should be added that the funding
responsibilities of the federal and state governments shall not
have an impact on the "proper functioning" of the MSCP.
6. Liability. There are a number liability issues with
respect to implementing the MSCP. As a result of the recent
Supreme Court decision of Dolan v. Citv of Tigard, 94 D.A.R. 8803
(June 27, 1994), the Endangered Species Act has come under intense
scrutiny. Consequently, we can not predict with a great degree of
certainty the outcome of a challenge to the MSCP at this stage of
its development. However we do know that such a challenge would be
expensive to litigate and 3f the City was to receive an adverse
judgment, it could be quite costly. In addition, the MSCP requires
the City ae well as other jurisdictions to design mitigation
policies which could result in permit exactions being imposed that
may be held by a court of law not to be roughly proportional to the
project'c impact. Zn essence the federal and state governments are
spreading the risk of liability from a "takings" downwards to the
local jurisdictions. Our office has repeatedly requested that the
federal and state government indemnify the City. This request has
been refused. At the very least, the federal and state governments
should provide the City with an opinion or a representation in the
Implementing Agreement regarding the legality of the MSCP and its
implementation.
Bob Leiter
May 17, 1995
Page 3
7. Properly Functioning. The Model Implementing Agreement
provides that additional land or financial compensation or other
form of mitigation will not be required so long as the MSCP is
"properly functioning." Therefore it is critical that the term
"properly functioning MSCP" be defined to our satisfaction in the
Implementing Agreement.
8. 7lnnazad Lands. We will need to clarify in our
Implementing Agreement how annexed lands will be handled.
Currently, the federal and state government has represented that
take authorizations can only apply to land within the land use
jurisdiction of the local entity. We will need to clarify that once
land is annexed to the City, the City~s take authorization will
automatically apply to that land and that we can include this land
in our subarea plans.
As we stated above, we have provided you with only our
preliminary review of the MSCP and Model Implementing Agreement.
We anticipate having additional questions and comments upon our
further review of these documents. Should you have any further
questions please let me know.
cc: Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney
(Y:\NO~e\Attorney\YSCP.Ye~)
ATTACHMENT I
,,.. _.
M E M O R A N D U M
April 14, 1995
File # YE-001
T0: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning I
FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Worksll
SUBJECT: Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan
This is in response to your memorandum dated April 10, 1995 asking
us to review and provide comments on the subject document.
The second paragraph under Section 3.4.1 titled Subarea Plan
Approval indicates that subarea plans may be prepared by developers
using the adopted MSCP Plan as a framework plan and incorporating
its guidelines. Since the boundaries of the biological core areas
and linkages is not clearly defined in the MSCP Plan, there may be
a conflict between the developers' subarea plan and the city's
plans of Infrastructure, Public Facilities and Circulation Element
development.
It will be important for us in the future during the Implementing
Agreement and Subarea Plan stage to assess the impact of the MSCP
Plan upon the city's existing and future infrastructure and public
works. Also, it will be important to examine whether certain
infrastructure systems, such as sewer or other utility lines will.
be accommodated within the planned habitat areas.
SMN:rb
(N:\NONQ\iNaIN7YR\JIDVPL7IN\NBCP.BNN)
ATTACHMENT J
May 4, 1995
To:
From:
Subject:
Bob Leiter
Director of Planning
Carol Gove
Fire Marshal
Draft MSCP Plan
I have reviewed the above document and offer the following comments.
I realize this section deals with the public financing of long-term maintenance of natural
habitat, but would it not be appropriate to inGude funding that would cover the cost of
brush management as well.
Perhaps this is the section In which general brush management guidelines are
mentioned.
This is an area where fuel management is mentioned, but not in the context of brush
management and hazard abatement.
Page 4.7 - 4.3 • Guldellnes for Preserve Management Actlvltles • 4.3.1 • Flrc
Management
To fire officials, this section is most critical. Fire Management Plans should be detailed
and very specific.
page 6 -1 -Statement of Assurances
This section should also address brush management for I'rfe safety considerations.
Thank you Tor the extended time in which to comment.
0216-95
ATTACHMENT K
MEMORANDUM
April 27, 1995
T0: Bob Leiter, Planning Director
VIA: Chris Salomone, Community Development Duector ~ ~ ,
FROM: Jce Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Community Development Department Comments on Draft MSCP
The draft MSCP identifies "biological core areas" and "linkages" and further requires that the
preserve design include 70% to 80% of these azeas. The identified core areas and linkages
affect every major current Community Development project, including the Midbayfront project,
the MCA Amphitheater/City Corporation Yazd, the Veteran's Home, the Lower Sweetwater
Valley project, and properties along the Sweetwater River between I-5 and I-805. Throe major
issues exist with respect to the application of preserving a specified percentage of habitat within
these areas. First, all of the core/linkage areas include land within other jurisdictions.
Limitation on development within these areas would require allocation of allowable development
percentages by jurisdiction or be complicated by oversight by a regional authority. Second,
resource quality varies from one core/linkage area to another. It does not scem reasonable to
apply a blanket percentage of preserve azea to all core/linkage areas since some resources may
require protection of not only the resource area, but a substantial buffer from development as
well. Others may require duect protection of the resource, allowing a significantly greater
proportion of development. Third, some core/linkage areas contain a greater quantity of
habitat than others. For instance, some core areas may be laced with developable land while
others contain more contiguous habitat. Universal development limitations would not recognize
these differences.
Although it appears that the core/linkage areas have been established for solid habitat planning
reasons, the actual boundaries appear to be quite general. Community Development has a great
concern over application of specific limitations on development within these imprecisely
delineated areas. We would suggest that the core/linkage concept be retained as a preserve
planning tool, but that there not be a limitation on development within ffiose areas as currently
depicted in the draft plan.
ATTACHMENT L
Memorandum
DATE: April 28, 1995
TO: Bob Leiter, Planning Director , .
FROM: Gerald J. Jamriska, Special Planning rojects a ger, O y Ranch Project
RE: Otay Ranch Project Team Comments on the MSCP
The Otay Ranch Project Team has initially reviewed the MSCP Plan and have comments
on the following major areas:
Biological Preserve Design Checklist
• Buffer Areas (p 3-45)
The plan calls for adequate buffers depending on adjacent land uses and resources. They
indicate edge effect studies suggest a tttitiimum of 150 feet. More information is needed on
the location and use of the 150-foot buffer. The interface of this buffer with the Overall
Project Design unifying Dominate Skyline Landscape treatment may be in conflict.
• Preserve shape that minimizes edge effects (p.3-45)
The Otay Ranch Preserve area has detailed studies that justify the preserve boundary.
Vertical as well as horizontal separation should be considered between the development
area and the preserve.
• Management Feasibility (p.3-45)
Land uses within and adjacent to preserve have to comply with compatibility guidelines.
These guidelines need to be reviewed in relationship to the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP.
Resource Protection Guidelines
• Compensating Mitigation (p.3-65)
The Otay Ranch has already determined "compensating mitigation" as part of the Phase 1
RMP and will further identify specific mitigation under Phase 2. Avoidance, impact
minimization and replacement have all been determined in the RMP. We are concerned
that additional mitigation will be required beyond the requirements of the RMP.
Subarea Plans
• Subarea Plan Approval (p. 3-90)
We are concern as to whether the Phase 2 RMP will satisfy the Subarea Plan
requirements. Criteria for the subarea plan needs to be established to ensure the RMP is
consistent with the wildlife agencies plans for subareas.
• Preserve Management (p. 3-95)
Additional information is needed on the Preserve Management to ensure the Otay Ranch
Preserve Owner Manager is consistent. We are concerned about conflicts with the goals
of the Otay Ranch GDP for the Preserve Owner Manager.
MSCP Plan Amendments and Data Base Updates
• Incorporate new scientific data on habitats and species (p.3-95)
The Project Team is concerned about adding additional species to the Plan after its
adoption. The Otay Ranch has a 30 to 50 year build out and needs more asswance these
rules will be consistent and not changed.
MSCP Plan Implementation
• Annual Accounting and Biological Monitoring (p. 3-96)
The RMP requires monitoring and reporting on the preserve. We are concern about
consistency in reporting standards and that efforts not be duplicated with the Phase 2
RMP reporting .
Guidelines for Preserve Land Uses
• Recreation (P. 4-3)
We are concern that active recreational land uses have been identified as incompatible with
the core areas and linkages. It seems inconsistent to us that single-family homes on large
lot would be considered compatible while active play fields and golf courses are not
compatible.
• Fencing (p.4-9)
The fencing standards described here are not consistent with the fencing for the Ranch
listed in the Overall Design Plan.
Statement of Assurances
• Assurances (P. 6-1) .
A definition of extraordinary circumstances is needed to understand when additional
species or land might be added to the Plan. The Otay Ranch, as a long tera- project, needs
better assurance that the Plan will remain consistent. If the biological data is updated
every year is there the potential for extraordinary circumstances.
Additional species listing under the ESA are required to be considered by the wildlife
agencies. How can there be assurance if the Plan is going to change? What possible
species wuld be added? If this Progam is comprehensive, then every species should be
covered.
2
ATTACHMENT M
4.19.95
70: Jess Volenzuelo, Director of Parks and Recreation
From: Martin Schmidt, landscape ArchHect K~
RE: MSCP PLAN
1 have reviewed the document referenced above for Mems Ond concerns relating fo parks
open space and trolls. Tne following ore my findings specMic fo above Identified ksues.
Speclficolly:
Section Four of the document contains o section that addresses fire iswe of fond uses in
fhe Core Areo. Linkages and Buffer Areo. Table 4.1 and 4-2 Yst aces for peneroi octi,rities
and recreational activities, respectively. The text and Table 4-2 lists recreational
activities snot may or may not be compatible or condlfionolly compotlbb with the MSCP
Core. linkage and Buffer oreos.
1 hove attached copies o1 these popes fo this memo for your review. Some activities
listed for incluson or exclusion make sense. and some donY. OfCOncem relating fo the
Ofoy Volley Regional Pork fs the identMication of the placement of active recreation In
the butter Zone. fia may or may not be possible in fhe western roach Of fhe regional
pork where the concept plop ~ proposing recreation directly odjocero fo existing
development to north. and the riparian zone Ot the south. An hnufficlent buffer zone
occurs here fo accommodate active recreation hosed on fhe requirements and
descriptions in the text.
2. Monopement pions ore also Identified os o requirement Of fhe MSCP PrOprom. How
would this requirement 'Mesn• with the OVRP and Otoy Ranch Preserve Owner
Manager Programs?
K appears that the MSCP will not preclude the JEPA and fhe CMy Of Chula Vista }ram utA2inp fhe
Otoy Volley OS o portion of the 'Greenbelt' and the OVRP. SpecMics ropordklp the proper
bcolion, slf a pionninp and impacts of active recreation 4 on Issue that wAl hove fo be
addressed fo determine M the oreos that been hdiCCited on the OVRP Concept Pbn for
rocrootion ore occeptoble.
ATTACHMENT R t
Optional Local Sources of Acquisition and Funding
Land acquisition by local governments may be accomplished by a variety of methods.
Some of those methods, here referred to as non-financial methods, would not require the
collection or the expenditure of taxes, fees, or assessmenu. Others are public financing
methods, most of which are subject to a voter approval.
While volunteer effort or other non-financial contributions could provide partial support,
most of the operation and maintenance activities of the program must be funded through
on-going revenues or income fiom an endowment.
Principal non-financial methods of land acquisition are land exchanges, transfer of
development rights, private mitigation banking, and salt or exchange of mitigation credits.
In the latter two examples, guidelines for off-site mitigation by private projects should be
formulated in a way which would create sufficient demand for mitigation ctzdits.
Land Exchanees. The local public agencies which own developable lands without
important habitat can exchange those lands for private lands with important habitat. The
City of San Diego, for example, has used this method to acquire habitat lands, including
vernal pools.
Transfer of Develooment Riehts (TDRI. Transfer of development rights or credits
programs have been implemented in a number of locations in California, including Lake
Tahoe basin, Santa Monica Mountains, and Monterey County. The program requires
identification of sendine and receiving areas for development righu. Sending areas are the
habitat, open space, or other areas to be preserved. Receiving areas are those in which any
development, or a more intensive development than a baseline level, would require
purchase of development rights. In many programs, not enough receiving areas are
designated in comparison to sending areas.
For the MSCP study area, privately owned habitat lands inside the MHPA would be the
sending areas. The receiving areas must be defined by the local jurisdictions, consistent
with the general plan. In order to assure a sufficient demand for development rights, the
baseline level of development (i.e., the level of development for, or below, which it is not
necessary to purchase TDRs) in the receiving areas must be gjgnificantly less than the
normal, market-determined intensity of development. The County of San Diego is
currently evaluating the possibility of using a TDR program to conserve habitat areas.
Private Mitigarion Bankine. Under private mitigation banking, a private owner of habitat
land would voluntarily conserve habitat in anticipation of future sale of mitigation credits to
other landowners or developers, who require off-site mitigation. A variation of this
approach is to combine private mitigation banking with a mitigation fce program, where
mitigation fees are collected by the local jurisdiction and passed through, minus
atimitlistrativeeosts, to the owner of the mitigation bank.
Under both approaches, the success of private mitigation banking depends on a sufficient
demand for miagadon credits. Thus, mitigation guidelines must be carefully formulated to
balance the demand and supply of mitigation credits.
Sale or Exchang of Mitigation Credits. This approach is an extension of private mitigation
banking. Both mitigation obligation. or the amount of habitat conservation required to
mitigate impact, and mitigation credit, or the mitigation value of habitat to be conserved, ate
3-84 11092!000 -Plan
defined in common units, which can be owned, sold, traded, recorded, or banked. The
pountial buyers and sellers of mitigation credits would megotiau their sale or exchange,
much as buyers and sellers negotisu the sale or exchange of land.
Both the mitigation fce and sale of mitigation credits programs may be combined with a
transfer of development credits. That is, local jurisdictions could levy fees in the receiving
areas for development intensity in excess of a baseline level and pass such fees, minus
administrative costs, to the owncrs of privau mitigation banks or credits.
Miti~rion for Public Works Projects. Although not normally considered anon-financial
method of habitat acquisition, mitigation programs of public service providers may be
directed to the conservation of privately owned habitat instde the MHPA. Generally, the
cost of mitigation is included in the cost of a public works project. The local governments'
share of habitat acquisition may be funded partially through such public works mitigation.
1 nc~l Rblic Finance Alternatives
The Policy Commiace of elected officials recommended that any new local funding source
for habitat conservation should receive voter approval, including voter approval of any
regional open space bond measure. (Sec "MSCP Financing and Acquisttion Straugy
Principles" in Appendix C-11 of the Resource Document) Pountial sources of funds were
reviewed with respect to the requirement for voter approval, revenue-generating capacity,
and the relative allocanon or incidence of costs to residential and non-residential land uses.
parcel TaxBenefit Assessment (AB 2007). A parcel tax or benefit assessment may be
adopted by a local legislative body, afar sending notices about the proposed action to all
affecud property owners and holding public hearings. For a large district, such as the
MSCP study area, the notification requirement can be both costly and cumbersome. Under
special state legislation, however, a parcel tax may be used by an open space district,
subject to approval by a majority of the voters. In effect, the requirement for voter
approval replaces the noticing requirement. This approach was used successfully in 1992 in
Los Angeles County to fund open space acquisition and park improvements. AB 2007,
passed in 1993, permits a similar approach to open space and park funding in San Diego
County. The County of San Diego is currently reviewing a countywide bond act under AB
2007.
The approach authorized by AB 2007 involves preparation of a detailed list of projects for
approval by the vours. This requirement may not be appropriau for along-unn program
such as the MSCP. Thus, new legisiadon'may be needed to utilize the poundal of a vour-
approved parcel tax for a mold-year acquisition and mainunance program.
Habitat Maintenance Assessment Dictrict (SB 4451. SB 445 (Craven), passed in 1993,
provides for public financing of long-arm maintenance of natural habitat. Authorized
expenditures under this program include habitat creation, restoration, enhancement, and
maintenance; land acquistnon; biological monitoring and evaluation; and related
administrative costs. This legislation establishes the pnnciple that a lot or parcel is
presumed to benefit from natural habitat, if past or proposed development or use of the lot
or parcel has adversely affected or will adversely affect the habitat. Thus, historical impact
is a basis for determining current benefit from habitat mainunance.
A local legislative body may initiate the formation of a habitat maintenance assessment
district. As in the case of parcel tax or benefit assessment, every property owner must be
notified. An election may be required, depending on the percentage of prousts received
from the property owners at a public hearing.
/10911000 -Plan 3-85
n
T
~ 1~!
~~ ~~
IB
~w- ~;~ ~ ~
La 4i L..~ L ~ L..~ ~ .
~~ ~ ~ o 0 0 0
~° ~ _ _ _ -~
~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d
~. ~ ,
_.
~ ~
o~ o ~' ~ ~ ~ z ~ N
(Q
w o' ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~
°° D ~ ~
~~ NyN~
cu c
~, - ~
~~ -
o cu ~U
~_~
~~ -
~ ~ =•
cu' ~ ~
~ ~~ CQ
CD
N
0
o .
~ c~
;~ o
~N
~ ~_
C
a
a~