HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/09/30 (7)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 1
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCM 90-19. PCZ 90-M: Consideration of a General
Development Plan and Planned Community Pre-Zone
for San Miguel Ranch. located southeast of the
Sweetwater Reservoir, west and south of Mother
Miguel Mountain, and northeast or Proctor Valley Road
- San Miguel Partners
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant, San Miguel Partners, has submitted a General Development
Plan for consideration, as well as a request to pre-zone a 2,590 acre property
to the Planned Community (P-C) District Zone. The property is divided by
lands owned by SDG&E into a 1,852 acre northern parcel, which includes
Mother Miguel Mountain. and a 738 acre southern parcel.
2. The application was submitted in 1990, subsequent to adoption of the
updated Chula Vista General Plan in 1989, which analyzed development
potential on this property in a general way.
3. San Miguel Partners proposes to develop 1,654 dwelling units, with 357
units on the northern parcel and 1,297 units on the southern parcel. All of
the proposed units, with the exception of a potential low and moderate
income housing project located south of East "R" Street/Proctor Valley Road
in the southernmost portion of the property, are proposed to be single-family
dwelling units in the Low Density (0-3 du/ac) land use classification. Other
proposed uses included with the project are Commercial, Community
Recreation, and Open Space.
4. The Environmental Impact Report for the items described in this report is
the preceding item on this agenda.
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to the
Council that this project be continued, and that the applicant be directed to return
with a project re-design and revised mitigation measures which incorporates the
following changes.
WPC F:\home\planning\72.92
;.-/
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 2
1. A greater percentage of "large rural and estate type lots" in the Low Density
(0-3 du/ac) Residential areas on the southern parcel.
2. Lots which meet "estate" lot criteria in the portion of the southern parcel
north and west of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob, adjacent to Bonita.
3. Preservation of the Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob landforms, either
as open space or as sites for housing which conform to the General Plan's
Hillside Development policy.
4. A project which does not include in its "mid-point" calculations the transfer
of 35 dwelling units of General Plan Open Space density credit (l duo per
10 acres of open space) from the northern parcel to the southern parcel.
5. A revised biological mitigation plan for the Northern Parcel which has
agreement from the City, with input from the applicant, the State
Department of Fish & Game, and the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The applicant requests that you approve the project as is proposed. Staff has
prepared a draft Resolution of Approval for this project if the Planning
Commission wishes to recommend approval of this project to the City Council.
C. DISCUSSION
General Plan Consistency
In July 1989, the City Council adopted the updated Chula Vista General Plan. This
plan designated the property owned by San Miguel Partners for mostly Low
Residential (0-3 du/ac.) development and open space, with smaller areas designated
for Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac.), Commercial, and ancillary public uses.
On February 6, 1990, San Miguel Partners submitted an application for a General
Development Plan and Planned Community pre-zoning. After a series of
workshops, the Planning Department prepared an Issues Report on May 31, 1990,
which detailed several potential inconsistencies with the Chula Vista General Plan
Land Use Element as regards Section 4.1, Residential Density Categories, Section
6.1, Defining Development Areas, Section 6.2, Establishing Residential Densities
within the Range, Section 6.3, Clustering of Residential Development, and Section
7.7, Land Development (Landform Grading).
WPC F:\home\planning\72,92
c;;;? .- ;;;
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 3
In June 1991, San Miguel Partners submitted a set of Issue Papers, which discussed
five general areas of potential inconsistency with the General Plan, relating to
Overall DensitylYield, Development Area Consistency, Clustering Design,
Landform Alteration/Grading. and Lot Size Comparison. For each issue, the
Partners concluded that their project was in conformance with the General Plan.
However, on July 24, 1991, the Planning Department prepared a General Plan
Consistency Analysis in response to the San Miguel Partners Issue Papers which
indicated that the project was not in conformance with the General Plan Land Use
Element in a number of areas. This report was used to prepare the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which concludes with regard to Land
Use/General Plan Consistency that the project is inconsistent, and is therefore a
significant and unmitigated impact.
At the Planning Commission Draft EIR hearing on February 5, 1992, the applicant
strongly disputed the EIR findings and staff's recommendation that the proposed
project was inconsistent with the General Plan. As a result, the Planning
Commission held a workshop on April 1, 1992 to discuss the issue. Staff prepared
a report on the General Plan consistency issues which outlined both the Staff and
applicant positions. The Sections of the General Plan which were discussed in the
report were as follows:
4.1 Residential Density Categories
6.1 Defining Development Areas
6.2 Establishing Residential Densities Within the Range
6.3 Clustering of Residential Development
6.5 Hillside Development
7.7 Land Development (Landform Grading)
At the April I, 1992 workshop meeting, the applicant presented a revised project
entitled the Mitigation Concept Plan which, with further minor revisions, is the
proposed project before the Planning Commission at this hearing.
The Mitigation Concept Plan proposed by the applicant remains inconsistent with
four of the six general plan land use element policies discussed in the San Miguel
Ranch General Plan Consistency Issues Report dated March 24, 1992, which was
prepared for the April 1, 1992 Planning Commission workshop. The fifth issue,
Defining Development Areas, has been resolved by modifications in the plan made
by the applicant. The sixth issue, Landform Grading, Section 7.7 of the Land Use
Element, has been resolved with plan revisions to the point that further, more
WPC F:"home\p1anning\72.92
c?-3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 4
detailed review at the Section Plan Area (SPA) plan process will determine
consistency with this plan policy. That report is attached. This report will discuss
specific features of the applicant's proposed plan which create inconsistencies with
the General Plan, and how the plan should be changed to eliminate those
inconsistencies.
1. Lot Size.
The proposed lot sizes for the Southern Parcel Low Density Residential (0-3
du/ac.) areas are as follows:
Lot Type Size of Lots Number Percentage
"Estate 15,000 sq. ft. minimwn
20.000 sq. ft. average 174 14%
"Modified Estate" 10,000 sq. ft. minimwn 81 7%
"Luxury" 8,000 sq. ft. minimwn 455 38%
"Cluster" 7,000 sq. ft. minimwn 491 41%
TOTAL 1,201
Staff recommends that this lot size distribution on the southern parcel be
found inconsistent with the General Plan, based upon the description of the
Residential Low Designation in Section 4.1 of the General Plan. which
states as follows:
This category includes single-family detached dwellings on
large rural, and estate-type lots. This is the predominant
character of existing residential neighborhoods within and
adjacent to Sweetwater Valley. This is also the appropriate
residential land use for areas with variable terrain of relatively
steep slopes and the areas adjacent to the proposed Greenbelt.
In addition, under the concept of cluster development, single
family detached dwellings on minimum 7,000 square foot lots
may be permitted.
While clustering is allowed. the following language within Section 6.3 of the
Land Use Element, Clustering of Residential Development, clearly does not
allow clustered lots as the predominant use:
WPC F:\homewlanning\72.92
c:? ~ L{
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 5
The site plan that results from clustering shall retain the same
overall character as that described in the General Plan
residential land use category. The introduction of some units
characteristic of higher density types within the category is
pennitted, as long as the predominant character of the project
remains the same as the underlying General Plan category.
The question then arises as to what amount of square footage (or acreage)
constitutes a "large rural" or "estate-type" lot in the Low Residential (0-3
du/ac.) category. The General Plan provides one indicator, with its
reference to the areas within and adjacent to the Sweetwater Valley. A
cursory analysis of County Zoning for the Sweetwater Community Plan
Area shows predominant minimum lot sizes are one half acre (21,780 sq. ft.)
and one acre (43,560 sq. ft.), although the County Zoning Ordinance allows
clustering onto smaller lots if findings justifying a Planned Residential
Development Conditional Use Pennit can be made, or a Specific Plan for
a large ownership is approved. Chula Vista's Zoning Ordinance includes an
R-E Residential Estates Zone (Chapter 19.22) which sets forth a minimum
lot size of 20,000 square feet, with up to 25% of the lots allowed to be
reduced to 15,000 square feet. This zone has been applied to most single-
family residential areas of the Sweetwater Valley which are within the
City's jurisdiction. Therefore, staff recommends using the R-E zone
standards set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance as the minimum measure
for determining the size of a "large rural" or "estate-type" lot.
A second method of detennining appropriate distribution of lot sizes in Low
Density Residential (0-3 du/ac.) areas is to look at City decisions on similar,
past projects. The only large project with significant areas of Low Density
Residential designated areas processed under the updated (post-1989)
General Plan is Salt Creek Ranch. The Section Plan Area (SPA) Plan for
this project was approved with 820 dwelling units within Low Density
Residential areas on the project site. Of these units, 440 (54%) met or
exceeded the R-E Zoning Standards (20,000 sq. ft. average, 15,000 sq. ft.
minimum), and 380 (46%) were clustered with a minimum lot size of 7,000
square feet.
During review of the SPA plan, the lack of "mid-size" lots was discussed
as a problem with the Salt Creek Ranch Low Density Residential lot
distribution. Upon research, staff has detennined that several jurisdictions
within the County have General Plan categories and zoning districts which
WPC F:\home\planning\72.92
;;j-S
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 6
establish a mInImum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. Chula Vista's Zoning
Ordinance con tains an R -1-10 Zoning classification which sets a minimum
lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. (this classification is currently applied to limited
areas of western Chula Vista). The County of San Diego has applied zoning
which sets a 10,000 sq. ft. lot size minimum to limited areas in the western
and central Sweetwater Valley. As part of action on the San Miguel Ranch
General Development Plan, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission interpret the General Plan language for the Low Residential
Category (0-3 du/ac.) so as to require a set percentage of "mid-size" lots
within this category.
Staff recommends that the applicant be directed to redesign the project so
that the Southern Parcel Low Residential areas contain the following ratio
of residential lot sizes.
I LOT TYPE I LOT SIZE I % REQUIREMENT I
OF LOTS
"Estate" Lot 20,000 sq. ft. average 50 % or greater
15.000 sq. ft.
minimum*
"Mid-Size" Lots 10,000 sq. ft. minimum 25 % or greater
"Cluster" Lots 7,000 sq. ft. minimum 25 % or less
* At least 75% of the lots within this category must be at least 20,000 sq.
ft. in size
This will ensure an appropriate mixture of lot types within the Low-
Residential Area which, in staff's opinion, meets the requirements of the
General Plan Land Use Element.
The applicant maintains that the 357 lots on the Northern Parcel, which are
proposed to be one acre average size and 3/4 acres minimum size, should
be included within the lot size tabulations. The following table gives the lot
size distribution for the applicant's proposed project if the Northern parcel
lots are incl uded:
WPC F:\home\planning\72.92
,;l-~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 7
Lot Type Size of Lots Number Percentage
"Estate 15~00sq. ft.nllnllnum
20,000 sq. ft. average 531 34%
"Modified Estate" 10,000 sq. ft. minimum 81 5%
"Luxury" 8,000 sq. ft. minimum 455 29%
"Cluster" 7,000 sq. ft. minimum 491 32%
TOTAL 1,558
While inclusion of these lots would not completely meet the staff
recommended criteria, conformance would be much closer than at present.
However, staff does not recommend that the Northern Parcel lots be
included in the lot size tabulations because the Northern Parcel's
development is highly uncertain due to the biological impacts of
development on the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat and the potentially federally
endangered California Gnatcatcher (see discussion under Biology).
Alternatively, the estate size lots within the Northern Parcel could be
included within the lot size calculations if either the Planning Commission
approves the applicant's development proposal for the Northern Parcel at
this time, or a biological mitigation plan acceptable to the City, with input
from the applicant, the California Department ofFish & Game, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, is completed which sets the allowable number of
residential units on the Northern Parcel (see discussion under Biology).
2. Compatibility with Sweetwater Valley (Bonita) Community
The applicant's original proposed plan included a l4-acre commercial site
at the northwestern corner of the Southern Parcel. The remainder of the
entire western portion of the Southern Parcel (west of the major SDG&E
easement) was proposed for cluster lot development. with a minimum lot
size of 7,000 square feet. This raises compatibility issues with the rural and
estate large-lot character of the Sweetwater Valley. The Mitigation Concept
Plan which the applicant now proposes has moved the commercial site to
the other end of the Southern Parcel on East "H" Street, and has placed a
33 acre "buffer" of minimum 10,000 square foot lots in the northwest corner
of the Southern Parcel.
WPC F:\home\planning\72.92
d'7
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 8
However, staff believes that the much larger issue regarding compatibility
with the Sweetwater Valley has not been fully addressed by the applicant's
current plan. It is logical that, if increased numbers of "rural and estate-type
lots" are required of the project, they should be located in the area of the
project which is adjacent to existing rural and estate lots in the Sweetwater
Valley. Section 6.2 of the General Plan Land Use Element -- Establishing
Residential Densities Within the Range -- specifically includes as an issue
for setting such densities the project's "compatibility with existing and
proposed surrounding land use patterns, both urban and rural, natural and
man made, in order to achieve an overall reduction in land use friction." If
the Planning Commission agrees that the project should include more
"estate"-size lots, staff recommends that the area to the west of the SDG&E
Easement, north and west of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob, should
be developed with "rural and estate-type lots" which meet the R-E Zone
Standard (20,000 square feet average, 15,000 square feet minimum). A
exception can be made for lots directly adjacent to the right-of-way for the
State Route 125 freeway or significantly affected by the future freeway
noise contours identified on the General Development Plan map such as
large portions of Areas 2 and 3.
3. Horseshoe Bend/Gobbler's Knob
Horseshoe Bend is a horseshoe-shaped landform which rises steeply up to
200 feet above the surrounding terrain. Gobbler's Knob is a steep hill to the
southwest of Horseshoe Bend which rises approximately ISO feet above the
surrounding terrain. Both are clearly significant-sized landforms, which
dominate the western half of the Southern Parcel.
It is the staff's position, in order to conform to Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.5 of
the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element. that Gobbler's Knob and
Horseshoe Bend should be preserved as landforms, either as open space
associated with a clustered residential project, or as sites for estate housing
which conform the Section 6.5 of the General Plan Land Use Element --
Hillside Development.
The applicant has stated that Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob are
development opportunities, given their designation on the General Plan Land
Use and Circulation Diagram as Low Residential (0-3 du/ac.) rather than
open space. In addition, the 1989 comprehensive revision to the General
WPC F:\J1ome'illanning\72,92
c:?- ~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 9
Plan did not identify Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob as significant
landfonns.
Staff acknowledges that the General Plan Update did not identify Horseshoe
Bend and Gobbler's Knob as significant enough landfonns to be preserved
as open space, in contrast to Mother Miguel Mountain. However, the fact
that these landforms are not designated as open space does not suggest that
other policies pertaining to landfonn development and hillside development
be ignored. Specifically. the following sections of the General Plan demand
a more sensitive response to these two landfonns:
a. Section 6.2 of the Land Use Element -- Establishing Residential
Densities Within the Range -- requires that the allowed residential
density of any project be based on, among other factors, "Landfonn
preservation, including adherence to grading policies stated in Section
7.7 [Land Development -- Landform Grading]."
b. Section 6.3 of the Land Use Element -- Clustering of Residential
Development, requires that clustered projects accomplish
"preservation of the natural landform." The applicant purposes
clustered development in the area of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's
Knob which does not preserve most of these naturallandfonns.
c. Section 6.5 of the Land Use Element -- Hillside Development
provides specific guidelines for hillside development which preserves
natural landfonns while providing for appropriate levels of
development on them.
d. Section 5.6 of the Eastern Territories Area Plan states that "limited
low density residential development may be pennitted on the lower
portion of the foothills [of Mother Miguel Mountain, situated
northwest and southwest of the mass of the mountain] if site planning
can adequately address the hillside development guidelines..." At the
Draft EIR hearing, the applicant stated that this language was not
meant to apply to Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob, but rather to
areas to the north. Staff can find no written record of this.
Therefore, staff believes this language applies to Horseshoe Bend and
Gobbler's Knob, which can reasonably be described as southwestern
lower foothills of Mother Miguel Mountain.
WPC F:\home\planning\72.92
c2-7
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 10
In summary, several sections of the General Plan require that Horseshoe
Bend and Gobbler's Knob be addressed in a more sensitive manner than is
proposed. either through preservation of natural open space as part of a
clustered project, or development with hillside-sensitive housing. Gobbler's
Knob, the less important of the two landforms, cannot be feasibly
developed, so staff recommends that, if it is to be preserved, it be preserved
as open space associated with clustered development adjacent to SR-125.
Given the proximity of Horseshoe Bend to the rural and estate-lot character
of Bonita and the potential for scenic views from this landform, staff
recommends use of Horseshoe Bend for hillside-sensitive housing.
Additionally, the applicant's proposed alignment for San Miguel Ranch
Road (a four lane collector road on the City's Circulation Element) runs
through Horseshoe Bend. The applicant contends that no other alignment
of the roadway is feasible or appropriate. If the Planning Commission
recommends that Horseshoe Bend be preserved in its entirety, then the road
must be moved from its proposed alignment. Based on staff's analysis, two
alternatives exist:
a. Southerly of Horseshoe Bend, north of Gobbler's Knob. The
applicant contends that this alignment is unsound for visual and
biological reasons.
b. Along the existing Proctor Valley Road alignment. which would be
in a "frontage" condition to SR-125 along the westerly half of the
Southern Parcel. This concept has not been adequately studied by the
applicant.
4. Calculation of Mid-Point
A "transfer of density is permitted from an open space area designated on
the General Plan, within the boundaries of a project. This density may be
transferred ... at the rate of one dwelling unit per ten acres." The applicant
proposes that the project's mid-point density be calculated so as to include
a 14 dwelling unit transfer from designated open space on the Southern
Parcel and a 35 dwelling unit transfer from designated open space on the
Northern Parcel, in each case to areas within the Southern Parcel. The issue
is whether the south parcel is entitled to a transfer of 35 of the potential 149
dwelling units from the north parcel's 1,490 acres of general plan-designated
open space.
WPC F:\home'plaMing\72.92
C:?-/O
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page II
When the Council designated a portion of the north parcel as Residential
Low (during the General Plan Update), it was staff's understanding that the
Council intended to limit the north parcel to a total development equal to the
yield from the Residential Low designation. This area is proposed for 357
dwelling units.
During the General Plan Update process, the applicant requested staff to add
an alternative to the General Plan Update EIR to evaluate changing the
preliminary General Plan open space designation on the north parcel to Low
Residential with a small conference center retreat. The alternative was
evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR and plans were submitted to the
Planning Commission and City Council by San Miguel Partners describing
their development plan for the north parcel. Based upon these plans and
presentations, the preliminary General Plan was changed and staff
recommended that approximately 350+ acres of Low Residential at an
average density of I du/acre be added to the north parcel at the locations
requested by the applicant. At no time during the General Plan Update EIR
evaluation nor during the discussions with San Miguel Partners, nor during
the public hearing process was there any discussion of transferring density
from the north parcel open space areas to the south parcel.
The applicant's request for a transfer of 35 units from the north to the south
should not be granted based upon the Council's General Plan Update action.
Biology
As is stated in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the San Miguel
Ranch property contains a wealth of native plants and animals, some of which are
becoming increasingly scarce. In particular, the habitat known as coastal sage
scrub, and many of the animal species residing in it, has been greatly impacted by
the on-going development of the San Diego Metropolitan Area. While a significant
amount of coastal sage scrub is located on the Southern Parcel, the Northern Parcel
contains a large diverse amount of this habitat which is part of a major
concentration around the Sweetwater Reservoir and Mount San Miguel. As
documented in the final EIR, development as proposed on the northern parcel
would have significant negative impacts upon the coastal sage scrub habitat as well
as several threatened species, such as the California Gnatcatcher (currently a
candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act).
WPC F:\home\planning\72.92
d-/(
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 12
The City of Chula Vista has enrolled into the State Natural Communities
Conservation Program (NCCP) with several major property owners, including San
Miguel Partners, and the County of San Diego in a subregional planning effort
which is called the South County NCCP. The program is designed to allow the
State, local government. property owners, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to agree to the creation of permanent, large, contiguous natural areas which will
preserve enough of the natural habitat so as to allow development projects, both
public and private, to go forward. While the plan will not be completed until the
end of 1993, preliminary analysis indicates that the Northern Parcel, along with
surrounding areas, is a candidate area for natural preservation.
As part of our enrollment agreement, the City agreed to "strongly consider" the
recommended mitigation measures of the State Department of Fish and Game and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency. Both of these agencies have recommended
mitigation measures which the applicant has concluded will preclude development
on the Northern Parcel, unless the South County NCCP shows that development
on the Northern Parcel is biologically feasible.
The applicant proposes that development of the Northern Parcel be approved as
part of the General Development Plan, with a mitigation plan for biological impacts
which is contained within the applicant's proposed addendum. The applicant's
proposed development on the Northern Parcel is in confonnance with the Chula
Vista General Plan. The City's EIR consultantlbiologist, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, and the State Department of Fish and Game have all found the criteria on
which this mitigation plan is based to provide inadequate protection for several
sensitive species and habitats.
Recognizing that the South County NCCP is in process, and that the applicant
wishes to move forward with this project now, staff recommends that development
approval of any residential units or the conference center on the Northern Parcel
be deferred, pending the formulation of a biological mitigation plan by the City,
with input from the applicant, the State Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff did attempt to prepare "compromise" biological
mitigation measures which would have allowed limited development on the
Northern Parcel, but these were rejected by the applicant as economically
infeasible.
WPC F:\home\plalU1ing\72.92
,;f -- / Z(
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 13
Circulation Element
Two issues arise with the proposed road network for San Miguel Ranch, the
location of SR-125, and the road connections to the west of this project into the
Sweetwater Valley.
a. SR-125
The routing of SR-125 has not been defined at this time by CalTrans,
pending the completion of an Environmental Impact Report. Considerable
controversy exists over several of the alternative alignments at the eastern
end of the Sweetwater Valley, and alignments which run both west and east
of Sweetwater Reservoir are under consideration. The applicant has shown
an alignment for SR-125 along the western edge of the Southern Parcel
which, at this time, may be one of the more plausible routings. However,
processing of the applicant's Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans may be
impacted if the uncertainty regarding the alignment of SR-125 is not
eliminated or lessened by the time of SPA processing.
b. Western Road Connections
The applicant's original proposed project included a new proposed "bypass"
road to the west of the project site, running southerly of the existing San
Miguel Road and eventually joining that existing roadway prior to its
terminus at Bonita Road. While this proposed roadway is in conformance
with the Chula Vista Circulation Element, it is not in conformance with the
San Diego County Circulation Element. Since the area to the west of the
project is unincorporated, the "bypass" road will require a County
Circulation Element amendment.
Alternatively, widening of existing Proctor Valley Road and San Miguel
Road to four lanes to serve project traffic will also require a County
Circulation Element Amendment.
The County has requested that the applicant apply for and receive approval
of a General Plan Amendment to the County Circulation Element prior to
the City approving this General Development Plan. However, staff
recommends that this GDP may be approved at this time, with a condition
that prior to SPA approval, the applicant resolve the road issues westerly of
the project with the County of San Diego, through a Circulation Element
WPC F:\home\planning\72.92
c:::; ~ /3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 14
Amendment or other means acceptable to the County. (See attached
correspondence between the City and County on this issue.)
Other General Plan Consistency Issues
The applicant's proposed project also has raised questions about General Plan
Consistency as regards Land Use Element Section 6.3 -- Clustering of Residential
Development, and Section 7.7 -- Land Development (Landform Grading). In both
cases, the applicant's detailed plan submittals, much more detailed than is normally
required at the General Development Plan level of review are, in the opinion of
staff, not in conformance with these policies. However, remedies for these
inconsistencies can be made with more detailed project modifications at the
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) level of review.
Applicant's Alternative Plan
The applicant has also presented, as an alternative, a "(Horseshoe Bend)
Preservation Plan," which in fact preserves most, but not all, of Horseshoe Bend.
Its main differences with the applicant's proposed project are in the area of
Horseshoe Bend (see attached exhibit), with a portion of the ridge-line being used
for 36 residential lots, and with re-configuration of development to allow for
preservation of most of Horseshoe Bend. In order to maintain the overall yield of
dwelling units, this alternative includes more areas of clustered residential
development than the applicant's proposed plan. Staff does not believe that this
alternative adequately addresses the issues raised by this project. If the Planning
Commission wishes to recommend approval of this alternative, then staff would
recommend a continuance to prepare the necessary findings and environmental
documentation.
Conditions of Approval
If the project as proposed is approved, staff recommends that the approval be
subject to compliance with all provisions of the Chula Vista General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance, the Growth Management Program and Ordinance, and all other
relevant City resolutions, policies, codes. ordinances, and programs.
The project shall demonstrate compliance with the recommended mitigations
outlined in the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR-90-2) and with the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
WPC F:\home\planning\72.92
,;;{ - I{
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 15
All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to approval of the first
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) for this project, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that compliance should be deferred to subsequent discretionary permit
approvals.
In addition to the above-stated general conditions, the applicant shall comply with
the following conditions:
1. Design a proposed trail system to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista Parks
& Recreation Department which is consistent with the policies of the Chula
Vista General Plan.
2. Prepare a detailed plan for visual separation from the existing SDG&E
Miguel Substation and expansion area through landscaping, topography
variation, and homesite orientation.
3. Prepare a grading plan, site plan, and elevations for the proposed interpretive
center and conference center which relies primarily on accommodating
proposed structures and other developed areas to the existing terrain.
4. Prepare a runoff protection system plan for the Sweetwater Reservoir which
is approved by the Sweetwater Authority and the County Department of
Health Services.
5. Receive approval of a General Plan Amendment by the County of San
Diego, or other action acceptable to the County, which provides for off-site
access to the west of the project into the Sweetwater Valley. This condition
must be complied with prior to SPA approval under any circumstances.
6. Provide a brush management plan which analyzes and reduces impacts
related to placing homes in close proximity to large areas of natural
vegetation.
7. The dwelling unit total of 1,654 units shown in the General Development
Plan is approved in principle. The ultimate total, resulting from more
specific SPA planning and site analysis. may require a reduction in this
number.
WPC F:\home\planning\72.92
c:< - /5
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992
Page 16
8. Provide clarification in the SPA Plan over the mechanisms proposed for
operation and maintenance of open space areas, bike/equestrian and hiking
trails, and the proposed interpretive center.
,;;--; (p
WPC F:\b.orne\planning\72.92
EXHIBITS
,;; -/7
-
. ~ '.
" ""'. '.
'a
.
.
.
.
.
)
I COON CoW/'ON I
~';; ~ -.-. - ~.:,:- -- :
". ~'- !) ~-,.... / ' ...&."'.;~.....~
":iii "''-'.- ..-....
j;~ -'\-" " ....
,/ ",' '. . ........
.' . ...
.-.-:G.",r,... :
,,~:,.;'''.'' c~
~I ~ ~.o
.
\'"
..0
,,'"
,,""
'"
, r,
,.- i
.',,-
.~ I
'. , \-
L-' \ -,
, I ~j.
,
\._~
"- \ \
i \ 21
I
.,,.0
\ \ 0
" ,
~ 0
, \
Q 2500 '"
,--):
'-aM"
u
FEET
... -....-.r:>...... J'-i
\- ~ ........ /\ .... '-
. ..... f\ f \ -'''~
... .. ) , '..
" / \ c I 1 I"'
.. {\ I r
LEGEND
-
..-...... DRAINAGE
Project sn.
c:; - / <jJ'
FIGURE
~ EACE
-
Erl'llta
for
Chong..
2-1
STATISTICAL CU __a I.RY
Colopy
""'" UDi.
357.1 357
5""-' 1201
213 96
8B6.8 1654
RESIDEI'mAL:
1 I
r--t
jl
N..;"hhn~hnnd A
Low(l du/ac)
N..;ohhnrhnod R
Low (.5 . 3.0 du/ac)
Low Medium (3.0 . 6.0 du/ac)
Subtotal Res. Development Area
. COMMERCIAL:
. r-----t Neighborhood 14.0
I r:::::r Visitor (Conference Ctr.{Retreat) 6.7
Subtotal Commercial Area 20.1
! j I COMMUNITYPARK 2JJ~
r::===r ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 10.8
OPEN SPACE(IRANSPORTAll0N CORRIDORS
East 'W Street and Route 12S 15.9
Natural oQen Space and Esm'1 1635.5
Subtotal Q.S.{fraJli. Corridon 1651.4
GRANDT(JfAL 2S9C12
~
R
-~
" ,
\
\
1.
,""'
~~J,.:'~.
--~ \ -
;'\'C~'~~~:";''''/.ce
,G., ./;'{3'"",.
, ..'. .'1 /:.. ,'~:
, .. ',"XII' " ','
, /ys.,-~-
"
""-,
1654
I
I I
I
'-l /~/
I // //
/ /
I ///:
I I /
V;/
-"'"7"':)/
I /
/ /
A1J) //
~ //,
ca..... CO""",", // '
IWTRUI' AND.... / /
>//
I /
/1/
//
//
//
/ / --
I /
1/
I /
//
II
/// ---
..-'/ /
//'
,:i/
~'/
ii'
I '/
/ /
./ /
/ ;/
I I
//
1/
j
----
-~,
r
i
i
I
.' ..!
--l ,~
L----_-l... '
-----1
. I
--- .1__________J
I
I
[
~-----
I
I
I
OTAY.,...TBlDIJIIIICT
'-~~
'~-",
',~:-.,.', \.'
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LAND USE PLAN
SAN MIGUEL RANCH
SAN MIGUEL PARTNERS
NOTE: The applicant has revised
the proposed project for the
Southern Parcel (Neighborhood "B"
and the Low Medium Res. area as is
illustrated on the next exhibit'AGURE3
~~;;;;;;
1m......
...
: .!
TlERRA
"""'--
;)-/ r
......:
,-
["-------
~ - ,;;;J CJ
e'"
\~.-4
" I
n:~
i
-'}
""
t5-
~ .
z
c::(~
Iv}
,-,w'
oC::
L-LJ :E
V> =>
O~
0..0
OW
~ ~~
:
~ ::g~
'-'<0(
~
- ...J
- 0..
0..
UJ <0(
~ f\\
0 ;;
"'
r~ >
;.<
<:
z
~-"-'-"-_..-..
~ <:
! <lJ
>
.~
-I-'
'"
'"
~ I.-
<lJ
-I-'
~
<t:
'"
'"
~
0-
J: '"
0
.~
(;) -I-'
'"
>
~ I.-
<lJ
<J)
<lJ
o. I.-
C', 0-
:,;h ~
"0
'"
0 <lJ
ill '"
<lJ
0
:) .J::
<J)
CJ <lJ
<J)
I.-
;'~ 0
~ :I:
~
<J)
~ -
Z -I-'
'"
I '"
< u
.~
~
00 a.
a.
<t:
;:; --:;; f
REVISED GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ISSUES REPORT
;:?-.;J';(
September 30, 1992
TO: PLANNINj, COMMISSION
FROM: GOrd~'~~rd, Principal
Planner
SUBJECT: Mitiqation Concept Plan General Plan Consistencv Issues
This analysis is an update of the March 24, 1992 issue paper on
general plan consistency issues, and reflects changes in
consistency analysis to reflect the changes in the project.
Overall, all six general plan conformance issues remain; however,
several of the issues have been reduced in scope due to changes
made in the Mitigation Concept Plan.
1. Character of Development in Low Residential Designations
(Section 4.1 of the Land Use Element)
section 4.1 of the General Plan establishes the residential
land use categories and the range of density permitted with
the category. A Residential Low designation exists over most
of the project, including Neighborhood "B". This category
"includes single-family detached dwellings on large rural, and
estate-type lots." In addition, section 5.1 of the Eastern
Territories Area Plan describes the residential character as
follows: "the predominant residential type (for Eastern
Territories) is single-family detached in the low and low
medium residential density categories" and that "neighborhoods
that are characterized by this single-family density are
located throughout the Eastern Territories."
Staff Comment: Based upon our evaluation of the policies
contained in the General Plan, and the decisions of the
Planning Commission and the city Council on the Salt Creek
Ranch General Development Plan and sectional Plan Area Plan,
Staff recommends a similar lot size distribution for
Neighborhood "B". This distribution would consist of at least
50% estate lots that meet the Residential Estate zone standard
for size (minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for at least
75% of the lots and at least 15,000 square feet for the
remaining lots), at least 25% of the lots being "mid-size"
(10,000-15,000 square feet), and the other 25% in clustered
lots with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet.
The Applicant's proposal for Neighborhood "B" contains one
area (Planning Area No. 14) which meets RE Zone standards
(14%) and one which approaches RE Zone standards (7%). 30% of
the lots are not clustered and have a minimum lot size of
approximately 8,000 square feet, and the balance (49%) are
clustered lots.
;;{ ~ c93
The size of the 8,000 square-foot minimum non-clustered lots
is inconsistent with the "large rural, and estate-type lots"
called for by the Residential Low land use category.
Applicant's Comment: The General Plan does not limit any lot
size other than clustered lots which must be a minimum of
7,000 square feet (Section 4.1). The proposed lot sizes in
Neighborhood B include:
a) 7,000 square foot clustered minimums, average 9,800
square feet;
b) 8,000 square foot luxury lots, average 12,000
square feet;
c) 10,000 square foot luxury lots, average 12,000
square feet; and
c) 15,000 square foot estate lots, average 18,750
square feet.
2. Calculation of Mid-Point and Density Transfer (section 6.2 of
the Land Use Element)
A "transfer of density is permitted from an open space area
designated on the General Plan, within the boundaries of a
project. This density may be transferred. . .at the rate of
one dwelling unit per ten acres." The Applicant proposes that
the project's mid-point density be calculated so as to include
a 14 dwelling unit transfer from designated open space on
Neighborhood "B" and a 149 dwelling unit transfer from
designated open space in Neighborhood "A", in each case to
areas within Neighborhood "B". The issue is whether the south
parcel is entitled to a transfer of the 149 dwelling units
from the north parcel.
The applicant has proposed expanding Planning Area 14, located
in the northeast area of the Southern Parcel, which would add
approximately 42.6 acres to the development area.
Staff Comments:
The following table describes the different midpoint yields
depending on various assumptions regarding the amount of area
of Low Residential and transfers of dwelling units from the
open space areas designated on the General Plan.
2
;:;...;JLj
NEIGHBORHOOD PROPOSED MID- MID-POINT MID-POINT(2)
POINT(l) + AREA WITH OPEN
14(2) SPACE
TRANSFER
A (North) 357 357 357 357
B (South) 1201 1081 1166 1315
South of "H" 96 96 96 96
Street
Total 1654 1534 1619 1768
1 The above carcurat~ons are base u on rev~sed net acres of
( ) p
General Plan Low Residential submitted by the applicant to
staff on March 19, 1992. The revised figures differ from
the figures contained in the San Miguel Ranch General
Development Plan.
(2) Area 14 addition of 42.6 acres.
When the Council designated a portion of the north parcel
as Residential Low (during General Plan Update), it was
Staff I s understanding that the Council intended to limit the
north parcel to a total development equal to the yield from
the Residential Low designation. This area is proposed for
357 dwelling units.
During the General Plan Update process, the Applicant
requested staff to add an alternative to the General Plan
Update EIR to evaluate changing the preliminary General Plan
open space designation on the north parcel to Low
Residential with a small conference center retreat. The
alternative was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR and
plans were submitted to the Planning commission and City
Council by San Miguel Partners describing their development
plan for the north parcel. Based upon these plans and
presentations, the preliminary General Plan was changed and
staff recommended that approximately 350:!: acres of Low
Residential at an average density of 1 dujacre be added to
the north parcel at the locations requested by the
Applicant. At no time during the General Plan Update EIR
evaluation nor during the discussions with San Miguel
Partners, nor during the pUblic hearing process was there
any discussion of transferring density from the north parcel
open space areas to the south parcel.
The 149 units should not be transferred to the south based
upon the Council's General Plan Update action.
3
;;;',;)5
In addition, the applicant has proposed that in Area 14, an
additional 42 acres shown as "open space" in the generalized
Land Use Element of the General Plan should be developed
with low residential development. It is the recommendation
of staff that this development be allowed without need for
a General Plan Amendment, since the proposed expansion has
no adverse impacts upon the General Plan, and since the
general plan lines are meant to allow for flexibility in
specific situations such as this one.
ADD 1 icant' s Comments: At the time of the General Plan
Update no limit was placed upon the transference of open
space density within the Applicant's project by the City
council, nor with the General Plan text. For that reason,
the open space density transfer opportunity remains.
As submitted, the midpoint density for the Residential Low
areas of Neighborhood "B" includes 1153 dwelling units, plus
13 units transferred from Neighborhood "B" open space and
149 units from Neighborhood "A" open space, for a target
density of 1315 dwelling units. As submitted, the project
is below General Plan target density.
3. Establishing Residential Densities (Section 6.2 of the Land
Use Element)
This section provides, " the criteria used in determining
the appropriate gross density for project implementation
within any given range. There is no density within the
range which is assumed to be more desirable than any other,
whether that density be at the lower or higher end of the
range. In establishing densities, a primary objective is
to achieve an overall density equilibrium. This achievement
of equilibrium is essential to the promotion of order,
amenity, diversity, and urban vitality."
In the city's evaluation to determine the appropriate
density for a project the assumed density, in any
residential range, begins at the 'baseline density' and may
move toward the upper end of the range" based upon an
evaluation of certain issues. These include compatibility
with existing and proposed surrounding land use patterns,
sensitive response to the physical characteristics of the
site, and achievement of a variety of housing types
permissible within the character of the range.
4
;; ,- ,:;,; (,
staff Comment: The Staff has analyzed the plan and found
the following:
a)
The applicant's mitigation concept plan eliminates
most of the immediate incompatibility issue with
the neighboring Bonita area by relocating the
proposed commercial shopping center adjacent to
"H" Street, relocating San Miguel Parkway
southerly of the southern parcel's northern
boundary, and adding a 33 acre buffer of 10,000 to
20,000 square foot lots in place of the previously
proposed commercial use.
b)
On a larger scale, the overall lot sizes of the
south parcel are substantially smaller than the
predominant lot sizes in the Sweetwater Valley.
This is an incompatibility with adjacent uses in
a broader sense, particularly in the portion of
the project north and west of Horseshoe Bend and
Gobbler's Knob. Clustered lots are more
appropriate on the eastern end of the south
parcel, near East "H" Street.
c)
The "sensitive response" in section 6.2 involves
the following inconsistencies:
1)
The project proposes conventional mass
grading of the south parcel.
2)
This grading would destroy Gobbler's
Knob and Horseshoe Bend rather than
preserving those landforms.
3)
San Miguel Parkway produces severe
grading through Horseshoe Bend which
results in visual impacts.
4)
The visual quality of the graded site
with single-family homes as proposed
would not be in character with the
Residential Low land use category nor in
character with the Sweetwater Valley.
The above inconsistencies with the General Plan suggest that
the plan needs to be redesigned.
Applicant's Comment:
Applicant undertook a study of lot sizes in the Sweetwater
Valley and used the results for determining the luxury lot
5
c9 ~;;;7
size in Neighborhood "B". In addition, the project is
compatible with the higher densities located to the west,
proposed Bonita Meadows (estimated at 3-4 DUjacre), the
south, Salt Creek I (6 DUjacre), and the southeast, Salt
Creek Ranch (3.6 DUjacre). The proposed project is
substantially below the densities of all of those projects
at 1.9 units per acre. The proposed lots are consistent or
substantially in excess of the lot sizes in the Eastern
Territories.
Applicant has been sensitive to the physical characteristics
of the site:
a)
All landforms requiring preservation by the
General Plan have been preserved, and additional
areas within the General Plan which are shown as
development opportunities are also preserved
(approximately 40 acres).
b)
The proposed plan respects site topography by
creating a number of plateaus which match to the
greatest extent possible the existing topography
and minimize visible slope banks.
c)
Due to biological
Miguel Parkway
Horseshoe Bend.
and engineering constraints, San
can only be located through
d)
Substantial trails and access to open space areas
have been incorporated within the plan to
integrate use of these areas for the residents.
Through the creation of housing on lots ranging from minimum
7,000 to one acre estate lots, the Applicant has provided
a variety of housing types permissible within the character
of the range, and in excess of that within the Eastern
Territories.
4. Clustering of Residential Development (section 6.3 of the
Land Use Element)
The General Plan encourages clustering when the project (a)
preserves the natural landform; (b) aggregates open space
within the clustered development area; and (c) the cluster
design enhances land use order, visual and functional
quality and livability.
Staff Comment:
proposed plan
with respect to the above criteria, the
does not adequately address landform
6
,;;J ~- ;;; g
preservation. The two most visible landform features on the
south parcel are Gobbler's Knob and Horseshoe Bend. These
landforms are located within the area proposed for
development. Both landforms would be severely impacted by
the development.
The aggregation of open space within the clustered area
consists of a community park, elementary school site, three
open space wedges radiating out from the community park, a
biological preserve for the Otay Tarplant, and the
preservation of elements of Horseshoe Bend totalling 21
acres. The recreational amenity provided is the community
park and open space wedges.
The clustered neighborhoods appear to have the same
arrangement, both visually and functionally as the non-
clustered planning areas. The design difference between the
two areas is relatively minor.
Overall, the clustered areas do not present adequate
landform preservation, aggregated open space or design
quality to be consistent with the General Plan.
Applicant Comment: The grading of Horseshoe Bend is
proposed in the Concept Plan primarily because the area is
shown as a "Residential Low" development opportunity on the
Land Use Map of the city's General Plan. The Applicant's
Concept Plan attempts to grade Horseshoe Bend in such a
manner as to reflect the current landform through
development of stepped plateaus.
Additional open space has been provided through the
maintenance of 21 acres of Horseshoe Bend by Applicant, in
addition to the areas mentioned by staff. The aggregated
open space at 31% of the land area compares favorably to the
recent Planning commission approval of Salt Creek Ranch
where only 12% and 19% of the area was clustered in
Neighborhoods 7B and 8 respectively.
The clustered neighborhoods have extensive greenbelt spaces
through them, and additional mini park opportunities as well
as access points to the regional trail system with
approximately 1500 acres of open space in the northern area.
As such, significant additional recreational amenities have
been provided beyond the central focus of the community park
and school.
7
c2r';;;;7
5. Hillside Development (Section 6.5 of the Land Use Element)
The south parcel contains varying topography with
approximately one-third of the site in excess of 25% slope,
principally the landforms of Gobbler's Knob and Horseshoe
Bend. The General Plan focuses urban development on the
ci ty' s mesa land. At issue is whether an appropriate
response has been made by the Applicant to the topographic
features on site.
staff Comment: The proposed plan disregards the landforms
and slopes on the site. The proposed lot design is very
regular. Uniform graded pads with long rows of parallel,
uniform lotting, stair-stepping up the hill from Proctor
Valley Road results in an insensitive treatment of the land.
In particular, the westerly portion of the south parcel
would benefit from fitting the development to the land in
a manner consistent with section 6.5 which calls for
clustered development, emphasis on existing topography,
varied lot sizes responding to the slope, irregular building
placement, streets relating to existing contours, landform
grading, avoiding large cuts or fills, natural landscaping,
retaining the visual quality of the site, scale and
character compatible with surrounding neighborhood, ridges
preserved and significant hillsides preserved in the natural
state.
Applicant's Comment: The General Plan very particularly
states those landforms that are required to be preserved and
includes Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob wi thin
development bubble opportunities. The Applicant has
attempted to sensitively grade the southern portion of the
property including clustering development, mirroring
existing topography with its grading, varying lot sizes from
a minimum of 7,000 to over 33,000 square feet, placing
streets in relationship to existing contours, using landform
grading, minimizing large cuts and fills, and preserving all
required landforms within the site. The exhibits show both
the existing natural contours and the proposed grading
contours to illustrate. the Applicant's efforts to reasonably
match the existing topography. The irregular size and
footprint of each plateau is reflective of the landform
grading techniques employed.
6. Land Development (section 7.7 of the Land Use Element)
Landform grading is defined as "a contour grading method
which creates artificial slopes with curves and varying
slope ratios designed to simulate the appearance of
surrounding natural terrain." (General Plan, page 1-52).
8
:?~.50
The issue is whether the Applicant has used landform grading
techniques or conventional mass grading with standard 2:1
slope profiles.
staff Comments: The grading information submitted for
Neighborhood "B" represents conventional, mass grading with
standard 2:1 slope ratios. Conventional grading is
appropriate only where "landform grading is demonstrated to
be impractical or the location of the slope is in a very low
visibility situation." (General Plan, Page 1-55). Grading
is normally evaluated at the SPA Plan and Tentative
Subdivision map stage, however, the sensi ti vi ty of the
topography on the south parcel requires some attention to
the type of grading proposed because it affects the density
as well as the quality of the proposed plan.
The south parcel is quite visible offsite. Landform grading
has not been demonstrated to be impractical. Therefore, the
proposed project should be conditioned to require increased
use of landform grading techniques over that which has been
indicated to date on the General Development Plan. The
applicant has made progress in this direction with the
proposed revisions to the grading along the SR-125 corridor
and adjacent to Wildman's Canyon.
ApPI icant I s Comment: Landform grading "which creates
artificial slopes with curves and varying slope ratios" has
been used throughout the project. Although portions of the
south parcel are visible offsite, the dominant visible
landforms include Mother Miguel Mountain and the ridgeline
separating Salt Creek Ranch from San Miguel Ranch. On
neither of these landforms is any grading being proposed,
thus no visual degradation will occur. Assuming Horseshoe
Bend may be graded, the method proposed by Applicant is
consistent with landform grading.
Much of Horseshoe Bend consists of slopes of 2:1 or greater
steepness, making it impossible to develop housing within
the existing topography. Further, the number of minor
finger canyons also eliminates design options in dealing
with the existing site. In order to maintain a lower
density overall on the project and to maximize lot sizes,
thereby producing a "significant contribution to the high
quality site planning goals.. . established overall by the
General Plan," the Applicant determined the grading of
Horseshoe Bend was the preferred alternative.
9
~~ 3(
CORRESPONDENCE FROM STATE FISH & GAME & U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
REGARDING MITIGATION PLAN FOR NORTHERN PARCEL
~-3~
AUG 10 '92 16:07
/
//
P.2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
P!TE W1~SOI-j, 00"""",
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beaoh, California 90802
(310) 590-5113
@
Auqust 10, U92
~. Robert A. Leiter
Planning Department City of Chula vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula vista, California 91910
Dear Mr. Leiter:
At the July 30, 1992 meeting between the city of Chula
Vieta, San Miquel Partners, their consultants, ths U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and aame. It was
aqreed that speoific criteria would be developed by the projeot
proponent and the Service that would serve as the basis for a
mitigation plan de.igned to reduce project impaots to below a The
Department subsequently met with the service to assist in the
preparation of these mitiqation criteria. The criteria are based
on the information contained in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the Rancho San Miguel Project as well as
information distributed at various meetinqs by the project
proponent subsequent to the commenting period for the DEIR.
The DEIR states that the project, aH propo.e~, would result
in significant impacts to sensitive plants and animals, wildlife
corridors and habitat types. It also states that the project
site contains hiqh bioloqical diversity, with high population
densities and is of regional importance for its bioloqica1
resources. The mitiqation measures aa proposed in the document
do not contain the level of specificity and commitment nece.sary
to enable the Department to determine that the project impacts
will be reduced to below a level of significance. Theae criteria
jointly developed with the Service should be incorporated into a
mitiqation plan. Implementation of such a plan would qive the
Department the assurances that the project would be fully
mit1crated. The Department i. proparod to dioouoa theae o~i~eria
as a solution to the unresolved impact and mitiqation issus. at
the upcoming meeting soheduled tor August 11, 1992.
NORTH PARCEL:
Criteria:
1) No project impacts to occupied habitat, suitable but
unoccupied habitat, and dispersal and foraqin~ areas of the
California gnatcatcher as shown on Fiqure 3.3-4 of the DEIR shall
occur. Up-to-date data should be used.
=,?-33
AUG 10 '92 16:08
P.3
Mr. Robert A. Leiter
August 10, 1992
Page TWo
Justification: Impacts occurring on the south parcel result
in a net 108S of 6 pair of qnatcatchers, the population on-site
supports One of the highest densities in San Diego County, the
population i8 part of a core area and considered regionallY
significant I the project site, especially the north parcel, i.
critical to a preserve designed for the protection, management
and viability of the qnatcatcher.
2) No impacts to recovering, burned coastal 8age scrub
vegetation, such as in the northeast portion of the property.
Justitication: Regional significance and preserve design as
stated in 1) above.
3) No impacts to large mammal high use areas or large mammal
movement oorridors as shown in Figure 3.3-3.
Justification: The project site is considered regionally
signiticant for large mammal movement: Other open space areas 1n
the vicinity would be enhanced it able to mesh with the project
site corridors.
4) No impacts to cactus wren or their ter=itories as shown in
Figure 3.3-3.
Justitication: Based on the impacts occurring on the south
with the proposed project, the result is still a net loss of
cactus wrens: cactus wren population status, their decline over
the last century and specific habitat requirements justify this
parameter for the north.
S) No impacts to the otay tarplant (Hemizonia oonjugena) ot
suitable clay dense areas as shown in Figure 3.3-3. A
mitigation/management agreement must ~. obtained from the
Department prior to any take of thia state-listed endangered
plant.
Juatification: Proposed impacta in the southern paroel
result in net loss of thi. species: population densities are
among the highest recorded for this species, Department
recommendations previously made state 80t preserved in-situ, with
20t incorporated into a revegetation plan with monitoring and
sUccess criteria to be applied I DEIR recommendations state
pre.erving less than 80t would still be ccnsidered a significant
impaot, take of any additional plants on the north would remain
aignifioant and unmitigable.
,
~-3~
RUG 10 '92 16:09
P.4
Mr. Robert Leiter
Auqust 6, 1992
paqe Three
6) No impacta to the San Dieqo barrel cactua as shown in the
DEIR and subsequent Pacitic southwest BiolOqical Services (PSBS)
map.
Justitication: Proposed impacts on south to 48' of the
barrel cactus result in a net loss ot 1,867 individuals:
salvaging and transplanting measures are ditticu1t and atill
experimental I Department recommendations previously made state
60' preserved in-situ, with 40' aalvaged and put into open apace
with monitoring and success criteria to be applied.
7) No impacts to Adolphia calitornica, Iva hayesiana, Junous
acutus, or Harpoqone1la naimeri.
Justitication: Proposed impacts on the southern parcel
result in net losse. for these species, with the majority of the
population. occurring in the southern parcel, preservation
opportunities are limited in the north.
8) No net los. of in-kind habitat values of wetlands on the
project site.
Juatification: The project site contains few mesic areas,
wetlands are of regional signiticance due to the amount ot
cumulative loss and their importance to wildlife by providing
water, shade, cover and movement corridors.
9) No adverse impacts to perch and/or nest sites of golden
eagle..
Justification: Siqnificant decreases in nesting sites in
San Diego county: importance ot retaining historic and alternate
nest aites for sucoessfu1 breeding: important to retain
undeveloped land for foraging within home-range territori.a.
10) No signifioant adverse indireot effect to the regional
biological resource value of the northern parcel including but
not limited to the configuration of open space, adjacent off-site
open space, wildlife movement on and throuqh the .ite, or any
development which would adver.ely affect the protection,
manaqement and Viability of any future wildlife pre..rve in this
area.
11) No significant adver.e effect to the preparation of and
implementation of a Natural Communities Conservation Plan in thi.
area.
c:l- 3-5
AUG 10 '92 16:09
P.5
Mr. Robert Leiter
Auqust 10, 1992
paqe Pour
Por purpose. of clarification, the Department's under.tandinq ot
the proposed project impact. and proposed mitigation measure. tor
the southern parcel (ba.ed on the DEIR and previous meetings) are
outlined below. Plea.e provide clarification if either the
impact or mitigation has been misunderstoOd.
SOUTH PARCEL,
Impact:
Coastal Saqe Scrub - 156 acre.
Proposed Mitiqation:
Preservation of 312 acres in both the north and the south project
desiqnated open space.
Department recommended mltiqation:
Provide minimum 2:1 mitiqation in permanent open space within the
project site.
Impact:
Six pairs of CA qnatcatchers _
Proposed Mitiqation:
Preservation ot 9 pairs in ~oth the north and south parce~s.
Department recommended mitiqation:
Above acceptable.
Impact:
One pair of cactus wrens -
Propo.ed Mltiqatlon:
Preservation ot 3 pairs in the south parcel with transplantation
of cactus to suitable, but distur~ed areas within the project's
desiqnated open .pace.
Department recommended mitigation:
Above acceptable.
Impact:
Otay tarplant - approximately 32 acres
Proposed mitigation:
pre.ervation of 15 acres, with proposed management. Additional
populations which fall in desiqnated open space on the project
site will also ~e manaqed.
Department recommended mitiqation:
80\ of the population on the entire project site (North and south
~-3~
AUG 10 '92 16:10
P.6
. .'
Mr. Robert Leiter
August 10, 1992
Page Fiv.
combined) should be preserved in-aitu. ~he remaining 20' will be
incorporated into a revegetation plan with .de~ate monitoring
and success criteria to be applied. A mitigation/management
agreement should be entered into with the Department's Endangered
Plant Program.
Impact:
San Diego Barrel Cactus - 1.867 individuala, approximately .8' of
population on south parcel.
Proposed mitigation:
Preservation of 52\ of south parcel population. Preservation,
salvaging and transplanting to occur in designated project open
spaoe on bo~h ~he north and south parcels.
Department recommended mitigation:
60' of the projeot-site population should be preserved in-situ,
with salvaging and transplanting to ooour wi~h ~he remaining
40'.The revegetation effort would be incorporated into a plan
with adequate monitoring and suooees criteria to be applied.
Impact:
California Adolphia - 345 individual..
Proposed mitigation:
Preservation of 390 individuals within two populations, one in
the north and one in the south. Additional seedlings will be
planted and areas restored within, and adjacent to, these two
areas and in the Otay tarplant preservation area on the south
paroel.
Department reoommended mitigation:
Retain 6S' ot the population in-situ, with revegetation ot the
remaining 35' into on-site open apace areas, subject to an
adequate revegetation plan OR preserve 80' of the populations on-
8th in-situ.
%mpact:
spiny rush - 200 individual., 50' 10..
Proposed miti9ation:
pr...rvation of 50', however, the DEIR is unclear as to looation.
Department recommended mitiqation:
Development of an adequate, on-site, preservation and
reveqetation plan.
cl ,- .5 7
AUG 10 '92 16:10
P.?
. .'
Mr. Ro):)ert Leiter
Auquet 10, 1992
paqe six
Impact:
Palmer's qrappling hook - 11,000 individuale, 99' 10.e
Proposed mitiqation:
Mitiqation undetermined.
Department reoommended mitiqation:
Development of an adequate, on-site, preservation and
reveqetation plan.
I:mpact:
Golden saqle - loss ot toraqinq h~itat.
Propoeed mitigation:
Undetermined.
Department recommended mitiqation:
Retention of minimum home-range foraging habitat.
In closinq, the Department remains willing to work with the city
of Chula vieta and the project proponent to ensure that project-
induoed impacts are full mitigated. If you have questions,
please contact Terri stewart at (619) 466-4674.
.i~~~ ok
Olenn Black, Supervisor
Natural Heritage proqram
Reglon 5
oc: Larry Eng, NCCP Coordinator
Fred Worthley, Reqlonal Manaqer, Reqlon 5
Xen Berg, Endangered Plant Program Coordlnator
Terri stewart, A.sociate wildllfe sloloqlet
Diok Zembal, Deputy Field Supervisor USFWS (Carlsbad)
Nancy Gilbert, USFWS (Carl.bad)
Davia Nairno, San Miguel Partners
.:{-33
N
~-<H~-"'~ f.I
United States Department of the Interi
r!rt '. 1'(1_. .'>
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT
Southern California Field Station
Carlsbad office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
. <.~
IV/VI' ,.
, '-C~'
August 10, 1992
Mr. Robert A. Leiter,
Director of Planning
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Dear Mr. Leiter:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) met with the City of Chula Vista,
their consultants, California Department of Fish and Game and San Miguel
Partners on July 30, 1992. At this meeting, the Service agreed to develop
specific criteria that would serve as a basis for a mitigation plan for the
Rancho San Miguel project. The criteria are to be of sufficient detail such
that a determination can be made whether project impacts have been reduced to
a level below significant. This letter outlines our recommended mitigation
criteria. These criteria were developed by the Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game. In addition, the Service is providing comments
on the attached mitigation proposal (dated July 1, 1992) prepared by San
Miguel Partners for the north portion of Rancho San Miguel.
It is the mission of the service to provide Federal leadership in the
conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the people. The Service is vested with
the authority and responsibility to protect, conserve, and manage the Nation's
fish and wildlife resources. Matters relating to mitigation of harm to fish
and wildlife resources fall within our special expertise and authority under
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the
Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (as amended to implement
international treaties regarding the conservation of migratory birds), section
404(m) of the Clean Water Act and under the National Environmental Policy Act.
It is the policy of the Service to seek to mitigate losses of fish, wildlife,
their habitats and uses thereof from land and water development. Although the
subject project is not a Federal action, the Service is making recommendations
to the City of Chula Vista based on our special expertise, consistent with the
laws, policies and guidelines under which we work.
The Service has previously provided you with comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan
(EIR-90-02) in a letter dated January 30, 1992. We urge you to carefully
consider these comments. We are providing you with the following additional
comments and recommendations on the proposed San Miguel Partners mitigation
proposal and specific mitigation criteria.
The Service has carefully reviewed the attached proposal for mitigation of the
San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan (Draft EIR No. 90-02). The Service
received this plan from the project applicant, San Miguel Partners, and has
met with them to discuss their proposed mitigation plan. It is our
understanding that the revised mitigation measures are intended to replace the
language in the Draft EIR at pages 3.3-45 to 3.3-51, regarding the mitigation
applicable to the northern and southern parcels of the San Miguel Ranch
project.
d-37
Mr. Robert A. Leiter
2
The proposed mitigation for the northern parcel consists primarily of the
commitment, in the General Development Plan EIR, to prepare a "Mitigation
Plan" that incorporates a resource preserve design into the proposed
development for the northern portion of the project. . . Coordination with
the Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the City of Chula
Vista and the County of San Diego shall take place. . . The plan's objective
is to identify and provide for the long-term protection and perpetuation of a
sufficient amount of coastal sage scrub habitat within a defined preserve
area, located within the northern parcel, to ensure the long-term survival of
designated target species associated with coastal sage scrub habitat and, at
the same time, allow compatible development in the northern portion of the
proposed project". The Mitigation Plan proposes to use the Fish and Wildlife
Service Mitigation Policy to guide recommendations for mitigation of project
impacts on the northern parcel. "Imposition" of the Mitigation Plan for the
northern parcel is proposed to be a condition of approval of the San Miguel
Ranch General Development Plan. The Mitigation Plan shall be in the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the applicants's proposed
Sectional Planning Area Plan for the proposed project.
It is the Service's position that reliance upon mitigation measures to make a
finding of no significant impact within the CEQA analysis, should be
predicated upon specific mitigation measures which offset the impact and a
binding commitment to implement those specific mitigation measures in a timely
fashion. Guidance from the Department of Interior, Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, states that a specific mitigation plan should be
prepared prior to issuance of Federal permits. A specific mitigation plan at
a minimum should include the site location(s) for the compensatory mitigation
effort, type of habitat function to be created or restored, timing of the
mitigation effort, methods to be employed, target success criteria,
maintenance and monitoring requirements, appropriate contingency measures and
provisions to insure implementation such as a form of surety instrument. The
Service recommends that the proper use of mitigation, to reach a finding of no
significant impact requires: 1) a mitigation plan that identifies the
specific actions to be taken; 2) sufficient detail in the mitigation plan to
demonstrate that the mitigation measures are feasible to implement; 3) the
mitigation plan provide a binding commitment for implementation; and 4) the
mitigation plan contain sufficient information to determine the level of
compensatory measures that are being proposed.
The Service cannot in good faith concur, nor can we advise the City of Chula
Vista, that the proposed mitigation plan will reduce impacts to a level below
significant. The Service has no present knowledge of, nor can we safely
predict, the ultimate result of the proposed commitment to prepare a
mitigation plan. The language of this mitigation proposal specifically allows
for development within the northern portion of the project. The Service has
consistently stated that we are opposed to development on the north parcel and
in our letter of January 30, 1992, we recommended the Biologically Preferred
Alternative or the No Project Alternative. Additionally, the proposed
mitigation plan only provides for "coordination" with, not approval by, the
Service, City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, and Department of Fish and
Game, during the preparation of the plan. Given the lack of Service approval,
we can not confidently advise the City of Chula Vista that impacts will be
reduced to a level below significance. Moreover, the designation of the
"target species" fails to address significant impacts to species other than
the "target species", and to sensitive habitat types. A finding that the
preparation of a future, unknown plan will mitigate the impacts of the
proposed project to a level below significance cannot be determined given the
lack of a adequate mitigation plan or specific criteria.
The San Miguel Partners have included the use of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Mitigation Policy within their mitigation proposal. The Mitigation Policy is
~~~d
Mr. Robert A. Leiter
3
used by the Service as guidance for impact analysis and recommendations for
mitigation. This policy does not apply to threatened or endangered species.
The commitment for the future application of the mitigation policy to the
project does not result in a mitigation plan that can be analyzed and
evaluated at the GDP level. The Service believes that the application of the
mitigation policy would result in the designation of coastal sage scrub and
wetlands as a Resource Category 2, with a mitigation planning goal of no net
loss of in-kind habitat value. In the case of coastal sage scrub on the north
parcel the Service is not aware of a site or even a combination of sites that
could be used as mitigation that would meet this planning goal. This
determination is based on the regional significance of the site for the
California gnatcatcher, the uniqueness of the site, and its bio-geographical
significance. Thus, no impacts to coastal sage scrub could occur on the north
without resulting in a significant impact.
It is important to assess project impacts, and thus the level of mitigation,
in the context of the biological value and importance of the project site.
The EIR found that based on the "combination of a high diversity of rare plant
and animal species with high population densities and its proximity within a
much larger regional open space preserve, cumulatively make this site one of
the most significant parcels of undeveloped land remaining in San Diego County
for biological resources". Based on the extremely high value of habitat on
the north parcel, it is the Service's opinion that impacts can only be reduced
to a level below significant through avoidance of impacts and not off-site
replacement of lost values.
The Service recommends that either a complete mitigation plan be prepared or
that specific criteria be provided to ensure that the future development of a
mitigation plan will meet specific designated criteria. The Service
recommends that a complete mitigation plan be developed and fully disclosed in
the Final EIR for the subject project. However, the following criteria were
developed upon request, as an alternate approach to mitigation. The use of
specific criteria will allow for a reasoned determination that impacts have
been reduced to a level below significance. These criteria are consistent
with the Service's position regarding the sensitivity of the site as stated in
our letter dated January 30, 1992.
The following criteria for the north parcel were developed based on the
assumption that project impacts on the south parcel will occur as described in
the EIR, and the mitigation will occur as described in the revised mitigation
plan (Please note that some mitigation measures have not yet been resolved,
i.e. Otay tarplant). Thus, significance is evaluated based on combined
impacts of the entire project. The expected impacts to biological resources
on the south parcel are considered acceptable only if the following criteria
are implemented for preservation of the north parcel.
In the absence of a complete mitigation plan, we recommend the following
criteria be included as binding mitigation commitments in the EIR as the
"framework" for a mitigation plan for the north parcel. Considering that the
EIR found that the proposed project would result in significant impacts to
plants, animals, including the proposed endangered California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica), wildlife corridors and habitat types (Table 3.3-6,
3.3-7, 3.3-8 and text 3.3-27 to 3.3-45). The criteria will address measures
to mitigate significant impacts to these resources.
Criteria for the Mitigation Plan
1. No project impacts to occupied habitat, suitable but unoccupied habitat,
and dispersal and feeding areas of the California gnatcatcher as shown
on Figure 3.3-4 of the EIR shall occur on the northern parcel, based on
the most recently available data.
~-0
Mr. Robert A. Leiter
4
Justification: The California gnatcatcher (PolioDtila californica
californica) is a Federally proposed endangered species. The Rancho San
Miguel population is part of the otay Mesa/Sweetwater River Valley core
population of California gnatcatchers. Rancho San Miguel is believed to
be one of the largest concentration of California gnatcatchers in the
United States. This subspecies is threatened by habitat loss and
fragmentation, occurring in conjunction with urban and agricultural
development. Long term preservation of core populations is essential
for the preservation of the species. Survival of the species will be
dependent upon the protection of adequate habitat in a configuration
that reduces or eliminates adverse edge effects from outside preserved
habitat. Therefore, based on: 1) the high densities of gnatcatchers; 2)
the need to preserve core populations within a viable preserve design;
and 3) due to the net loss of 6 gnat catcher territories on the south
parcel, any additional impact to gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub on
the north parcel would be significant. (For regional biological
significance see the justification presented under mitigation criterion
No. 10 below).
2. No impacts to coastal sage scrub, or recovering (previously burned or
disturbed) coastal sage scrub on the north parcel.
Justification: An estimated 70-90 percent of coastal sage scrub habitat
in southern California has been destroyed. Coastal sage scrub provides
habitat for 60 sensitive species, including the proposed endangered
California gnatcatcher. A net loss of 156 acres of coastal sage scrub
will occur on the south parcel. The EIR documents that the north parcel
is an important link from the Sweetwater Reservoir and River, east to
the Jamul Mountains and south across the international border. The
coastal sage scrub on the north parcel Bupports a core population of
California gnatcatchers within an area being planned and developed as a
large scale preserve. Development of the burned or recovering coastal
sage scrub on the north parcel would result in the permanent loss of
this habitat and adversely affect the viability of this core population
of the California gnatcatcher within an area regionally recognized for
its high biological values.
3. No impacts to large mammal high use areas or large mammal movement
corridors on the north parcel as shown on Figure 3.3-3.
Justification: The EIR documents that the site has high value for
wildlife including physical and biological diversity, the site location
relative to other land uses, habitat quality and diversity on and
adjacent to the site, uniqueness of the habitat, clay lens Boil, varying
topography, presence of water and rock outcrops. The site is considered
to be important to the maintenance of biodiversity and long-term
survival of species in this area. Fragmentation of wildlife habitat and
increased impacts from pets, lighting, noise, and wildfire will reduce
the quality of the existing habitat for many large mammalian predators,
including the mountain lion. (For regional biological significance see
the justification presented under mitigation criterion No. 10 below).
4. No impacts to cactus wrens or their territories (Figure 3.3-3) on the
north parcel.
Justification: The coastal cactus wren population is under
consideration for federal listing as endangered or threatened. Only 5
populations of greater than 20 pairs of the coastal cactus wren are
known to occur in San Diego County. Remaining sites support less than 5
pairs per site. The project site harbors one of these 5 populations.
Protection and maintenance of these 5 wren populations is critical to
d?-L/~
Mr. Robert A. Leiter
5
its survival. Any impacts should be considered significant for the
reasons discussed above.
5. No impact to the Otay tarplant or suitable clay lens soil areas on the
north parcel (Figure 3.3-3).
Justification: The project site contains one of the largest known
populations of this State listed endangered and Federal Category 2
candidate plant species. Based on the proposed substantial loss, 70-80%
of the 200,000 individual of the Otay tarplant on the south parcel, no
additional impacts to this species should occur. An acceptable
mitigation plan for this species on the south parcel has not been
developed.
6. No impact to San Diego barrel cactus on the northern parcel
Justification: 1,867 San Diego barrel cactus will be destroyed or
transplanted on the south parcel. Based on the substantial loss or
transplantation of this Federal Category 2 candidate plant species on
the south parcel, no additional impacts should occur on the north.
7. No impacts to Adolphia, Iva, Spiny rush and Palmer's grappling hook on
the north parcel.
Justification: These sensitive plant species are listed by the
California Native Plant Society. 345 individual Adolphia plants will be
taken on the South parcel; preservation of Adolphia on the north parcel
(395 individuals) is needed to mitigate impacts on the south parcel to a
level below significant. Impacts to 300 (90%) Iva plants will occur,
with the majority of impacts occurring on the south parcel, thus
additional impacts on the North parcel would be significant. Over
11,000 individuals of Palmer's grappling hook will be impacted, 99% of
the impact will occur on the south parcel, thus no additional impacts
should occur on the North. Fifty percent of the 400 spiny rush plants
will be impacted by the project, the remaining 200 individuals of spiny
rush on the north parcel would be needed as mitigation to reduce impacts
to level below significant.
8. No net loss of in-kind habitat values of wetlands on the north parcel.
Justification: Wetlands have been reduced by 91% in the State of
California. Within San Oiego County less than .5 of 1 percent of the
land area consists of wetlands. On the project site wetlands are
relatively scarce. Wetlands are of high biological value because they
provide fish and wildlife habitat, water and a cooler microclimate in an
arid climate, habitat for foraging, breeding, dispersal corridors and
cover for a variety of wildlife which allows for greater species
diversity.
9. No adverse impact to perch and nest sites of the golden eagle and no
significant adverse impact to foraging area of the golden eagle.
Justification: Recent surveys in San Diego County document significant
declines in golden eagle nesting activity. Of 46 historically active
nests only approximately 18 were still active in 1992. One of the few
remaining golden eagle nest sites on the coastal plain in San Diego
County occurs on San Miguel Mountain, less than one mile from the
project site. Close proximity of large developments to golden eagle
nests have resulted in the apparent permanent abandonment of most nest
sites. Studies have shown abandoned nest sites had significantly higher
amount of development within 4.8 km. radius of the nest site (Scott
~_~3
Mr. Robert A. Leiter
6
1965). This is likely due to loss of foraging habitat (such as will
occur with development of the south parcel) and an increase in human
disturbances~ The permanent abandonment of the adjacent nest sites
would be considered a significant impact.
10. No significant adverse indirect affect to the regional biological
resource value of the northern parcel, including but not limited to: the
configuration of open space; adjacent off-site preserved lands; wildlife
movement areas through the site; and the long term protection and
management of any future wildlife preserve in this area.
Justification - The EIR found that based on the "combination of a high
diversity of rare plant and animal species with high population
densities and its proximity within a much larger regional open space
preserve, cumulatively make this site one of the most significant
parcels of undeveloped land remaining in San Diego County for biological
resources". . .The project site supports the richest and most diverse
assemblages of unique and sensitive biological resources in southern
California". The northern parcel is adjacent to dedicated mitigation
lands to the north and east, designated open space on San Miguel
Mountain, high quality riparian and lacustrine habitat in Sweetwater
Reservoir and the Sweetwater River, which is the subject of a Habitat
Conservation Plan for the least Bell's vireo. Even small developments
within the few non-sensitive habitat types (i.e. chaparral and non-
native grassland) located on the northern parcel could have significant
indirect effects on adjacent sensitive habitat types and could lower the
resource value of large portions of the site for sensitive wildlife
species, such as the California gnatcatcher, golden eagle, and cactus
wrens. Such developed inholdings could also create major management
problems as well as lowering the long term viability of such a reserve.
Development adjacent to wildlife habitat areas results in indirect
adverse impacts including urban predators, urban run-off into the
biological system, introduction of invasive non-native plant species,
noise, lighting, alteration of fire cycles and introduction of urban
uses near an important biological area.
The Service remains willing to work with the City of Chula Vista and the
project applicant to ensure that project impacts are adequately mitigated. We
recommend that avoidance, minimization or mitigation be utilized to reduce
impacts to a level below significance. If you have any questions, please
contact Nancy Gilbert of this office at (619) 431-9440.
ely, I /J
~~
Enclosure
cc: First Interstate Bank II: San Diego Ca (Attn: D. Nairne)
CDFG: La Mesa, CA (Attn: T. Stewart)
11-6-92-TA-272
c2- ~ 4
CITY / COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE ON
OFF-SITE CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPACTS
~--f5'
~(~
:--~-~
~~~~
~~~~
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
y.IO
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
May/6, 1992
Lari Sheehan
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Lari:
,
At the last City/County staff meeting to discuss the Rancho San Miguel General Development
Plan, which was held on April 20, 1992, it was suggested that this letter be written to you to
seek resolution of the circulation issues on this project.
As background, the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan includes one of several
aJternative aJignments for SR-125 which are currently being evaJuated by CalTrans. The plan
aJso includes a bypass road connecting the proposed San Miguel Parkway with existing San
Miguel Road. We understand that the bypass road would require an amendment to the County
Circulation Element. We aJso understand the County's concern that the environmental impacts
of this change need to be adequately addressed prior to the City taking any final discretionary
action on this project.
At the same time, it has been noted that the City's plan review process provides for a "tiered"
project review, and a supplemental EIR will be required in conjunctiol, with the processing of
a sectionaJ planning area plan and master tentative map for this project. The City's process is
different from the County's in this regard, and provides an opportunity for resolution of specific
environmental issues such as traffic impacts at the time more detailed plans and project phasing
information is available.
Therefore, at our meeting on April 20, we discussed an approach by which the approval of the
General Development Plan would be subject to a condition which would require processing of
an amendment to the County Circulation Element prior to the approvaJ of the Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) plan, if the bypass road option is pursued. On the other hand if it is decided that
the current San Miguel Road aJignment is preferred, this change would be addressed by the City
at the time of the SPA Plan review, and no County Circulation Element amendment would be
needed. Traffic anaJysis would still be undertaken consistent with the existing County
Circulation Element however. The attached condition would implement this approach.
~-Y0
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 919101(619) 691-5031
Lari Sheehan .
-2-
May 6, 1992
This approach would protect the County's interest in two ways: 1) the project could not proceed
unless the County amended its Circulation Element or the applicant submitted an application to
amend the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan to delete the bypass road; and 2) this
will allow the project to proceed to the SPA Plan level of City review, which requires a detailed
traffic analysis, related to the phased development of the project, as well as a supplemental
environmental impact report and a detailed public facilities financing plan to identify all of the
required public facilities and financing for those facilities. These requirements are spelled out
in existing ordinances adopted by the City Council.
As noted earlier, our planning process, which is implemented through the City's Planned
Community zone and Growth Management Ordinance, follows a "tiered approach" to reviewing
large-scale master planned communities. We have found that the tremendous complexity of
today's planning environmenta:1 review argue strongly for this approach. If 'Iou concur that the
above approach represents a reasonable way to resolve the circulation issues on this project,
please acknowledge your concurrence in writing at your earliest opportunity. I would be happy
to discuss this matter further with you at your convenience.
m:RAUnr
(IJ)'pua.-.j
Si~'
10hn Goss
City Manager
c::::) r ~ 7
CITY OF CHU~ VISTA
PROPOSED CONDmON OF APPROVAL
FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH GDP
Prior to the City of Chula Vista granting SPA Plan approval, the project applicant shall obtain
either an amendment to the Circulation Element of the County's General Plan to add the
proposed bypass road (see Draft EIR, Figure 3-2) or such other alternative as described below.
If a County General Plan Amendment is proposed, the applicant shall prepare a single,
supplemental EIR for joint use by both the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista.
The Supplemental EIR will further address the County's General Plan Amendment fqr the bypass
road or other alternative, and it will address the applicant's request for SPA Plan approval.
.
As an alternative to the proposed bypass road, the Supplemental EIR shall include an analysis
of the project-related traffic impacts resulting from providing alternate access to the project site
(in addition to the proposed bypass road) by improvements to: (a) Proctor Valley and San
Miguel Roads, (b) other offsite roads designated on the County's Circulation Element, or (c)
such other alternatives acceptable to both the County and the City.
d'" -V g'
Qtnuut\1 nf ~ttu ~icgn
CHIEF AOMINISTRATlVE OFFICER
18191531-6250
FAX 16191 657-4060
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101.2472
June 25, 1992
John Goss
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear John:
We have reviewed your letter of May 6, 1992 and discussed its content with
County Counsel. We appreciate your efforts to provide the County with a
process that addresses our concerns for San Miguel Road and the community of
Bonita. However, our basic objections to the project and the process remain.
First, we have a fundamental concern with the concept of this project. If
this area is to be annexed to Chula Vista, and it's density increased from the
approximately 800 dwelling units allowed by the Sweetwater Community Plan to
1,400 units as proposed, we believe the traffic generated by this project
should be mitigated by providing access on City of Chula Vista streets (such
as "H" Street to the south). The community of Bonita cannot accept this
traffic without a serious deterioration in the level of service on their
circulation system.
Second, your proposal for a "tiered" approach to processing this project seems
to be contradictory to our conception of the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act. The mitigation you are proposing will require an
action by the County of San Diego to amend its Circulation Element to add the
by-pass road and possibly upgrading segments of San Miguel Road and Bonita
Road to achieve mitigation. We have concerns about designating this density
on your General Plan without having positive assurance that those needed
General Plan Amendments will be approved by County. Such a situation would
place the County of San Diego in the difficult position of having this very
intensive project served by San Miguel Road alone. This facility is adopted
as a two lane light Collector Road and would not have the capacity to serve
this project as it is proposed. Upgrading the classification and taking any
action to upgrade San Miguel and Bonita Roads will be very controversial
within those communities.
d-Y7
P,inted on ,ecycled P.IH'
John Goss
-2-
Although we regret that we can not concur with the strategy outlined in your
letter, we recognize that it is a good faith effort to address the County's
concerns. I would be pleased to discuss this response with you at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
HAN
hief Administrative Officer
LS:aeb
cc: Supervisor Brian Bilbray
David Solomon
Gary Cane
Jerry Hermanson
Robert Asher
AUTHOR\TPLTRSD.692
d~5c'!
DRAFT RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
c:?-5(
DRAFT SAN MIGUEL RANCH RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA THAT THEY APPROVE THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, San Miguel Partners, hereafter referred to as "applicant",
has submitted an application for a General Development Plan (Case
# PCM 90-19) to be approved on approximately 2,590 acres, divided
into two parcels of 1,852 acres and 738 acres, and generally
located south and east of Sweetwater Reservoir, north of Proctor
Valley Road, west of Mount San Miguel, east of the Sweetwater
Valley, and including Mother Miguel Mountain within its boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for a Pre-
zoning of the property to the P-C (Planned Community) District
(Case # PCZ 90-M); and
WHEREAS, the applicant I s proposed General Development Plan is
contained within a document entitled "San Miguel Ranch General
Development Plan," dated December 16, 1991, and proposes the
construction of 1,654 dwelling units and related commercial, parks,
schools, on the project site; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Case # EIR 90-02),
dated December 1991, was prepared for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report indicated
following issues were significant and not mitigable
proposed project:
that the
for the
Land Use
Landform/Visual
Biology
Air Quality; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report, was transmitted by
the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties
for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the draft Environmental
Impact Report was given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the draft
Environmental Impact Report were accepted from December 7, 1991 to
February 5, 1992; and
1
..., L~'J
q ".:..->-c.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held an public hearing and
accepted public testimony on the draft Environmental Impact Report
on February 5, 1992; and
WHEREAS, based upon a dispute between the applicant and staff over
the Land Use section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
relating to general plan consistency, the Planning Commission held
a publicly noticed workshop on April 1, 1992 to further study the
issue of this project;s consistency with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the April 1, 1992 Planning Commission workshop, the
applicant introduced two new modified plan alternatives, labeled
the "Modified Concept Plan" and the "Preservation Plan;" and
WHEREAS, subsequent to this meeting, the applicant refined the
"Modified Concept Plan," renamed it the "Mitigation Concept Plan,"
and submitted it as a new project alternative designed to respond
to the public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS, an Addendum was prepared to the Draft Environmental Impact
Report which analyzed the "Modified concept Plan" and the
"Preservation Plan;" and
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch project,
dated September 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
General Development Plan and considered the Final Environmental
Impact Report on September 30, 1991;
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
A. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report, San Miguel Ranch
General Development Plan (EIR 90-02), dated September
1992, consists of:
a. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-02) SCH#
90010155 dated September 1992, which contains 1)
the Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2) Comments
and Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, and 3) One
addendum describing modifications to the
applicant's proposed project (Mitigation Concept
Plan) .
b. Appendices A through J to the Environmental Impact
Report dated December, 1991.
2
;)-.53
2. The Final EIR has been reviewed an considered by the
Planning commission of the City of Chula vista.
3.
The Final EIR (and Addendum
independent judgment of the City
Commission.
thereto) reflects the
of Chula vista Planning
4. The Final EIR (and Addendum thereto) is hereby certified
by the Planning commission to have been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and all applicable guidelines.
B. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C) ZONE
FINDINGS
As required by section 19.48.050, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings, and recommends that the City
Council make the following findings in approval of
establishment of the P-C (Planned Community) Zone and the
General Development Plan:
1. The proposed development as described by the general
development plan is in conformity with the provision of
the Chula vista General Plan.
This finding is met. The proposed development conforms
to all relevant sections of the General Plan, and
proposes an overall density of development consistent
with the General Plan.
2. A planned community development can be initiated by
establishment of specific uses or sectional planning area
plans within two years of the establishment. of the
planned community zone.
This finding is met. A sectional Planning Area Plan for
all or portions of the project can be established within
two years.
3. In the case of proposed residential development, that
such development will constitute a residential
environment of sustained desirability and stability; and
that it will be in harmony with or provide compatible
variety to the character of the surrounding area, and
that the sites proposed for public facilities, such as
schools, playgrounds, and parks, are adequate to serve
the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the
pUblic authorities having jurisdiction thereof.
This finding is met. The proposed project proposes a
desirable mix of clustered lots, mid-size "luxury" lots,
and estate lots which is compatible with the surrounding
3
.~ ~~d
r../) ~~- -~ 7
areas. The site proposed for public facilities have been
found to be acceptable to the public authorities having
jurisdiction thereof, and conform to sound siting
principles for such facilities.
4. In the case of proposed industrial and research uses,
that such development will be appropriate in area,
location, and over-all design to the purpose intended;
that the design and development standards are such as to
create a research or industrial environment of sustained
desirability and stability; and, that such development
will meet performance standards established by this
title.
Due to the lack of proposed industrial and research uses,
this finding is not applicable to this project.
5. In the case of institutional, recreational, and other
similar nonresidential uses, that such development will
be appropriate in area, location and over-all planning to
the purpose proposed, and that such surrounding areas are
protected from any adverse effects from such development.
This finding is met. All such uses are consistent with
these provisions.
6. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and
adequate to carry the anticipated traffic thereon.
This finding is met.
City of Chula vista
threshold standards.
All streets and thoroughfares meet
public road standards and traffic
7. Any proposed commercial development can be justified
economically at the location(s) proposed and will provide
adequate commercial facilities of the types needed at
such proposed location(s).
This finding is met. The proposed commercial area is
economically justifiable and will provide adequate
commercial facilities to serve the project and
surrounding areas.
8. The area surrounding said development can be planned and
zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with
said development.
This finding is met. The surrounding area is mostly
designated as open space, or is already built out with
existing residential development. Several "out-parcels"
in the vicinity of the SDG&E San Miguel Substation can be
developed in coordination and substantial compatibility
4
") ~.-p
C>') ~ v.J
with San Miguel Ranch.
C. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C) ZONE
APPROVAL
The Planning Commission recommends that the city council adopt
the General Development Plan known as the "Mitigation Concept
Plan" and the Planned Community (P-C) Zone.
D. CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Adoption of Findings
The Planning commission does hereby approve and incorporate as
if set forth full herein, and make each and everyone of the
CEQA Findings attached hereto.
2. certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in the previous
environmental documents for this project area (EIR 90-2) and
the CEQA Findings for this project which is hereby attached
hereto, the Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends
that the city Council find that pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, that the
certain of the mitigation measures described in the above
referenced document are feasible and will become binding upon
the appropriate entity such as the Applicant, the city, or
other special districts, which has to implement these specific
mitigation measures.
3. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives
As set forth in the CEQA Findings attached hereto, the
Planning Commission finds and recommends that the city Council
find that the remainder of the proposed mitigation measures,
identified therein as infeasible, and none of the proposed
Project alternatives set forth in the Final EIR feasibly
substantially lessen or avoid the potentially significant
effects that will not be substantially lessened or avoided by
adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.
4. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program
As required by the Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the
Planning commission hereby adopts, and recommends that the
City Council adopt, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program set forth in FEIR to this resolution and incorporated
by reference as set forth in full. The City Council
recommends that the Council find the Program is designed to
ensure that, during the project implementation and operation,
5
~s~
the Applicant and other responsible parties implement the
project components and comply with the feasible mitigation
measures identified in the Findings and in the Program.
5. statement of Overriding considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures,
certain significant environmental effects caused by the
Project will remain. Therefore, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City council of the city of Chula vista
issue, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto, identifying the
specific economic, social, and other considerations that
render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental
effects still significant, but acceptable.
6. Notice of Determination
The Planning Commission recommends that the city Council
direct the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice
of Determination and file the same with the County Clerk.
6
';;;-57
LETTER OF COMMENT
c:;;-.5 ?
5) 6- Je, HItN>EI" 9/)/vl9~v-
.5 ?--?-t., 51../ N. N 'y:5 II;; e j)/L
13CIYITIt-} Ct4-Llf,- 'lqO'1-
twV{ ?L~ f~ ~,;t~J
?-Z~ -1~( ~ .
tl<.J.l... .\t--~ I fr--4:- '! I r I C
CU\..'~~P~&~~
'lt1 ~ 'b-'~ ~ "3 1.-... ~ -.:r 11- ;7 C .I 0VI.1. 1?~ R.J
~1/~...JtL Ad ~f'~ ""4'",,, 1tt.;rP/4'
~4'\ 1- ~\. .~ ~;d..... ~..v--1v~Ji ~~1.-- ~..J...",~",;;.
. ,y'-Lh'\. ~'4.\..-<-L,,-,~( d...C~~~...\-_4L""~~"___(/~ ~L.
~A...,__- :.::tA.'-~/ ~lt~ ~l./p--..../~Dtj, )./ LZ~i 'L...~"-L(L,,-o d~\.-(
-/.'~~~CcL<"... ,U'--{ T-'-t'-66-~-~~~U-- r~-~ ~--\.~-'\ (L{~'t ~t Cl"L~-!
/U~'1 L\.-t..((,&-(~"__\.\.,, (~\. ~ ~~~H -~,-H -t-v:....J..l, J~
~;1- ~,.J?,\ ~ .A.~.--L~'- --f,';' ~~ ~~ ~
~"'1 ~:t .-C~ ~~l ~A.4 t" -If. I ~ uU l)u7. 7-+-17 .
r; I ) ~.~ 1'7~,,-,,> I ~ ./f-N.-'4 ~
~ ~~"L-.. ~ ~'-~ ~ ~~ -tL. ~f.
J ..f....'v~L....<AL .1.t....:,fJ CV~'-<tt'LJ ~.(, l,t. LQ,f\Li,{la.bl((J-4hvLC {;;,....-l~
aN~J >> ~ 6' .14-1 {:;j ~~ A--v~ r.f~rL9~ tx.v~.J.;::tt~ J L-&.......
~- ~~ ~ f:1~ 1J-~L'
I~\T~-!O\A-- ~ ~~ \
~. .J~1J~ eM.-~)
~~~l
.J~ 9~~~
4-1~- ?-34'6
d~5j
.
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
AP PLICANT' S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON All APPLICATIONS
WHICH WIll REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE. PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND All OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. list the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
William J. Hauf
William S. IA.1nd
First City California - II
list the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
William J. Hauf - illnd & Hauf
William S. IA.1nd - :wnd & Hauf
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than l~ of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
William J. Hauf
William S. :wnd
First City California - II
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, CO\1lllissions, COl1l11ittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes____ No~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional
pages as necessary.) ~~
~ re 0 ap~ant ate
X Wtvne A. Loftus
Pr nt or type name of app 11cant
eE' /~ 90
WPC 0701P
A-lID