HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/09/25 (11)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 5
Meeting Date 09/25/96
ITEM TITLE:
Report: Consideration of the Draft Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) Plan and Draft Chula Vista Subarea Plan
Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary of the Draft MSCP Plan (Attachment 1) and a
copy of the Draft Chula Vista Subarea Plan (Attachment 2), The City of San Diego, in
cooperation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and
Game, County of San Diego, Chula Vista and other Cities within South San Diego County have
developed a plan for preservation of sensitive habitat throughout the South County. The purpose
of this preserve plan is to address requirements of both the State and Federal Endangered Species
Acts relating to impacts to sensitive plant and animal species, A total of 171,000 acres is
proposed to be preserved in this plan.
Staff will present the contents of these documents at your meeting on September 25, 1996, Staff
would like to apprise the Commission of the status of these documents and the Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Statement being processed by the City of San Diego and the
Wildlife Agencies Goint lead agencies). Any comments received by the Planning Commission
will be forwarded to the City Council at their regular meeting of October 8, 1996,
RECOMMENDA nON: That the Planning Commission forward comments to the City Council
regarding the Draft MSCP Plan and Draft Chula Vista Subarea Plan,
Attachments
1. Draft MSCP Executive Summary
2, Draft City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan
(m:\home\planning\mscp\pc _ mscp.rpt)
_........-
Multiple Species
Conservation
Program
- ..-....-.---._"~-
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
August 1996
MSCPPLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE
1.0 Introduction
2,0 Description of MSCP Study Area
3,0 Conservation Plan
4.0 Assembling the MSCP Preserve
5.0 Implementation Strategy and Structure
6.0 Preserve Management and Reporting
7.0 Financing Habitat Acquisition and Management
List of Figures
NUMBER TITLE
1-2 Jurisdictions Within MSCP Study Area
3-6 Vegetation Communities Targeted for Conservation
in MHP A
3-2 Average Habitat Conservation in MHPA
4-1 Sources of Target Conservation
4- 3 Conservation and Development in MHP A
List of Tables
NUMBER TITLE
3-3 Vegetation Community Acres Targeted for Conservation
within MHP A
4-1 Summary of Preserve Assembly
7-5 Estimated Cost of Habitat Acquisition
7-1 An Example Financing Plan for Local Jurisdictions Using
Benefit Assessment: 30 Year Program Costs and
Revenues
PAGE
I
2
4
9
12
14
15
PAGE
3
5
8
9
10
PAGE
7
II
16
18
MSCP PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
August 1996
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a <;omprehensive habitat conservation
planning program for southwestern San Diego County. The MSCP will preserve a network of
habitat and open space, protecting biodiversity and enhancing the region's quality of life. The
MSCP will also provide an economic benefit by reducing constraints on future development and
decreasing the costs of compliance with federal and state laws protecting biological resources, The
MSCP Plan has been developed cooperatively by participating jurisdictions and special districts in
partnership with the wildlife agencies, property owners, and representatives of the development
industry and environmental groups. The plan is designed to preserve native vegetation and meet the
habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time.
By identifying priority areas for conservation and other areas for future development, the MSCP will
streamline existing permit procedures for development projects which impact habitat.
Many native vegetation communities in the region are considered sensitive because they have been
greatly reduced in distribution by development. San Diego County contains over 200 plant and
animal species that are federally and/or state listed as endangered, threatened, or rare; proposed or
candidates for listing; or otherwise are considered sensitive. Over half of these species occur in the
MSCP study area. The MSCP will protect habitat for over 1000 native and nonnative plant species
and more than 380 species offish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
The proposed assembly of the MSCP preserve is based on the policies that public lands be
incorporated to the greatest extent possible and that private property rights be fully respected and
upheld. Private lands acquired with public funds for the preserve will only be acquired from willing
sellers. The MSCP is also based on the equitable distribution of costs.
Local jurisdictions and special districts will implement their portions of the MSCP Plan through
subarea plans, which describe specific implementing mechanisms, The MSCP Plan, with its
attached subarea plans, will serve as: 1) a multiple species Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to
Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act; and, 2) a Natural Community Conservation
Program (NCCP) Plan pursuant to the California NCCP Act of 1991 and the state Endangered
Species Act. Once approved, the MSCP and subarea plans will replace interim restrictions on
impacts to coastal sage scrub, as a result of the federal listing of the California gnatcatcher as
threatened, and will allow the incidental take of other Covered Species as specified in the plan.
1
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE MSCP STUDY AREA
The MSCP study area covers approximately 900 square miles (582,243 acres) in southwestern San
Diego County and includes the City of San Diego, portions of the unincorporated County of San
Diego, ten additional city jurisdictions, and several independent special districts (Figure 1-2). The
study area is bordered by Mexico to the south, National Forest lands to the east, the Pacific Ocean
to the west and the San Dieguito River Valley to the north. Naval Air Station Miramar, the Point
Lorna Naval Complex, and other military lands are within the MSCP study area but are being
planned separately.
Vegetation Communities and Evaluated Species
Approximately 54% (315,940 acres) of the MSCP study area supports several distinct vegetation
communities or habitat types, most of which are considered sensitive or rare, with the remainder
developed (41%) or in agriculture (5%). The MSCP preserve was designed using an evaluation of
93 species as indicators of the range of habitats and biological diversity in the study area. Included
within the 93 species were 41 species that are federally or state listed, candidates for listing, or
proposed for listing. The plan attempts to maximize the presence of these species and their habitats
in the preserve.
Biological Core and Linkage Areas
Biological core and linkage areas were identified to assist local jurisdictions and special districts as
one element to be considered in identifying their portion of the MSCP preserve and/or preserve
design criteria. The most critical biological resources were prioritized for preservation to maximize
the conservation value of the preserve, to efficiently use acquisition funds and to identify less
important habitat areas that could be developed. Sixteen core biological resource areas and
associated habitat linkages, totaling approximately 202,757 acres of habitat, were identified. Subarea
plans with specific preserve boundaries maximize inclusion of unfIagmented core areas and linkages
in their preserve design to the extent possible.
Ownership
The study area contains 315,940 acres of habitat with almost two-thirds (about 194,563 acres) being
privately owned, Over one-third of the habitat is in military (20,082 acres) or other public ownership
(101,295 acres).
Gap Analysis of Habitat Protection and Planned Land Uses
A gap analysis was performed to identify where existing protection of key biological resources was
already in place (such as planned open space lands, public lands and lands unlikely to be developed
because of steep slopes and floodplains) and where "gaps" in habitat protection may occur. The gap
analysis showed that only 17% of the biological core and linkage areas was already preserved for
biological open space as of 1994, and these protected areas were widely distributed without linkages
between them. According to adopted general and community plans, most of the remaining habitat
2
~v-5"'~=-
~: V
)
A
J,..<J
^ '@J".I
Solana
Beach
(...
Del
Mar
W Unincorporated
Iv' Jurisdictional
Boundaries
. Military Lands
Source: SANDAG Jurisdictions
Coverage
;;/.:
/'../
/'../"
~/
~
MSCP Boundary
Freeways
Major Streams
Lake/Lagoon
o
5,5
MILES
FIGURE
OIDN
Jurisdictions Within MSCP Study Area
1-2
.....
osm1%
~~.._.....IIIII.
3
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
areas in the MSCP study area are planned to be developed with low density residential uses (39%)
or used as parks, preserves or open space (29%), The local jurisdictions considered these planned
land uses in designing or establishing criteria for the MSCP preserve and will amend land use plans,
as needed, to implement the MSCP (see Section 5).
Future Growth
In allocating future forecast growth in the region, the local jurisdictions and SANDAG found that,
without the MSCP, the existing general and community plans would accommodate residential
growth up to around 3.3 million people, which is forecast to be reached in 2005. It is projected that
after 2005, there will not be sufficient vacant land designated by the general and community plans
for residential use at urban densities (more than one dwelling unit per acre). In response to this
issue, local jurisdictions have been working with SANDAG to fonnulate a Regional Growth
Management Strategy to accommodate residential growth beyond 2005 by focusing growth around
major transit services, providing mixed uses at community centers and locating residences within
major employment centers. Although a lack of sufficient residentially designated lands in land use
plans would occur with or without a habitat preserve system, habitat conservation and a new growth
management strategy can be mutually supportive of quality of life objectives and the need for
economic growth.
3.0 CONSERVATION PLAN
Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA)
The process of designing the MSCP preserve incorporated the goals of preserving as much of the
core biological resource areas and linkages as possible, maximizing the inclusion of public lands
and lands already conserved as open space, and creating an affordable preserve with the equitable
sharing of costs. The participating jurisdictions and special districts cooperatively designed a Multi-
Habitat Planning Area (MHPA), in partnership with the wildlife agencies (USFWS and CDFG),
property owners, and representatives of the development interests and environmental groups. The
MHP A is the area within which the pennanent MSCP preserve will be assembled and managed for
its biological resources. Public acquisition of private lands ITOm willing sellers will be focused
within the MHPA.
The MHP A is defmed in some areas by mapped boundaries and in others by quantitative targets for
conservation of vegetation communities and by goals and criteria for preserve design. The
jurisdictions and special districts prepared subarea plans and defmed boundaries of their portions of
the MHP A based on common objectives and criteria, but using different methods of implementation.
The resulting conservation of the subarea plans is summarized in Figure 3-2. The MHPA includes
property set aside as mitigation for major development projects as a result of negotiations, habitat
designated as open space in general plans, and areas already preserved for their biological resources.
The remainder are areas within which the ultimate preserve will be sited.
4
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
Habitats Conserved
The MSCP Plan targets 171,917 acres of vacant land within the MHP A for conservation, including
over half of all natural lands in the MSCP study area (167,667 acres) and 4,250 acres of other vacant
lands that contribute to preserve design. The MHP A conserves 62% of all coastal sage scrub and
important portions of all vegetation communities in the study area. This conservation is focused in
the most biologically important areas, with nearly three-fourths (73%) of the core biological resource
areas and linkages conserved in the MHP A. Table 3-3 and Figure 3-6 summarize the amount of each
vegetation community targeted for conservation within the MHP A. Each subarea plan contributing
to the total describes a process for allowing development outside the preserve to be mitigated by
conservation inside the preserve.
Figure 3-6
Vegetation Communities Targeted for Conservation
in MHPA
Upland Forests
& Woodlands
(5%)
Wetlands
(11%)
Other
(2%)
Grassland
(6%)
This plan targets 7,591 more acres for conservation than the Draft MSCP Plan, which targeted
164,326 acres. The difference is attributed to several factors: the acreage of public lands targeted
for conservation in the MHP A increased by about 10,000 acres; the City of San Diego now targets
4,250 acres of disturbed and agricultural lands to meet preserve configuration needs (however,
agriculture is not precluded in the preserve); and the study area has expanded by about 1,050 acres.
The acreage of private lands targeted for conservation decreased by about 2,400 acres.
5
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
Covered Species
Based on the MHP A preserve configuration, vegetation community conservation targets, and
implementation of habitat management plans, 85 species will be adequately conserved and "covered"
by this plan. The County of San Diego and cities of San Diego, Poway, and Chula Vista must have
approved subarea plans and implementing agreements before take of all 85 species is authorized for
all participants. The participating local agencies will receive take authorizations from the federal
and state agencies to directly impact or "take" these 85 species, in accordance with approved subarea
plans and implementing agreements. The covered species include species listed as endangered or
threatened as well as currently unlisted species:
Protection Status
Federally listed I
State listed2
Federally proposed
Federal candidates (Cl and fonner C2)
Other3
Total
Plants
5
13
3
24
--1
46
Animals
12
2
1
12
12
39
T otaI
17
15
4
36
-1l....
85
I May also be state listed,
2 Includes 8 plants proposed for federal listing.
3 State species of special concern, habitat indicator species, and species important to preserve
design.
If, in the future, a covered but unlisted species becomes listed as endangered or threatened, the take
authorization will become effective concurrent with its listing.
Narrow Endemic Species. Some native species, primarily plants with restricted geographic
distributions, soil affinities, and/or habitats, are referred to as "narrow endemic species," For vernal
pools and identified narrow endemic species, the jurisdictions will specifY measures in their subarea
plans to ensure that impacts to these resources are avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
Uncovered Species
The plan also includes provisions for adding uncovered species to the covered species list. If a
species not on the covered species list is proposed for listing, the wildlife agencies will detennine
if additional conservation measures are needed to adequately protect the species. If additional
measures are needed, management practices and enhancement opportunities and reallocation of
public acquisition funds will be used provided that covered species are not adversely affected. If
these options are not adequate, preference will be given by the wildlife agencies to additional
measures that do not require additional mitigation or dedication of land. The wildlife agencies have
also agreed to provide additional habitat-based assurances for uncovered species by classifYing
certain vegetation communities as "significantly" and/or "sufficiently conserved" by the MSCP, as
described in the MSCP Plan and Model Implementing Agreement.
6
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
Table 3-3
VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACRES TARGETED FOR
CONSERVATION WITHIN MULTI-HABITAT PLANNING AREA
Total MSCP MHPA % of MSCP
Study Areal Total MHPA Conserved3 Veg. Comm.
Vegetation Communities (acres) (acres) (acres) Conserved
Beach 1202 (*) 491 443 37%
Saltpan 235 (*) 212 212 90%
Southern Foredunes 188 (*) 132 123 65%
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 198 (*) 146 137 69%
Coastal Sage Scrub 115,504 (37) 80,596 71.274 62%
Maritime Succulent Scrub 1,803 (*) 899 855 47%
Chaparral 111,335 (35) 60,933 54,945 49%
Southern Maritime Chaparral 1,782 (*) 1,240 1,111 62%
Coastal Sage/Chaparral 3,877 (1) 1,749 1,490 38%
Grassland 28,373 (9) 10,926 9,770 34%
Southern Coastal Saltmarsh 1,870 (*) 1,719 1,719 92%
Freshwater Marsh 815 (*) 497 497 61%
Riparian Forest 1,328 (*) 1,078 1,078 81%
Oak Riparian Forest 5,361 (2) 3,054 3,054 57%
Riparian Woodland 731 (*) 588 588 80%
Riparian Scrub 5,374 (2) 4,286 4,286 80%
Oak Woodland 5,600 (2) 3,150 2,651 47%
Torrey Pine Forest 169 (*) 153 144 85%
Tecate Cypress Forest 5,712 (2) 5,641 5,591 98%
Eucalyptus Woodland 1,633 (*) 364 326 20%
Open Water 5,726 (2) 5,220 5,220 91%
Disturbed Wetlands 928 (*) 738 738 80%
Natural Flood Channel 862 (*) 746 746 87%
Shallow Bay 9,581 (3) 369 369 4%
Deep Bay 4,891 (2) 3 0 0%
Other Habitat2 864 (*) 339 300 35%
Subtotal Habitat 315,940(100) 185,266 167,667 53%
Disturbed 23,244 (*) 5,037 2,447 11%
Agriculture 28,547 (*) 4,015 1,803 6%
Subtotal Vacant Land 367,731 194,318 171,917 47%
Developed 214,511 0 0 0%
TOTAL 582,243 194,318 171,917 30%
I Percent of total MSCP habitats (315.940 acres) is given in parentheses. Asterisk (*) indicates <I %.
2 Disturbed, Agriculture, and Developed areas with habitat value according to the habitat evaluation map.
3 MHPA conserved acres have been estimated based on average conservation factors (e,g., 70%,80%,90%,
etc,) applied to Total MHPA acres. with the following exceptions: (a) all wetland conununities are assumed
100% conserved within the MHP A boundary; (b) all Disturbed and Agriculture are assumed 0% conserved
within the MHPA boundary for all subareas except City of San Diego; and (c) Developed areas are not
conserved in MHP A. Numbers represent both existing conserved acres and acres targeted for conservation.
Note: Numbers may not sum to total as shown, due to rounding. Vernal pools were mapped as an overlay and
thus their acreage is included in this totaL Military lands are included in total study area acreage but are not
included in MHPA.
Source: 1996 MSCP GIS database.
7
^',
\
'~
...
r~~.,J
This map depicts areas within
which the MSCP preserve may
be created. This map is not
intended to regulate land use
or to provide site-specific
data. Some lands within the
lines will be allowed to be
developed as provided for in
individual subarea plans and
other implementing plans and
regu lations.
"
-~"-
.~
f IlllICOI
,
"..-
~ Elcandlllla'
'~,.j --.
~/ t,>>
v'
. "', ! '
,.'"f.", ,"v
. /~' \.
Clrllbad
'\-....~
~I '--..--,
~-
~
I . 30 Percent Conserved
r-: 50 Percent Conserved
;,,! 70-75 Percent Conserved
180 Percent Conserved
90-95 Percent Conserved
100 Percent Conserved
~ Amendment Areas
,';<< Areas w~h Undetermined
~ Development Status
"'1,,,1 MilitafYLands
(not included in MHPA)
N Subarea Boundaries
Military lands ara not included in the MHPA
and are being planned separately.
see individual subarea plans.
'@
\
""',,,__,,- MSCP BoundafY
/'" ,...,/ Freeways
//"~ ,,' ' Major Streams
~ LakeiLagoon
Q
0 5,5
MILES
FIGURE
~
arm",
IIIIN
.....
Average Habitat Conservation in MHPA
~~~.-t
8
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
4.0 ASSEMBLING THE MSCP PRESERVE
The MSCP preserve will be assembled through a combination of the following methods:
1) conservation of lands already in public ownership;
2) public acquisition of private lands with regional habitat value from willing sellers; and
3) private development contributions through development regulations and mitigation of
impacts.
The relative contributions of these three methods and the equitable distribution of costs have been
addressed in policies established by elected officials of several jurisdictions. These policies have
served as the basis for plan proposals on assembling, implementing and financing the preserve.
Sources of Preserve Assembly
Of the total 171,920 acres targeted for preservation, public sources will contribute 81,750 acres of
public lands and acquire approximately 27,000 acres of private lands. Approximately 63,170 acres
of private lands will be conserved through the development process, including mitigation for impacts
to biological resources outside the preserve, In total, the public sector will contribute 63.3% of the
MSCP preserve, and private sector development will contribute 36.7% (Figure 4-1 and Table 4-1).
Figure 4-1
Sources of Target Conservation
[fotal Conserved = 171,920 acres)
Private Lands Conserved Through
the Development Process
63,170 acres
36.7%
Existing Public Lands
81,750 acres
47.6%
Public Purchase
27,000 acres
15.7%
Total Public Conservation
108,750 acres
63,3%
NOTE: Numbers have been rounded.
The federal and state governments have acknowledged their role in habitat conservation and agreed
to assist the local jurisdictions and property owners in creating a preserve that reduces or avoids the
need to list additional species. The federal and state governments will contribute 36,510 acres of
existing federal and state lands, excluding military lands, to permanent habitat conservation and
management. This includes 24,510 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, three
existing wildlife refuges that are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System and several state
administered parks and reserves.
9
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
Local governments collectively own approximately 47,850 acres of habitat in the MHP A, of which
45,240 (94.5%) are targeted for pennanent conservation and habitat management. Most of these
lands are already protected in existing passive recreation parks and open space preserves.
Approximately 10,400 acres, referred to as cornerstone lands, are owned by the City of San Diego
Water Utilities Department and will be committed to habitat conservation through a conservation
bank agreement with the wildlife agencies.
Over a period of 30 years, the federal and state governments, collectively, and the local jurisdictions
in the MSCP study area, collectively, will each contribute half of the approximately 27,000 acres to
be acquired by public means. Lands acquired as mitigation for public or private projects or through
land use regulation will not be included as part of the acquisition obligation of the local jurisdictions.
Funding of the local share of the preserve (acquisition, management, monitoring and administration)
will be carried out on a regional basis.
In 1996, 43.8% (85,190 acres) of lands in the MHPA were owned by federal, state and local
governments and 56.2% (109,130 acres) were privately owned. Of the MHPA lands in private
ownership, 57.9% (63,170 acres) will be conserved in conjunction with private development,
according to local land use regulations and through off-site mitigation; 24.7% (27,000 acres) will
be publicly acquired; and 17.4% (18,900 acres) will potentially be developed (Figure 4-3).
Figure 4-3
Conservation and Development in MHPA
120.000
60,000
3,_
acres
II) 100,000
"C
c
..
....
'"
..
"
~
c
"
I!!
"
'"
1ii
~
..._...mm.._.....
...._-_._._--_._~
80,000
40,000 -...--"-
.---....-.....
20,000
81.75(J
acres
~--_._.
o
Private lands
(109.130 acres)
= On/Off-site
= Preservation
ITTTTI Conservation by
Will Public Purchase
Existing Public Lands
(BS.190acres)
f7777)I Potential
= Development
P'V"'7I Existing Public Lands
~ Contributed to Preserve
NOTE: Numbers have been rounded.
Estimated Acquisition Need. The estimated need for acquisition of 27,000 acres was based on
estimates provided by the five jurisdictions with most of the privately owned habitat lands within
the MHPA: the cities ofChula Vista, Poway, San Diego and Santee and the County of San Diego.
The estimates were based on detailed, site specific reviews of such factors as ownership patterns and
parcel sizes, presence of biological resources, approved and negotiated projects, and the potential
for future development given the application ofland use regulations and environmental review.
10
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
Table 4-1
SUMMARY OF PRESERVE ASSEMBLY
Acres Targeted for
Conservation in MHP A
1. Federal and State Governments
. Manage existing federal and state lands located in
MHPA according to MSCP guidelines.
. Contribute half of 27,000 acres of lands to be
acquired by public means (subject to no more than
10% adjustment, upward or downward) through
purchase or non-cash transactions, such as land
exchanges.! Manage and monitor those lands with
federal and state funds.
Total targeted for conservation by federal and state
governments................................................................ .
2. Local Jurisdictions
. Manage currently owned lands located in MHPA
according to MSCP guidelines.
. Acquire privately owned habitat lands in MHPA by
purchase or by non-financial methods. Manage
and monitor lands acquired under the local
program.!
. Assure conservation of natural habitat on privately
owned lands and appropriate mitigation in
accordance with local land use regulations and
environmental review.
Total targeted for conservation by local jurisdictions....
3. Private Development
Conserve through the development process habitat
lands currently in private ownership, and provide
offsite mitigation through purchase of priv'ately
owned habitat lands inside MHP A, in accordance
with local land use regulations and environmental
review.
Total targeted for conservation by private development
Total Targeted for Conservation in MHPA ................
36,510 ac
13,500 ac
50,010 ac
45,240 ac
13,500 ac
See below.
58,740 ac
63,170 ac
63,170 ac
171,920 ac
Numbers have been rounded.
I Public projects also will conserve habitat through offsite mitigation. in addition to acquisition solely for
conservation purposes.
11
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY AND STRUCTURE
Implementation of the MSCP requires coordinated actions among the participating local
jurisdictions, other take authorization holders, the wildlife agencies, and the private sector. The
MSCP Plan establishes the framework, while allowing the flexibility for each jurisdiction to
implement the MSCP through their own subarea plans and implementing agreements. The MSCP
provides for sequential adoption of subarea plans by the jurisdictions or other take authorization
holders. Subarea plans and implementing agreements are also severable so that future actions or
inactions of anyone jurisdiction will not affect other take authorizations, except for the effects on
the list of covered species and federal and state assurances that are specified in the subarea plans or
implementing agreements.
The jurisdictions and other entities receiving federal and state take authorizations for covered species
will receive assurances that increase predictability for the development process. Proponents of
projects approved consistent with the MSCP will become "third party beneficiaries" to the locally
received take authorizations, receiving assurances that mitigation obligations will not be
subsequently altered for covered species and receiving the benefits of a streamlined process for
federal and state permitting and environmental review.
Subarea Plans
Subarea plans to implement the MSCP are prepared by local jurisdictions, special purpose agencies,
regional public facility providers or utilities and, together with an implementing agreement, serve
as the basis for issuance of federal and state take authorizations for covered species. The subarea
plan specifies how the take authorization holder will conserve habitat and build the MSCP preserve
using, in part, its existing land use planning and project approval process. Jurisdictions will
incorporate the MSCP Plan and subarea plan into their policies, land use plans, and regulations and
will approve public and private projects, or the siting of facilities, consistent with the subarea plan.
Subarea plans contain criteria, such as conservation targets, mitigation standards and/or development
encroachment limits, to ensure that habitat preservation proceeds in step with development, and
mechanisms to avoid or minimize project impacts to the preserve. A preserve management plan, or
a schedule for its preparation, is also contained in the subarea plan. Subarea plans for the cities of
San Diego, Chula Vista, Santee, Del Mar, and Coronado, the County of San Diego and Otay Water
District jll'e included in the MSCP Plan (Volume II). Subarea plan boundaries differ from
jurisdictional boundaries because some jurisdictions own, otherwise control or may annex lands
beyond their current jurisdiction boundaries. Other participants provided draft Multi-Habitat
Planning Area maps for inclusion in the MSCP Plan, but have prepared or are preparing subarea
plans separate from the MSCP Plan.
Implementing Agreements
An implementing agreement is a binding contract signed by the local jurisdiction (or other take
authorization holder) and the wildlife agencies which identifies the roles and responsibilities of the
parties to implement the MSCP and subarea plan. The agreement also specifies assurances and
12
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
remedies if parties fail to perform their obligations. A Model Implementing Agreement, generally
acceptable to the wildlife agencies, has been developed for use in preparing more specific
implementing agreements and is contained as Attachment A to the plan. Many assurances are
provided by the wildlife agencies including the provision for long-term (50 year) take authorizations
for covered species, how a change in circumstances will be addressed for covered species, the effects
on development and sharing of costs for uncovered species should they become listed, and the ability
of take authorizations to be severable from those granted to other entities implementing the MSCP.
Local Jurisdiction Actions to Implement the MSCP
Local jurisdictions will implement the MSCP through their approved subarea plans and will amend
land use plans, development regulations, codes and guidelines, as needed, to assure that development
projects are consistent with the subarea plan and that conservation targets are reached. Some
flexibility in plan implementation is provided in that adjustments to the MHP A and/or preserve
boundaries can be made, without the need to amend the MSCP Plan or subarea plan, if the same or
higher biological value of the preserve is achieved and the wildlife agencies concur. The
jurisdictions will ensure that habitat management occurs on contributed public lands and on habitat
lands acquired with regional funds or dedicated through the development process. The jurisdictions
will also participate in establishing a regional funding source, coordinate conservation actions with
adjoining jurisdictions, and prepare reports as described in Section 6.
Wildlife Agency Actions to Implement the MSCP
The wildlife agencies, as partners in MSCP implementation, will issue take authorizations for
covered species based on the subarea plans and implementing agreements; contribute and manage
identified existing federal and state lands and those acquired with federal and state funds; coordinate
the biological monitoring program; meet annually with take authorization holders; ensure that other
wildlife agency permits/consultations are coordinated and consistent with the MSCP; provide
technical assistance; include MSCP funding in annual budget proposals; and assist jurisdictions and
other agencies in developing a regional funding source and in public outreach or education programs.
Institutional Structure for MSCP Implementation
The MSCP Plan does not create a new regional structure or authority. However, the jurisdictions
will identify a new.or existing structure for establishing a regional funding source and for allocating
funds. The participating jurisdictions will also create two coordination committees:
. a Habitat Management Technical Committee to coordinate on technical issues of
preserve management and maintenance; and,
. an Implementation Coordinating Committee to coordinate subarea plan implementation
and the annual accounting of conservation and take, and to provide a forum for
discussing regional funding, public outreach and implementation issues. This
committee's meetings will be noticed and open to the public.
13
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
6.0 PRESERVE MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING
The MSCP Plan provides a framework for evaluating land uses for compatibility with the preserve
and presents guidelines for preserve management and reporting. Existing legal land uses within and
adjacent to the preserve will be allowed to continue.
Guidelines for Land Uses Within the Preserve
The MSCP provides for public recreation and education within the preserve, while conserving
biological resources and ensuring that private property rights are respected. Riding and hiking trails
and other passive uses are allowed in portions of the preserve as specified in subarea plans.
Guidelines are provided for agriculture, urban development, public facilities, mineral extraction, and
other uses; however, subarea plans define permitted uses and methods for review and permitting of
public and private development within and adjacent to the preserve.
Guidelines for Preserve Management Activities
Each take authorization holder will prepare a habitat management plan (or plans) as part of its
subarea plan, or as part of implementing its subarea plan, and will be responsible for management
and biological monitoring of its identified public lands, lands obtained as mitigation through fee title
or easements, and land acquired for habitat conservation with regional or local funds. Likewise, the
federal and state agencies will manage and monitor their present land holdings, as well as those they
acquire on behalf of the MSCP. The wildlife agencies will also assume primary responsibility for
coordinating the biological monitoring program, described in a separate Biological Monitoring Plan.
Private landowners who are third party beneficiaries will be responsible for habitat management of
preserve lands they choose to retain in private ownership consistent with the subarea plan and
conditions of development permits. No additional fees will be charged to landowners for biological
monitoring. General guidelines are provided for fire management, restoration, predator and exotic
species control and other management activities.
Reporting on MSCP Plan Implementation
Tracking MSCP implementation involves two independent process:
. annual accounting of the acreage, type and location of habitat conserved and destroyed
(taken) by permitted land uses and other activities; and,
. biological monitoring to determine if the preserve system is meeting conservation goals
for covered species.
Each take authorization holder will provide an annual accounting report for the calendar year and
submit it to the wildlife agencies and public by February 15. Annual meetings will be held with the
wildlife agencies to review subarea plan implementation and to coordinate activities. Every three
years, the following will be prepared: I) an MSCP status report, prepared by the jurisdictions, and
accompanied by public hearings; 2) a biological monitoring report prepared by the wildlife
agencies; and 3) a report on management activities and priorities prepared by preserve managers.
14
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
7.0 FINANCING HABITAT ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT
The analysis ofMSCP costs and alternative funding programs is based on the splitting of acquisition
costs between the federal and state governments and local jurisdictions, and the sharing of costs and
responsibilities for preserve management and biological monitoring. Funding of the local costs will
be carried out on a regional basis, and local elected officials have established the policy that any
regional funding for the MSCP will be submitted to the voters for approval.
MSCP Costs
If the MSCP is implemented using a 30-year benefit assessment program, the total cost to the local
jurisdictions, residents, and businesses to implement the MSCP is estimated to range from $339 to
$411 million in 1996 dollars, based on a range in estimated value of habitat lands to be acquired.
Land Acquisition Costs. The jurisdictions that estimated land acquisition needs also estimated land
acquisition costs in their respective jurisdictions, and determined collectively that the cost of
purchasing 27,000 acres would range from $262 to $360 million (Table 7-5). One half of the
acquisition need will be met by the local jurisdictions, funded through a regional funding source.
Based on the jurisdictions' estimates, the average acquisition cost ranges from $9,700 to $13,300
per acre. In comparing these estimates to recent sales prices, about 89% of lands recently sold had
prices below the average estimated acquisition cost of the jurisdictions' lowestimates ($9, 700/acre).
Costs for Preserve Management. Monitoring and Administration. The total costs to the local
jurisdictions for preserve management, biological monitoring and program administration over the
first 30 years is estimated to be approximately $120 million, with an annual projected cost beyond
that time of $4.6 million per year ($3.4 million more than current funding). An endowment could
be created during the 30-year financing program to permanently cover recurring costs, or, as an
alternative, a new funding program could be established before the end of the 30-year program.
The participating local jurisdictions will manage, using funds from the regional funding source,
approximately 106,120 acres of habitat lands in the preserve at preserve build out, at a cost of $4.2
million per year. Preserve management costs are estimated to range from $37 per acre per year for
areas isolated from urban development to $47 per acre per year for areas near urban development.
The federal and state governments would manage 50,010 acres at preserve build out, at an estimated
cost of $2 million per year.
Biological monitoring costs will vary each year as a result of the type and frequency of monitoring
required, with the average annual costs over a 10-year cycle estimated to be $230,400. Annual
administration costs (e.g. land acquisition activities, subarea plan implementation, legal support,
financial management, reporting and database management, and facilities and equipment) will also vary, reaching a peak of $1.3 million in 2004 during the period of land acquisition, and declining
to $255,000 per year at preserve build out.
15
MSCP Plan
Table 7-5
Executive Summary
ESTIMATED COST OF HABITAT ACQUISITION BY FEDERAL
AND STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE
REGIONAL FUNDING PROGRAM!
Estimated
Acquisition Need
(acres)
Chula Vista
360
3,200
2,400
350
18,850
Poway
San Diego
Santee
County of San Diego
(unincorporated)
Total to Be Acquired by the
Federal, State, and Local
Governments!
25,160
27,000
With Contingency
Estirnated Cost to the Federal
and State Governments and the
Regional Funding Program
($ million)
$3 - $7 million
$48 million
$40 - $70 million
$3 million
$149 - $206 million
$243 - $334 million
$262 - $360 .million
Source: Cities of Chula Vista, Poway, San Diego, and Santee and the County of San Diego. See also
Table 4-3.
! The infonnation contained in this table is intended only to estimate the total cost of lands potentialJy
acquired for the MSCP preserve by the federal, state, and local governments, with local governments
using a regional funding program. The amounts and costs for individual jurisdictions are shown for
information only. The amounts do not indicate the financing responsibilities of individual jurisdictions.
nor do they indicate how regional funds may be allocated to individual local jurisdictions.
Financing Plan for Local Jurisdictions
Options for Ret!ional Fundint!. Local elected officials directed that the MSCP evaluate several
options for a regional funding source, including:
. a benefit assessment by a regional park or open space district;
. a habitat maintenance assessment;
. a Mello-Roos community facilities district special tax;
. an ad valorem property tax; and,
. an increase in sales tax.
State law provides different allowable uses for the revenues raised, so more than one source may be
needed to fund both acquisition and recurring annual costs.
16
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
TiminQ of Re2Cional Funding. The jurisdictions will begin a process to procure regional funding
within 18 months of federal and state approval of the first subarea plan and will place a measure on
the ballot and have one or more funding sources in place within an additional 18 months. This
schedule may be adjusted if the jurisdictions demonstrate that their good faith efforts require
additional time. The MSCP Plan includes a chronology of actions needed to place a measure on the
ballot to finance the regional share.
Re2Conal FinancinQ Plan. The MSCP must provide information on the funding that will be made
available to implement the plan as proposed. A financing plan has been prepared to illustrate one
option available to the local jurisdictions. The jurisdictions will select one or more funding sources
and develop a final financing plan to be submitted to the voters for approval.
The example financing plan for local jurisdictions (Table 7-1) is based on a 30-year program of
benefit assessments similar to that authorized by AB2007. The analysis of the regional financing
plan assumes that the first 33 years ofMSCP implementation is divided into three periods: an initial
3-year period of interim funding; a 20-year period of land acquisition and debt financing under the
regional funding program, and; a final phase in which outstanding bonds are repaid and an
endowment is completed. The plan assumes that acquisition will be accelerated so that 50% of the
target is acquired within 4 years after the start of regional funding, 75% within 10 years, and 90%
within 15 years. Under the example plan, the local share of the 30-year program is estimated to be
$339 million and $411 million, for the low and high estimates of acquisition cost. The recurring
costs of preserve management, monitoring and program administration between 1997 and 2029 are
approximately $120 million. The analysis assumes that annual recurring costs after 2029 will be
funded from a permanent endowment. Interest and financing costs total $29 million to $48 million
(using the low and high acquisition cost estimates).
Financial ImDacts on Households and Businesses. The example financing plan would result in
average annual assessments, over 30 years, of $20 to $25 per household and $71 to $88 per acre of
commercial and industrial property, with the range reflecting the low and high estimates of
acquisition costs. In the example fmancing plan, benefit assessments are assumed to remain constant
during the 30-year program. The other funding options in the form of assessments or taxes are
assumed to escalate over time. The fiscal impact of a regional funding program on households and
businesses can vary substantially, depending on the funding sources selected (see Section 7.2.3).
Federal and State Funding Programs
The federal and state governments will acquire lands using funds from existing and future programs.
Between 1989 and 1994, federal programs have funded an average of$30 million per year for habitat
conservation in California. Between 1980 and 1994, an average of $270 million per year has been
appropriated nationwide to four federal agencies using the federal Land and Water Conservation
Fund. Other sources of funding include the National Fish and Wildlife Challenge Grants (with
average grants to California of$1.9 million per year from 1989-1994), the Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund (a new initiative, which included $6 million for FY97 citing the NCCP
in southern California), USFWS annual appropriations, and state acquisition funds through the
Wildlife Conservation Board (averaging $30 million per year from 1989-1994).
17
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
Table 7-1
AN EXAMPLE FINANCING PLAN FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
USING BENEFIT ASSESSMENT: 30-YEAR PROGRAM
COSTS AND REVENUES!
Low Acquisition Cost High Acquisition Cost
1996 $ Million Percent 1996 $ Million Percent
Program Costs
Habitat Acquisition $131.0 38.7% $180.0 43.8%
Preserve Management2 96.5 28.5% 96.5 23.5%
Biological Monitoring2 3.7 1.1% 3.7 0.9%
Program Administration2 19.3 5.7% 19.3 4.7%
Deposits to Endowrnent3 59.2 17.5% 64.0 15.6%
Interest and Financing Costs4 29.1 8.6% 47.8 11.6%
Total $338.8 100.0% $411.3 100.0%
Program Revenues
Regional Funding Source! $296.6 87.5% $366.2 89.0%
Continuation of Pre-1996 34.4 10.2% 34.4 8.4%
Open Space BudgetS
Local Funding of Interest 5.2 1.5% 7.1 1.7%
Costs on Initial Acquisition6
Interest Revenue 2.6 0.8% 3.6 0.9%
Total $338.8 100.0% $411.3 100.0%
Source: Onaka Planning & Economics; Douglas Ford and Associates.
AIJ costs and revenues in millions of !996 dollars; future values have been discounted.
! Costs and revenues shown in this table reflect a 3D-year regional funding program based on benefit
assessments levied by a regional parks and open space district. Costs assume establishment of an
endowment for perpetual maintenance. Costs and revenues differ for other funding sources.
2 Discounted sum of costs from 1997 to 2029.
3 Discounted sum of deposits into an assumed endowment fund. The undiscounted amount of endowment
in 2029, including accumulated interest, is $235 million.
4 Interest and bond issuance costs.
5 Discounted sum of continued expenditures by local jurisdictions for the management of open space
preserves established prior to !996.
6 Discounted sum of interest payments made by local jurisdictions for an assumed interim financing to
acquire land prior to the start of a regional funding program.
18
DRAFT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBAREA PLAN
FOR THE
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Prepared by
the City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
August 1,1996
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PllI!e
1.0 IN1'RODUcnON.............................................. 1
2.0 CONSISTENCY WITH MULTII'LE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
3.0 SUBAREA PLAN ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF 11m CHULA VISTA SUBAREA .......................... 3
MODIFIED GDP ALTERNATIVE ......................:............. 5
4.1 City Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1 Private Projects in the City Cornponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
4.1.1.1 Bonita Long Canyon ............................ 5
4.1.1.2 Salt Creek I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1.3 Rancho Del Rey ....................... . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1.4 Terra Nova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1.5 Salt Creek Ranch .............................. 8
4.1.1.6 Mid-Bayfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1.7 Sunbow II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1.8 EastLake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4.1.1.9 Other Private Properties ..........................11
4.1.2 Public/Quasi-Public Lands/Projects in the City Component . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2.1 Sweetwater Valley Regional Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
4.1.2.2 Port District Iurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2.3 Otay Valley Regional Park . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Bonita Component ....................................... .12
4.2.1 Private Projects in the Bonita Component ..................... 12
4.2.1.1 San Miguel Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
4.2.1.2 Other Private Properties .......................... 15
4.2.2 Public/Quasi-Public LandslProjects in the Bonita Component ......... 15
4.2.2.1 San Diego Gas & Electric ......................... 15
4.2.2.2 Otay Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2.3 Sweetwater Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2.4 Sweetwater Valley Regional Park. . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2.5 Resolution Trust Corp./Rancho San Diego Mitigation Parcel . . . . 16
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Pal!e
4.3 Otay Ranch Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.1 Private Projects in the Otay Ranch Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
4.3.1.1 OtayRanch ................................. .17
4.3.1.2 Other Private Properties ......................... .26
4.3.2 Public/Quasi-Public Lands/Projects in the Otay Ranch Component ...... 27
4.3.2.1 San Diego Water Utilities .........................27
4.3.2.2 Bureau of Land Management .......................27
4.3.2.3 Otay Valley Regional Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
EXISI1NG GDP ALTERNATIVE ....................................30
4.4 Bonita Component ....................................... .31
4.4.1 San Miguel Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
4.5 Otay Ranch Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
4.5.1 Otay Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
5.0 COVERED SPECIES LIST ....................................... .36
6.0 LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS .....................................37
6.1 Existing Standards, Ordinances and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
6.1.1 Federal ......................................... .37
6.1.2 State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
6.1.3 City of Chula Vista. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
6.2 Compatible Land Uses Within the Preserve ........................ 39
6.2.1 Existing Uses ..................................... .39
6.2.2 P/lblic Access and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
6.2.3 Public and Private Lands ...............................41
6.3 Compatible Land Uses Adjacent to the Preserve .....................41
6.3.1 General Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
6.3.2 Project Specific Criteria ................................42
6.4 General Planning and Design Guidelines ..........................46
6.4.1 Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
6.4.2 Roads ................................,.......... .47
6.4.3 Fire and Brush Management ............................ .47
ii
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Pal!e'
6.4.4 Fencing, Lighting and Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
6.4.5 Materials Storage .....................................48
6.4.6 Mining, Extraction and Processing Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
6.4.7 Flood Control ......................................48
6.4.8 Scientific and Biological Activities. . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
6.5 Specific Project Exclusions ...................................49
6.5.1 Otay Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
6.5.2 Otay Valley Regional Park ..............................50
6.5.3 Salt Creek Ranch ................................... .51
6.5.4 Sunbow IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
7.0 PREsERVE MANAGEMENT ...................................... .51
7.1 Plan Preparation .........:.............................. .51
7.2 Protection of Resources .................................... .52
7.2.1 Interim Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
7.2.2 Agricultural Exemption ............................... .52
7.2.3 Pennanent Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
7.2.4 Mitigation Plan .................................... .53
8.0 FuNDING..................................................55
9.0 SUBAREA 'PLAN AMENDMENTS .................................... .55
9.1 Minor Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
9.2 Major Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
10.0 REFERENCES .............................................. .57
11.0 APPENDIX ................................................ .58
11.1 Baldwin Tentative Agreement Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
11.2 Implementing AgreementlManagement Authority ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
11.3 Draft Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan Diagram .............. 58
11.4 Vegetation Communities Within the Preserve by Mlijor Project . . . . . . . . . .58
11.5 City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan Map - Figure 2 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
iii
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Palle
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. 'Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan Components. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Figure 2. Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan Map. . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 11.5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Vegetation Communities Within Multi-habitat Planning Areas -
Modified GDP Alternative .........................44
Table 2. Vegetation Communities Within Multi-habitat Planning Areas -
Existing GDP Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Table 3. Uplands Mitigation Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
iv
City of Chula Visto MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN
1.0 INTRODUcnON
The Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning
program being developed by the City of San Diego, County of San Diego and eleven other local
jurisdictions in southwestern San Diego County. The total study area is 581,649 acres, of which 52,476
acres are contained within the General Plan area of the City of Chula Vista. The main text of the
MSCP provides an overview and describes the goals of the entire program. This document describes
the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, with specific information about the components of the MSCP that apply
to the City of Chula Vista portion of the MSCP study area.
The City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan ("Subarea Plan") was developed by. the City's Planning
Department in cooperation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the California
Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"), property owners and other interested persons. This subarea
plan is a component of the MSCP which is incorporated herein by reference. The MSCP is a
comprehensive habitat conservation planning program which addresses multiple species habitat needs
and the preservation of natural communities for a 9OO-square mile area in southwestern San Diego
County. It is one of three subregional habitat planning efforts in San Diego County. The MSCP
addresses the potential impacts of urban growth, loss of natural habitats, and species endangerment and
develops a plan to mitigate for the loss of plant and wildlife species and habitat due to the direct and
indirect impacts of future development of both private and public lands.
The primary goals of the City's Subarea Plan are: 1) to reduce or eliminate redundant local, state and
federal review of individual projects by obtaining state and federal endangered species act take
authorizations for 85 species, and 2) conserve habitat for covered species by creating a preserve system
using a variety of techniques including land use regulations, on- and offsite mitigation, and acquisition
(local, state and federal funding sources).
This Subarea Plan focuses on: I) where the habitat will be conserved, 2) how much habitat (by habitat
type) will be conserved, 3) mecbanism(s) which will be used to permanently protect the preserve (timing
and dedications, mitigation) and the protection method (fee title, conservation easement, etc.), and 4)
preserve management (preserve management plan requirements, interim management, etc.).
The City's preserve was developed using the design criteria in Section 3.2.5 of the MSCP. Boundary
adjustments can be made without the need to amend this Subarea Plan or the MSCP in cases where a
new preserve boundary would result in a preserve area of equivalent or higher value. The
determination of the biological value of a proposed boundary change would be made by the City in
accordance with Section 3.4.1 of the MSCP Plan, and with concurrence of the wildlife agencies.
The City intends to enter into an Implementing Agreement/Management Authorization ("JA") with
USFWS and CDFG ("Wildlife Agencies"). The JA may be similar in form and content to the fina1
1
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
"Model Implementing Agreement/Management Authorization" found in the MSCP. The IA does not
preclude landowners, the City and the Wildlife Agencies from entering into separate Conservation .
Agreements, which provide greater detail and assurances beyond those in this Subarea Plan. The City
may enter into Conservation Agreements in connection with the implementation of this Subarea Plan.
Provisions in Conservation Agreements shall be consistent with this Subarea Plan.
The City's Subarea Plan boundary is primarily represented by the City's General Planning boundary.
Approximately 3,997 acres located within the City's Subarea Plan, but owned or controlled by a public
or quasi-public agency other than the City of Chula Vista, are not covered by the City's Subarea Plan.
These properties will be addressed through individual preserve plans prepared by these controlling
agencies (e.g., water districts, Port Authority, etc.) (please see Figure 1). This plan is intended to
identify major areas of open space and their implernentation. During the development of this plan,
efforts were made to accurately reflect approved projects. It is not intended that this document
supersede the regulatory approval requirement for any property or that it supersede any condition in
existing County permits or maps. Furthermore, if there is a conflict between the articles of this
document and permit conditions, the permit conditions shall prevail.
2.0 CONSISTENCY WITII TIlE MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM
The City of Chula Vista is preparing this Subarea Plan in response to direction from the Wildlife
Agencies in an effort to meet the applicable requirements of the federal and state Endangered Species
Acts and the Natural Communities Conservation Program ("NCCP") Act. The City's Subarea Plan is
intended to be consistent with the MSCP (please see Tables 2 & 3 for acreage comparisons) and with
the Subarea Plan outline and standards agreed to by the Wildlife Agencies and the other jurisdictions
and entities participating in the MSCP. This Subarea Plan, therefore, becomes a component of the
MSCP upon the adoption of the Subarea Plan by the Chula Vista City Council. If any standards,
regulations or requirernents of the Subarea Plan conflict with those of the MSCP, the criteria of the
Subarea Plan .shall apply.
3.0 SUBAREA PLAN ALTERNATIVES
The City's Subarea Plan has been prepared reflecting two alternative preserve designs. The
MODIFIED GDP ALTERNATIVE consists of a preserve plan which is guided by the City's current
General Plan and previously approved development plans, with the exception of preserve areas within
the San Miguel Ranch and Otay Ranch projects, each contingent on the approval of a range of tentative
considerations and/or agreements (See Figure 2 located in Appendix 11.5; Subarea Plan Map).
Implementation of the Modified GDP Alternative will necessitate agreements between the City of Chula
Vista, property owners, and the Wildlife Agencies, as well as modifications to the City's General Plan
and project development plans. The EXISTING GDP ALTERNATIVE contains all of the elements of
the Modified GDP Alternative, with the exception of preserve areas within the San Miguel Ranch and
Otay Ranch projects, each reflecting GDP alternatives previously approved by the City Council.
Specific differences between the Modified and Existing GDP Alternatives are described in more detail
in Section 4.0. It is the intent of the City of Chula Vista to adopt one preserve design in this Subarea
2
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Plan which will be the subject of the IA (described in Section 1.0 above); therefore, revisions to this
plan are anticipated before fInal adoption.
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF TIlE CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN
The City's Subarea Plan coverage, shown in Figure 1, consists of the entire Chula Vista General Plan
area, with the exception of areas where the City of National City and San Diego have jurisdictional
authority. The City's Subarea Plan is' divided into three components consisting of: 1) the "City
Component" (reflecting the current Chula Vista jurisdictional area), 2) the "Bonita Component," and
3) the "Otay Ranch Component. "
The Bonita and Otay Ranch Components consist entirely of unincorporated properties, and are
anticipated to be annexed into the City of Chula Vista, either in part or entirely in the future. Those
preserve areas that are currently located within unincorporated areas are either covered or will be
covered by the County of San Diego's Subarea Plan. For purposes of continuity and preserve integrity,
both the preserve lands in the unincorporated portion of the City's Subarea Plan and the overlapping
County Subarea Plan are depicted similarly. All unincorporated lands depicted as part of the City's
Subarea Plan shall only be considered covered by the Subarea Plan "take authorization" upon annexation
to the City of Chula Vista. Where a portion of, but not all of a proposed development project is
annexed to the City, take authorization will apply to only that area to be annexed, although conserved
area(s) may remain in another jurisdiction.
The Subarea Plan preserve includes approximately 1,937 acres within the City Component,
approximately 2,176 acres within the Bonita Component, and approximately 13,094 acres within the
Otay Ranch Component (See Figure 2 located in Appendix 11.5; Subarea Plan Map); however,
additional acreage may be annexed into the preserve with concurrence of property owners. The City's
Subarea Plan contains both public lands/projects and private lands/projects, which are further described
herein.
The Subarea Plan includes portions of core biological resource areas and associated habitat linkages
within the MSCP subregion which have been identifIed in the MSCP. These core areas consist of the
Sweetwater River/Sweetwater Reservoir/San Miguel Mountain area and the Otay Lakes/Otay Mesa/Otay
River Valley area. The linkages consist of the Sweetwater River to San Diego Bay, San Miguel
Mountain to Rancho Del Rey area and the Otay River Valley west of Interstate 805. A1; stated in the
MSCP, these areas encompass one of the larger uninterrupted sensitive habitat areas in the San Diego
region with both high animal and plant diversity and large animal and plant populations. A portion of
these areas are also included in the planning area for the Otay/Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge,
a 45,OOO-acre expanse of wildlife habitat stretching from the Mexican border to Interstate 8. Habitat
linkages from these areas would provide connections west to the Pacific Ocean and the San Diego Bay.
3
=
Z
III
z
;!2
en~
:;0
~u
::::>>z
:z:~
uA.
u.CI:
0='
~~
u::::>>
en
A.
u
en
I
~I
iJ
~n
f
I
I
~~:I!~ ~~
~I ~ 6~ .
i
OJ
<~ !
o
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
The majority of the private lands/projects within the City's Subarea Plan have been either surveyed as'
part of earlier project entitlement processes or were derived from additional biological resource
inventories prepared for the MSCP. The field totals for a project should be regarded as more accurate.
The database numbers, however, may be utilized for analytical purposes. Tables 1 and 2 show the
existing amount of habitat in the City's Subarea Plan and the amount of that habitat that will be
preserved once the Subarea Plan is implemented, depending on which Alternative is selected. The
development process in the City of Chula Vista consists of a tiered level of approvals until the granting
of entitlements. To implement policies of the General Plan a master planned development must flfSt
obtain approval of a General Development Plan ("GDP") or Specific Plan ("SP"). The GDP and SP
act as a refmement of the General Plan policies, and a bridge between the General Plan and the next
level of project approvals, the Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Planes). SPA Plans consist of the
establislunent of zoning regulations for the project, including land use arrangement and development
guidelines. Entitlements are next obtained through the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map. This
is followed by the recordation of a Final Subdivision Map and the issuance of grading and infrastructure
improvernent plans in advance of actual building permits. Field surveys have been incorporated into
the MSCP Geographical Information System database. Some differences may occur between field totals
and the database.
MODIFIED GDP ALTERNATIVE - This alternative consists of a preserve plan which includes
existing approved General Development Plans, with the exception of proposed plan modifications
within the San Miguel Ranch and Otay Ranch master planned mixed-use projects. It is anticipated
that this alternative would receive "take authorization" from the Wildlife Agencies upon the execution
of an Implementation Agreement.
4.1 Citv Comoonent
The City Component of the Subarea Plan covers all of the area contained within the City's current
jurisdictional boundaries and represents the area which will receive "take authorization" with the signing
of the Implementation Agreement (IA). "Take authorization" will be extended to those unincorporated
properties located within the Subarea Plan which are annexed into the City of Chula Vista after the
adoption of this Subarea Plan, in accordance with the provisions of the Implementation Agreement.
Significant open space preserve areas within this Subarea Plan component include properties fronting
on San Diego Bay, portions of the Sweetwater and Otay Rivers, and many fmger canyons between
Interstate 805 to Upper and Lower Otay Reservoir. Most of this area has been built out or planned for
development and remainit1g open space areas are currently reflected on the City's General Plan Land
Use Diagram.
4.1.1 Private Projects in the City Component
4.1.1.1
Bonita Long Canyon
Bonita Long Canyon lies north of East H Street, and south of Bonita Road. The project is bordered
by Country Trails Lane on the North, Otay Lakes Road on the west, East H Street on the south and
5
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Corral Canyon Road on the east. The 650 acre subdivision encompasses areas with irregular terrain
and steep-sided canyons with considerable native vegetation. The subdivision includes 768 single family
dwellings and a 56 unit apartment complex, an elementary school, an equestrian center and a park site.
All discretionary approvals have been obtained for development and the project is considered to be built
out. A small acreage of Cleveland Sage is preserved. Approximately 281 acres of open space are
preserved as dedicated open space. See Appendix for significant on-site vegetation acreage to be
preserved.
4.1.1.5.1
Imulementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-79-02 and the resolution approving the tentative subdivision map
for the project (Resolution No. 11993), require the permanent preservation and maintenance of the
habitat by the project residents through an open space maintenance district. Also required are the
preservation of a 5-acre stand of Cleveland sage scrub, restrictions on brushing and clearing and
revegetation of manufactured slopes with native plant species.
4.1.1.2
Salt Creek I
The project site contains 124 acres of rolling terrain located mostly on the south side of Proctor Valley
Road which also traverses the property's northeast comer. The parcel is bisected by recently-
constructed East H Street which presently terminates at the project's easterly boundary. The project
consists of 169 detached single family dwellings, 237 townhomes and 144 condominiums, the
construction of which has already occurred or is in process.
The post-development condition of the project's remaining natural open space consists of a limited
amount of natural coastal sage scrub and revegetated coastal sage scrub located at the northwest comer
of the site. In addition, one acre of Otay tarplant, located in the north-central area of the site, has been
preserved. See Appendix for significant on-site vegetation acreage to be preserved.
4.1.1.2.1
Imulementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in ElR 89-06, adopted with the approval of the tentative map for Salt
Creek I (Resolution No. 15299), include the preservation of a limited acreage of natural coastal sage
scrub and revegetated acres of that habitat and one acre of Otay tarplant fenced for its protection.
Mitigation measures have been completed. The vegetation communities will be preserved and
maintained by project residents through an open space maintenance district as required by the
aforementioned resolution.
4.1.1.3
Rancho Del Rey
The Rancho Del Rey project consists of three SPA Plan areas (SPA I, IT & Ill). The entire project area
contains 1,585 acres located north and south of East H Street between Interstate 805 and Otay Lakes
Road and north of Telegraph Canyon Road. Site characteristics consist primarily of east-west trending
6
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
I)raft
ridges, with side slopes of 15 to 30 percent gradient and intervening canyons. The primary topographic'
features of the property are the three legs of Rice Canyon. The northern leg is the primary drainageway
of the project and contains sensitive biological resources. Developed areas are located on the higher
elevations or plateaus while the canyons and slopes remain largely in open space.
The combined project area consists of a mixed-use development regulated by a specific plan and 3 SPA
Plans authorizing the construction of approximately 4,067 dwelling units, a commercial/industrial
center, schools, parks and approximately 549 acres of open space. The project has been graded and
approximately 50% constructed.
The property contains a variety of plant species, included in coastal sage scrub habitat, and is inhabited
by several sensitive plants and animals. These include: coast barrel cactus, Snake cholla, San Diego
ragweed, California gnatcatcher and Cactus wren. Habitats for these species exist in the retained
canyons and hillsides within the project. See Appendix for significant on-site vegetation acreage to be
preserved.
4.1.1.3.1
ImDlementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-83-02, SEIR-87-0l, SEIR-89-02 and SEIR-89-10, were adopted
concurrently with the approval of three Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans and several subsequent
tentative subdivision maps. These measures included the preservation of coastal sage scrub acreage,
chaparral acreage and riparian woodland acreage. In addition, a required revegetation plan included
replanting of manufactured slopes adjacent to natural areas with native vegetation, re-establishment of
canyon bottom biota and the creation of a cacti refuge for snake cholla, fish hook, and barrel cactus.
The habitat will be preserved and maintained by project residents through an open space maintenance
district, as identified in the EIR and its supplements, and required by the resolutions of approval for
the aforementioned tentative maps. Mitigation is currently underway.
In accordance with Draft Findings for a 4(d) Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Loss Permit for Rancho Del Rey
SPA III (Case No.:CS95-01), a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for offsite mitigation within O'Neal
Canyon, dated October 14, 1994, shall be implemented. A total of 360 acres have been purchased in
O'Neal Canyon, located in the County of San Diego, and funding provided to assure open space
maintenance for this property in perpetuity.
4.1.1.4
Terra Nova
The Terra Nova project contains 419 acres located north and south of East H Street at its intersection
with Interstate 805. The development plan provides for 334 single family dwellings, 638
condominiums, 224 multi-family units and approximately 188,000 square feet of retail commercial and
office space, an elementary school, a neighborhood park and 125 acres of open space. The project has
been fully developed. See Appendix for significant on-site vegetation acreage to be preserved.
7
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
4.1.1.4.1
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-79-08 and the resolution approving the tentative map for the
project (Resolution No. 10416) include the preservation of natural open space which contains coastal
sage scrub and riparian vegetation and one vernal pool. The vernal pool has been fenced for its
protection and transplantation of some of the sensitive plant species has occurred. The open space is
being maintained by the project residents via an City-operated open space maintenance district.
4.1.1.5
Salt Creek Ranch
The project site contains approximately 1,197 acres of vacant land located north and south of Proctor
Valley Road, west of Upper Otay Reservoir and south of San Miguel Mountain. The property consists
of rolling to steep terrain focused around Salt Creek, an intermittently flowing drainage course.
The project has been approved by the City for subdivision into approximately 2,100 single family
dwellings and 509 rnultiple family dwellings, two elernentary school sites, two park sites, a fire station
site and approximately 452 acres of open space, the majority of which will be retained in their natural
state. Tentative Subdivision Map approvals have been obtained; however, final subdivision maps have
not received approval.
Within the natural open space, are coastal sage scrub habitat and wetlands, both considered sensitive
habitats. The open space consists of relatively narrow canyons averaging 600 feet in width, narrowing
to approximately 200 feet. These canyons provide viable wildlife corridors that support extensive
habitat. See Appendix for significant on-site vegetation acreage to be preserved.
4.1.1.5.1
IrnDlernentation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 91-03, adopted with the
approval of the tentative map for the Salt Creek Ranch (Resolution No. 16834), include the creation and
enhancement of on-site wetland habitat, wetland protection from grading sedimentation and erosion,
retention of coastal sage scrub habitat and the planting of native scrub vegetation on manufactured
slopes. The mitigation measures have not been implemented yet as the project has not been completed.
The project design creates additional contiguous open space, and the approval resolution provides for
the long-term conservation of native habitat by requiring the dedication of these areas as natural open
space easements. Protection of these easements would consist of fencing and/or the planting of native
barrier plant species around open space, as well as maintenance through an open space maintenance
district, with the residents of the project contributing funds for these efforts.
4.1.1.6
Mid-Bayfront
The Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan Area is located west of Interstate 5, south of Highway 54 and
the northern boundary of the City of Chula Vista and north of L Street. The area encompasses
8
City of Chu/a Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
approximately 1,013 acres which are original uplands or f1.lled areas above mean high tide and wetlands.'
The area includes the 316 acre Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is the largest
remaining natural wetland area on San Diego Bay. Adopted land uses include residential, commercial,
industrial, public and quasi-public, open space and a central resort district. Implementation plans for
the Bayfront Specific Plan will required the developer to dedicate open space areas. It is the City's
intent to require that an open space maintenance assessment district be fonned for the open space within
the Bayfront Specific Plan area. See Appendix for significant on-site vegetation acreage to be
preserved.
4.1.1.6.1
Imnlementation Measures
Mitigation rneasures identified in EIR-85-1, EIR-86-1 and EIR 89-8 and adopted with the' approval of
the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan for the Bayfront
Specific Plan, via Ordinance Number 2532, are identified below.
Mitigation measures identified in the EIR's which have not yet been implemented include development
of habitat restoration and management plans, predator management plans, mudflat and wetland
monitoring plans, as well as establishment of 100 foot buffer zones, vegetation screening of the "P" &
"G" Street marsh employing coastal sage scrub and maritime succulents, protection of mudflats and eel
grass by energy dissipators and traps for oil, grease and particulates in stonn drain outfalls, and upland
conversion to provide 3.5 acres of freshwater marsh.
Mitigation acreages for restoration of wetlands which have not yet been implemented total 27.8
consisting of 5.5 acres of freshwater marsh and 22.3 acres of salt marsh. 2.2 acres of coastal sage scrub
perimeter screening and benn are also included. Habitat enhancement acreage which have not yet been
implemented include: 0.5 acres of salt marsh wetland and .5 acre of coastal sage. Mitigation measures
also include: a desilting basin, improved tidal flushing, 8.5 acres of new COastal sage scrub/succulent
scrub habitat in a primary buffer zone, a bridge structure to provide an underpass for fauna, visual
screening, and access control.
Long-tenn management and maintenance processes include: ownership and management of the 316 acre
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge by the USFWS and predator management funded by Rohr
Industries. The funding of the Nature Interpretive Center is through the City's General Pund and the
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency.
4.1.1.7
Sunbow n
The project site contains approximately 604 acres of vacant land located on the south side of Telegraph
Canyon Road at Medical Center Drive about one half mile east of Interstate 805. The property is
characterized by gently to steeply sloping hillsides with drainage occurring primarily through two east-
west trending canyons, the most prominent being Poggi Canyon through which the planned extension
of Orange Avenue would traverse.
9
City of Chula VISta MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
The proposed project is a mixed use development consisting of 1,128 single family dwellings, 818
multiple family dwellings, 10 acres of commercial uses, 52 acres of research industrial, a 10 acre
community recreation center, a 10 acre elementary school site and 177 acres of open space. While a
Tentative Subdivision Map has been approved a Final Subdivision Map(s) has not been recorded and
therefore no development has occurred.
The primary vegetation within the open space to be retained is coastal sage scrub and introduced native
species planted on manufactured slopes. See Appendix for significant on-site vegetation acreage to be
preserved.
4.1.1.7.1
ImDlementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR 88-01 and adopted concurrently with the approval of the tentative
map for Sunbow II (Resolution No. 15640), include the preservation of coastal sage scrub located
throughout the project. The habitat will be preserved and maintained by project residents through an
open space maintenance district as required by the aforementioned resolution. USFWS granted a
Section 7 Pennit - Biological Opinion (#1-6-95-F-17) on January 6, 1995 for the Sunbow II project.
,
4.1.1.8
EastLake
The 3,151 acre project site is located approximately 7.5 miles east of downtown Chula Vista and 8
miles north of the United States/Mexico border. Bisected by Otay Lakes Road, the property extends
west of the Upper and Lower Otay Lakes and directly south of Proctor Valley Road.
The topography consists of rolling hills cut by drainage courses. Various drainages extend into the
project site boundary, including Poggi Canyon in the south, Telegraph Canyon in the center, Long
Canyon in the west and Proctor Valley in the north and Salt Creek to the south. Upper and Lower Otay
Lakes are located along the easterly edge of the project boundary.
The planned community is a mixture of residential, employment park, office, commercial, recreational
and open space land uses. The project is regulated by three General Development Plans (GDPs) and
6 Sectional Planning Area plans (SPAs) authorizing the construction of 8,427 dwelling units, 42% of
which have been constructed.
Discretionary approvals that remain include design review for portions of EastLake I and II. A General
Development Plan has been approved for EastLake ill; however, the developer is pursuing a revision
of the GDP, and adoption of SPAs, Tentative Subdivision Maps and Design Review approvals.
Habitats that have been or will be retained by the Homeowners Association in open space include:
coastal sage scrub, ponds and vernal pools. Open space maintenance assessment districts will be used
to assure the long-tenn maintenance of preserve open space areas. See Appendix for significant on-site
vegetation acreage to be preserved.
10
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
4.1.1.8.1
ImDlementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-81-3 and adopted with Resolution No. 11935 consist of the
incorporation of coastal sage scrob into the project design as open space. The open space is maintained
through an open space maintenance district with residents of the project contributing funds for these
efforts .
4.1.1.9
Other Private Properties
Other privately-owned parcels of land located within the Subarea Plan preserve and within the City
Component consist of approximately 482 acres, and are located within the Otay River Valley. Where
agreements with the property owners have not been reached, these properties have been designated as
requiring a Minor Amendment (See Section 9.1 for Minor Amendment requirements) to the Subarea
Plan.
4.1.2 Public/Quasi-Public Lands/Projects in ~e City Component
4.1.2.1
Sweetwater Valley Regional Park
The Sweetwater Valley Regional Park consists of 515 acres containing most of the Sweetwater River
flood plain and extends from Interstate 805, on the west, to the Sweetwater Reservoir on the east. The
City of Chula Vista portion of the Sweetwater Valley Regional Park, totalling approximately 178 acres,
extends from Central Avenue on the east to Willow Street on the west, and is flanked on the north by
residential and Sweetwater Road, and on the south by residential, commercial and Bonita Road. This
area of the regional park consists primarily of open space uses, such as Rohr Park, Sweetwater Park
and the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. This portion of the regional park serves as an open space
connection from properties originating at the Sweetwater Reservoir and extending eventually to San
Diego Bay (See Section 3.2.2.4 for additional discussion of the Sweetwater Valley Regional Park).
Within the City's portion of the regional park, recreational activities such as picnicking, ballfields, golf,
hiking, and horseback riding occur in designated areas. The Sweetwater River meanders its way
through the City of Chula Vista on its way to the bay and serves as a significant biological linkage.
4.1.2.2
Port District Jurisdiction
The Port District of San Diego has jurisdiction over property below the mean high tide line within the
City's Bayfront area, but within the City's jurisdictional boundary. The Port District will be responsible
for preserve planning and maintenance within its jurisdiction, and have begun initial preparation of a
resource enhancement plan for the South San Diego Bay.
4.1.2.3
Otay Valley Regional Park
The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) is a planned regional park system consisting of approximately
1,100 acres, extending from the San Diego Bay to and including the Otay Reservoirs. Approximately
11
City of Chula VistD MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
500 acres of the proposed regional park are planned within the City Component of the Subarea Plan.
The remaining portions of the proposed regional park are located within the City of San Diego and the
County of San Diego. All natural open space areas identified as part of the OVRP Concept Plan and
within the City of Chula Vista's jurisdiction (City Component), are also identified as either preserve
area or areas subject to a Minor Amendment (See Section 6.5). The natural open space areas identified
in the Draft OVRP Concept Plan are consistent with the preserve goals of the MSCP and this Subarea
Plan. A detailed description of the Draft OVRP Concept Plan is provided in the Otay Ranch
Component (See Section 4.3.2.3 herein).
4.2 Bonita ComDOnent
The Bonita Component consists of both existing and planned private and public projects/lands currently
located within the unincorporated area of the County, within the Bonita and Sunnyside areas.
4.2.1 Private Projects in the Bonita Component
4.2.1.1
San Miguel Ranch
The project site contains approximately 2,590 acres of presently undeveloped land located south and east
of the Sweetwater Reservoir and adjacent to the northeastern border of the City of Chula Vista. The
San Miguel Ranch project site is within the City's adopted sphere of influence. The property, which
is predominantly composed of sloping hillsides, valleys and Mother Miguel Mountain, consists of an
1,852-acre northern parcel and a 738-acre southern parcel. The north and south parcels are separated
by property owned by SDG&E, which contains the Miguel Substation and associated ttansmission lines.
The project site is bounded generally by Proctor Valley Road on the west and south, the Otay water
treatment facility and San Miguel Mountain on the east, and the Sweetwater River and Sweetwater
Reservoir on the north and northwest. The northern portion of the project site is located within the
Sweetwater Reservoir/San Miguel Mountain/Sweetwater River core area of the MSCP.
On March 22, 1993 the City Council adopted an ordinance (No. 2548) allowing the property to be
prezoned as a planned community through the adoption of the Planned Community (PC) zone, and also
adopted a resolution (No. 17049) adopting a General Development Plan (GDP). The approved project
is principally regarded as a master planned residential community which will provide a range of housing
with varying lot sizes. Development was to take place within the 1,852-acre Northern Parcel and the
738-acre Southern Parcel. The conditionally approved GDP, described as part of the "Existing GDP
Alternative" herein (See Section 4.4), includes up to 1,619 dwelling units (up to 357 residential estate
lots in the north and up to 1,262 residential lots in the south), a commercial center, an elementary
school, a public park and open space. A new property owner has filed for an amendment to the General
Plan and GDP which contains two design alternatives proposing a range of mixed land uses on the.
Southern Parcel and from zero (undisturbed open space) to 50 residential estate units on the Northern
Parcel. Approval by the City Council of an amendment to the General Plan and GDP will be required.
However, the "Modified GDP Alternative" proposes the conservation of the entire Northern Parcel as
12
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
l)raft
undisturbed open space. The following describes the requested entitlements which represent the San'
Miguel Ranch portion of the "Modified GDP Alternative. "
4.2.1.1.1
Reauested Proiect Entitlements
As identified above, the landowner of the San Miguel Ranch is proposing an amendment to the General
Plan and the previously approved GDP. The proposed project entitlements, which are listed below in
Section 4.2.1.1.4, will require further environmental review and documentation, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA ").
4.2.1.1.2
Tentative Considerations/ A2Creements
It is the Wildlife Agencies' and City's intent that because most of the Northern Parcel of San Miguel
Ranch has significant regional biological value, consideration should be given to acquisition and
protection and inclusion as part of this Subarea Plan. Tentative agreement to retain the entire Northern
Parcel and part of the Southern Parcel as permanent open space for habitat preserve purposes has been
reached between the Wildlife Agencies and the landowner, and is described as the Modified GDP
Alternative (shown on Figure 2). The tentative agreement between the Wildlife Agencies and the
property owner is contingent upon the satisfaction of a number of considerations set forth below:
a. City Council approval of an overall residential unit total of up to 1,495 dwelling
units (including an approval as to a percentage of large lot residential units). To facilitate possible
approval, the landowner is requesting a GPAlGDP Amendment to the land use designations on the
southern parcel of San Miguel Ranch. The City recognizes that the proposed project meets certain local
and regional biological objectives and that up to 78% of the project site would be included in the City's
preserve but will consider these factors as well as others before making a final decision on the project.
b. The City and landowner acknowledge that the draft MSCP has provisions calling
for General Plan Amendments, cluster zoning, lot averaging, transferring of development rights and
other methods for allowing flexibility in project design to achieve the open space and resource
protection objectives of the MSCP Plan.
c. Due to the regional significance of the Northern Parcel to the establishment of the
preserve for the MSCP Plan and this Subarea Plan, the City acknowledges that the preservation of the
Northern Parcel constitutes a significant and extraordinary benefit to the residents of the City and the
region, and that preservation of a portion of the Northern Parcel may not otherwise occur through the
development exaction process.
d. Project-level biological impacts on the Southern Parcel would be fully mitigated
with implementation of the preserve boundaries depicted on Figure 2. Portions of the Northern Parcel
that are not excluded or otherwise used to fully mitigate impacts (approxitDately 166 acres), or required
to be dedicated as open space through project approvals resulting from development of the Southern
13
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Parcel, may be acquired by third parties through fair market value payments to the landowner. Each
acre on'the Northern Parcel is assumed to have "equivalent habitat value."
e. Coverage for the Otay Tarplant, selected raptors, and the California Cactus Wren
is provided for in this Subarea Plan and/or a subsequent Conservation Agreement for the San Miguel
project in the event that these species are not included in the MSCP Covered Species List.
f. The landowner, the USFWS and the CDFG have entered into an agreement with
respect to acquisition and conservation of the North Parcel, and mitigation and take authorizations for
the South Parcel of San Miguel Ranch. In the event the acquisition terms of that agreement are not
fully implemented within the time frames set forth in that agreement, the approved land uses for the
North Parcel under the 1993 GDP would remain in effect, pursuant to the terms of the agreement;
however, a Major Amendment to this Subarea Plan would then be required (See Section 9.2 for Major
Amendment Requirements).
4.2.1.1.3
Ve!!etationlHabitat of San Milruel Ranch
The property has been surveyed as part of the earlier entitlement process for the approved San Miguel
Ranch GDP. The field surveys conducted were incorporated into the MSCP GIS data base. If
differences occur between field totals and the data base, the field totals for the project should be
regarded as more accurate. See Appendix for significant on-site vegetation acreage to be preserved.
4.2.1.1.4
ImDlementation Measures
A Conservation Agreement may be entered into between the City, the USFWS, the CDFG and the
landowner to further defme the policies set forth in the MSCP and this Subarea Plan. The Agreement
shall be consistent with the policies set forth in this Subarea Plan. The following are discretionary
actions that will require approval by the City:
a. General Plan AmendmentfGDP Amendment.
b. A Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan, including a water conservation plan, air
quality improvement plan and a public facilities financing plan.
c. Possible County of San Diego approval of a bypass road or a General Plan
(Circulation Element) Amendment.
d. Possible annexation of the project area to the City from the County of San Diego.
e. Annexation to South Bay Irrigation District.
f. Possible detachment from Otay Water District.
14
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
g. Possible amendment to South Bay Irrigation District Sphere.
h. Detachment from Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District.
i. Conservation Agreement/Development Agreement.
j. Tentative Subdivision Map(s)/Master Tentative Map.
k. Take-authorizations to permit the take of all Covered Species, including those
species not presently listed as Endangered, Threatened or Candidate Species under the ESA or the
CESA.
Mitigation measures identified in EIR-90-02, adopted with the prior approval of the GDP (Resolution
No. 17049), are included within the context of a tentative agreement between the owner, the California
Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This agreement generally
provides for: (a) 145 acres of open space and habita~ preserve on the Southern Parcel; (b) 166 acres of
the Northern Parcel to be preserved as full mitigation for project-level biological impacts on the
Southern Parcel development; (c) conservation and/or acquisition of the remainder of the Northern
Parcel (approximately 1,686 acres); (d) management of the preserve; and,(e) retention of the approved
land use designations for those lands under the 1993 GDP that are not successfully acquired. If
acquisition of that portion of the Northern Parcel agreed to by the Wildlife Agencies as part of the
above tentative agreement does not occur, then no "take authorization" will be granted for the Northern
Parcel and a "Major Amendment" to this Subarea Plan will be required for just the Northern Parcel (See
Section 9.2 for Major Amendment requirements).
4.2.1.2
Other Private Properties
Other privately-owned parcels of land located within the the Bonita Component are designated as
"Minor Amendment Areas" (See Section 9.1 for Minor Amendment requirements), and consist of
approximately 926 acres.
4.2.2 Public/Quasi-Public LandslProjects in the Bonita Component
4.2.2.1
San Diego Gas & Electric
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) owns approximately 301 acres of property located on the westerly
slopes of Mother Miguel Mountain. Equivalent NCCP-Ievel preserve planning for this property will
be the responsibility of that agency (as requested by SDG&E).
15
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
4.2.2.2
Otay Water District
Otay Water District (OWD) owns approximately 509 acres of property located directly north of the Salt
Creek Ranch project. Equivalent NCCP-Ievel preserve planning for this property will be the
responsibility of that agency (as requested by OWD).
4.2.2.3
Sweetwater Authority
Sweetwater Authority (SA) water district owns approximately 355 acres located along the southern
banks of the Sweetwater Reservoir. Equivalent NCCP-level preserve planning for this property will
be the responsibility of the agency (as requested by SA).
4.2.2.4
Sweetwater Valley Regional Park
Sweetwater Valley Regional Park is located in the Sweetwater River Valley between the Sweetwater
Reservoir on the east and 1-805 on the east in the Bonita/Sunnyside area. The eastern third occupies
the high, hilly ground between the reservoir and the valley below. The western two-thirds lies within
the l00-year floodplain of the Sweetwater River. Approximately 178 acres are located within Chula
Vista's boundaries (See Section 4.1.2.1). The unincorporated part of the park includes about 515 acres,
and is under the jurisdiction of the County.
Sensitive plants present within the County portion of the park include Hernizonia coniul!ens. Ferocactus
viridescens. Iva havesiana. AdolDhia californica. Viouiera lacinata. Dudleva variel!ata and Selal!inella
cinerascens. Existing Park uses include several houses, an equestrian center, limited retail commercial,
a golf driving range, a pine tree nursery, abandoned dairy buildings, trails and a campground.
Maintenance of the unincorporated portion of the Sweetwater Valley Regional Park will continue to be
addressed by the County of San Diego.
4.2.2.5
Resolution Trust Corporation/Rancho San Diego Mitigation Bank
The County of San Diego and other agencies have recently acquired approximately 160 acres of land,
previously owned by the Resolution Trust Corporation as a mitigation parcel (referred to as the
Sweetwater II property) for the development of the Rancho San Diego Specific Plan. Initially, the site
may serve as a mitigation area for a number of non-Chula Vista public projects which impact coastal
sage scrub and riparian woodland habitats. These lands are managed by the USFWS as part of the
1,832 acre San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
16
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
4.3 Otav Ranch ComDonent
The Otay Ranch Component consists of both existing and planned private and public projects/lands
currently located within the unincorporated area of the County; however, within the City's General Plan
area.
4.3.1 Private Projects in the Otay Ranch Component
4.3.1.1
Otay Ranch
4.3.1.1.1
ADDroved GDP/SRP
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) proposed by Baldwin Vista
Associates (now Otay Ranch L.P.), was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on October 28,
1993. The project proposes 24,000 dwelling units on 23,000 acres and includes approximately 12,000
acres of open space, a commercial village and a potential university site, with a potential fmal
population of 68,000-70,000 persons. The approved project included a series of 15 villages, ranging
from 4.5 to 18 dwelling units per acre within the core areas. These villages and other rural-density
areas would allow as many as 13,144 single-family units and 11,080 multi-family units. See Appendix
for project vegetation summaries based on geographic infonnation system analysis.
While most of the Otay Ranch is within the unincorporated area, the City of Chula Vista has applied
for a Sphere of Influence designation preparatory to annexing significant portions of the proposed
development to the city.
The Otay Ranch comprises the largest privately held ownership of Coastal sage scrub (CSS) vegetation
in the United States. The combination of CSS and other habitats, varying geography, and location at
the boundaries of several plant floras (unique combinations of plants) make the Ranch a unique
biological resource. The Otay Ranch ownership is divided into three major parcels: 1) Otay Valley
Parcel (9,449 acres); 2) Proctor Valley Parcel (7,895 acres) and 3) San Ysidro Parcel (5,555 acres).
The dominant feature linking the three Otay Ranch parcels is the Otay River system, which includes
a tributary system of canyons and drainage courses and the Otay Lakes. The size and undeveloped
character of the property, its diverse terrain, its strategic location at the northern margin of Baja
California habitat associations, and its links to large areas of public ownership contribute to the presence
of an important and unusual assemblage of habitats and species. The following is a summary of plant
communities, wildlife habitats, and sensitive species that exist on the Otay Ranch property based upon
various inventories of existing resources on the site.
Otav Vallev Parcel: The Otay Valley Parcel is the largest parcel of Otay Ranch, comprising 9,449
acres. This area of land is bounded by Telegraph Canyon Road on the north, Heritage Road and the
Otay Landfill site on the west, Brown Field on the south, and Lower Otay Lake on the east. 'The Otay
River Valley bisects the southern portion of this parcel east to west. Several natural landforms are
17
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
situated within this parcel: Wolf Canyon, Salt Creek Canyon, Poggi Canyon, Johnson Canyon, O'Neal
Canyon, and Rock Mountain. The six "out parcels" (property not owned by Baldwin Vista) within the
boundaries of the Otay Valley Parcel correspond to lands dedicated to reservoirs (or other facilities) in
the Otay Water District and City of San Diego water system, a Federal Aviation Administration airway
control facility, a rock mining quarry, and privately owned parcels.
The Otay Valley Parcel contains approximately 1,825 acres of Coastal sage scrub. Maritime succulent
scrub habitat is concentrated in three general locations on the Otay Valley Parcel: in the western and
eastern comers and in the central southern area, covering 285 acres in all. Other vegetation found on
the Otay Valley Parcel includes 7 acres of Chamise chaparral, 1,310 acres of non-native grassland, and
12 acres of Southern willow scrub. Baccharis scrub, Baccharis floodplain scrub, and Tamarisk scrub
are also present. The Otay Valley Parcel contains an area of Vernal pool habitat and associated mima
mound topography. These are generally located south of the River. Recent sightings (1989 and later)
of sensitive animals made on the Otay Valley Parcel include the American badger, Common barn owl,
California gnatcatcher, Yellow-breasted chat, Cactus wren, Blue grosbeak, and Sage sparrow.
Proctor Vallev/Jarnul Mountains Parcel: The Proctor Valley Parcel comprises 7,895 acres. The
Proctor Valley area is the northernmost portion of the Otay Ranch and is generally bounded by Otay
Lakes Road and Lower Otay Lake to the south, the Upper Otay Lake and San Miguel Mountains to the
west, the community of Jamul to the north, and vacant agricultural land to the east. The Proctor Valley
Parcel also includes the Mary Birch-Patrick Estate and the "Inverted L" areas. The four out parcels
encompassed by the Proctor Valley Parcel correspond to two sections of land owned by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), a City of San Diego reservoir, and two private holdings. Major landforms
include the Jamul and Callahan Mountains. It is notable that this parcel contains two separate BLM
ownerships which are governed by the adopted South Coast BLM Plan and not by the Otay Ranch Plan.
The Proctor Valley Parcel contains approximately 4,843 acres of Coastal sage scrub habitat. Additional
significant resources within the Proctor Valley Parcel include 569 acres of Southern mixed chaparral,
approximately 49 acres of Valley needlegrass grassland, and 138 acres of Alkali meadow. Coast live
oak woodland covers 176 acres in the Proctor Valley Parcel. Small area containing Southern willow
scrub and Eucalyptus can also be found. Vema! pools occur primarily on weathered alluvial soils of
mesas and floodplain terraces in Proctor Valley. Recent sightings (1989 and later) of sensitive animals
made on the Proctor Valley Parcel include the California gnatcatcher, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow,
Blue grosbeak, Two-striped garter snake, Rufous-crowned sparrow, and the Coastal rosy boa.
San Ysidro Mountains Parcel: The San Ysidro Mountains Parcel is comprised of 5,555 acres located
in the southeastern portion of the project area, along the fringes of the northern foothills of the San
Ysidro Mountains and Otay Mountain. The parcel is generally bounded by the eastern ann of Lower
Otay Lake and vacant land along Otay Lakes Road to the north, the main body of Lower Otay Lake to
the west, land owned by the BLM to the south, and vacant land just west of the community of DuIzura
to the east. Major landforms contained within this region include Little and Big Cedar Canyons and
Hubbard Springs.
18
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
. l)raft
The San Ysidro Mountains Parcel contains important biological resources. Coastal sage scrub can be'
found on 3,698 acres of this parcel. Approximately 469 acres of uniform stands of Chamise occur on
mesas and some gentle slopes in the Otay Lakes portion of the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel. In
addition, approximately 474 acres of non-native grassland,S acres of Coast live oak woodland, 75 acres
of Coast southern live oak riparian forest, 7 acres of Sycamore alluvial woodland, and 165 acres of
Southern interior cypress forest occur on this parcel. A small number of Vernal pools occur on the
level terraces south of the eastern arm of Lower Otay Reservoir. Most of these exist off site on City
of San Diego land. Some of the larger contiguous masses of habitat within the San Ysidro Mountains
Parcel include numerous sensitive plants and animals. Recent sightings (1989 and later) of sensitive
animals have been made on the San Y sidro Mountains Parcel, including the California gnatcatcher, Blue
grosbeak, and San Diego homed lizard.
Resource Manal!ement Plan: Part of the approval of General Plan Amendment for Otay Ranch included
approval of the Phase I Resource Management Plan (RMP). "This is a comprehensive planning
document that addresses the preservation, enhancement, and management of sensitive natural and
cultural resources on the 22,899 acre Otay Ranch property. The RMP is intended to be the functional
equivalent of the County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) for Otay Ranch. (RMP,
1993)"
"The goal of the RMP is establishment of an open space system that will become a permanent
Management Preserve dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the multiple resources present
on Otay Ranch. The RMP is intended to be implemented as part of the overall integrated planning
approach for Otay Ranch." (IBID).
The RMP addresses and compares the application of RPO and the RMP to various resources, including
but not limited to: wetlands, wetland buffer areas, floodways, floodplain fringe, steep slopes lands and
sensitive habitat lands. A series of goals, objectives, policies and standards in the RMP address the
following resource protection issues (see page 61-118, RMP): 1) identification of sensitive resources;
2) preservation of sensitive resources; 3) enhancernent and restoration of sensitive resources; 4) wildlife
corridors; 5) preserve management and maintenance; 6) permitted uses; 7) resource preserve - adjacent
land uses; 8) resource preserve - interim land uses; and regulatory framework for future uses.
Phase 1 of the RMP was adopted at the time the General Plan for the project was adopted; Phase 2 has
been completed and submitted with the first SPA plan or Specific Plan for Otay Ranch. It will contain
the following items: 1) conduct resource studies and related research; 2) select a Preserve
OwnerlManager (POM); 3) commence implementation of programs for conveyance of land to POM,
resource protection, enhancement and restoration, funding and monitoring of implementation; 4) refme
preserve boundary based on completed studies; 5) develop conceptual infrastructure plans for facilities
in the preserve; and 6) identify location of permitted uses within the preserve. Other actions are
required during the buildoutofOtay Ranch (see RMP, p. IS). A partnership between the City ofChula
Vista and the County of San Diego has been recommended as the POM:
19
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Bio2Ceo!!1'aDhv/Conservation Issues: Volume I of the RMP (1994, p. 147) states: "The approved Plan
Preserve boundary, illustrated in .Figure 24 of the RMP, has been proposed that incorporates the key
resource areas identified in Chapter 2 and fulfills the goal, objectives and policies of the RMP. In
addition to the conceptual Preserve illustrated in Figure 24, additional Limited Development Areas
totalling 1,166 acres have been identified as part of the planning process for the Otay Ranch
GDP/Subregional Plan. These Limited Development Areas (Figures 25 and 26) are assumed to be
preserved in open space, although not included in the Otay Ranch Preserve. The Limited Development
Areas are considered to eventually become part of the Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan.
The approved Resource Preserve described in this chapter is 11,375 acres in size. Together with the
1,166 acres of Limited Development Areas, a total of 12,541 acres are anticipated to be preserved in
open space on Otay Ranch." Concerning the Limited Development Areas, Figure 25 of the RMP (p.
149) states that: "Development within these areas is restricted pending future technical studies. The
precise configuration of the Limited Development Areas may be revised based on future studies carried
out at the SPA level that will further define the limits of the Rural Development Area (RDA). In no
case shall the acreage to be retained in open space be less than 396 acres (for Proctor Valley area and
770 acres for San Y sidro). . -
The planned preserve area or Management Preserve attempts to capture the highest value resource areas
as preserved lands and concentrate development in disturbed habitat or agricultural areas. Generally,
development areas are concentrated around major road systems such as Telegraph Canyon Road, East
Orange Avenue, Paseo Ranchero, Otay Valley Road, Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road. Areas
planned to be developed also extend to already developed areas, such as a series of villages south of
Telegraph Canyon Road and residential development to the North in Chula Vista and planned
developrnent in north Proctor Valley south of the community of Jamul. Pioneering development is
planned on the north slopes of Otay Valley, the lower slopes of Proctor Valley, north and south ofOtay
Reservoir and along Otay Lakes Road, and on the upper east-facing slopes above Highway 94 in the
eastern San Y sidro parcel.
Policy 6.2 of the RMP (RMP 1) calls for the locating of .up to 400 acres" of active recreation acreage
within the Otay Ranch Preserve area, with priority placed on siting within the Otay Valley. A total of
400 acres has been identified within the Otay Valley on three previously disturbed bench areas. These
areas are shown on the Subarea Plan (See Figure 2), and are identified as follows: 1) 127 acres south
of Otay River, adjacent to Heritage Road/Otay Valley Road, 2) 69 acres south of Otay River, east and
west of future SR125, and 3) 204 acres north of Otay River, extending approximately two miles west
from the mouth of Salt Creek. Section 6.3.2.1 herein contains specific guidelines designed to encourage
a biological connection between habitat areas within the river and habitat on the northerly slopes of the
river valley.
The Chula Vista City Council and County Board of Supervisors have directed that this subarea plan
reflect the plans, data, policies and requirements contained in the RMP 1. The RMP I, when
implemented through the RMP 2, meets all the components of a Subarea Plan, as defined by the MSCP,
and is incorporated herein by reference.
20
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
University Site: The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP also includes provisions for a University to be placed in '
Villages 9 and 10 and in the vicinity of Salt Creek Canyon, "provided that the use of Salt Creek Canyon
(including defming slopes) is limited to trails, passive recreation, and biological research and educational
activities in keeping with the preservation of sensitive habitat and biological species located there. No
buildings or structures shall be pennitted within Salt Creek Canyon." The Modified GDP Alternative
describes various scenarios for the provision of a university site (See Section 4.3.1.1.3).
Note: All conditions and exceptions listed in the Otay Ranch approval documents, including the
Resource Management Plan (Volume I) are hereby incorporated by reference, with respect to easement
requirements, revegetation requirements, allowed facilities within the Preserve Area, etc.
4.3.1.1.2
Reauested Proiect Entitlements
The landowners of the Otay Ranch are proposing revisions to the General Plan as well as the approved
GDP. These project entitlements, which are listed below in Section 4.5.1.2, will require further
environmental review and documentation pur&\lant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA ").
4.3.1.1.3
Tentative Considerationsl Alrreements
The USFWS, CFG, the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista have been discussing potential
considerations or agreements with various property owners of Otay Ranch, the results of which would
impact the preserve design. The results of these tentative agreements or considerations are represented
in the Modified GDP Alternative. See Appendix for significant on-site vegetation acreage to be
preserved. The following tentative agreements or considerations have been discussed and constitute a
portion of the Modified GDP Alternative:
a. Baldwin Company Tentative Agreement
The following tentative agreement terms apply only to those properties controlled by the Baldwin
Company.
1. Elimination of Otav Ranch GDP/SRP DevelODment Entitlements
The South County/Otay Ranch MSCP Subarea Plan will be prepared, and the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
Plan will be amended, to eliminate development entitlements for the following areas and to designate
such areas as part of the MSCP Preserve.
10.1.1, Exhibit 1).
(a). Central Proctor Valley (Otay Ranch Village 14, See Appendix
(1) PVI: Approximately 10 acres located west of Proctor Valley
Road desjgnated "12" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP containing approximately 20 dwelling units.
21
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
(2) PV2: Approximately 70 acres on the east side of Village
14, designated "U" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing approximately 35 dwelling units.
(3) PV3: Approximately 119.2 acres of land in the southern
portion of Village 14 designated by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP as "lMV 3" and "LMV 2", containing
approximately 290 dwelling units.
(b). Resort Village (Village 13, See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 2)
(1) Rl: Approximately 40.5 acres of land in the eastern portion
of Village 13 designated "U" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing approximately 81 dwelling
units .
(2) R2: Approximately 88 acres of development in the eastern
portion of Village 13 designated "LMV 3" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing approximately 264
dwelling units.
(3) R3: Approximately 9 acres of development in the eastern
portion of Village 13 designated "LMV 3" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing approximately 27
dwelling units.
(c). Southeast of the Lake (Village 15, See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit
3)
(1) SEl: Approximately 42 acres of development in the
southwest portion of Village 15 designated "VLO.7" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing
approximately 16 dwelling units.
(2) SE2: Approximately 48 acres of development in the
southwest portion of Village 15 designated "VLO.7" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing
approximately 17 dwelling units.
2. Areas of DeveloDment Added to the Otav Ranch GDP/SRP
The South County/Otay Ranch MSCP Subarea Plan will be prepared, and the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
will be amended, to designate the following areas as developable and remove such areas from the Otay
Ranch Preserve.
(a). Poggi Canyon, (See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 4)
Land in Otay Ranch Villages One and Two, west of Paseo Ranchero (PI) will be designated developable
for residential users or for the constIUction of public infrastIUcture, (primarily Orange A venue, related
utilities and a trolley line). The expanded residential development areas within Otay Ranch ownership
22
City of Chulo Vis/Q MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
will equal approximately 140 acres (Village One and Village Two combined) and contain a land use'
designation of "LM3", permitting 420 units. Development would also be permitted in the small Wolf
Canyon fmger between Village 2 and Village 3, currently omitted from development as a potential avian
corridor linked to Poggi Canyon (P2). All these areas (Villages 1,2 and 3) will be removed from the
Otay Ranch Resource Preserve and excluded from the MSCP Preserve. The Poggi Canyon area east
of Paseo Ranchero, between Village One and Village Two, is not part of the Otay Ranch Preserve, or
of the Draft MSCP Preserve because the area contains low quality, fragmented and isolated habitats,
not sustainable in the long tenn. Entitlements may be approved and development may proceed in that
area resulting in the development of occupied habitats.
Portions of the land west of Paseo Ranchero (PI) are not within Otay Ranch ownership. These
properties would be governed by this agreement and would not be included in the Subarea Preserve.
Development entitlernent for these properties would be determined by the City of Chula Vista, effective
upon annexation.
(b). Village Four (See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 4)
RMl - Rock Mountain. Expand the development area in Village
Four to include approximately 70 acres roughly located on Rock Mountain and increase the permissible
number of dwelling units within Village Four by 350 units (the location of new units will be determined
by the land use jurisdiction through the GDP/SRP amendment process).
(c). Village 10 and 11 (See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 5)
(1) SCl - Otay Valley Road, Realign Otay Valley Road/Hunte
Parkway eastward to the road alignment depicted in Figure E (which roughly equates to the alignment
contained in the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Progress Plan).
(2) SC2 - Village 10 and 11. Expand the development area in
Villages 10 and 11, eastward to abut the newly aligned Otay Valley Road/Hunte Parkway, adding
approximately 93 acres of development with a land use designation of "LMV 4.5", permitting
approximately 460 units. This will cause a minor adjustment in the configuration of the adjacent
community park to ensure that the area contains 25 acres of viable park land. (SC3)
(d). Village Nine (See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 5)
SC4 - South of Otay Valley Road. Add approximately 10 acres in
three new development areas to Village Nine south of Otay Valley Road connecting the existing four
development "blobs". The land use jurisdiction may reallocate Village Nine dwelling units to the area
south of Otay Valley Road.
23
City of Chula Vista MSCP Suborea Plan
f)raft
3. Other Considerations
(a). City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego will decrease
densities within the Otay Ranch transit village cores from an average of 18 dwelling units per acre to
14.5 dwelling units per acre, resulting in a decrease of 1,057 units (Villages I, 5, 6 and 8).
(b). Draft the MSCP Subarea Plan and amend the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
and related documents to eliminate coastal sage scrub mitigation requirements for restoration.
(c). California Department of Fish and Game agrees to approve the
establishment of a Habitat Maintenance District to fund the Otay Ranch Resource Preserve pursuant to
the provisions of the Habitat Maintenance District Act.
(d). The parties agree to support the establishment of a federal wildlife
refuge for the designated Otay Ranch open space areas east of the Otay Reservoir. Upon the
establishment of such a refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Agency will be designated the Otay Ranch
Preserve Owner/Manager for those portions of the Otay Ranch Preserve that lie within the refuge. The
City and the County will thereafter require that Otay Ranch preserve land be conveyed to the Wildlife
Refuge, consistent with the provisions of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, RMP and Preserve Conveyance
Plan. Baldwin land conveyed to the Wildlife Refuge shall be the maintenance responsibility of the Fish
and Wildlife Agency or its designee, without fmancial assistance from assessrnent districts or other
fmancing or exaction mechanisrns imposed by the City of Chula Vista or the County of San Diego.
(e). The parties agree that the initial Otay Ranch Preserve Financing
Plan program will be established to generate sufficient revenues to maintain the entire Otay Ranch
Preserve without the creation of a Wildlife Refuge. However, if a Wildlife Refuge assumes
maintenance responsibility for preserve land, the fIrst priority for revenues diverted from maintenance
of refuge land shall be for Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager tasks within the western portions of
the Preserve, which were not initially funded through the Phase 2 RMP fmance mechanism (specifIcally
the establishment and maintenance of a Nature Interpretive Center and research and education programs
associated with the Nature Interpretive Center and the Otay Valley Regional Park).
(f). The Sensitive Resource Study (SRS) area contained within the Otay
Ranch Resort Village (Village 13) shall be removed from the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP and State and
Federal agencies (Wildlife Agencies) shaH not object to development of such areas pursuant to the Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP; however, a Federal 404 Pennit may be required.
(g). The State and Federal Resource Agencies agree to issue necessary
"take pennits" for the development of Otay Ranch consistent with the land use entitlements contained
in the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, as modifIed through the implementation of this agreement, and with the
issuance of "take authorization" for this Subarea Plan.
24
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subo,..a Plan
Draft
4. ImDlementation Process
This agreement shall be implemented through the following process:
(a). Subarea Plan. The City of Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego shall proceed with the development of their respective MSCP Subarea Plans which incorporate
the Otay Ranch Planning Area. The Subarea Plans area shall reflect the provisions of the Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP as proposed for modification by this agreement. For those areas for which it is proposed that
current Otay Ranch development entitlements be eliminated (Section a above), the Subarea Plan shall
provide that take permits will not be authorized. For those areas for which it is proposed that additional
areas of development be authorized (Section b above), the Subarea Plan shall provide that take permits
will be authorized. The Subarea Plan text shall also incorporate the provisions of "Other
Considerations" as discussed in Section c above.
(b). MSCP Process. The Subarea Plans shall be submitted to the City
of San Diego for inclusion in the revised MSCP, including necessary environmental review.
(c). SPA One. The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego
shall continue processing the Otay Ranch SPA One application and related documents (including but not
limited to the SPA One tentative map, the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence, the initial Otay Ranch
annexation, the Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan and Otay Ranch Phase 2 RMP).
(d). General Plan Amendment. Soon after approval of the Otay Ranch
SPA One Land Plan, tentative map and the annexation of SPA One into the City of Chula Vista, the
Baldwin Company shall initiate General Plan Amendment applications through the City of Chula Vista
and the County of San Diego seeking plan amendments to implement the components outlined in a, b,
and c above. It is understood that as a private applicant, the applicant shall pay full cost recovery fees
for the processing of the General Plan Amendments.
5. Timin2C
(a). All parties understand that time is of the essence, with respect to
the preparation, review and action on MSCP documents and SPA One related documents (as outlined
above). Implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan agreement is a distinct and separate process from
the processing of SPA One related documents. Implementation of this agreement does not require delay
of the timely consideration of SPA One related applications. To the contrary, failure to proceed with
SPA One related applications jeopardizes the ability of The Baldwin Company to implement the
elements of this agreement.
(b). Implementation of the elements of this agreement is not dependent
upon resolution of outstanding MSCP issues involving Otay Ranch properties not controlled by The
Baldwin Company aff11iates.
2S
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
b. Other Otay Ranch Property Owners' Tentative Agreements
Other properties within the Otay Ranch, owned by entities other than the Baldwin Company, have been
the subject of on-going negotiations with USFWS and CDFG for potential preservation and acquisition
into the MSCP preserve. These properties, totalling approximately 968 acres, are currently reflected
on the adopted Otay Ranch GDP/SRP (Subarea Plan Alternative One) as having development potential.
However, as the subject of a tentative agreement between the property owners and Wildlife Agencies,
these properties have been identified for potential acquisition for conservation. If acquisition of these
properties does not occur, then approved land uses would remain in effect; however, a Major
Amendment to this Subarea Plan would then be required (See Section 9.2 for Major Amendment
requirements) .
4.3.1.1.3
University Site
Under the Modified GDP Alternative, two policy options are proposed for analysis in the MSCP
EIR/ElS for that portion of the university site east of Salt Creek. These include the following:
1) The delineation of a portion of the University site east of Salt Creek Canyon is depicted on the
Subarea Plan diagram. This site is located above the slopes that define Salt Creek Canyon,
provides a biological connection frorn Salt Creek and the Otay River Valley to the City of San
Diego Cornerstone Lands that surround Lower Otay Reservoir, and is considered to be
consistent with the approved GDP/SRP policies. This site consists of approximately 288 acres
and is reflected on the Subarea Preserve Map (See Figure 2).
2) The acquisition of that portion of the currently designated university site located east of Salt
Creek Canyon (See Otay Ranch GDP/SRP) by the Wildlife Agencies for inclusion in the
preserve system, and identification of an alternative university site, which would be acceptable
to the City of Chula Vista.
4.3.1.2
Other Private Properties
Other privately-owned parcels of land located within the Otay Ranch Component and potentially part
of the preserve are reflected as "Minor Amendment Areas" (See Section 9.1 for Minor Amendment
requirements). These properties represent land which could be annexed into the City; however,
agreements with Wildlife Agencies and CDFG and the City on ultimate preserve boundaries have not
been negotiated.
The largest of the private properties in this Component, aside from the Otay Ranch, is the Watson Land
Company property; a 160 acre parcel located north and east of the 1,200 acre Salt Creek Ranch
development project and surrounded on the north and east by the Otay Ranch. The owner of the
Watson Land Company has expressed strong interest in: 1) annexing to the City of Chula Vista, 2)
developing a portion of this parcel under the policies of the Chula Vista General Plan (the current
General Plan Low Density designation would permit approximately 226 units), and 3) being included
26
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
in the City's preserve plan. In order to develop in the City of Chula Vista, approval of a GDP and SPA'
Plan will be required. Inclusion into the City's preserve plan will require agreement between the
Wildlife Agencies, the City and the property owner. It is the intent of the City of Chula Vista to
identify preserve boundaries on the Watson Land Company property before finalizing this Subarea Plan.
4.3.2 Public/Quasi-public Lands/Projects in the Otay Ranch COlQponent
4.3.2.1
San Diego Water Utilities
The City of San Diego Water Utilities Department owns approximately 2,558 acres of land surrounding
both Upper and Lower Otay Lakes. Preserve planning for this land is included in the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan (ref. "Cornerstone Lands").
4.3.2.2
Bureau of Land Management
While not covered within Chula Vista's Subarea Plan or General Plan, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) controls approximately 860 acres surrounded by the Otay Ranch, east of Proctor Valley and near
Callahan Peak. These lands will be managed by the federal government.
4.3.2.3
Otay Valley Regional Park
The Otay Valley Regional Park Focused Planning Area (FPA), including the Otay River Valley and
many of the drainages into the valley west of the Otay Reservoirs, stretches approximately thirteen miles
frorn South San Diego Bay to past the Reservoirs. The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) is being
planned through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) between the County of San Diego, the
City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. The goal statement adopted for the OVRP by the
OVRP Policy Committee (on June 1, 1990) is as follows:
"The Otay Valley Regional Park will represent one of the major open space areas within
southern San Diego County linking south San Diego Bay and Lower Otay Lake. The
park will fulfill the need to provide a mix of active and passive recreational activities
while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, protecting cultural and scenic resources,
and encouraging compatible agricultural uses in the park.
To insure that Otay Valley Regional Park meets the diverse goals of a regional park,
attention shall be focused not only on providing facilities and protecting resources, but
on adjacent land uses to insure compatible development, buffering and linkages with
other regional resources.
A comprehensive management plan shall be implemented that will not only address the
long term management of the park, but will also provide for the protection of visitors and
park neighbors, develop environmental and recreational programs, and enhaDce park/open
space activities and resources. "
27
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
The Focused Planning Area (FP A) of the Otay Valley Regional Park was adopted by the San Diego City
Council in 1992, and by the County Board of Supervisors and City of Chula Vista in 1993. In 1995,
the OVRP Policy Committee directed further review of the Draft Concept Plan by staff, including
environmental analysis. The Draft Concept Plan diagram consists of the identification of a proposed
regional park boundary, within which is a core area containing environmentally sensitive open space,
a proposed interconnecting regional trail system, trail staging areas, proposed recreational development
areas, and potentially one or more nature interpretive centers. Also included in the draft Concept Plan
are special study areas which will require future analysis and land use determinations. The following
are elements of the Draft Concept Plan:
. The "core area" of the proposed regional park consists of wetland areas (including the Otay
River, permanent and seasonal ponds and vernal pools), steep slopes, biologically sensitive areas
subject to preservation and resource enhancement, and habitat linkages. The boundaries of this
area are consistent with the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHP A) boundary contained within
the draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). It may permit some active and
passive recreation uses, such as trails, consistent with the guidelines of the MSCP and the
relevant Subarea Plans.
. The proposed "regional trail system" will include hiking, bicycling and equestrian trails, and is
intended to link to other regional trails including the Bayshore Bikeway to the west, and serve
as an integral part of the envisioned Chula Vista Greenbelt trail system, a 28-mile trail system
encircling the City of Chula Vista, and parts east of the Otay Reservoirs. Trails within the Otay
River Valley will utilize fire and utility roads wherever possible in order to minimize impacts
and will be located under the guidelines of the MSCP and relevant Subarea Plans.
. the "proposed recreation areas" identified on the draft Concept Plan include both existing and
proposed active and passive recreation sites. Many of these sites also contain existing private
development potential through zoning or development approvals and will require additional land
use analysis prior to adoption of a regional park master plan. These areas are located outside
of the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) of the MSCP and development will be subject
to the preserve guidelines of the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego and County Subarea
Plans for siting and development adjacent to the MSCP preserve. The following areas are
identified on the draft Concept Plan:
-
Open space sites located on previously disturbed benches north of the Otay River, within
the Otay Ranch, on both sides of the proposed SR125 (approx. 150-200 acres).
Note: The approved Otay Ranch RMP calls for the provision of a maximum of 400
acres of active recreation, to be emphasized within the Otay Valley (within the area
defmed as the Otay Ranch management preserve). These sites, and the special study area
site located south of the river (listed below) may contribute to the. acreage required by
the RMP.
28
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
-
-
Gun Club/Bird Ranch: These sites have been a gun club and ranch and would not be'
used for habitat management purposes under the draft Concept Plan (approx. 100 acres).
-
Lower Otay County Park: an existing but closed campground; to be refurbished (approx.
70 acres).
-
Existing public boat ramp and picnic facilities located on the west side of Lower Otay
Lake, north of the Lower Otay County Park.
-
Existing Olympic Training Center Boat House/Boat Ramp located on the west side of
Lower Otay Lake. May be considered for joint use by Olympic athletes and members
of the public.
-
The existing County Air Park, located east of Lower Otay Reservoir, south of Otay
Lakes Road: used as a landing field and observation area for gliders and parachutists
(approx. 60 acres). Located outside the boundaries of this Subarea Plan.
-
The Otay Rios Industrial Park located south of the river and west of Otay Valley
Road/Heritage Road: planned for a multi-purpose amphitheater and water park on
disturbed or prior development land (approx. 200 acres).
-
Undeveloped agricultural/open space (eucalyptus grove) sites located south of the river
and on each side of Interstate 805 (approx. 50 acres). Only the easterly site consisting
of approximately 32 acres is located within the boundary of this Subarea Plan.
-
Undeveloped residentially-designated site located north of the river, west of Interstate 805
and south of existing residential development along Rancho Drive (approx. 20 acres).
Located outside the boundaries of this Subarea Plan.
-
Existing agricultural use and undeveloped open space sites located south of the river
between Hollister Street and Beyer Boulevard (approx. 30 acres). Located outside the
boundaries of this Subarea Plan.
-
The existing golf practice facility and go-carts/undeveloped open space sites located south
of the river between Interstate 5 and Hollister Street (approx. 27 acres). Located outside
the boundaries of this Subarea Plan.
Existing undeveloped open space sites located south of the river between Nestor Creek
and Interstate 5 (approx. 25 acres). Located outside the boundaries of this Subarea Plan.
· A "nature interpretive center" is envisioned near the salt ponds located at the mouth of the Otay
River. In addition, the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP), Phase I, calls for a
nature interpretive center to be located within the open space preserve on the Otay Ranch.
29
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Development of a nature interpretive center will be subject to the guidelines of the MSCP and
related Subarea Plans for siting a development within the preserve. In the case of a nature
interpretive center located on the Otay Ranch, siting and development will be subject to the
guidelines of the RMP.
. The following are identified as "special study areas" on the draft Concept Plan and are located
outside the MHP A boundaries of the MSCP. A determination of appropriate land uses for these
areas, including consideration of recreational uses, will be subject to future analysis:
-
Existing rock quarry on Rock Mountain, east of the mouth of Wolf Canyon: the quarry
operation is expected to continue for approximately 50 years, after which the site may
be considered for other land uses (approx. 135 acres).
-
Undeveloped open space site located on previously disturbed bench south of the Otay
River, and east of the Bird Ranch within the Otay Ranch (approx. 30-50 acres).
-
Existing mineral extractionlbatching operations and agricultural use sites located north
of the Otay River, west of Beyer Way and Hermosa Avenue and south of Main Street.
These sites will be subject to future study to determine its local/regional recreation or
private developrnent potential (approx. 25-50 acres).
-
The Otay landfill, located approximately Ih mile north of the Otay River. With ultimate
closure of the landfill, potential active/passive recreation opportunities will be studied
(approx. 500 acres). Located outside the boundaries of this Subarea Plan.
4.3.2.3.1
Implementation Measures
Implementation of the open space preserve within the proposed OVRP will occur through adoption of
the OVRP Concept Plan and subsequent Master Plan(s) for the regional park.
EXISTING GDP ALTERNATIVE - This alternative represents an open space plan based on
the existing General Plan and previously approved development plans. According to preliminary
indications from the Wildlife Agencies, "toke authorization" would not be granted for this alternative,
based on a faUure to adhere to the overall preserve biological and preserve design goals of the MSCP;
however, projects developed under this alternative would stiU require approval by the WUdlife
Agencies of a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10(a) Pennit for eal:h project on a project-by-project
basis. The only differences between the Existing GDP AltemaJive and the Modified GDP AltemaJive
occur within the San Miguel Ranch and Otay Ranch mixed-use projects. The foOowing describes the
differences between the Modified GDP Alternative and the Existing GDP AltemaJive. Please refer
to Section 4.0 of this document for all other approved projects which make up the Existing GDP
Alternative.
30
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
4.4 Bonita Component
4.4.1 San Miguel Ranch
The project site contains approximately 2,590 acres of presently undeveloped land located south and east
of the Sweetwater Reservoir and adjacent to the northeastern border of the City of Chula Vista. The
San Miguel Ranch project site is within the City's adopted sphere of influence. The property, which
is predominantly composed of sloping hillsides, valleys and Mother Miguel Mountain, consists of an
I ,852-acre Northern parcel and a 738-acre Southern parcel. The North and South parcels are separated
by property owned by SDG&E, which contains the Miguel Substation and associated transmission lines.
The project site is bounded generally by Proctor Valley Road on the west and south, the Otay water
treatment facility and San Miguel Mountain on the east, and the Sweetwater River and Sweetwater
Reservoir on the north and northwest. The Northern Parcel of the project site is located within the
Sweetwater Reservoir/San Miguel Mountain/Sweetwater River core area of the MSCP.
The City's adoption of an ordinance (No. 2548) allowing the property to be prezoned as a planned
community, through the adoption of the Planned Community ("PC") zone, and the City's approval of
a resolution (No. 17049) adopting a GDP following the certification of a program environmental impact
report on March 22, 1993. Subsequent approvals, consisting of SPA Plan, Tentative Subdivision
Map(s) and Final Map(s) will be required.
The San Miguel Ranch GDP is principally regarded as a master planned residential community which
will provide a range of housing with varying lot sizes. Development was to take place within the 1,852-
acre Northern Parcel and the 738-acre Southern Parcel. The conditionally approved GDP includes up
to 1,619 dwelling units (up to 357 residential estate lots in the north and up to 1,262 residential lots in
the south), a commercial center, an elementary school, a public park and open space. A new property
owner has filed for an amendment to the General Plan and GDP which contains two design alternatives
proposing a range of mixed land uses on the Southern Parcel and from zero (undisturbed open space)
to 50 residential estate units on the Northern Parcel. Approval by the City Council of an amendment
to the General Plan and GDP will be required for this request.
4.4.1.1
Irnolementation Measures
The City approved the San Miguel Ranch GDP, subject to conditions, which must be complied with
prior to approval of the first SPA Plan for the project (See City of Chula Vista City Council Resolution
No. 17049 for conditions). A number of discretionary actions are required, including: a SPA plan,
detachments and annexations, tentative subdivision maps, and take-authorizations to permit the take of
all Covered Species, including those species not presently listed as F.ntl~ngered, Threatened or
Candidate Species under the ESA or the CESA. Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-90-02 and
adopted with the approval of the GDP (Resolution No. 17049) are identified in the EIR.
31
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
4.5 Otay Ranch Component
4.5.1 Otay Ranch
4.5.1.1
Approved GDP/SRP
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) proposed by Baldwin Vista
Associates (now Otay Ranch L.P.), was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on October 28,
1993. The project proposes 24,000 dwelling units on 23,000 acres and includes approximately 12,000
acres of open space, a commercial village and a potential university site, with a potential final
population of 68,000-70,000 persons. The approved project included a series of 15 villages, ranging
from 4.5 to 18 dwelling units per acre within the core areas. These villages and other rural-density
areas would allow as many as 13,144 single-family units and 11,080 multi-family units. See Appendix
. for project vegetation summaries based on geographic information system analysis.
While most of the Otay Ranch is within the unincorporated area, the City of Chula Vista has applied
for a Sphere of Influence designation preparatory to annexing significant portions of the proposed
development to the city.
The Otay Ranch comprises the largest privately held ownership of Coastal sage scrub (CSS) vegetation
in the United States. The combination of CSS and other habitats, varying geography, and location at
the boundaries of several plant floras (unique combinations of plants) make the Ranch a unique
biological resource. The Otay Ranch ownership is divided into three rnajor parcels: 1) Otay Valley
Parcel (9,449 acres); 2) Proctor Valley Parcel (7,895 acres) and 3) San Ysidro Parcel (5,555 acres).
The dominant feature linking the three Otay Ranch parcels is the Otay River system, which includes
a tributary system of canyons and drainage courses and the Otay Lakes. The size and undeveloped
character of the property, its diverse terrain, its strategic location at the northern margin of Baja
California habitat associations, and its links to large areas of public ownership contribute to the presence
of an important and unusual assemblage of habitats and species.
Otav Vallev Parcel: The Otay Valley Parcel is the largest parcel of Otay Ranch, comprising 9,449
acres. This area of land is bounded by Telegraph Canyon Road on the north, Heritage Road and the
Otay Landfill site on the west, Brown Field on the south, and Lower Otay Lake on the east. The Otay
River Valley bisects the southern portion of this parcel east to west. Several natural landforms are
situated within this parcel: Wolf Canyon, Salt Creek Canyon, Poggi Canyon, Johnson Canyon, O'Neal
Canyon, and Rock Mountain. The six "out parcels" (property not owned by Baldwin Vista) within the
boundaries of the Otay Valley Parcel correspond to lands dedicated to reservoirs (or other facilities) in
the Gtay Water District and City of San Diego water system. a Federal Aviation Administration airway
control facility, a rock mining quarry, and privately owned parcels.
The Otay Valley Parcel contains approximately 1,825 acres of Coastal sage scrub. Maritime succulent
scrub habitat is concentrated in three general locations on the Otay Valley Parcel: in the western and
32
City of Chuta Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
eastern comers and in the central southern area, . covering 285 acres m all. Other vegetation found on'
the Otay Valley Parcel includes 7 acres ofChamise chaparral, 1,310 acres of non-native grassland, and
12 acres of Southern willow scrub. Baccharis scrub, Baccharis floodplain scrub, and Tamarisk scrub
are also present. The Otay Valley Parcel contains an area of Vernal pool habitat and associated mima
mound topography. These are generally located south of the River. Recent sightings (1989 and later)
of sensitive animals made on the Otay Valley Parcel include the American badger, Common barn owl,
California gnatcatcher, Yellow-breasted chat, Cactus wren, Blue grosbeak, and Sage sparrow.
Proctor Vallev/Jamul Mountains Parcel: The Proctor Valley Parcel comprises 7,895 acres. The
Proctor Valley area is the northernmost portion of the Otay Ranch and is generally bounded by Otay
Lakes Road and Lower Otay Lake to the south, the Upper Otay Lake and San Miguel Mountains to the
west, the community of Jamul to the north, and vacant agricultural land to the east. The Proctor Valley
Parcel also includes the Mary Birch-Patrick Estate and the "Inverted L" areas. The four out parcels
encompassed by the Proctor Valley Parcel correspond to two sections of land owned by the Bureau of
Land Managernent (BLM), a City of San Diego reservoir, and two private holdings. Major landforms
include the Jamul and Callahan Mountains. It is notable that this parcel contains two separate BLM
ownerships which are governed by the adopted South Coast BLM Plan and not by the Otay Ranch Plan.
The Proctor Valley Parcel contains approximately 4,843 acres of Coastal sage scrub habitat. Additional
significant resources within the Proctor Valley Parcel include 569 acres of Southern mixed chaparral,
approximately 49 acres of Valley needlegrass grassland, and 138 acres of Alkali meadow. Coast live
oak woodland covers 176 acres in the Proctor Valley Parcel. Small area containing Southern willow
scrub and Eucalyptus can also be found: Vernal pools occur primarily on weathered alluvial soils of
mesas and floodplain terraces in Proctor Valley. Recent sightings (1989 and later) of sensitive animals
made on the Proctor Valley Parcel include the California gnatcatcher, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow,
Blue grosbeak, Two-striped garter snake, Rufous-crowned sparrow, and the Coastal rosy boa.
San Ysidro Mountains Parcel: The San Ysidro Mountains Parcel is comprised of 5,555 acres located
in the southeastern portion of the project area, along the fringes of the northern foothills of the San
Ysidro Mountains and Otay Mountain. The parcel is generally bounded by the eastern arm of Lower
Otay Lake and vacant land along Otay Lakes Road to the north, the main body of Lower Otay Lake to
the west, land owned by the BLM to the south, and vacant land just west of the community of Dulzura
to the east. Major landforms contained within this region include Little and Big Cedar Canyons and
Hubbard Springs.
The San Ysidro Mountains Parcel contains important biological resources. Coastal sage scrub can be
found on 3,698 acres of this parcel. Approximately 469 acres of uniform stands of Chamise occur on
mesas and some gentle slopes in the Otay Lakes portion of the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel. In
addition, approximately 474 acres of non-native grassland, 5 acres of Coast live oak woodland, 75 acres
of Coast southern live oak riparian forest, 7 acres of Sycamore alluvial. woodland, and 165 acres of
Southern interior cypress forest occur on this parcel. A small number of Vernal pools occur on the
level terraces south of the eastern arm of Lower Otay Reservoir. Most of these exist off site on City
of San Diego land. Some of the larger contiguous masses of habitat within the San Ysidro Mountains
33
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Parcel include numerous sensitive plants and animals. Recent sightings (1989 and later) of sensitive
anima Is have been made on the San Y sidro Mountains Parcel, including the California gnatcatcher, Blue
grosbeak, and San Diego horned lizard.
Resource Manal!ement Plan: Part of the approval of General Plan Amendment for Otay Ranch included
approval of the Phase I Resource Management Plan (RMP). "This is a comprehensive planning
document that addresses the preservation, enhancement, and management of sensitive natural and
cultural resources on the 22,899 acre Otay Ranch property. The RMP is intended to be the functional
equivalent of the County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) for Otay Ranch. (RMP,
1993)"
"The goal of the RMP is establishment of an open space system that will become a permanent
Management Preserve dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the multiple resources present
on Otay Ranch. The RMP is intended to be implernented as part of the overall integrated planning
approach for Otay Ranch." (IBID).
The RMP addresses and compares the application of RPO and the RMP to various resources, including
but not limited to; wetlands, wetland buffer areas, floodways, floodplain fringe, steep slopes lands and
sensitive habitat lands. A series of goals, objectives, policies and standards in the RMP address the
following resource protection issues (see page 61-118, RMP): 1) identification of sensitive resources;
2) preservation of sensitive resources; 3) enhancement and restoration of sensitive resources; 4) wildlife
corridors; 5) preserve management and maintenance; 6) pennitted uses; 7) resource preserve - adjacent
land uses; 8) resource preserve - interim land uses; and regulatory framework for future uses.
Phase 1 of the RMP was adopted at the time the General Plan for the project was adopted; Phase 2 has
been completed and subrnitted with the first SPA plan or Specific Plan for Otay Ranch. It will contain
the following items: 1) conduct resource studies and related research; 2) select a Preserve
Owner/Manager (POM); 3) commence implementation of programs for conveyance of land to POM,
resource protection, enhancement and restoration, funding and monitoring of implementation; 4) refme
preserve boundary based on cornpleted studies; 5) develop conceptual infrastructure plans for facilities
in the preserve; and 6) identify location of pennitted uses within the preserve. Other actions are
required during the buildout of Otay Ranch (see RMP, p. 15). A partnership between the City of Chula
Vista and the County of San Diego has been recommended as the POM.
Biol!eol!raDhv/Conservation Issues: Volume I or the RMP (1994, p. 147) states: "The approved Plan
Preserve boundary, illustrated in Figure 24 of the RMP, has been proposed that incorporates the key
resource areas identified in Chapter 2 and fulfills the goal, objectives and policies of the RMP. In
addition to the conceptual Preserve illustrated in Figure 24, additional Limited Development Areas
totalling 1,166 acres have been identified as part of the planning process for the Otay Ranch
GDP/Subregional Plan. These Limited Development Areas (Figures 25 and 26) are assumed to be
preserved in open space, although not included in the Otay Ranch Preserve. The ~imited Development
Areas are considered to eventually become part of the Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan.
34
City of Chu/a Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
The approved Resource Management Preserve described in this chapter is 11,375 acres in size:
Together with the 1,166 acres of Limited Development Areas, a total of 12,541 acres are anticipated
to be preserved in open space on Otay Ranch." Concerning the Limited Development Areas, Figure
25 of the RMP (p. 149) states that: "Development within these areas is restricted pending future
technical studies. The precise configuration of the Limited Development Areas may be revised based
on future studies carried out at the SPA level that will further . defIne the limits of the Rural
Development Area (RDA). In no case shall the acreage to be retained in open space be less than 396
acres (for Proctor Valley area and 770 acres for San Ysidro)."
The planned preserve area or Management Preserve attempts to capture the highest value resource areas
as preserved lands and concentrate development in disturbed habitat or agricultural areas. Generally,
development areas are concentrated around major road systems such as Telegraph Canyon Road, East
Orange Avenue, Paseo Ranchero, Otay Valley Road, Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road. Areas
planned to be developed also extend to already developed areas, such as a series of villages south of
Telegraph Canyon Road and residential development to the North in Chula Vista and planned
developrnent in north Proctor Valley south of ~e community of Iamul. Pioneering development is
planned on the north slopes of Otay Valley, the lower slopes of Proctor Valley, north and south of Otay
Reservoir and along Otay Lakes Road, and on the upper east-facing slopes above Highway 94 in the
eastern San Y sidro parcel.
Policy 6.2 of the RMP (RMP 1) calls for the locating of "up to 400 acres" of active recreation acreage
within the Otay Ranch Preserve area, with priority placed on siting within the Otay Valley. A total of
400 acres has been identifIed within the Otay Valley on three previously disturbed bench areas. These
areas are shown on the Subarea Plan (See Figure 2), and are identifIed as follows: 1) 127 acres south
of Otay River, adjacent to Heritage Road/Otay Valley Road, 2) 69 acres south of Otay River, east and
west of future SR125, and 3) 204 acres north of Otay River, extending approximately two miles west
from the mouth of Salt Creek. Section 6.3.2.1 herein contains specifIc guidelines designed to encourage
a biological connection between habitat areas within the river and habitat on the northerly slopes of the
river valley.
The Chula Vista City Council and County Board of Supervisors have directed that this subarea plan
reflect the plans, data, policies and requirements contained in the RMP 1. The RMP 1, when
implemented through the RMP 2, meets all the components of a Subarea Plan, as dermed by the MSCP,
and is incorporated herein by reference.
University Site: The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP also includes provisions for a University to be placed in
Villages 9 and 10 and in the vicinity of Salt Creek Canyon, "provided that the use of Salt Creek Canyon
(including defIning slopes) is limited to trails, passive recreation, and biological research and educational
activities in keeping with the preservation of sensitive habitat and biological species located there. No
buildings or structures shall be permitted within Salt Creek Canyon." The Existing GDP Alternative
assumes that the potential University site may include development between Wueste Road to the east
and the defIning slopes of Salt Creek Canyon, consistent with "the GDP/SRP policies.
35
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan .
Draft
Note: All conditions and exceptions listed in the Otay Ranch approval documents, including the
Resource Management Plan (Volume I) are hereby incorporated by reference, with respect to easement
requirements, revegetation requirements, allowed facilities within the Preserve Area, etc.
5.0 COVERED SPECIES LISf
The following list of plant and animal species for which the resource agencies will be providing
Take Authorizations is identical to the MSCP Covered Species list. It is recognized that not all species
designated on the List occur within the City's Subarea Plan.
MSCP COVERED SPECIES LIST
(See MSCP for scientific names)
San Diego thorn-mint
Shaw's agave
San Diego ambrosia
Aphanisma
Del Mar manzanita
Otay Manzanita
Coastal dunes milk vetch
Encinitas baccharis
Thread-leafed brodiaea
Orcutt's brodiaea
Dense reed grass
Dunn's mariposa lily
Slender-pod jewel flower
Lakeside ceantothus
Wart-stemmed ceanothus
Salt marsh bird's-beak
Orcutt's bird's-beak
Del Mar Mesa sand aster
Tecate cypress
Short-leaved dudleya
Variegated dudleya
Sticky dudleya
Palmer's ericameria
Coast wallflower
San Diego button-celery
San Diego barrel cactus
Otay tarplant
Heart-leaved pitcher sage
Gander's pitcher sage
Nuttall's lotus
Nevin's barberry
Felt-leaved monardella
Willowy monardella
Snake cholla
California Orcutt grass
San Diego mesa mint
Otay Mesa mint
Torrey pine
Srnall-Ieaved rose
San Miguel savory
Gander's butterweed
Narrow-leaved nightshade
Parry's tetracoccus
San Diego goldenstar
Prostrate navarretia
Dehesa bear-grass
Plants
Animals
Salt marsh skipper butterfly
Thome's hairstreak butterfly
San Diego fairy shrimp
Riverside fairy shrimp
Arroyo southwestern toad -
California red-legged frog
Southwestern pond turtle
36
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Orange-throated whiptail
San Diego homed lizard
Cooper's hawk
Tricolored blackbird
Golden eagle
California rufous-crowned
sparrow
Canada goose
Swainson's hawk
Ferruginous hawk
Coastal cactus wren
Western snowy plover
Mountain plover
Northern harrier
Reddish egret
Southwestern willow flycatcher
American peregrine falcon
Bald eagle
Long-billed curlew
Belding's savannah sparrow
Large-billed savannah sparrow
California brown pelican
White-faced ibis
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Light-footed clapper rail
Western bluebird
Western burrowing owl
Elegant tern
California least tern
Least Bell's vireo
American badger
Mountain lion
Southern mule deer
6.0 LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Existine: Standards. Ordinances And PgU!=i~
6.1.1 Federal
It is the intent of the City of Chula Vista that this Subarea Plan confonn with the U.S. Endangered
Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) , and all of the regulations
promulgated pursuant to these laws.
37
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
6.1.2 State
It is also the intent of the City of Chula Vista that this Subarea Plan confonn with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) policies, and all regulations promulgated pursuant to these laws
and other sections of the California Fish & Game Code, as applicable.
6.1.3 City of Chula Vista
In preserving significant natural open space areas containing habitat that supports sensitive species, the
City of Chula Vista utilizes a number of tools and mechanisms to ensure the long-tenn protection of
these areas. The following ordinances, policies or procedural methods are used when a development
project is proposed:
6.1.3.1
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Land Use Diagram for the City of Chula Vista, which covers the entire Subarea Plan,
has been prepared pursuant to goals contained in the Land Use and Conservation and Open Space
Elements of the General Plan text. These policies call for the pennanent preservation of significant
landforms (steep slopes, canyons, ridgelines, etc.), and the preservation of sensitive plant and animal
species. Implementation of the General Plan policies occur through the application of the Planned
Community (PC) zone, and the processing and adoption of Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans. The
Land Use Diagram identifies significant areas to be retained as open space, and conversely focuses
development within areas that are appropriate for it. The Subarea Plan is in substantial conformance
with the General Plan Land Use Diagram and the policies contained therein.
6.1.3.2
CEQA Process
Environmental Irnpact Reports (EIRs) , prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), have been and are required for all major projects. Through the CEQA review process, the
City of Chula Vista assures that a full environmental assessment be made of a proposed project and
where potential impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation is recommended. The preservation of
natural landforms, including natural canyons are encouraged through this process.
6.1.3.3
Other Ordinances and Policies
Other ordinances and policies which govern resource protection and development regulations include
the following:
-
Hillside Modifying District (Section 19.52.210 of the Zoning Ordinance) - A zoning designation
which regulates development of areas with steep terrain.
38
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
_ Hillside Development Policy (Resolution No. 7088) - Provides policy direction in the regulation,
of hillside developrnent, where the Hillside Modifying District zoning designation is applied.
_ Grading Ordinance (Ordinance No. 7088) - Regulates the grading, excavation and filling of land
throughout the City.
If through the preparation and adoption of this Subarea Plan, associated Implementation Agreement, and
Habitat Management Plan, it is determined that the City should adopt separate development policies that
address resource protection, then prior to adoption of said policies, and prior to actual "take
authorization" for areas outside of approved projects within the City's Subarea Plan, the City shall
consult with the Wildlife Agencies.
6.2 Comoatible Land Uses Within The Preserve
The following land uses are considered conditionally compatible with the biological objectives of the
MSCP and thus may be allowed within the City's preserve with appropriate mitigation, unless otherwise
stated in this Subarea Plan:
. Passive Recreation
. Utility Lines
. Roads (in compliance with policies in Section 6.4.2 below)
. Trails
. Limited Water Facilities (e.g., transmission lines, valves, etc.)
. Low Density Residential Uses (minimum lot area 10 acres)
. Agriculture (on prior disturbed areas only; ref. policies in Section 7.2.2)
. Grazing (on non-sensitive areas only)
Existing uses, public access and recreation, infrastructure and various scientific and biological uses are
also allowed within the preserve. Guidelines for each are established below and in Section 6.4 of this
Subarea Plan. The intent of these guidelines is to ensure that the biological resources that are preserved
are viable over the long term.
6.2.1 Existing Uses
Existing uses are permitted by right within the preserve and shall be allowed to operate as they have
historically. However, there shall be no expansion or change of such uses, or the clearing of additional
areas, unless appropriate local, state and federal permits have been first obtained.
39
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
6.2.2 . Public Access and Recreation
The following are policies that pertain to public access and recreation within the preserve:
-
Public access and certain passive recreational uses may be permitted within the preserve and/or
its linkages. Access points, new trails and facilities, and a public control plan shall be included
in the Subarea Habitat Management Plan. The public control plan shall empower the preserve
manager to close areas to public use, temporarily or permanently, if such use excessively
damages habitat or during breeding season.
-
Provide sufficient signage to clearly identify public access to the preserve. Barriers such as
vegetation, rocks/boulders or fencing rnay be necessary to protect highly sensitive areas. Use
appropriate type of barrier based on location, setting and use. For example, use chain link or
. cattle wire to direct wildlife movement, and natural rockslboulders or split rail fencing to direct
public access away from sensitive areas. Lands acquired through mitigation may preclude public
access in order to satisfy mitigation requirements.
-
Locate trails, view overlooks and staging areas in the least sensitive areas of the preserve or
restrict their use. Locate trails along the edges of urban land uses adjacent to the preserve, or
the seam between land uses (e.g. agriculture/habitat), and follow existing dirt roads as much as
possible rather than entering habitat or wildlife movement areas. Avoid locating trails between
two different habitat types (ecotones) for longer than necessary due to the typically heightened
resource sensitivity in those locations.
-
In general, avoid paving roads unless management and monitoring evidence shows otherwise.
Clearly demarcate and monitor trails for degradation and off-trail access and use. Provide trail
repair/rnaintenance as needed. Undertake measures to counter the effects of trail erosion
including the use of stone or wood crossjoints, edge plantings of native grasses, and mulching
of the trail.
-
Limit the extent and location of equestrian trails to the less sensitive areas of the preserve.
Locate staging areas for equestrian uses at a sufficient distance (e.g. 300-500 feet) from areas
with riparian and coastal sage scrub habitats.
-
Remove homeless and itinerant worker camps on habitat areas as soon as found pursuant to
existing procedures.
-
Locate roads, trails, and other recreational use areas away from sensitive or high value
biological areas.
-
Review existing and future access areas to ensure that they do not inhibit biological functions
(e.g. breeding, nesting, roosting) and prevent habitat degradation or loss of key sensitive plant
species from trampling erosion by controlling access into sensitive biological resource areas.
40
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
-
Construct trails to any prominent features or viewpoints that are likely to attract hikers, thereby'
preventing extensive trampling and compaction.
6.2.3 Public and Private Lands
The following are policies which penain to public and private lands within the preserve:
-
Public lands turned over to the USFWS and/or CDFG and located within the proposed
Otay/Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge planning area will be managed by the USFWS or its
designee. Privately-held lands acquired for preservation will be managed through a regional
funding source, when source is identified and put into place. Where appropriate, biological
monitoring and management will be performed by the Wildlife Agencies or their designee.
-
Public lands owned by the City of Chula Vista consist of previously dedicated open space
maintained through existing open space maintenance districts. Permanent protection of public
lands identified within the subarea preserve will occur through the recordation of conservation
easements or other similar mechanism (See Section 7.2.3, herein).
-
Approximately 2,500 acres of the subarea preserve are expected to remain in private ownership.
Development on those private properties within the preserve boundaries reflected on Figure 2
of this Subarea Plan, but not identified as part of a specific private development project herein,
will be subject to the Uplands Mitigation Guidelines reflected in Table 3. The owners of these
properties shall have the right to fence and protect their ownership from trespassers.
-
Unless otherwise identified as an exclusion from the preserve in Section 6.5 (e.g., major roads,
utilities, other infrastructure, etc.), this Subarea Plan assumes a 100% preservation goal for
those areas identified within the preserve. Future rights-of-way or other features not identified
as exclusions in Section 6.5.1 (Otay Ranch exclusions) will be required to avoid sensitive species
and mitigate for habitat loss.
6.3
Comoatible Land Uses Adiacent To The Preserve
6.3.1 General Criteria
Residential uses will most often be located adjacent to the preserve, although commercial/industrial,
roads, manufactured open space, parks and recreation areas, utility facilities and other uses will occur
in some areas. Manufactured open space (e.g. parks, playing fields, vegetated slope banks, utility
rights-of-way, green belts), roads and recreational facilities are presumed compatible land uses adjacent
to the preserve. No additional transitional areas, above those identified in approved GDPs, are
necessary. The following guidelines will be employed when planning and implementing these uses when
they are located adjacent to the preserve. These guidelines are intended to ensure compatibility and
should serve to protect wildlife values in the areas adjacent to- the preserve:
41
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
- Plant materials used to landscape manufactured open space, road cuts/fills and recreational
facilities should consist of native species appropriate to the adjacent habitat in the preserve. If
possible, those species should be based on plants with genetic materials of the area.
- Areas and structures subject to heavy human use (e.g., ball fields, parking lots,
landscapes/playing courts, equestrian centers, staging areas) shall,' to the extent feasible, be
located away from the edge of the preserve.
_ Lighting within lOO feet of the preserve edge shall be confmed to areas necessary to ensure
public safety, and shall be limited to low pressure sodium fixtures, shielded and directed away
from the preserve where possible.
_ Signage pertaining specifically to the preserve shall be limited to that necessary to denote public
access points, describe allowable uses and activities, and to identify the preserve boundary .
_ Fencing along the preserve boundary is desirable, but not mandatory, and may provide a barrier
to fire, invasive species, and uncontrolled human access. Should a landowner or preserve
manager decide to install fencing, the type, style, and height must conform to local regulations
or those included in the applicable Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan.
_ There will be no requirements for buffers outside the preserve system. All open space
requirements for the preserve system will be incorporated into the preserve system and,
conversely, all requirements for the developrnent system will be incorporated into the
developrnent area.
6.3.2 Project Specific Criteria
Each of the development projects discussed in Section 4.0 of this Subarea Plan are regulated by
referenced project approvals, including mitigation requirements. Where guidelines for adjacent land
uses are not specifically addressed, the general requirements above shall apply. The following are
specific project criteria to be applied.
6.3.2.1
Otay Ranch
Allowable uses for areas adjacent to the preserve are discussed in Policies 7.1-7.3 of the Otay Ranch
RMP. The edge of the preserve is defmed as a strip of land 100 ft. wide that surrounds the perimeter
of the management preserve.
The Subarea Plan Map (See Figure 2) reflects a total of 400 acres of potential active recreation land
area within the Otay Valley (per policy 6.2 of the Otay Ranch RMP 1). One 204 acre potential active
recreation land area, located on previously fanned land within the river valley; extending westerly
approximately two miles from the mouth of Salt Creek (approximately SOO ft. + wide), could create an
obstacle to an existing biological connection now experienced between the riparian river bonom and
42
City of Chu/a Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
south-facing slopes on the north side of the Otay River Valley, without adherence to appropriate design'
criteria. While there will be the ability to provide active recreation within the areas described above,
implementation designs for these areas shall not preclude appropriate biological connections from
occuring between the slopes and the riparian river bottom, as well as between Salt Creek and the Otay
River Valley.
43
....
~
==
~
~
~!~
E-~-<
<E~
~~~
!:J rIJ
~i~
~ >
~ -<
~o~
6uU
....zr..
...00
O!=...
~t8
~
~
~
'"
..
"'~
~..'"
o.~
g<
1.1 .'
""E'
u ..
~ .~
1>= '"
...2-
s
o
~~
'" ..
.. t
8.<
5 .
.. e-
1.1 ..
.-
~ .5
S8
Ie
~
- ...
=;:1::
~U
8. .5
5b
..-
1.1 "
"
bt:
.- "
U~
.r:
....-
" w If
.."-
..
1.1
- . .i
S :tJ ....
~t>!
-~ . Ii
~ .. .. j;
i-i>u
'" $
" .~
.5!'"
- "
S "
f~
-8
~";:q----
,5"..fJ
::d~!
-"0 ::_
tti-E
-sllf'~
otJ '_
'O..:i~
t.. ~ fI
IU?~,C;
5~~!
...,;!Ii----
.. " ;:s:tJ
,5 !.. ..
::!1<<!
..'2 . i
1II,"',.t>t
-s~If'..
o~ ......
'O..~~
t ..
III ';'~ E
~~,Q,~
1.1"',1:;-
..-d;~
~fid
:.~<!
." ,-
t~i>;]
"" ~ .....
O"...~
1.1 -
"'...~-
f:: c U ~
4oI'~t.I ...
>"Qly
e:.,I:;.!!
\to .-'" "
00 '
-
:!::
::
!::;N
-
v
-
- -
v v
ONOINOO
;:8:!;::) 0
oCN -:
........--n_..
00 i- ~
OO~\O~9:; M
- N- E;
::f
;@~
(i:!
'"
--0..
N"''''
...
!::;
=
..-
--
-
N
-
"'N
"'''''
''IN
... ...
;:;
- -
0:
N 11")0- MOO
~ -~
'"
...
~
N
......
-'"
'"
'"
N
!::!
-
f'I"I-O---- ..-
ggv-v~v
...
-
V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~8~~~~~~~~~88-~8""
- -- -
....-NN-f'I"I-~~~~OOOO\Q....OI__
~~~~~~=II")II")--~N ~~M~~
::N" ,...;
..
~~~~~~8~~~:~~"'~~~~~ ~
~~~_ONN ~ _ _01 NItO ..
.nN" .,..j r-: or; N
- - '"
.g J: 1;;
'" ~ 4)
.0 .:! .. ..
2'2 ::0 _ If
.g ~s. ~"" ] ~i~[ ~
.. .!!.2 iii t: 'Ii! C.!!.!!'" ..
~ B~ rn~5~~ 1S'i!U ~'2"'L.
" ~" ~"'..=~..~~!~ "';..
~_~~~U~!~rnB~~~S .e,~
~~~~~E"~"'~~_~"E'2~!~
5"-5~"~-tS ~~t"J~~..
=~~=rn~~~~~!aa.i~~~@ -!-o~
...o."~of._" ..~.o~~~ ~
UU",U""'IL~I>=I<I zo~"'~oo
-T
V
-0 -0
'" ~
- '"
N
-
=: ~ 00
~
N
-0 N
... 00
...
~ ~
'" N
... '"
"t
-
N
....
...
...
~
i
j
I
"I i
J ~
I ;:
f I
I g
~ I
,!! ~
~ i
...q II
h .8..:
c:.so ~!
~i 1E
Ii eJ
g 'S ~t
II! I t a
'8.2 q
B~ ~.1
!~ 1i
ilj @s
h :i
.8. 1~
o.! e
U !i
f. c2"
. j ;,!.
. 11 ! ~
J.B J~';
],!! ,!! u::
Jj1!H
Is BiB
~t ti1j
'ih~ll
ei-.:jl11
].8i'8~lt
~iUii}
jJtdii
~LUiJ
~
ii
~
_N ~..";..c
N
f;o}
..:!
~
p..
~
110
~i~
p..O..:
i~~
f;o}E~
p..~OO
~Ig
~ ;>
~ ..:
~oS
p..u",
~~o
~~...
f;o}..:t::
tiu
!oi
;>
... od ' -0_.... ~ < - ..,
~.... V ..,
Os:: ..~...J ....
'!I. ~!~j
..
[-
gi ..1..~ ....... - - - -
- V V V ....
U .. 4Itbt
...~ g~f'jj
.. ...
!i.s u-
~~ ]!si~ ~ N O'd"" 00 tor--i!J-~ oo~iD~~~ ..,
8 ~""t"'I_ !:;
"":. ..--~ - ....-
: f:r~ 00 .... - ::j'
8$
~.,;!] 9 s: . ~ _-0" .., !:; = :Iii -0
.......... ~
...
. ~J":$
II .
..11-i :!::: .... - - 00
e.... - ~
o~ ~i!~
us
a.s CJ--
g~ "'''~- ..,.... .. .., - - S:~ 00
= ...... N C!;
t 0 - U2 ........
41 .~~~t N
i;::s ox
u .t-
o: .... "'0- .... 00 00 -0 &!
&.0-=;0::... ~ -~ .., ..
..
- ~j~I
-b
Ii-
..u ." ~ .. .... .. .., - '" ... E :@ g
g..a ~ -'"
b ~ ~ Ii
!i~ !u_...
~.e-jj
u Ii t..> --
bl:
u~ "'''~~ t"'I-O---- ..- .., '" ....
ggv-v2::v V .., ..,
f.. II - <"t
~iQ't
8 .c!:$
. t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...
00$"'~-O"-"'~"'-O-O"'8~-~8'"
rn: - ~ ~ t"'Ir--~~ t"'I_OO",,"_ _ i
>..~
..-
U
~o_oor--t"'I~~~r--.OOOON~~__ '"
..,
- - .~ ~~N~~~S:""~--~N ~~t"'I~iD '"
~l;! ;:- - :2
.
OOr--~NN~~~~~OOt"'l~OOr--Nt"'IN~ -0
-f'J """00 t"'It"'I r--~.oo~..,. t"'IOO"lf"N ~
"":.~~-qNN - -~ M~
~.... =:i.... ... !:; 00 N
... .. ...
io..>.
I'IJ ..-
...........
........
ii .t> ~
.2 ~
.. .t>.jj .. If
jj 2'E ::0 -
.jj -= i!~:i_
-..
il .. i! j~ ~~ .i'! "'n~ i1
... ~ ~~ 1~~i!!..e~l~ 1f1~
>u 1--li!Uilf.jj.~I~~.sl~l~
_~~_..E~~~I~_~~E ~ =
s~~s~~ .. _ ~ ~~s~~ !
. ~~~ "'~"~!aa,. t
~d~8o!I~I~ ~~' !a~~~
I
J
J,
1 i
J ~
j ;:
f I
I I
J i
i I
,! II
^i i
'h J~
~.tI 'L
Ii Ii
.. '; to 11
~j Em
OJ! 111
BF J,a
!j Ii
"Ii! E!~
~ 1-
~~ if
'i'I! r
UJ
fC .as
..1 ~t
C 1i ~!J;
!i~ ~hS
11il~
Js niB
It ..Ij
t~d111
Bfiii1
)Jhillt-I
:~it 1
;iI i
Jjtdtt
~LUi!
on
..
Z~
"';f'i I""i.";..
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
6.4 General Planninl! and Desilm Guidelines
6.4.1 Infrastructure
6.4.1.1 Certain public infrastructure necessary for public health and safety is permitted
within the preserve system. Any impact to habitat, sensitive species or listed species shall be considered
to be a "take" and will require appropriate mitigation. It is expressly intended that flexibility be allowed
in locating planned infrastructure within the preserve. It is also recognized that it may be necessary to
locate public facilities in the preserve that are not currently anticipated. Mitigation for the impacts of
new facilities is included in Section 7.2.4. Such facilities could include the following:
. Electric Distribution Facilities
. Roads
. Waterlines and reservoirs and associated facilities (e.g.. pump stations, pressure control
facilities. and access roads), and water storage and treatment facilities
. Sewer lines and pump stations _
. Telephone, cable televisions and natural gas facilities
. Storm drain and flood control facilities, including associated detention/retention basins
and dissipator structures
Mitigation for those public improvement projects which disturb habitat within the MHPA shall be
directed within preserve boundaries.
6.4.1.2 Current maintenance and operation activities for public infrastructure shall be
allowed, including access road maintenance, clearing/desilting of flood/drainage control facilities and
those activities which require the maintenance of cleared areas.
6.4.1.3 Maintenance and operation of new facilities shall be allowed in accordance with
standard practices existing at the time of completion, including access road maintenance and those which
require the clearing of certain areas.
6.4.1.4 To the extent feasible, sensitive habitats and species shall be avoided during the
planning, designing and construction of new infrastructure and access roads. The physical and
engineering requirements of the infrastructure shall be considered during the siting procedure. Impacts
shall be mitigated as indicated on Table 3 of this Subarea Plan. Areas temporarily disturbed shall be
revegetated .
6.4.1.5 Emergency repairs to infrastructure are permitted. The affected agency will be
allowed to enter the preserve and complete necessary repairs consistent with normal practices. No
additional permits or permissions shall be required. However, when emergency repairs are necessary,
efforts to avoid and minimi7.e impacts to the extent practicable shall be made. Areas disturbed by such
repairs shall be revegetated with native plant materials appropriate to the habitat that was disturbed, and
monitoring shall meet success criteria in the Preserve Management Plan(s).
46
City af Chu/a Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
6.4.2 Roads
6.4.2.1 Roads in the preserve areas are limited to those identified in the Circulation
Element, collector streets essential for area circulation and existing maintenance roads. Local streets
shall not cross the preserve except where needed to access isolated development areas.
6.4.2.2 Development of roads in canyon bottoms shall "be avoided. Where roads enter
and traverse portions of the preserve, provisions shall be taken to provide for wildlife management, such
as adequate fencing to direct wildlife movement and undercrossings (preferably bridges).
6.4.2.3 Roads within the preserve shall be narrowed from existing design standards to
minimize habitat fragmentation and disruption of wildlife movement and breeding areas. Roads shall
be located in lower quality habitat or disturbed areas to the extent possible.
6.4.2.4 Preserve access points and maintenance roads, where they cross the preserve, shall
be gated and signed to control public access.
6.4.2.5 State Route 125 is exempt from the requirements of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan
because it will be reviewed and take of listed species will be authorized by the Wildlife Agencies
through separate processes.
6.4.3 Fire and Brush Management
Residential and commercial uses may not be compatible with the preserve and will be separated from
the preserve by a brush management zone which shall vary in width. In some cases, the brush
managernent area will be within the preserve to protect adjacent uses from fires as well as reducing the
possibility if catastrophic wildfires that could destroy much of the subarea preserve.
The Wildlife Agencies are developing Memorandums of Understanding (MOD) and Agreement (MOA)
with the San Diego Fire Chiefs Association, Fire District's Association of San Djego County, Bureau
of Land Management and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
abatement of flammable vegetation (fuel breaks, etc.), incident response and fuels, fire management,
and use of fire for preserve management. The MOU/MOA will provide the basis for ensuring that the
establishment of preserves does not create additional restrictions on fire control activities.
It is anticipated that a fire management plan component of the Preserve Management Plan be prepared
within one year of the signing of the Implementation Agreement (lA), which will address fire
management activities within and adjacent to the Preserve. Said component will require approval by
the Wildlife Agencies, City of Chula Vista and the appropriate fire suppression district(s).
6.4.4 Fencing, Lighting And Signage
6.4.4.1
Fencing, lighting and signage are permitted in the brush management zone.
47
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
6.4.4.2 Lighting shall be confmed to areas necessary to ensure public safety, and shall be
limited to low pressure sodium fixtures.
6.4.4.3 Signage shall be limited to that necessary to denote public access points, prohibit
trespassing on private property and to call out the preserve boundary.
6.4.5 Materials Storage
No storage of materials (e.g. chemicals, equipment, etc.) will be allowed within the preserve or in any
areas that may impact the preserve, especially due to leakage, drainage or flood flows.
6.4.6 Mining, Extraction And Processing Facilities
6.4.6.1 In the long-term, it is envisioned that no sand or other mining activities will occur
in the preserve except on an interim basis, if determined necessary to maintain ponds, existing flood
control channels, or rernove excess sediments from strategic floodplain locations if the sediments present
a problern to sensitive areas or to management of the preserve. Processing and other related mining
activities (e.g., asphaltic processing, etc.) are incompatible with the MSCP preserve.
6.4.6.2 All temporary sand mining and related activities, as indicated in Section 6.4.6.1
above, must be consistent with the objectives, guidelines, and recommendations in the MSCP Plan, the
City ofChula Vista's ordinances, all relevant long-range plans, as well as with the State Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975.
6.4.6.3 Any sand removal activities shall be monitored for noise impacts to surrounding
sensitive habitats, and all new sediment removal or mining operations proposed in proximity to the
preserve, or changes in existing operations, must include noise reduction methods that take into
consideration the breeding and nesting seasons of sensitive bird species.
6.4.6.4 All existing and future mined lands adjacent to or within the preserve shall be
reclaimed pursuant to SMARA and should be designed to contribute biologically to the preserve. Native
habitats shall be restored as much as possible. Although man-made ponds are technically not native to
the region, where these provide native wildlife and wetland habitats, they are considered compatible
uses where they do not interfere with other local natural processes and wildlife movement.
6.4.6.5 Any pennitted activity including reclamation of sand mining shall consider changes
and impacts to water quality, water table level, fluvial hydrology, flooding, and wetlands and habitats
upstream and downstream and provide adequate mitigation.
6.4.7 Flood Control
6.4.7.1 Flood control should generally be limited to existing agreements with the Wildiife
Agencies unless demonstrated to be needed based on a cost benefit analysis and pursuant to a restoration
48
City of Chu/o Vista MSCP Subarea i'Ian
Draft
plan. Floodplains within the preserve, and upstream from the preserve if feasible, should remain in a'
natural condition and configuration in order to allow for the ecological, geological, hydrological, and
other natural processes to remain or be restored.
6.4.7.2 No berming, channelization, or man-made constraints or barriers to creek,
tributary, or river flows shall be allowed in any floodplain within the preserve unless reviewed by all
appropriate agencies, and adequately mitigated. Review must include impacts to upstream and
downstream habitats, flood flow volumes, velocities and configurations, water availability and changes
to the water table level.
6.4.7.3 No riprap, concrete, or other unnatural material shall be used to stabilize river,
creek, tributary, and channel banks within the preserve. All river, stream, and channel banks shall be
natural, and stabilized with willows and other appropriate native plantings.
6.4.8 Scientific And Biological Activities
6.4.8.1 All scientific, research, monitoring and habitat restoration and enhancement
activities are pennitted within the City of Chula Vista portion of the preserve, subject to approval by
the preserve manager/landowner and obtaining any necessary permits.
6.4.8.2 Any of the activities indicated in Section 6.4.8.1 above shall be carried out under
a regional program implemented by the resource agencies, City of Chula Vista or preserve manager,
and are not required elernents of the Subarea Plan. The Wildlife Agencies are currently preparing a
Biological Monitoring Plan.
6.5 SDecific Proiect Exclusions
6.5.1 Otay Ranch
6.5.1.1
Permitted Uses.
Section 5.8 of the Otay Ranch RMP indicates that: "the primary goal of the RMP is to provide
opportunities for passive recreation within the Preserve that are consistent with resource protection.
In addition, 400 acres within the Preserve are available for 'active recreational uses'" (within the Otay
River Valley, pg. 195). This Subarea Plan; however, identifies this acreage as potential active
recreation areas, subject to RMP policies and OVRP planning (See Section 6.3.2.1 & Figure 2).
With respect to agricultural uses, the RMP states (Section 5.9, pg. 195): "Establishment of the Preserve
will provide opportunities for creation of demonstration agricultural uses within the Preserve. The area
in the vicinity of Bird Ranch has been identified as an area suitable for demonstration agriculture.
Demonstration agricultural activities must be compatible with RMP policies and standards for resource
protection and enhancement. "
49
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
Revegetation of Preserve Lands. The RMP includes requirements for revegetation of certain disturbed
areas to be included in the Preserve (See Section 4.3.1.1.3 herein, for exceptions); an Appendix in the
RMP discusses conceptual revegetation plans.
Pennitted uses within the preserve are discussed on page 103 of the RMP; they include an interpretive
center(s), native plant nursery and/or botanical garden, active recreation not greater than 400 acres, a
system of trails, motorized vehicles necessary for preserve management and emergency services, limited
fire roads, and ecologically necessary controlled burning. Objective 8 of the RMP (pgs. 116-117)
indicates interim uses and activities that may continue within the proposed preserve until conveyance
to the Preserve Owner/Manager.
The following specific preserve exclusions are identified for Otay Ranch (See RMP Section 6.6 for
further details):
-
The proposed alignment for SR 125 from Otay Mesa through Otay Ranch along the preferred
alignment is excluded from the Preserve area, as is the alignment for Alta Road along a near
parallel alignment to the east. The specific alignment will depend on the final CalTrans and the
Wildlife Agencies review and pennit process.
-
The fmal configuration of the proposed Limited Developrnent Area will depend on future
detailed resource studies, although the minimum number of acres is fixed. These areas are to
be excluded from the preserve area.
-
The Otay Ranch RMP (pg. P-3, #3) contains a partial list of facilities as follows: SR 125,
California Water Authority (CW A) aqueduct easements, utility easements, the Otay Valley trunk
sewer, the proposed Salt Creek trunk sewer, and others (at this time, it is not known which of
these potential facilities would impact the preserve area). Refer to the draft (RMP II) for
specific facilities.
-
Other planned roadways that cross the preserve including: Rock Mountain Road, Otay Valley
Road, Otay Lakes Road (east of the proposed Resort site), Millar Ranch Road in Proctor Valley
and the future widening of Proctor Valley Road through Proctor Valley.
-
City of SAn Diego Clean Water Program reclamation facility (located in the western end of the
Otay Ranch, within the river valley (see Lettieri-McIntyre, 1994).
6.5.2 Otay Valley Regional Park Plan
A conceptual plan considered by the JEPA Policy Committee for the park preliminarily identifies a
number of recreational facilities as indicated in Section 4.3.2.3. Final master planning for these park
areas is anticipated; however, will be a part of subsequent planning efforts. Policy 6.2 of the Otay
Ranch RMP I includes additional policies pertaining to recreation within the river valley. In addition
50
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Pian
. Draft
to the potential recreational facilities, other facilities listed below may occur within the river park'
boundary (these exclusions are in addition to the preserve exclusions listed above).
-
Local roads and trails within the park for local access.
-
Existing rock quarry (approx, 135 acres) on Rock Mountain, just east of Otay Valley Road; the
quarry operation is expected to continue for about the next 50 years, after which the site may
be used for active recreation.
-
The Gun Club/Bird Ranch: This area and the area immediately east (about 150 acres) has been
a gun club and ranch and would not be used for habitat management pwposes under the
conceptual park plan.
-
The site for the 400 acres of active recreation in Otay Ranch has been identified for the bench
areas on both sides of the Otay River.
-
Lower Otay County Park (approx. 70 acres): an existing, but closed campground; to be
refurbished.
-
The existing County Air Park, located east of Otay Reservoir, south of Otay Lakes Road (not
in Subarea Plan): used as a landing field and observation area for gliders and parachutists
(approx. 60 acres)
6.5.3 Salt Creek Ranch
Three future two-lane residential roadways servicing residential estate neighborhoods in eastern Salt
Creek Ranch.
6.5.4 Sunbow n
The future extension of East Orange Avenue from the west end of the Sunbow U property, east to the
boundary of the Otay Ranch.
7.0 PREsERVE MANAGEMENT
7.1 Plan Preoaration
A Preserve Management Plan shall be completed and implemented within one year after signing of an
Implementation Agreement. Management entities may differ depending on ownership (responsibility
for management falls on fee-owner or easement holder of preserve. land) and whether overall
maintenance and operations is contracted to a single management organization for the overall Subarea
Plan.
SI
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
7.2 Protection of Resources
7.2.1 Interim Protection
Interim protection is provided through those standards, ordinances and policies listed in Section IV of
this Subarea Plan. The City agrees to make changes necessitated by the approval of the Subarea Plan,
including Interim Protection and General Plan amendments, if required, withiIi one year after adoption
of the Implementing Agreement (IA) by City Council. The lA, as discussed in Section 6.2 of the
MSCP, is the instrument by which interim protection is assured.
7.2.2 Agricultural Lands
For agricultural land users, a primary objective of the agriculture provision of the Chula Vista Subarea
Plan is to encourage voluntary habitat restoration or enhancement activities. . The Implementation
Agreement (IA) for this Subarea Plan should contain provisions which provide take authorization of
species covered by this Subarea Plan as a result of ongoing agricultural operations on active farm lands
where cumulative impacts to the species are insignificant. Ongoing "actively farmed" agricultural
operations should also be defmed in the IA. Consistent with policies contained in the MSCP (ref.
MSCP ~ 6.2.2), and subject to approval of the Wildlife Agencies, this Subarea Plan provides that a
landowner who enters into a cooperative agreement with the Wildlife Agencies will be given a "safe
harbor" frorn any additional future liability under the ESA or CESA beyond that existing at the time
the agreement is signed. As long as landowners carry out the agreed-upon habitat improvements and
avoid impacts to listed species and their habitat which exist at the time they enter into the program, they
may farm, develop or make any other lawful use of the property, even if such use incidentally results
in the loss of listed species.
The intent of the safe harbor provision is to allow agricultural landowners to carry out measures which
would benefit the land in general, such as contour grading or allowing land to go fallow, with the result
being the regrowth of native vegetation and return of native species, and not have those good land
stewardship efforts lead to potential conflicts with ESA and CESA prohibitions on Take of listed
species.
7.2.3 Permanent Protection
Permanent protection of preserved land is to be provided through recordation of conservation easements
senior to other encumbrances upon the fee title or dedication of the fee title itself, as appropriate and
consistent with the needs of the landowners conveying the property to the preserve. Both public and
private landowners may wish to retain compatible uses of the property while complying with preserve
management guidelines. This is accommodated with the grant of easement.
52
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
7.2.4 Mitigation Plan
7.2.4.1
Mitigation For Covered Projects Within Or Adjacent To Preserve Boundary
Covered Projects located within or adjacent to the Preserve consist of those projects currently located
within the City's jurisdictional boundaries where agreements have been reached with the property
owner. the City and the Wildlife Agencies as to the Preserve boundary. Projects that are located within
the boundaries of this Subarea Plan (See Figure 2) and are subsequently annexed into the City of Chula
Vista jurisdiction, are considered to be "covered projects." In some cases, those projects will have fully
mitigated their biological impacts through onsite dedications of property or conveyances of conservation
easements. In other cases, the mitigation for those projects will be directed to available, qualified lands
within the boundaries of the Subarea. The City will attempt to direct these available mitigation lands
to those affected developments, thereby further enhancing preserve acquisition and successful preserve
implementation.
7.2.4.2
Mitigation For Other Permitted Uses
Other permitted uses include those projects not covered under Section 7.2.4.1 above and the
construction of public and private infrastructure, as described in Sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 (Infrastructure
and Roads). Mitigation for such uses will be in accordance with the guidelines set forth on Table 3,
herein.
53
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
TABLE 3
UPLANDS MmGATION GUIDELINES'
Tier Habitat Type Location Location of Preservation I Mitigation Ratios
of Impact Inside Preserve Outside Preserve
TIER!: Southern Foredunes Inside Z:1 3:1
(rare Coastal Bluff Scrub Preserve
uplands) Maritime Succulent Scrub
Native Grasslands Outside 1:1 Z:1
Oak Woodlands Preserve
TIER D: Coastal Sage Scrub Inside 1.5:1 Z:1
(uncommon CSS/Chaparral Preserve .
uplands) Outside 1:1 1.5:1
Preserve
TIER ID: Mixed Chaparral Inside 1:1 1.5:1
(common Chamise Chaparral Preserve
uplands) Non-native Grassland
Outside 0.5:1 1:1
Preserve
TIER IV: Disturbed Lands InsIde No Mitigation No Mitigation
(other Agricultural Lands Preserve Required Required
uplands) Eucalyptus Outside No Mitigation No Mitigation
Preserve Required Required
Notes: "Inside":
"Outside":
"Presenre":
Within covered projects located within or adjacent to preserve area.
Outside of boundaries of Chula Vista Subarea Plan preserve.
Area of MHPA Included in the Chula Vista Subarea Plan preserve.
1. One example of how Table 3 might be applied would be as follows:
If a land owner were to propose development which impacted sensitive habitat within the Subarea Plan boundaries,
but outside of the Preserve boundary, then mitigation would be required to occur either Inside or outside the
Subarea Plan boundary through the purchase of "In-kind" land area. Mitigation ratios identified in the table above
are lower if required mitigation land is acquired within the City's Preserve than if acquiied outside, thereby
encouraging acquisition to occur In the City's Preserve.
54
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
8.0 FuNDING
Land within the preserve that remains in private ownership will be maintained in its current state (unless
approved plans dictate otherwise) and all costs to do so will be borne by the existing and any subsequent
owners.
Land that is dedicated and ownership vested with a government entity or private conservancy shall be
maintained in its existing state and all costs to do so will be borne by the new public or private
owner/conservancy. A regional funding source will help fund the costs of those areas not acquired
through exactions, as discussed in the MSCP.
Land that is revegetated shall be monitored and maintained for the period of time specified in the
approving documentation by the entity responsible for the revegatation. Upon completion of such
activities in accordance with applicable pennits, the land may be retained in private ownership with an
agreed upon open space or conservation easement, or transferred to an acceptable government entity
or private conservancy. The owner shall maintain the land in the state in which it is received, consistent
with the goals of the MSCP, and shall bear all costs to do so unless other arrangements are made with
the previous landowner.
The City of Chula Vista commits to adopting a general funding plan consistent with principles
established in the MSCP Plan and acceptable to the City within six months of signing an Implementation
Agreement.
9.0 SUBAREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
The Subarea Plan includes lands on which the location of preservation and development areas were not
resolved (amendment areas) and therefore take authorizations do not apply. However, a process for
resolving project design and mitigation issues has been developed that would allow for the properties
within the amendment areas to be covered by the Subarea Plan take authorizations in the future. Two
types of amendments, minor amendments and minor amendments, will be used to extend take to the
amendment areas. The amendment process would only be initiated at the request of the property owner.
9.1 Minor Amendments
Minor amendment properties are properties on which habitat could be partially or completely eliminated
(with appropriate mitigation) without significantly affecting the overall goals of the City's Subarea Plan,
MSCP and associated environmental documents. Minor amendment properties would be expected to
meet the criteria and achieve the goals for linkages and corridors as described in the Section 2.2 of the
MSCP and provide mitigation consistent with those provisions contained in Table 3 herein. Minor
amendments would require the approval of the USFWS's Field Office Supervisor and the CDFG's
NCCP Program Manager.
55
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
It is intended that parcels indicated on the Subarea Plan Map (See Figure 2) as "Minor Amendment
Areas" will be covered by this Subarea Plan upon approval by the Wildlife Agencies as described
above. Tbe procedure for handling such amendments will be included in the Implementation
Agreement. In all cases, the land may only be added to the Subarea Plan with the consent or request
of the land owner. Proposed revision of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan to reflect minor amendments
shall be transmitted to the Wildlife Agencies for appropriate action.
9.2 MlJjor Amendments
Requests for major amendments to the City's Subarea Plan's take authorizations would be processed
by the Wildlife Agencies consistent with applicable laws and regulations (including the National
Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act) in effect at the time the request
for an amendment is received. Areas requiring major amendments include those subject to current or
anticipated conservation agreements with the Wildlife Agencies, should these agreements fail to
materialize .
56
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Pion
Draft
10.0 REFERENCES
[To be completed]
57
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
11.0 APPENDIX
11.1 Baldwin Tentative Agreement Exhibits
11.2 Implementation AgreementlManagement Authorization
11.3 Draft Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan Diagram
11.4 Vegetation Communities Within the Preserve by Mlijor Project
11.5 City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan Map - Figure 2
58
~
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
.11.1 - BALDWIN TENTATIVE AGREEMENT EXHIBITS
..~
-.\ . .'-
'Q' .~~~-7:!i
J BALDWIN TENTATIVE AGREEMENT - EXHIK(T 1 t r ~.~.
I
\... .: i
.':: ,;.'~'..,
:~ "'-J' \:Si.
ft'<:P~ }./,OI/' .J
~,:~":.z.:4\ .~ J~
J',.... '.e~ I I
'~IJ)\
" '
" "
, .
, .
~
~
"----
-0
)
--
)
'z:_-:-:~ --
~
,
.
...c'.,...
.-.,
I
~-
\:
,
~
..
~
.
* ; '"..s:
"~'AJoS:.S
'\"-;. .,
,''''2,11
,
~
)
)
)
I
RESIDENTIAL
[~
.. C.
Very Low :
~
;. :....: ....,.~1.
~_...
~
.Y.ILLAU~ :I r
~ /-
T~---
...~
".
. - .
~~~-------------\:~~~~,~
-" - ~ ">:;. !AN DIEGO ~ OOKP84Aff'----
~e .->- ..... 4 . ..'
e'';~----''''- oJ,(-' '....~H.!'
~ ~~. '~r" '.,_ I .
\''\ .
\
~;M : ,. ::~:=A:"A:::~ ~HIBIT 5
~ -
- ~:J
,-
, ....,
,....... ','
'!,
\
'z:j
C
.\...,~.-"'?
........-"
.-
VILLAG
UI\
74f
'';;''!..':'
/'
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
11.2 -IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENTIMANAGEMENT AUTHORIZATION
(NOT INCLUDED AT THIS TIME)
City of Chulo Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
11.3 - DRAFI' OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN DIAGRAM
...
.. -
...
f-.... ~ --
,
r /
. I ...."
----+
,- '-.
~,,, ~-~--
. .
. . .
: : .
-
fb!
I
I I I
I I
II dl
8BO~~
1111;
I I I I I
. I .
I : J · --
. I
I ...
I:
.
-
~
~
B
I:
..
U
e-
==
.-
E
.-
-
I!
~
.
~
~
-
.
I:
.
.-
..
CD
K
=-
-
-
.
>
>-
B
c
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
11.4 - VEGETATION COMMUNITIES WITmN THE PRESERVE BY MAJOR PROJECT
(NOT INCLUDED AT TIllS TIME)
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Draft
11.5 - CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN MAP - FIGURE 2
(:\subaRa.l) Revised August 1.1996
w I ~
z '" ~I ~IJ I! 'i
. ! ~l 6~ ~ i g
. ~q Yo
~
~
11,-11> .dfli
t III lIill>
_hi Ie
JIi 'II fifl'
f!illtlJ
iif,l*
II H.lf ~U . I
.
i r
~ I
=
III ,"
II ~ J~
~
i j s
I ~1
r .. fj
II! ~
. i.
s "'z
i i~
~i J 'C
~ e'"
Ii
all e
j
...
illllII I
...~ i.t!
~ nn !
.
t II c
"
Ii g
~ I I
i
2 ~ i t
3 .
~ e !i
tj I I i !
~ l
01 "
, Ii J
ij i ! E
e iI
,I ~
.I! .II ~ !
.~ .
... :z: u :Ii .
D'I'I-[j
.. - I
t :!d ::I
II!" 1
",II I I!
,n ! 1
ftI II" .. J
c ~
~
., I J ~ .
as E -
. - ~ .!
.- 0- &: e I 11 ~
> ..
as ~ <:~ ~D
ftI <.,>
G) ~
- ..
~ as ! .I t
~
.c .Q E .
"
:s ! ::I ~
CJ ~ g "
U) .Ii .. 11
.. s: i :z:
~ j "
....0. .! ~
.. 0' .
. o u I u ~ =-
'Ii .. I
~ ~
~U) .
C A" 'i'
. .. u :Ii ..
u~ m ~<~<<
~
/----
/
-