HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2003/04/23
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, April 23 , 2003, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA
CALL TO ORDER: Hall
Madrid O'Neill Cortes
Castaneda
Horn
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 2, 2003
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on
any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on
today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PRESENTATION: "Crossroads"
2 PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-02-13; Conditional Use Permit proposal to allow the
expansion and conversion of an existing accessory
building into a 906 square foot accessory second dwelling
unit attached to a two-car garage behind the existing
single-family dwelling located at 736 Church Avenue. The
project site is located in the Single-Family Residence (R-1)
zone. The accessory second unit is in compliance with
State Government Code Section 65852.2(b). The applicant
is Daniel Contreras.
Project Manager: Michael Walker, Associate Planner
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-017 and GPA 03-07; Consideration of the Final
Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) Subarea Plan, Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (EIR No.
03-01), Revised Mitigation and Implementing Agreement
Monitoring Program, Amendment to the Chula Vista
Planning Commission
- 2-
April 23, 2003
General Plan, Draft Implementing Agreement between the
City of Chula Vista and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and the California Department of Fish and Game,
Draft Implementing Ordinances;
PCM 02-11 and PCS 92-02A; Consideration of an
Amendment the Salt Creek Ranch General Development
Plan, Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map
(C.V.T. Map No 92-02A) and supporting regulatory
documents for the Rolling Hills Ranch project (previously
known as "Salt Creek"), and Addendum to Final EIR No.
91-03 for the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area
Plan.
Project Manager: Mary Ladiana, Planning & Environmental
Services Manager.
4. ACTION ITEM:
Consideration of Resolution PCM 03-36 recommending
that the City Council adopt the City of Chula Vista Water
Conservation Plan Guidelines.
Project Manager: Mary Venables, Associate Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: .2.
Meeting Date: 04/23/2003
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Pennit PCC-02-13, proposal to allow the
expansion and conversion of an existing accessory building into a 906 square
foot accessory second dwelling unit attached to a two-car garage behind the
existing single-family dwelling located at 736 Church Avenue. The project
site is located in the Single-Family Residence (R-1) zone. The accessory
second unit is in compliance with State Government Code Section
65852.2(b). The applicant is Daniel Contreras.
The property owner proposes to add 498 square feet to an existing 408 square foot pennitted
workshop that would be converted to a 906 square foot accessory second dwelling unit. The existing
workshop is attached to a 400 square foot garage. It is important to note that the garage and
workshop were previously illegally converted into a dwelling unit. The accessory unit would include
a living room, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical
exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a) new construction and location of
limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCC-
02-13 approving the request based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the accessory
second unit.
DISCUSSION:
Building Pennit and Code Enforcement History
In June 2001, Code Enforcement sent a notice violation regarding illegal garage conversion to Mr.
Contreras. After two more attempts to advise Mr. Contreras of the violation, Code Enforcement
issued him an Administrative Citation because he had not complied. In November of 2002, Mr.
Contreras converted the garage back to a garage (see Attachment 3).
The 906 square foot accessory second unit is proposed on a 6,039 square foot lot. The application
for the accessory second unit was submitted on September 18, 200 I, and was processed using the
State's criteria for such units because the City did not have an ordinance in place at the time. On
June 12, 2002, the Planning Commission denied the project without prejudice because the property
was in violation ofthe Zoning Ordinance as a result of the illegal garage conversion, and because the
/
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
proposed size ofthe accessory second unit appeared out of scale with neighborhood. Although the
Commission denied the project, they indicated that their decision might have been different if the
applicant corrected the violation and scaled back the size of the accessory unit (see Planning
Commission Minutes Attachment 4).
The applicant initially appealed the decision, but withheld the appeal because he decided to correct
the violation by converting the illegal unit back to a two-car garage. The property was cleared ofthe
violation in November 2002. However, the applicant has not altered the size of the proposed unit
and desires to have the 906 square foot unit. The City recently adopted an ordinance that regulates
the size of accessory second units to a maximum of 650 square feet.
Since an appeal was filed subsequent to the Planning Commission's final decision, the application
remains active. The project can still be considered under the State criteria because the project was
analyzed using the State's criteria. Based on the City's adopted ordinance and the Planning
Commission's original concern about the unit's size, staffis recommending that the applicant reduce
the proposed unit to 700 square feet or less.
Neighborhood Issues
In prior hearings, a neighborhood spokesperson stated their concerns, which is commonly associated
with accessory second units. In this case, the specific issues included parking and the project's size
of 1 ,31 0 square feet, which included the garage conversion and the proposed two-bedroom unit.
I. Site Characteristics
The property is 6,639 square-feet in size, and contains an existing 904 square-foot single-family
dwelling, a 404 square- foot detached garage and a 408 square foot workshop attached to the garage.
The uses adjacent to the property include single-family dwellings to the north, south and east and
commercial to the west. The proposed location of the second unit is behind the existing single-
family dwelling.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
General Plan
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Commercial, Retail
Zoning
R-l
R-l
R-l
R-1
COO
Current Land Use
Single- family residential
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Administrative Professional Office
3. Proposal
The project includes a 498 square foot addition to an existing 408 square foot workshop resulting
in a 906 square foot accessory second unit. The unit would include two bedrooms, a living room,
-l.
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
kitchen and a bathroom. The application for the accessory second unit meets state guidelines.
State law provides guidelines that enable cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances,
to process these applications. The guidelines currently allow cities to require a conditional use
permit in each case. State Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(1)(A)-(I) is explained below:
(b) (I) When a local agency has not adopted an ordinance by July I, 1983, or within 120 days after
receiving its first application, the local agency shall grant a special use or conditional use pennit for
the creation of an accessory second unit if the unit complies with all of the following:
(A) The unit is not intended for sale, but may be rented.
(B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multi-family use.
(C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling.
(D) The accessory second unit is either attached or detached and located on the same lot.
(E) The increased floor area ofthe attached unit does not exceed 30 percent ofthe existing living
area.
(F) The total area of the detached unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet (906 square feet).
(G) Requirements related to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review,
fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to the zone.
(H) Local building code requirements to detached dwellings, as appropriate.
(I) Approval by local health officer is required if a private sewage disposal system is utilized.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed accessory second unit has been analyzed using the state guidelines because the
application was processed prior to the City's recently adopted ordinance regulating accessory second
units. The analysis is as outlined below:
(A) No Parcel Map has been applied for to divide interest in the land, therefore the accessory
second unit cannot be sold.
(B) The accessory second unit would be in an R-I (Single-Family Residence) zone.
(C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling.
(D) The accessory second unit will be detached and on the same lot of an existing primary single-
family dwelling.
(E) The accessory second unit will be detached from the existing dwelling and is therefore not
subject to the 30 percent limitation.
(F) The accessory second unit would be 906 square feet (1,200 square feet is the maximum
allowed by State law).
(G) The proposed detached second accessory unit will comply with all of the required R-I
development standards, as outlined in the table below:
3
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
Height
Lot Coverage
Setbacks:
Front 15 feet 26 feet
Rear 20 feet 22 feet
Sides 5 feet each side 5 feet and 4 feet'
Parking 3 space 3 space
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 45 percent 33 percent
'Does not meet required setback. However, Section 19 .58.020(B)(1) states that a one-story accessory building
may disregard any rear or side yard setback requirements iflocated in the rear 30 percent of the lot, or back of
the front 70 feet of the lot.
..._. __ A!,!,OWED/REQUIRED
28 feet (2.5 stories)
40 percent
PROPOSED
----"--_.
13 feet
33 percent
(H) Fees, and other charges shall be paid in association with the required building pettnit, to be
applied for and reviewed in confottnance with local building codes upon approval of this
Conditional Use Pettnit;
(1) Sewer service will be provided by the City ofChula Vista (not a private system). There is no
requirement for local health official approval.
Confomlance to Setbacks
Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVM C) Section 19.58 .020(B)( I ) (U ses) allows single-story detached
accessory buildings to encroach into the required setbacks ".. .iflocated in the rear 30 percent of the
lot, or back of the front 70 feet ofthe lot." Conversely, Section19.24.100 (R-I zone) specifies ".. .no
dwelling unit maybe constructed closer than three feet to any side property line..." The site plan for
the existing garage/workshop indicates a five-foot setback from the side property line, and eight feet
from the rear lot line. Although the applicant initially proposed an addition to the existing garage
that maintained the eight-foot setback, staff required that the addition be relocated away from the
rear lot line to satisfy Section 19.24.120 that requires single-story structures not occupy more than 30
percent of the rear yard area.
The subject property is 6,639 square feet in size and is located in the R-l zone. The rear yard is
adjacent to a nonresidential zone on which an existing structure with a tall solid wall is at or near the
rear property line of the subject property. The proposed accessory unit will be located in the rear
yard behind the existing dwelling where it is subject to rear yard, side yard and on-site building
setbacks. Staff visited the site and identified residential uses on the neighboring properties to the
north and south. There are no residential uses near the proposed second unit. The structures nearest
to the property lines of the project site include a detached accessory structure to the north and a
commercial building to the west.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed 906 accessory second unit satisfies State Government guidelines for accessory second.
However, the City's adopted ordinance limits the size to 650 square feet. The Planning Commission
denied the application citing the garage conversion violation and the oversized unit. The applicant
had converted the garage back, but wants the large unit. Staff recommends that the applicant reduce
'f
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
the size of the proposed unit to no more than 700 square feet. Staff believes that this proposal is
reasonable given the reduction of the proposed unit and the fact that off-street parking will be
provided. The project would provide needed affordable housing and not impact the neighborhood.
Staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the findings and conditions of
approval in the attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-l3.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Resolution PCC-02-l3
3. Evidence of Cleared Violation
4. 6/J 2/02 Planning Commission Minutes
J:\Planning\Mlchael\PCC Reports\PCC-02-20
----
J
.~
I ATTACHMENT 1
---
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT DANIEL CONTRERAS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 736 CHURCH AVENUE
ADDRESS: Request: Proposed 477 square feet addition of two
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: bedrooms to the existing 811 square feet two car
NORTH No Scale PCC-02-13 garage which was used as a workshop in the past.
h :\home\planningllocators\PCC0213.cdr 9/28/01 (0
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. PCC 02-13
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PCC-02-B, FOR AN ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT LOCATED
BEHIND AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 736
CHURCH AVENUE, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
GOVERNMENT CODE REGULATIONS 65852.2 (B)(l)(A}--(I).
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City ofChula Vista Planning Department on September 18,2001, by Daniel Contreras; and
WHEREAS, said applicant requests a conditional use permit for an accessory second
dwelling unit for an existing structure located at 736 Church A venue. The second unit will be
remodeled and expanded to include: two bedrooms, one bathroom, a dining room and living
room, for a total of906 square feet ofliving space in compliance with the provision found in the
State Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical
exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a), new construction and location
of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
conditional use permit and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners
and residents within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to
the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 23,
2003, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission
voted to approve the conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the
findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits,
as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated
finding to be made.
I. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The requested use will take place within an eXlstmg single-family residential
neighborhood. The state legislation declares that accessory second units are a valuable
7
form of housing in California, providing housing for family members, students, the
elderly, in-home health providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within
existing neighborhoods. Accessory second units help to ameliorate a community and
region-wide problem of providing an adequate supply of affordable housing and does not
adversely impact the neighborhoods in which they are located.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed accessory second unit will not have a detrimental impact upon the
surrounding residential neighborhood. The accessory unit will be architecturally
integrated in tettllS of design, building materials and colors used with the existing
dwelling. The accessory second unit will be located in the rear yard behind the existing
dwelling where it will be screened from public view. In addition, the unit will be
constructed in confottllance with the Unifottll Building Code.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The conditional approval of PCC-02-l3 requires compliance with all conditions, codes
and regulations, as applicable, prior to the final issuance of any permit for or occupancy
of any new building on the property.
The Planning Commission finds that the request meets the requirements of the California
Government Code relating to detached accessory second units as follows:
(A) The accessory second unit is not intended for sale, but may be rented.
(B) The lot is zoned for single-family use.
(C) The accessory second unit will be constructed in conjunction with a primary
single-family residence on the lot.
(D) The accessory second unit is detached and will be located on the same lot as a
single-family residence.
(E) The total area of the accessory second unit does not exceed I ,200-sq. ft.
(F) The accessory second unit meets local requirements related to height, setback, lot
coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning
requirements generally applicable to the zone.
(G) The accessory second unit project meets local building code requirements for
detached dwellings, as appropriate.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
This conditional use permit is in compliance with the General Plan, because Section
65852.2(b)(5) of the California Government Code provides that accessory second units
are exempt from the existing or future General Plan and zoning density regulations.
f
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista grants Conditional Use
Pennit PCC-02-13 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the applicant
and/or property owner(s):
Planning & Building Department
I. The project plans including the site plan, floor plan and exterior elevations shall be
revised to show a maximum 700 square foot accessory second unit, which shall be
developed and maintained in accordance with the plans. Said plans shall be reviewed by
the Planning Department prior to submitting for building pennits.
2. The Applicant shall obtain a building pennit in compliance with the 2001 Califomia
Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Codes, and the 2001 Energy
requirements.
3. Building plans (construction documents) that include proposed colors and materials shall
be submitted in conformance with the conceptual plans and elevations to ensure that the
accessory second unit will be architecturally compatible with and/or match the primary
single-family dwelling. Said plans shall be kept on file in the Planning Division, in
compliance with the conditions contained herein and Title 19 of the CVMC, subject to
the approval of the Planning and Building Director.
Engineering Department
4. The Applicant shall pay the following fees as required based on the final building plans
submitted: sewer capacity fee based on all new construction or additional plumbing
fixtures; and traffic signal fees based on the difference between the existing and proposed
use.
Public Works Department
5. The Applicant shall be responsible for removing and replacing the raised portion of the
sidewalk (area marked in white).
Sweetwater Authority
6. Prior to the issuance of a building pennit, the Applicant/owner shall obtain a letter stating
fire flow requirements from the Chula Vista Fire Department and submit the letter to the
Sweetwater Authority.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
7. Prior to the issuance of building pennits, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate school
fees.
9
Standard Conditions
8. The conditions of approval for this pennit shall be applied to the subject property until
such time that the conditional use pennit is modified or revoked, and the existence of this
use pennit with approved conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property. Prior
to the issuance of the building pennits for the proposed unit, the applicant/property owner
shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document.
9. The accessory second unit shall be connected to the existing sewer lateral, or the other
existing utilities such as water, electricity, gas, cable, etc. for the main dwelling using the
same address.
10. This conditional use permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approval of this pennit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance
written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Pennittee the right to be
heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition,
may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Pennittee of a substantial revenue
source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be
expected to economically recover.
II. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one
year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this
permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
12. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
modified conditional use permit.
13. The Applicant/owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
hannless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from
and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including
court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising,
directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use
Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other pennit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility pennitted hereby, including,
without limitation, ant and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional
Use Permit where indicated below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this
provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall
be binding on any and all of applicant' s/operator' s successors and assigns.
14. Execute this document by making a true copy of this letter of conditional approval and
signing both this original letter and the copy on the lines provided below, said execution
indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to
10
the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy
with original signatures shall be returned to the Planning Department. Failure to retum
the signed true copy of this document shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire
that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business
license, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner of
736 Church Avenue
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
15. It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every tenn, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are
detennined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
this resolution and the pennit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no
further force and effect ab initio.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby approve Conditional Use Pennit PCC-02-13 in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions contained in this resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 23rd day of April, 2003, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Russell Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
/f
ATTACHMENT 3
(J-
ATTACHMENT 4
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Cortes,
Thomas, Willett
McCann
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Caroline Lewis, Planning Technician III
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney II
Absent:
Staff Present:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair O'Neill
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MSC (Willett/Cortes) (6-0-1-0) to approve minutes of May 8, 2002 as submitted. Motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZA V 02-06; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision of
- January 23, 2002 to deny a request to exceed the maximum
floor area ration and to encroach into the required rear and
side yard setbacks of the R2T Zone. Applicant Conrado
Cabalbag.
Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to July 10,2002.
MSC (Cortes/Thomas) to continue public hearing to July 10, 2002. Motion carried.
* 2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 02-13; Conditional Use Permit to permit an existing
second dwelling unit at an accessory second dwelling unit
behind the primary single-family residence at 736 Church
Avenue. Applicant Daniel Contreras.
Background: John Schmitz, Principal Planner reported that this item was continued from the May
8'" Planning Commission meeting to allow staff the opportunity to relay to Mr. Contreras, who
was not present at that meeting, the Commission's concerns and position, which was that they
are not interested in approving or further considering the request until the garage was rpturned to
its original condition as a parking area.
/3
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
June 12, 2002
Staff met with Mr. Contreras twice since that meeting and he expressed a desire to explain his
proposal to convert the garage/workshop area into the accessory unit in phases.
Public Hearing Opened 6:13.
Daniel Contreras, 334 Bay leaf Drive, Chula Vista, stated he understood the Commission's
concerns and directive to first convert the garage to its original use, however, he indicated that he
would like to obtain one building permit to do all of the work together phasing the work in three
stages, with the garage conversion in the second phase.
Pandra Boyle, 739 Church Avenue, Chula Vista, spokesperson for the area neighborhood
stated they collectively oppose the proposal based on their disagreement with staff's
interpretation of the State law with respect to size. She further stated that although Mr.
Contreras has stated that he wants to rectify a pre-existing violation, she indicated that
the violations were created by him after he bought the property. She, once again, urged
the Commission to deny this proposal.
The Commission requested that Mr. Contreras address the Commission once again in
order to respond to Mrs. Boyles' statement that he did the illegal conversion. Mr.
Contreras denied the allegations and stated that the violations were in existence when he
bought the property.
Public Hearing Closed 6:33
Commission Discussion:
Chair O'Neill emphasized the need to expedite the enactment of a City Ordinance on
Accessory Units, and stated that in the absence of one, although State law allows up to a
1,200 sf accessory unit, in his opinion, this proposal is too large, and, in fact, the
secondary unit as proposed is larger than the primary unit.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he concurs with Chair O'Neill's assessment of the
project, and in his opinion the size of the project is incompatible with the characteristic
of the surrounding neighborhood, therefore, he cannot make the necessary findings for
approval.
Commissioner Thomas stated that he cannot make the necessary findings for approval
because he believes the project as proposed is too large and therefore incompatible with
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Cortes stated that it is regrettable that there appears to be irreconcilable
disputes with the neighbors and reminded the Commission that Mr. Contreras has been
attempting, for some time now, to bring resolve to the pre-existing non-conformance
Ie!
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
June 12, 2002
issues in order to be able to move forward with his proposal. He further stated that he
believes the proposal merits further consideration and approval.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he is willing to give the applicant the benefit of the
doubt as it relates to the conversion being in existence when he bought the property.
The reality is that the property is what it is today and the project as proposed is too large
for the surrounding neighborhood. He further stated that it behooves the applicant to
address the size issue and consider scaling back the project because he would not like
to mislead the applicant into thinking that if the garage conversion issue is taken care of,
his proposal, as currently designed, would be approved.
MSC (Castaneda/Thomas) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission direct staff to come
back with a resolution of denial of the project based on the Commission's inability to
make the necessary findings for approval because the property has not been brought
into conformance and the unit, as proposed, is characteristically incompatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, and would have a detrimental affect on the General Plan
and the quality of life within the Single Family neighborhood. Motion carried with
Commissioner Cortes abstaining.
i
/~
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
ITEM TITLE:
Consideration of Resolution PCM-03-36 recommending that the City
Council adopt the City ofChula Vista Water Conservation Plan Guidelines
In May 2002, the City concluded a water conservation pilot study involving three major projects.
Staff was directed to draft guidelines for future Water Conservation Plans using the infonnation
contained in the pilot study and report.
Draft guidelines for preparation of Water Conservation Plans that are required by the Growth
Management Ordinance have been completed and are presented herein. (Attachment I)
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed action for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has detennined that there is no possibility
that the action may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section
l506l(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the action is not subject to CEQA, thus no
environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission:
. Adopt Resolution PCM-03-36 recommending that the City Council adopt the City ofChula
Vista Water Conservation Plan Guidelines.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On April 7, 2003, staff made a presentation on the Water Conservation Plan Guidelines to the
Resource Conservation Commission (RCC). No action was taken.
BACKGROUND:
Water conservation is of particular concern in southem California as local and regional water
purveyors strive to meet future water demands. The City's Growth Management Ordinance,
Municipal Code Section I9.09.050C, requires a Water Conservation Plan (WCP) to be submitted
with all Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans. If a SPA Plan is not required, a Water
Conservation Plan is required to be submitted with Tentative Subdivision Maps. The Growth
Management Program further requires that a Water Conservation Plan be submitted for all major
development projects, defined as residential projects consisting of 50 dwelling units or greater, or
/
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 4/23/03
commercial and industrial projects with 50 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) of water demand
or greater.
In accordance with the Growth Management Program, the Water Conservation Plan must
provide an analysis of water usage requirements of the proposed project. This includes a detailed
plan of proposed measures for water conservation, use of recycled water, and other means of
reducing per capita water consumption from the proposed project, as well as defining a program
to monitor compliance.
Water Conservation Plans have been prepared based on current federal and state and local
mandates that require the use of certain water conservation plwnbing devices in all new
buildings. Possible opportunities for additional water conservation efforts in new developments
resulted in a pilot study conducted by the City. The goal of the pilot study was to assess
potential water conservation measures and develop guidelines for future Water Conservation
Plans. Three SPA Plan projects, EastLake III, Otay Ranch Village Six, and Otay Ranch Village
Eleven participated in the pilot study and prepared their WCP's based on the pilot study results.
The City retained a consultant to analyze water saving devices and prepare a report evaluating
the relative effectiveness, costs and issues associated with the implementation of additional water
conservation measures beyond those currently mandated. Although Water Conservation Plans
have been prepared for previous projects, these are the first guidelines to be developed for the
preparation of a WCP.
Through the pilot study, the most cost effective water conservation devices and strategies were
identified in two categories, indoor measures and outdoor measures. The indoor measures include
building construction items and water efficient appliances. The outdoor measures include water-
wise landscape techniques and efficient irrigation systems.
During the pilot study process, staff met with other City departments, local water purveyors, and
the development community to receive input and include their suggestions where possible. Staff
identified a common desire that the guidelines be cost effective, easy to understand and administer,
flexible, include devices that qualifY for financial incentives and avoid unreasonable burdens to the
developer.
Early in the study process, the water conservation pilot study and report were discussed during a
joint workshop between the Planning Commission and Resource Conservation Commission.
Following the completion of the pilot study the Planning Commission and City Council held
public hearings and action was taken to accept the Water Conservation Plan pilot study report
and approve the amendments to the SPA Plans of the three projects that participated in the pilot
study.
The proposed Water Conservation Plan guidelines require that all residential projects subject to
d-
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 4/23/03
the WCP requirements provide hot-water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves and water
efficient dishwashers in all dwelling units. In addition, each dwelling unit must contain at least
one outdoor water conservation measure and one additional measure from either the indoor or
outdoor categories as listed in the Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. The Developer IS
permitted to make water conservation choices that best enhance their particular project.
Non-residential projects subject to the WCP requirements are required to provide hot-water pipe
insulation in all common areas and tenant-developed buildings. Pressure reducing valves at all
meters are also required. In addition all non-residential projects must contain at least one
outdoor water conservation measure and one additional measure from either the indoor or
outdoor categories as listed in the Water Conservation Plan Guidelines.
The Water Conservation Guidelines include a provision for the use of devices or techniques that
weren't included in the pilot study as well as any new technology. Data confirming the water
savings achieved by implementing alternate water conservation measures must be provided and
are subject to City review and approval.
CONCLUSION
Staff has concluded that the draft Water Conservation Plan Guidelines are consistent with the
objectives and outcomes of the pilot study program, requirements of the Growth Management
Ordinance, and goals and policies of the ChuJa Vista General Plan.
Staff recommends approval of a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the City of
Chula Vista Water Conservation Plan Guidelines.
Attachments
Water Conservation Plan Guidelines
3
ft
ffII.a.c.A Wtb1.+ I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
GUIDELINES
Part One - General City Reauirements
The City of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance, Municipal Code Section
19.09.050C, requires a Water Conservation Plan (WCP) to be submitted with all
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans. If a SPA Plan is not required, a WCP is required
to be submitted with Tentative Subdivision Maps. The Growth Management Program
further requires that a Water Conservation Plan be submitted for major development
projects, defined as residential projects consisting of 50 dwelling units or greater, or
commercial and industrial projects with 50 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) of water
demand or greater. (See Part Six for an explanation ofEDU's.)
The WCP shall provide an analysis of water usage requirements of the proposed project,
as well as a detailed plan of proposed measures for water conservation, use of reclaimed
water, and other means of reducing per capita water consumption from the proposed
project, as well as defining a program to monitor compliance.
Part Two - Water Conservation Plan Outline
Water Conservation Plans shall be consistent with the fonnat and content identified in the
Water Conservation Plan Outline, Attachment A.
Part Three - Residential Water Conservation Measures
All residential projects subject to the WCP requirements shall provide the following
conservation measures in all dwelling units as more particularly described in Attachment
B:
a. Hot - Water Pipe Insulation.
b. Pressure Reducing Valves.
c. Water Efficient Dishwashers.
d. At least one outdoor water conservation measure from the Residential Water
Conservation Measures list.
i
1
W CPo Guidelines
4/4/03
e. At least one additional water conservation measure from either the indoor or
outdoor categories identified on the Residential Water Conservation Measures
list.
f. Water conservation measures not found on the Residential Water Conservation
Measures list may be proposed consistent with the provisions of Part Five below.
Part Four - Non-Residential Water Conservation Measures
All non-residential projects subject to the WCP requirements shall provide the following
conservation measures as more particularly described in Attachment C:
a. Hot-Water Pipe Insulation.
b. Pressure Reducing Valves.
c. At least one outdoor water conservation measure from the Non-Residential Water
Conservation Measures list.
d. At least one additional water conservation measure from either the indoor or
outdoor categories identified on the Non-Residential Water Conservation
Measures list.
e. Water conservation measures not found on the Non-Residential Water
Conservation Measures list may be proposed consistent with the provisions of
Part Five below.
Part Five - Future Water Conservation Technolo!!v and/or Measures
The Developer may submit a Water Conservation Plan containing alternate water
conservation measures not found on the Residential and Non-Residential Water
Conservation Measures list. The altemate water conservation measures must be
accompanied by data confinning, to the satisfaction of the City, the water savings
achieved by implementing the measures.
The Director of Planning and Building or hislher designee will evaluate in his/her
discretion the altemate water conservation measures for consistency with the objectives
of the Water Conservation Guidelines. Alternate water conservation measures may be
approved through the review and approval process for the Water Conservation Plan.
Part Six - Usin!! EQuivalent Dwellin!! Units (EDU's) to determine Water
Conservation Plan ReQuirements for Non-Residential and Mixed Use
Proiects.
The following water demand equivalencies apply to non-residential or mixed use
projects:
S
2
W c.P. Guidelines
4/4/03
a. Commercial projects of 12 or more acres.
b. Industrial projects of 24 or more acres.
c. Mixed Use projects with a cumulative estimated water demand of 21 ,200 gallons
per day.
The average daily water consumption per household as estimated by the American Water
Works Association Research Foundation is 424 gallons per day (gpd). Major
development projects are defined as projects that use the equivalent water demand for 50
residences, or 21,200 gallons per day.
Using an estimated water demand factor of 1785 gallons per day per acre for commercial
land, and an estimated water demand factor of 893 gallons per day per acre for industrial
land, a commercial site of 12 acres and greater and an industrial site of 24 acres and
greater would be required to prepare WCP's.
For projects with more than one use, the threshold for requiring a Water Conservation
Plan would be a cumulative estimated project water demand of 21,200 gallons per day,
based on these factors as approved by the City.
Infill or redevelopment projects that provide information, to the satisfaction of the City,
indicating the net water demand increase resulting from the proposed land use does not
exceed 2] ,200 gallons per day will not be required to prepare a Water Conservation Plan.
(p
3
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Water Conservation Plan Outline
Attachment A
The following outline sets forth the format and content of the Water Conservation Plan
(WCP). The Water Conservation Plan shall provide an analysis of water usage
requirements of the proposed project, a detailed plan of proposed measures for water
conservation, use of recycled water, and other means of reducing per capita water
consumption from the proposed project, as well as defining a program to monitor
compliance. All SPA Plans must incorporate the following numbering system consistent
with the master planned communities SPA plan outline. For projects that do not require a
SPA Plan a comparable numbering sequence is to be used. (e.g. II.S.l, II.S.2 replaced
with 1., 2.)
SECTION 11.8
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
Table of Contents
Abbreviations, Terms and Water Equivalencies
11.8.1 Executive Summary
Provide a brief summary of the Water Conservation Plan. Particular emphasis is
to be given to the water conservation measures identified for implementation in
the project.
11.8.2 Introduction
Identify the project and list goals of the project's Water Conservation Plan.
11.8.3 Purpose
Describe the purpose of providing a Water Conservation Plan. Identify the
authority and scope of the City of Chula Vista, State, and Federal regulations,
7
W CPo Outline
1
4/4/03
where applicable. A brief explanation of how the project has addressed
regulations is to be included.
11.8.4 Project Description
Project description including land use infonnation, acreage, number of housing
units, unit types and mixed-use areas. Include the Site Utilization Plan illustration
tram the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan document.
11.8.4 Water Service and Supply
Identify the local water agency that will supply potable and recycled water to the
project site.
11.8.5 Projected Water Use
Potable Water Demand
Summarize the potable water demand in a table based on land use type and
projected residential density. Base the unit demand on data provided by the water
purveyor.
Recycled Water Demand
Summarize recycled water demand in a table and identify recycled water use
areas in the project using an illustration. Use the unit demand factor consistent
with the water purveyor. Include land use, acreage, percent to be irrigated,
irrigated acreage and gallons per day for all land use types within the project.
11.8.6 State and Federal Water Conservation Requirements
List the Federal and State mandated minimum water conservation standards.
11.8.7 Local Water Conservation Requirements
Description of local water conservation standards including requirements of the
water purveyor and the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual.
Description of indoor water conservation measures as required by the Water
Conservation Plan Guidelines and additional indoor and outdoor water
conservation measures to be used in the project. (See Attachments B & C)
Any additional water conservation measures to be offered by merchant builders as
an option for homebuyers are to be included in this section.
~
2
W CPo Outline
4/4/03
II.8.8 Water Conservation Estimated Savings
Total estimated potable water savings (gallons per day) for the project due to
implementation ofthe additional conservation measures.
11.8.9 Implementation Measures
List the water conservation measures to be implemented in the project and
summarize the water conservation program including any efforts involving
merchant builders, local water purveyors the City and any other public or private
agencies.
11.8.10 Monitoring
Summarize the implementation timing for each water conservation measure
including the responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of
the measure if applicable.
References
Appendix
q
3
r ft
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Residential Water
Conservation Measures
Attachment B
All residential units subject to the Water Conservation Plan requirements
shall contain the following three indoor water conservation measures:
Savings & Costs data are estimates based on the Water Use Efficiency, Strategies for
Proposed Residential Developments, April 2002 report and are provided for information
only.
1. Hot Water Pipe Insulation
Insulation of hot-water pipes, and separation of hot and cold water piping to avoid
heat exchange.
Savings & Costs
Water savings - 2,400 gallons per residential unit per year. Estimated cost of
insulating hot water pipes during construction - $50.00.
2. Pressure Reducing Valves
Pressure reducing valves maintain the pressure below 60 psi reducing the volwne of
any leakage present and preventing excessive flow of water from all appliances and
fixtures.
Savings & Costs
Water savings - 1,800 gallons per unit per year. Estimated cost of pressure reducing
valves - $100.00.
ID
1
Residential measures
3/18/03
3. Water-Efficient Dishwashers
Dishwashers with water saving features such as water level sensors instead of timed
fillers. The website <www.energystar.gov/products/dishwashers/> may be consulted
for a current list of Energy Star label dishwashers.
Savings & Costs
Water savings - 650 gallons per unit per year. Estimated cost of water efficient
dishwashers $300.00 to $700.00.
All residential units subject to the Water Conservation Plan requirements
shall contain at least one outdoor water conservation measure and at least
one additional water conservation measure from either the indoor or
outdoor categories.
Outdoor Water Conservation Measures
1. Evapotranspiration (ET) Controllers
Timed, fixed irrigation scheduling based on estimates of actual plant
evapotranspiration rates. Radio signal from a central control station or satellite
transmits infonnation to the controllers to operate the sprinklers for the appropriate
length of time.
Savings & Costs
Water savings - 20,000 gallons per single-family unit per year. The cost is estimated
to be $175.00 per installed controller and may require a signal and maintenance fee,
estimated to be $48.00 per year.
2. Water-Efficient Landscaping
Use of drought tolerant plant materials, irrigation systems, and controllers as required
by the Chula Vista Landscape Manual. In addition, the use of drip irrigation where
possible and restriction of sprinkler irrigation as recommended by the water
purveyors.
Savings & Costs
Water savings - Up to 50% of outdoor water use. For a 2,100 sq. ft. landscaped area
a water savings of 12,000 gallons per year is estimated. The cost of water efficient
landscaping is no different than conventional landscaping, possibly lower.
( (
2
Residential meaSllres
3/18/03
3. Xeriscape
Xeriscaping is a combination of seven principles, planning and design, practical turf
areas, efficient irrigation, soil ana1ysis and improvement, mulching, low water use
plants and appropriate maintenance.
Savings & Costs
Water savings - 30% reduction in irrigation demand or about 16,000 gallons per year
on a typical single-family lot. The cost of xeriscape does not exceed conventional
landscape.
4. Soil Moisture Sensors
Soil moisture sensors placed at two or more depths and at several locations in the
landscape to help detennine when the soil is dry enough to require irrigation.
Savings & Costs
Alone, soil moisture sensors do not achieve water savings. However, in combination
with other systems they are important tools for water savings. The cost of each
sensor is approximately $235.00 and it is estimated that one or two soil moisture
sensors are sufficient for a typical single-family lot (sunny and shady areas of
landscape ).
Indoor Water Conservation Measures
1. Dual Flush Toilets
Provides option to flush with partial (0.8 gallon) flow of water or with a full (1.6
gallon) flow depending on need.
Savings & Costs
It is estimated that a dual-flush toilet can save 4,000 gallons per year. Estimated cost
of dual flush toilet - $200.00.
2. High-efficiency Washing Machines
Front loading and top loading Energy Star qualified clothes washers that use 35% to
50% less water than conventional washing machines. A current list of Energy Star
high efficiency clothes washers can be found at
<www.energystar.gov/products/c10theswashers/>.
Savings & Costs
Water savings - 7,000 gallons per year. Estimated cost of high-efficiency washing
machine $800.00.
Id-.
3
Residential measures
3//8/03
3. Point-of-Use, or Tank-less Water Heater
Installation of small water heaters close to the point of use, such as in bathrooms,
kitchen and laundry area.
Savings & Costs
Water savings - 5,300 gallons per residential unit, per year. Estimated cost of point-
of-use water heaters - $700.00. (The cost is approximately the same whether one
large household unit is installed or three smaller ones at each point of use.)
Optional Water Conservation Measures
· Education Program including educational materials and guidance to new
homeowners.
· Submeter all individual tenants in multi-family projects.
. Install waterless urinals in intensively used settings such as recreation areas
and school sites.
/3
4
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Non-Residential
Water Conservation Measures
Attachment C
All Non-Residential uses subject to the Water Conservation Plan
requirements shall contain the following two indoor water conservation
measures:
1. Hot Water Pipe Insulation
Install insulation on all hot water pipes in all common areas and all tenant-
developed areas.
2. Pressure Reducing Valves
Provide pressure reducing valves at all meters, set to deliver water at no higher
than 60 psi.
All Non-Residential uses subject to the Water Conservation Plan
requirements shall contain at least one outdoor water conservation
measure and at least one additional water conservation measure from
either the indoor or olltdoor categories.
Outdoor Water Conservation Measures
1. Water Efficient Irrigation System
Use of rain sensors, and soil moisture measuring devices for scheduling and
controlling all landscape irrigation programs in commercial, industrial and
business centers including tenant areas.
1'/
1
Non-residential measures
4/4/03
1. Evapotranspiration (ET) Controllers
Timed, fixed irrigation scheduling based on estimates of actual plant
evapotranspiration rates. Radio signal from a central control station or satellite
transmits information to the controllers to operate the sprinklers for the
appropriate length of time.
2. Water-Efficient Landscaping
Use of native vegetation and drought tolerant plant materials, avoiding grass and
turfto the extent practical and use of irrigation systems and controllers as required
by the Chula Vista Landscape Manual Use. In addition, the use of drip irrigation
where possible and restriction of sprinkler irrigation as recommended by the
water purveyors.
3. Recycled Water
Expand use of recycled water beyond areas mandated by the water purveyor to
those areas where landscaping is within a reasonable reach of recycled water
pipelines, to the extent that such use is acceptable to regulatory authorities.
4. Outdoor Garden Sales
All tenants with outdoor garden sales areas to install micro-irrigation systems
(trickle or drip irrigation) and provide water conservation educational materials
for customers.
Indoor Water Conservation Measures
1. Dual-Flush Toilets
Install dual-flush (ULFT) toilets III public restrooms including gas station
restrooms.
2. Waterless Urinals
Install waterless urinals in public restrooms (men's rooms) including gas station
restrooms.
3. Pre-Rinse Sprayer on Sinks
Install automatic shut-off sprayer for pre-rinsing dishes with a maximum flow rate
of 1.6 gpm in all restaurant and fast-food units.
I~
2
Non-residential measures
4/4/03
4. High-Efficiency Dishwashers
Install high-efficiency dishwashers in restaurant buildings.
S. Air-Cooled Ice Machines
Install air-cooled ice machines instead of water-cooled machines in restaurants.
6. Conductivity Meters
Install conductivity meters on cooling towers to regulate cycling of cooling water
and chemicals.
Optional Water Conservation Measures
. Submeter all individual tenants in buildings.
. Provide educational materials and guidance to tenants.
lip
3
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: .$
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing PCM 95-01 7 and GPA 03-07; Consideration of the Final
Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan,
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Environmental
Assessment (EIR No. 03-01), Revised Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program, Amendment to the Chula Vista General
Plan, Draft Implementing Agreement between the City ofChula Vista and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game, Draft Implementing Ordinances;
Public Hearinl: PCM 02-11 and PCS 92-02A; Consideration of an
Amendment the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, Sectional
Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map (C.V.T. Map No 92-02A) and
supporting regulatory documents for the Ro1ling HiUs Ranch project
(previously known as "Salt Creek"), and Addendum to Final ElR No. 91-03
for the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan.
The Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") is a comprehensive, long-tenn habitat
conservation plan which addresses the needs of a number of sensitive plant and animal species and
the preservation of sensitive natural vegetation communities in southwestern San Diego County. The
MSCP Subregional Plan provides the overall framework for the MSCP and is implemented locally
through the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan ("Final MSCP Subarea Plan"). The Final
MSCP Subarea Plan has been prepared to implement the MSCP Subregional Plan within the City of
Chula Vista. The MSCP Subarea Plan will fonn the basis for a Federal I O(a)(I)(B) pennit and a
State 2835 pennitlNCCP Authorization for the incidental "take" of the 86 species covered by the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
The Final MSCP Subarea Plan encompasses approximately 33,045 acres located within the
incorporated limits of the City. The MSCP Subarea Plan proposes to create a eity-wide open space
system of approximately 4,993 acres within the City limits with an additional 4,250 acres conserved
outside the City ofChula Vista's Subarea as a result of development within the City's Subarea. Total
conservation estimates wi1l be approximately 9,243 acres within the Subregional MSCP.
In addition to the Final MSCP Subarea Plan, an Implementing A[,'Teement, dated February 2003, is
provided that incorporates the requirements of the Final MSCP Subarea Plan. The Implementing
Agreement is the contract between the City and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game ("Wildlife Agencies") and, along with the MSCP Subarea Plan,
fonns the basis for the granting of an incidental take pennit (Section I O(a)( I )(B) Pennit) by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and take authorization (Section 2835 Pennit) by the Califomia Department
ofFish and Game. The purpose ofthe Implementing Agreement is to ensure implementation ofthe
J'~/
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
MSCP Subarea Plan and bind each of the parties to perform its designated obligations. These two
policy documents will set the framework for how the MSCP Subarea Plan will be implemented
within the City of Chula Vista.
Also provided are several implementing actions that will need to be considered concurrently with the
adoption and approval ofthe MSCP Subarea Plan and Implementing Agreement. An amendment to
the City of Chula Vista General Plan is proposed to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan as a new
element of the General Plan (Part 2, Chapter 7 A). In addition, Draft Implementing Ordinances have
been prepared to ensure implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan. The ordinances include the
Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HUT) Ordinance, the Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance, and
revisions to the Excavation, Grading and Fills Ordinance. Amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP), Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Map (C.V.T.
Map No 92-02A) for the Rolling Hills Ranch project (previously known as "Salt Creek") are also
proposed in order to implement the MSCP Subarea Plan. A revised Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program, dated February 2003 has also been prepared which summarizes the
relevant requirements ofthe MSCP Subregional Plan, City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and
Implementing Agreement and identifies the entity responsible for carrying out eaeh requirement.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the
approval of the MSCP Subarea Plan and corresponding Implementing Agreement and implementing
ordinances have been evaluated under Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR) and EA No. 03-01. The Final
SEIR and EA No. 03-01 is being presented to the Planning Commission for recommendation for
certification by the City'Council. The Final SEIR and EA incorporate by reference the previously
certified Final EIRJElS prepared for the MSCP Subregional Plan (January 1997) and the Addendum
to the Final EIRIEIS (October 2000). The Final EIRIEIS, the Addendum to the Final EIRIEIS and the
Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program were previously reviewed and
considered by the City Council at the October 2000 hearing on the earlier draft MSCP Subarea Plan.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has also determined that any impacts associated with
the approval ofthe amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch GDP, SPA Plan and Tentative Map (C.V.T
92-02A) have been evaluated under Addendum to the Final Supplemental EIR No. 91-03 for the Salt
Creek Ranch SPA Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
. Resolution Nn PC]\<( 9S 1\1 7 ~nd GPA OJ-07 nftb~ PlaPRing C"mm;<<;nn nftheCityofChula
Vista recommendin that the City Council take the following actions:
A. Certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Environmental
Assessment No. 03-01 prepared for the City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
-3-:2,
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
J3 Amending the Salt ~r~~k R"ncn G~nf'r~l De.vlvI'11l~[Jl fl~.l, 9f'~tional Planning Area
Plan and associated im lementin re' . a C.V.T. Map No 92-
or t e Rolling Hills Ranch project (previously known as "Salt Creek") to implement the
MSCP Subarea Plan.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDA nON:
The Resource Conservation Commission held a meeting on Monday, December 2, 2002 to discuss
and make a recommendation on the draft MSCP Subarea Plan. The RCC recommended certification
of the SEIR and EA and adoption ofthe MSCP Subarea Plan.
DISCUSSION:
This report provides the Planning Commission with an overview of the Final MSCP Subarea Plan
(February 2003) and focuses on the policy issues resolved and major changes to the MSCP Subarea
Plan since the Planning Commission and City Council's conditional approval of the City's MSCP
Subarea Plan on October 17, 2000. Subsequent to that hearing, the City decided to pursue
"coverage" for an additional federally listed species, the Quino checkerspot butterfly, due to the
potential impact that the proposed critical habitat designation could have on future public and private
project developments within the City ofChula Vista. This species was not previously covered under
the MSCP Subregional Plan or the City's previous draft MSCP Subarea Plan. The addition of the
Quino checkerspot butterfly to the list of proposed covered species required the preparation and
evaluation of additional technical biological information and extensive discussions with the Wildlife
Agencies. Staff also worked with the Wildlife Agencies towards resolving a number of outstanding
issues raised by the Wildlife Agencies after the joint Planning Commission and City Council hearing
in October 2000.
Upon completion of the revisions to the MSCP Subarea Plan and preparation of the associated
Supplemental EIR and EA to address the MSCP Subarea Plan changes, the documents were noticed
in the Federal Register and circulated for a 60-daypublic comment period. Upon completion ofthe
public review period, staff prepared responses to approximately 135 comments and prepared the
Final MSCP Subarea Plan and Final SEIR and EA. Following public hearing's by the Planning
Commission and City Council, the Wildlife Agencies will be prepared to complete the permit
process and issue Take Autnorizations to the City within 30-60 days.
A. Background
The MSCP is a comprehensive. long-term habitat conservation plan developed to address the needs
of multiple species and the preservation of natural vegetation communities in south San Diego
County. The MSCP Subregional Plan was adopted by the City of San Diego and County of San
Diego in 1997 and conditionally approved by the CityofChula Vista in October 2000. The MSCP
Subregional Plan addresses the potential impacts of urban growth, natural habitat loss and species
endangerment, and creates a plan to mitigate for the potential loss of "Covered Species" and their
..-;7 /J
Id - 7
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
B. MSCP Policy Actions
1) Adopt the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan nol"c! H~l;mlalj' ?()(n
conditioned on the following: a) the future execution by all parties of an
Implementmg Agreement suhstanlia lly in In" form gft/:i@ IrnplsHl@Rtj"g Agreement,
dated February 20m; h) the issuance of a Biological Opinion,~0 United States
and Wildlife Service, consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the
Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003: and c) the issllance of Take
Authorizations with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP
-~Subarea Plan and lh~ Lll[Jbll~lIlillg Agreement,-aated February 2003;
Find that the Implementing Agreement, dated February ?om io rnnoiol"nl with
the Chula Vista an.
C. MSCP Implementation Actions
1 Amend the Chula Vista General Plan to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan as a
new element of the enera an a ter 7 A);
2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the Implementing Agreemenl in O"?~t~lJtiol fnrm
ofthe Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, with minor changes approved
by the City Attorney and City Manager. The effectiveness of said Agreement is
conditioned upon the issuance of Take Authorizations and execution of the
Implementing Agreement by the Wildlife Agencies;
3) Approve the Revised Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring
Program, dated February 2003;
4) Recommend that the City Council Introduce the followin MSCP Implementing
Ordinances: a r mance No. Repealing Section
ChUTaVlsta MunlclDal"Code relative to the Interim Habitat L
. an mtroduce in its place Section 17.30 the Otay Ranch Grazing Orninonr,,: onc!.hJ-
Ordinance No. Establishin the Habitat Loss and Incidental
a e r mance as ectlOn 17.35 of the City ofChula Vista M .c}..
Ordinance No. endmg Section 15.04 ofthe City ofChula Vista
MUlllclpal Code (ExcavaliulI, Grading and l<llls Urdmance).
. Resolution No. PCM 02-11 and PCS 92-02A oft],,, Planning ~ommission ofthe CityofChula
Vista recommendmg that the City Council take the following actions:
A. Considering the Addendum to Final SEIR No. 91-03 for the Salt Creek Ranch project
(now known as Rolling Hills Ranch); and
~
9-;;J
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
habitat due to the direct impacts of future development of both public and private lands within the
MSCP study area.
The MSCP Subarea Plan for the City of Chula Vista is the policy document through which the
MSCP Subregional Plan is implemented within the City'sjurisdiction. The MSCP Subarea Plan will
form the basis for federal and state permits, specific for and issued to the City of Chula Vista, to
allow development where impacts to sensitive species habitat could occur. Existing federal and state
permitting requirements for listed species will be delegated to the City, thus streamlining the process.
Tn addition, the MSCP Subarea Plan provides coverage for unlisted species which may potentially be
listed in the future, thereby affording added assurance that development can proceed in a planned and
timely manner in the future. By comprehensively addressing the needs of multiple species, the City
will avoid costly delays that could occur whilc responding to new individual species listings.
Over the last several years, the City has been working on the preparation of a MSCP Subarea Plan,
Implementing Agreement, and associated implementing ordinances in order to receive Take
Authorizations from the Wildlife Agencies. In 1996, City Council authorized staff to forward a
Draft MSCP Subarea Plan (" 1996 Subarea Plan") for inclusion in the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan.
Thc U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego, acting as lead agencies, considered
the 1996 Subarea Plan in their environmental review ofthe Draft MSCP Subrcgional Plan. The 1996
Subarea Plan was then incorporated into the Final MSCP Subregional Plan as well as the Final
ElRIErS.
Tn April 1999, the City embarked on revising the original 1996 Subarea Plan and hired MNA
Consulting to assist the City in completing the MSCP Subarea Plan. The revisions to the 1996
Subarea Plan focused primarily on preserve design issues related to the University site to provide
greater certainty of both the development and open space footprint. Tn February 2000, a revised draft
Subarea Pan which reflected resolution of negotiations with the Wildlife Agencies was distributed
for public review. The City received numerous comments on the draft MSCP Subarea Plan which
were incorporated into a revised draft MSCP Subarea Plan. The draft MSCP Subarea Plan (dated
September 11, 2000) was conditionally approved at a joint meeting with the Planning Commission
and City Council on October 17, 2000.
B. Major Changes to the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan - Post October 2000
A number of changes have occulTed since the draft MSCP Subarea Plan was conditionally approved
in October 2000. The following discussion provides a brief summary ofthe major changes that have
been incorporated into the Final MSCP Subarea Plan that is being presented to the Planning
Commission for recommendation of approval by the City Council.
1. Additioflal COflservatiofl
Additional lands have been conserved or identified for conservation in the City's proposed Preserve
for various reasons. The following is a summary of the additional conservation areas:
$-S-
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
. Inverted "L" Property - The northern portion (139.25-acres) of the Inverted "L" property
has been purchased by the Otay Water District for siting of a reservoir facility and
conservation purposes. The southern, 175.8-acreportion ofthe Inverted "L" property has
been acquired by the USFWS for conservation purposes.
. San Miguel Ranch Annexation - In December 2000, following the October 2000 MSCP
hearing, the southern parcel ofthe San Miguel Ranch property was annexed to the City of
Chula Vista. A final Annexation Agreement was negotiated between the Wildlife
Agencies, the County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista and the property owner
Trimark. The Annexation Agreement resulted in conservation of 186 acres on the
southern parcel within the City's jurisdiction as well as conservation of 1,852 acres on
the northern parcel within the County.
. Rolling Hills Ranch and Bella Lago - Revisions have been made to the preserve
boundaries on both the Rolling Hills Ranch and Bella Lago projects, resulting in
additional conservation ofOtay tarplant (beyond the previously anticipated conservation
levels) and expanded conservation along the western ridgeline in Subarea III of Rolling
Hills Ranch to avoid impacts to the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
An amendment to the approved Salt Creek Ranch (now known as Rolling Hills Ranch)
GDP, SPA Plan and Tentative Map is proposed in order to implement the MSCP Subarea
Plan. The area affected is entirely within Subarea III, the remaining undeveloped
easternmost portion of Rolling Hills Ranch. The following is a brief summary of the
modifications of the project that will make it consistent with the Final MSCP Subarea
Plan.
The specific amendments to the GDP, SPA and Tentative Map for Rolling Hills Ranch
Subarea III include: a) elimination of Neighborhood 13 and replacing this area as MSCP
Preserve; b) reduction of the minimum lot size requirement for Neighborhood 9 ITom
15,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet (in order to accommodate 36 units ITom fonner
Neighborhood 13 to be transferred to Neighborhood 9); c) adjustment to the land use
boundaries of Neighborhoods 9, lOA, lOB, I I and 12; and d) provision of an easement
that would accommodate a 128 foot wide right-of-way for the future alignment of Proctor
Valley Road ITom the easternmost edge of Neighborhood 9 to the Rolling Hills Ranch
eastern boundary, and removal of street connections from Neighborhood 9 to 13 and
from Neighborhood 1 I to the northerly portion of Bella Lago. The resulting amending
Tentative Map for Subarea III will accommodate 425 single-family units, substantially
the same number of units as the original project.
2. Coverage for the Quillo Checkerspot Butterfly
In early 2001, the USFWS distributed a Draft Recovery Plan and proposed critical habitat
designation for the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly. At the time that the MSCP
Subregional Plan was being developed and approved there was insufficient infonnation on the extent
3'-0
Page 7, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
and range of the species, and therefore the species was not a "covered" species under the MSCP
Subregional Plan nor the 1996 Subarea Plan. However, due to the potential ramifications of the
proposed critical habitat designation on planned development within the City's jurisdiction, the City
decided to pursue coverage ofthis species under its Subarea Plan. In order to gain coverage, the City
had to prepare a conservation strategy for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The following is a brief
summary of the major components of the draft conservation strategy for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly that have been incorporated into the Final MSCP Subarea Plan and that were analyzed in
the SEIR and EA. The draft conservation strategy proposes to:
. Preserve all areas designated as Quino checkcrspot butterfly critical habitat within the
City ofChula Vista;
. Maintain connectivity along key corridors within MSCP Subarea;
. Provide management strategies for the benefit of Qui no checkerspot butterfly, including
restoration/enhancement of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat; and
. Establish Facilities Siting Criteria to minimize impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly
habitat.
To date, the City ofChula Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan would be the only plan in San Diego County
to be extended coverage for this federally endangered species.
3. Implementing Actions
The previous consideration of the draft MSCP Subarea Plan, in October 2000, was conditioned upon
the subsequent preparation and approval of a number of implementing actions. The Wildlife
Agencies were resolute that in order for the City to receive Take Authorizations implementing
documents would need to be prepared concurrent with the MSCP Subarea Plan. Since Octobcr 2000,
staff has worked with the Wildlife Agencies to develop an Implementing Agreement which reflects
the requirements of the Subarea Plan, and has also drafted three implementing ordinances, as
described further below, to ensure that the Subarea Plan is implemented as expected. In addition to
the amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan as a new
element (Part 2, Chapter 7 A) of the General Plan, the following implementing actions are proposed
concurrent with the adoption of the Final MSCP Subarea Plan:
a) Implementing Agreement - The Implementing Agreement is the contract between the City and
the Wildlife Agencies and fonns the basis for the granting of the Take Authorizations fTom the
Wildlife Agencies. The purpose ofthe agreement is to ensure implementation of the MSCP Subarea
Plan, bind each of the parties to perform the obligations, responsibilities, and tasks assigned, and to
provide remedies and recourse should any of the parties fail to perfonn. The Implementing
Agreement, dated February 2003, has been negotiated with the Wildlife Agencies and incorporates
the major provisions ofthe Final MSCP Subarea Plan. The Implementing Agreement, dated February
2003, was based on the Model Implementing Agreement developed with the MSCP Subregional
Plan.
J~7
Page 8, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
b) Implementing Ordinances - The City has drafted implementing ordinances to ensure the
successful implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan. The City's Excavation, Grading and Fills
Ordinance ("Grading" Ordinance) has been revised and includes regulations for the clearing and
grubbing of sensitive biological resources, prohibits the issuance of a grading permit for areas within
a project that will result in impacts to wetland habitats or species, and provides exemptions for
projects less than one-acre in size.
In addition to the revisions to the Grading Ordinance, two new ordinances, the Habitat Loss and
Incidental Take (HUT) Ordinance and the Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance, have also been prepared
as implementing tools for the Subarea Plan. The HUT Ordinance will establish mitigation standards
and regulate development projects, located outside of Covered Projects, which may have an impact
on Covered Species and sensitive habitat. The Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance will implement the
Otay Ranch Range Management Plan, included in the adopted Otay Ranch - Resource Management
Plan (Phase 2) and ensure that grazing activities are consistent with the adopted policies.
4. Other Resolved Policy Issues
Changed Circumstances
Subsequent to the conditional approval of the draft MSCP Subarea Plan in October 2000, the City
was asked by the Wildlife Agencies to further define "Changed Circumstances" under the City's
Subarea Plan. Changed Circumstances are generally considered foreseeable events that could result
in an adverse effect on Covered Spccies and their habitat and thus should be planned and funded for
in the Subarea Plan. The request from the Wildlife Agencies had the potential to place an
overwhelming financial burden on the City related to responding to Changed Circumstances.
Through extensive research and subsequent negotiations with the Wildlife Agencies, the Final MSCP
Subarea Plan, dated February 2003, now clearly defines the scope of Changed Circumstances as well
as the extent of planned responses to Changed Circumstances. Changed Circumstances are limited to
repetitive fire, flood, drought, invasion of exotic species and future listing of non-covered species.
The Final MSCP Subarea Plan also addresses "Unforeseen Circumstances" which are generally
events that affect a species or geographic area covered by a habitat conservation plan that could not
be reasonably anticipated at the time the habitat conservation plan was negotiated and results in
substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species. In the case of an Unforeseen
Circumstance, neither the City nor its third-party beneficiaries would be required to provide
additional land, land restrictions, or financial compensation beyond that required by the MSCP
Subarea Plan at the time the Take Authorizations are issued without prior consent. The Wildlife
Agencies would be responsible to respond to and fund responses to unforeseen circumstances.
Wetlands
The Wildlife Agencies requested that the City take a more comprehensive approach to wetland
protection in order to receive coverage for wetland dependent species. The change in position was
primarily based on recent litigation that the Wildlife Agencies felt weakened existing federal
$-'6
Page 9, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
wetlands regulations. The Wildlife Agencies indicated that in order for the City to receive coverage
for wetland dependent species, the City must assure that wetlands are provided sufficient local
protection, in the absence of federal and state law.
The Final MSCP Subarea Plan proposes a comprehensive approach, outlined as the "Wetlands
Protection Program", which will assure conservation of wetland habitat and thereby allow coverage
of wetland dependent species. The program utilizes both the existing California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review process and new wetland regulations for development areas outside of
Covered Projects. The Subarea Plan emphasizes avoidance and minimization of impacts and also
establishes wetland mitigation ratios for any unavoidable impacts to wetlands. As is currently the
case today, specific mitigation measures will be developed during the project's CEQA review and
incorporated into the project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP
will provide the enforcement mechanism to ensure the wetland mitigation measures are carried
forward during project construction. Finally, the City also proposes as part ofthe revisions to the
Excavation, Grading and Fills Ordinance to provide processing and review oversight of approved
project related wetland mitigation measures. The following flowchart summarizes the review process
for the City's proposed Wetlands Protection Program:
WETLANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM
Covered
Projects
HLIT
Projects
.
.
CEQA REVIEW
. Demonstrate impacts to wetlands
avoided to greatest extent practicable
. Determine wetland impacts and
appropriate mitigation consistent with
Wetland Mitigation Ratios (Table 5-6
of Subarea Plan)
CEQA REVIEW
. Demonstrate impacts to wetlands
avoided to greatest extent practicable
. Determine wetland impacts and
appropriate mitigation consistent with
Wetland Mitigation Ratios (Table 5-6 of
Subarea Plan)
~
~
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program required as condition of
SPA/Precise Plan/TM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
required as condition of HLIT Permit
GRADING PERMIT
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit
Review for Compliance with HLIT or
SP AlPrecise Plan/TM
$-'/
Page 10, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
Preserve Management and Associated Funding
Management of the Preserve is an important element in the 10ng-tenn success ofthe MSCP program.
An overall goal is to ensure that the biological values of natural resources, where land is set aside as
part ofthe MSCP, are maintained over time. Along with the approval ofthe MSCP Subarea Plan and
Implementing Agreement will be a commitment ftom the City that lands set aside as Preserve will be
managed and monitored. Land may be managed by the City, the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner
Manager, or other management entity deemed acceptable to the City. In addition, Federal and State
agencies will maintain, manage and monitor their land holdings.
The Final MSCP Subarea Plan provides for an overall management ftamework for the Preserve and
is broken down into the three distinct Preserve Management Areas (PMAs) described as Central
City, North City and Otay Ranch. The management framework also identifies a schedule for the
preparation of management plans and studies to ensure timely implementation ofthe MSCP Subarea
Plan. Preserve management will include short-tenn management activities as well as long-tenn
management tasks. Area specific management directives have becn or will be developed for logical
discrete areas of the preservc. The ASMDs will provide the future preserve manager with the specific
blueprint on how to manage the various components of the Preserve, including habitat and species
unique to particular areas of the Preserve.
Biological monitoring of selected target species and habitats will also be conducted pursuant to the
MSCP Subregional Biological Monitoring Plan (Ogden 1996) and the Otay Ranch RMP. In addition,
a monitoring strategy has been developed for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Monitoring for the
Quino checkerspot butterfly includes a three-pronged approach that will consist of: I) monitoring of
overall habitat quality; 2) monitoring the effectiveness of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat
enhancement/restoration efforts; and 3) limited census monitoring of Quino checkerspot butterfly
populations.
Funding for the management activities within the three PMAs has been identified in the Final MSCP
Subarea Plan. For the Central City PMA, funding of the existing open space districts will be
augmented with additional monies to provide enhancement of the currently on-going management
and maintenance activities. The City proposes to establish the Biological Enhancement Program
(BEP) with an annual budget of $20,000. A variety of funding sources may be used to insure the
annual funding ofthe BEP. Such funding will include: grants, Federal and State funding programs,
funds that may be made available through the Otay Valley Regional Park JEPA, other regional
Preserve management funding sources, the City General Fund revenue and/or other local funding
sources. For as long as the City has Take Authority, the BEP win increase the average per acre
budget in the Central City by approximately $10.00 to a total average of$64.00 per acre (exclusive
of administrative costs) and will fund additional management activities identified and prioritized by
the ASMDs being prepared for the Central City PMA.
In the North City and Otay Ranch PMAs, community facilities districts or other financing
mechanisms will be established concurrent with on-going development. Within Otay Ranch, the
existing CFD will annex additional areas as lands are conveyed into the Preserve concurrent with
::7 ----'
'>=l -/<-
Page 11, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
development as anticipated by the RMP. The average per acre cost for management is estimated to
be about $55 per acre. Added funding for biological management within the North City and Otay
Ranch will be derived through establishment of a Preserve Management Endowment Fund (PMEF).
The PMEF will create an endowment program of up to $1.85 million, funded through capital
improvement programs associated with several large planned facilities which are essential to the
future development of both Otay Ranch and North City. The PMEF will be funded incrementally,
simultaneous with the commencement of construction of four key Planned Facilities: the Salt Creek
trunk sewer line (under construction), the Wolf Canyon trunk sewer line, Main Street and La Media
Road. Although the endowment contributions are required to be provided with construction of each
of these four infTastructure projects, the endowment program is established in consideration for all
Planned Facilities described in the Subarea Plan. The PMEF will add approximately $33.00 per acre
of enhanced funding to the Otay Ranch and North City PMAs, creating a total available budget of
approximately $88.00 per acre (exclusive of administrative costs) dedicated to Preserve management
activities in these areas.
The following flowchart sununarizes the City's proposed 10ng-tenTI funding strategy for management
of the Preserve:
Long-Term Funding For Preserve Management
Central Ciy PMA
I
Primary
Management
$54/ao
Biological
Enhancement
Program
$10/ac
Annual
Budget
North City and Otay Ranch PMAs
I
I I
Primary
Management
$55/ao
Preserve
Management
Endowment
Fund
$33/ao
Existing
Open
Space
Districts
North
(:ity
New
Financing
Mechanism
CFD 97-2
I Endowment I
I
$64/Acre
$88/Acre
In addition to the above management funding commitments, the Final MSCP Subarea Plan also
outlines funding strategies for Changed Circumstance events. The adaptive management strategy
3-//
Page 12, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
built into the City's Framework Management Plan would provide sufficient funding for all of the
Changed Circumstance events, except Repetitive Fire, and therefore no further funding requirements
are proposed for these other events. The Subarea Plan defines a Repetitive Fire as a repeat fire event
in the same location within a specified regrowth period and limited in extent. Repetitive fires could
have negative effects on the Preserve due to potential inability for the habitat to naturally regenerate.
The restoration efforts associated with a Repetitive Fire event could be extensive; therefore, staff is
recommending that for Repetitive Fire (only), a new funding source be created to assure adequate
funding for any necessary remedial actions, such as weeding and restoration of habitat. This funding
source would be above and beyond existing and proposed Preserve management funding programs
described above.
The Repetitive Fire "Restoration Reserve Fund" will be funded through proportionate annual
contributions from reserve funds in existing and new open space financing districts. Such reserve
funds are established to enable the city to fund, among other needs, unanticipated maintenance
requirements. Once established, the fund wil1 grow through interest earnings and, iffunds are drawn
for the purpose of funding program requirements, the fund wil1 be replenished through continued
annual open space financing district reserve contributions. The costs associated with the Restoration
Reserve Fund would be spread over the entire preserve with the exception of lands owned and
managed by federal and/or state agencies. Costs are anticipated to be approximately $8.25 per habitat
acre which would then be spread on a per unit basis within the individual assessment boundaries.
Future open space districts would need to consider this annual commitment when establishing
overal1 costs.
C. Key Features of the Final MSCP Subarea Plan
The Final MSCP Subarea Plan has been prepared to implement the MSCP Subregional Plan within
the City of Chula Vista. The MSCP Subarea Plan wil1 fonn the basis for a Federal 10(a)(1)(B)
pennit and a State 2835 pennitINCCP Authorization for the incidental "take" of the 86 species
covered by the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
The Final MSCP Subarea Plan encompasses approximately 33,045 acres located within the
incorporated limits of the City. The Final MSCP Subarea Plan proposes to create a city-wide open
space system of approximately 4,993 acres within the City limits with an additional 4,250 acres
conserved outside the City ofChula Vista's Subarea as a result of development within the City's
Subarea. Total conservation estimates wil1 be approximately 9,243 acres within the Subregional
MSCP. The Preserve will provide conservation for 86 "covered" species, one more than either the
City or County of San Diego's MSCP Subarea Plans.
Additional key features of the Final MSCP Subarea Plan include:
· The Preserve is 99% hard lined which provides greater certainty as to where
development and open space preservation wil1 occur;
· The majority of the Preserve will be assembled through development exactions
resulting in minimal public acquisition;
.3 -/ ,:f
Page 13, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
. The Subarea Plan creates a Wetlands Protection Program allowing conservation of
nearly 99% of the wetlands in the Preserve;
. Assures long tettn management funding of nearly 5,000 acres;
. Establishes funding for the habitat enhancement, restoration and management for the
Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Preserve Assembly
The City's MSCP Preserve will be comprised of existing publicly owned open space and other lands
that will conveyed as open space in conjunction with the development entitlement process. The
majority of the Preserve will be assembled through "Covered Projects" and their associated
conditions of coverage. Covered Projects are those developments which have specifically delineated
areas for development and 100% conservation. Preserve boundaries have been established on a
project-by-project basis after evaluation of habitat and species data, and review by the Wildlife
Agencies. Covered Projects include Rolling Hills Ranch, Bella Lago, Otay Ranch (including the
University Site), and San Miguel Ranch. Coverage for thcse projects is based on assured dedication
of open space, implementation of project-specific mitigation programs, and implementation of
specific management directives identified in Table 3-5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan (and
incorporated as Appendix A of the MSCP Subarea Plan).
In addition, a small portion of the Preserve will be assembled in areas designated as 75-100%
Conservation Areas. These areas consist primarily of smaller private landholdings located within the
planned Preserve. Habitats in these areas will be subject to the HUT Ordinance which allows
development of25% ofthe least sensitive area of the site, assuring a minimum conservation level of
75% ofthe parcel. A number of these properties are being considered for acquisition through the
Otay Valley Regional Park land acquisition efforts.
A minor component of the Preserve will be assembled through mItigation associated with
Development Areas outside of Covered Projects. Compliance with the new HUT Ordinance will be
required for all projects greater than one acre in size in mapped development areas outside of
Covered Projects. The ordinance will require biological evaluation of all resources onsite.
Encroachment into narrow endemic species and wetlands will be limited and any impact to wetlands
or listed non-covered species must be in accordance with applicable federal and state laws.
Mitigation for impacts will be guided to lands within the proposed Preserve.
The delineation of Preserve and development areas was not resolved for all properties within the
Chula Vista Subarea. Approximately 137 acres (existing rock quany) are designated as Minor
Amendment Areas and will require completion of a Subarea Plan amendment and written
concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies prior to take authorization from the City of Chula Vista.
Further, approximately 7 acres (located at the northeastern extent ofthe City and east of Rolling Hills
Ranch) are designated as a Major Amendment Area. Development of this area will require
completion of a Subarea Plan amendment and approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan through the
-3 -/ 3?
Page 14, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
Wildlife Agencies before take authorization is issued from the Wildlife Agencies to the City for this
area.
For all areas designated as preserve, the Subarea Plan provides that boundary adjustments to the
Preserve may be made without amendment to the Subarea Plan, if certain equivalency findings can
be made. Such findings are to be made by the City and must have concurrence by the Wildlife
Agencies. The Subarea Plan contains language that differentiates between "mapping conflicts" and
"boundary adjustments," and outlines a process for notifying the Wildlife Agencies.
Land Uses Within the Preserve
Land uses within the Preserve are limited to those uses which are considered compatible or
conditionally compatible with the need to pennanently protect Covered Species and their habitats.
All existing uses allowed by the current underlying zone on a property, as well as any uses
designated as compatible will continue to be allowed until such time as the property has been
conveyed into the Preserve or is subject to an agreement with the City through an offer of dedication.
The Subarea Plan identifies compatible uses ( e.g. public access and recreation, emergency, safety
and police services, preserve management, and scientific and biologic activities) as well as those uses
which are considered conditionally compatible. Conditionally compatible uses include mining,
extraction and processing facilities, flood control and planned and future facilities (e.g. roads,
sewer/water infrastructure, trails, ancillary park uses, utilities). Two categories of facilities are
contemplated under the Subarea Plan. Planned Facilities are those that have been specifically
identified by the City ofChula Vista to serve development approved by the City. Planned Facilities
will be pennitted in the preserve through take authorization pursuant to the Subarea Plan, subject
only to narrow endemic species restrictions. Future facilities are those facilities that may be
necessary to support City services or planned development in the future, or are ancillary to Planned
Facilities. Because future facility needs cannot be specified at this time, Future Facilities have been
defined by facility categories. Impacts to covered species and habitats from Future Facilities will be
limited as described in the Subarea Plan. Overall, the provisions ofthe Subarea Plan would provide a
streamlined review of conditionally compatible uses.
CONCLUSION:
Staff considers the MSCP to be a necessary program that will provide for the protection of sensitive
species both locally and regionally. By actively participating in this program which is based on
preserving large blocks of connected habitat necessary for species survival, the City will both protect
vital resources in the region and implement the open space vision ofthe General Plan. The City has
carefully planned for the protection of large open space areas while delineating future urban
boundaries. As cited above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council conditionally approve the Final MSCP Subarea Plan and Implementing Agreement and
associated implementing actions, necessary for its successful implementation.
J" -/,y
Page 15, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
ATTACHMENTS
The following attachments to this staff report were alreadv provided to Planning Commission on
April 14, 2003:
I. Final City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003
2. City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Appendices, dated February 2003
3. Responses to Comments Received on the October 2002 Public Review Draft MSCP Subarea
Plan, dated February 2003
4. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment, Dated
January 2003
5. Revised Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program (MIAMP), dated
February 2003
The following attachments are provided with this staffreport:
A. MSCP Subarea Plan Map
MSCP:
B. Planning Commission Resolution PCM 95-017 and GP A 03-07
C. Draft City Council Resolution No.
D. Draft City Council Ordinance No.
E. Draft City Council Ordinance No.
F. Draft City Council Ordinance No.
Excavation, Grading and Fills
G. MSCP Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003
establishing Habitat Loss and Incidental Take
establishing Otay Ranch Grazing
revising Municipal Code Section 15.04 -
Rolling Hills Ranch:
H. Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM 02-11
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. PCS 92-02A
1. Draft City Council Resolution No. Amending the Salt Creek Ranch General
Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan
J. Draft City Council Ordinance No. Amending the Salt Creek Ranch Planned
Community District Regulations
K. Draft City Council Resolution No. Amending Tentative Map 92-02A
L. Original Tentative Map Resolution No.16834
M. Addendum to Final SEIR 91-03 for the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan
J-/s-
~>
r-
CD
cc
CD
::I
a.
.'
--\
I~
n n
~ ~
So Dr
9 ~
" it
;; n
~ ~
it '"
;;: g
'" ~
n Q.
." "
." -<
;;
en
"
<
"
\
\
\
\
'.
I
I
~'- ......"'~~\
g 3'1'cso~ \
.' '
'\ \
\ I
\ \
\
'\-J. \
\-I.J! I; \
\~ \
~ - -\- -~,
\
\'"
'If.{[ \
\<t \
'( \
\
\
--\
\'
\ \
\
\
\.
\
\
I
,
I
\
,
\
I
,
\
\
I
\ \
,
\
I
,
,
,
I
0'0~1.',jl.S'l:J,3~t-\.\
g . ,
,I I
r~\
'""t\
\
,
~
&-:;.~
//'
/I
I~
~
I"
l
-?~
(I);o::t;o
I: I>> --0
C"::s=
I>>(,,)UI:
a::T ::s
D> (Q
-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NO. 03-01) PREPARED
FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN;
ADOPTING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA
PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED
HEREIN; FINDING THAT THE IMPLEMENTING
AGREEMENT, DATED FEBRUARY 2003, IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN;
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIAL FORM
OF THE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, DATED
FEBRUARY 2003, WITH MINOR CHANGES APPROVED BY
THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER WITH THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID AGREEMENT CONDITIONED
AS STATED HEREIN; AMENDING THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE MSCP
SUBAREA PLAN AS PART 2, CHAPTER 7A; APPROVING
THE REVISED MSCP MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTING
AGREEMENT MONITORING PROGRAM, DATED
FEBRUARY 2003.
WHEREAS, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subregional
Plan was developed as a comprehensive, long-tenn habitat conservation plan which
addressed multiple species and the preservation of natural habitat within a 900 square mile
study area in south San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, MSCP Subregional Plan contemplated that local jurisdictions,
including the City of Chula Vista ("City"), would participate in the MSCP Subregional
Plan and seek federal and state take authorization by adopting a subarea plan consistent
with the conservation strategies contained in the MSCP Subregional Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in August, 1996, for inclusion in
the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan and for consideration by the lead agencies in their
environmental review ofthe Draft MSCP Subregional Plan; and
WHEREAS, as lead agencies for the Multiple Species Conservation Program
("MSCP") Subregional Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego
prepared and certified a Final Environmental hnpact Report/Environmental hnpact
Statement for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species
due to urban growth within the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP")
planning area ("Final EIR/EIS") in January, 1997 and adopted the Final MSCP
Subregional Plan in August, 1998; and
WHEREAS, as a responsible agency, the City of Chula Vista ("City") participated
in the preparation of the Final EIR/EIS through consultation and comment; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the City, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game
(hereinafter referred to as the "Wildlife Agencies") further negotiated a number of aspects
of the 1996 Draft Subarea Plan, including but not limited to, the refinement of the
conditions of coverage for covered projects, the type and extent of protection for narrow
endemic species, the amount and type of public facilities and inftastructure to be allowed
in the Preserve, and an acceptable configuration for the university site adjacent to the
Preserve; and
WHEREAS, following a review by the Wildlife Agencies and public comment
period, the City issued a draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000, and a Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, to the Wildlife Agencies and the
general public; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2000, the City submitted to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service an application for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) pennit for incidental take
pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the
California Department of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization pennit
pursuant to Section 2835 of the California Endangered Species Act, with both applications
including the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000, and a Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place
for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on October
17,2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and City Council; and
WHEREAS, approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan and adoption of the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 were discretionary actions covered
by the Final EIR/EIS, and therefore, as a responsible agency, the City had a more limited
role than does a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA");
and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Addendum dated September 11, 2000, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to fulfill the City's obligations as a responsible
agency; and
WHEREAS, the City issued Findings of Fact for each of the significant
environmental effects of implementing the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
September 11, 2000, in confonnance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which
enabled the City to make full use of the Final EIR/EIS and the Addendum (CEQA
Guidelines, sections 15101,15093 and 15096, subd. (h)); and
WHEREAS, the City considered the Final EIR/EIS prepared by the lead agency
together with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11,2000 and the Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and reached its own conclusion
about whether and how to approve the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City also prepared an MSCP Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources dated October 12, 2000, in
compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIR/EIS prepared
and certified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in January,
1997, the Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS (October 2000), the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources (October 2000) and found that
the documents were prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and
also found that the Final EIR/EIS (January 1997) and Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS
adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the MSCP Subregional Plan and the
Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September 11, 2000; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2000, the City Council approved the MSCP
Subregional Plan dated August, 1998, as the framework plan for the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan; conditionally adopted the MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September II, 2000,
and the Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological
Resources dated October, 2000; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council conditional approval on October 17,
2000, the City decided to make further changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
September 11, 2000, including but not limited to additional infonnation not previously
available about the Quino checkerspot butterfly, a federally listed endangered species. The
City believed it was prudent to add coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly into the
draft MSCP Subarea Plan prior to the Subarea Plan and associated implementing
documents being published in the Federal Register; and
WHEREAS, since October 2000, changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan have
been made as necessary to complete a final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, including I)
measures to provide coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly; 2) the preparation of
three implementing ordinances; 3) final revisions to the Implementing Agreement, 4)
conservation of additional lands not previously anticipated to be preserved; and 4) other
revisions to address unresolved issues including, but not limited to, changed
circumstances, wetlands, and funding for long tenn management; and
WHEREAS, the City detennined that as part of the implementation of the MSCP
Subarea Plan, the City of Chula Vista General Plan would be amended to incorporate the
MSCP Subarea Plan as a separate element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
and Environmental Assessment (No. 03-01) to address all of the changes to the revised
final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002, the City submitted a revised application to the
Wildlife Agencies for a Section 10(a)(l)(B) pennit for incidental take pursuant to the U.S.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the Califomia Department
of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization pennit pursuant to Section 2835
of the Califomia Endangered Species Act, with all of the required appJication materials
including the revised Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, the revised Draft Implementing
Agreement, Draft Implementing Ordinances and the Draft Supplemental EIR and EA; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2002 a Federal Register notice was published
commencing a 60-day public comment period on the Incidental Take Applications, Public
Review Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated October 2002, implementing documents and
associated environmental documents. A public notice was also published on October 11,
2002 announcing the availability of the Draft SEIR and EA to meet the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, public review of the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan and implementing
documents closed on December 9, 2002. The City received 12 letters of comment from
the public and has prepared responses to the comments and made changes to the Public
Review Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated October 2002 and implementing documents, and
has prepared a final City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003, Draft
Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and final draft implementing ordinances;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place
for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on April 9,
2003 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the conditional adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan,
dated February 2003 and associated implementing ordinances will not constitute a binding
set of obligations on any public or private entity within the City of Chula Vista unless and
until 1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues a biological opinion which affinns the
conservation strategies in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003 and
the Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, 2) take pennits are issued by
both Wildlife Agencies that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
February 2003, and Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, and 3) the City
approves and executes an Implementing Agreement substantially in the fonn of the
Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan will also require an
amendment to the City of Chula Vista General Plan to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan
as an element of the General Plan (Part 2, Chapter 7 A) and adoption of three MSCP
Implementing Ordinances, including the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance, the
Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance and revisions to the Excavation, Grading and Fills
Ordinance. These ordinances will only take effect after issuance of the take pennits and
the necessary timelines for ordinances pursuant to the City Charter have passed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, recommend, detennine, resolve and order as follows:
A. The proceedings and all evidence introduced before them at the public
hearing on this project held on May 13, 2003 are hereby incorporated into
the record of proceedings. These proceedings, evidence and documents,
along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise
the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental
Quality Act claims; and
B. The City Council does hereby find that the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment and the
Revised MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring
Program for Biological Resources are prepared in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and
C. The City Council does hereby consider that the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (No. 03-01)
adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan, as revised; and
D. The City Council does hereby approve the Revised MSCP Mitigation and
Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program, dated February 2003; and
E.' The City Council does hereby adopt the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
and does hereby find that the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan is consistent
with the MSCP Subregional Plan and will provide for the conservation,
protection, restoration and enhancement of biological resources for
protected species while at the same time allowing the City to carry out its
development plans, and conditions the adoption of the Ch\Jla Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan and the amendment to the City ofChula Vista General Plan to
incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan as Part 2, Chapter 7 A of the General
Plan on all of the following:
1. The issuance of a biological opinion that is consistent with the City
of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (February 2003) and the Draft
Implementing Agreement dated February, 2003; and
2. The issuance of a Section lO(a)(1)(B) pennit pursuant to the U.S.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and a take
authorization pennit pursuant to Section 2835 of the State of
California Endangered Species Act with conditions that are
consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (February
2003) and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated February 2003;
and
3. The execution of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the
form of the Draft Implementing Agreement dated February 2003;
and
F. The City Council does hereby find that the Implementing Agreement, dated
February 2003, is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan,
dated February 2003 and does hereby affinn the submittal and execution of
the Draft Implementing Agreement dated February 2003, to the Wildlife
Agencies.
G. The City Council does hereby Authorize the Mayor to execute the
Implementing Agreement, in substantial fOIDl of the Implementing
Agreement, dated February 2003, with minor changes approved by the
City Attorney and City Manager with the effectiveness of said agreement
conditioned as stated herein; and
H. The City Council does hereby find the City of Chula Vista General Plan is
hereby amended to incorporate Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
February 2003 as a new element of the General Plan, Part 2, Chapter 7 A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista, California, this _ day of , by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed and adopted by the City
Council at an adjoumed meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the
Executed this
Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
CHAPTER 17 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
HABITAT LOSS AND INCIDENTAL TAKE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE MSCP SUBAREA PLAN
WHEREAS, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subregional
Plan was developed as a comprehensive, long-tenn habitat conservation plan which
addressed multiple species and the preservation of natural habitat within a 900 square mile
study area in south San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, MSCP Subregional Plan contemplated that local jurisdictions,
including the City of Chula Vista ("City"), would participate in the MSCP Subregional
Plan and seek federal and state take authorization by adopting a subarea plan consistent
with the conservation strategies contained in the MSCP Subregional Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in August, 1996, for inclusion in
the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan and for consideration by the lead agencies in their
environmenttll review of the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan; and
WHEREAS, as lead agencies for the Multiple Species Conservation Program
("MSCP") Subregional Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego
prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species
due to urban growth within the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP")
planning area ("Final EIR/EIS") in January, 1997 and adopted the Final MSCP
Subregional Plan in August, 1998; and
WHEREAS, as a responsible agency, the City ofChula Vista ("City") participated
in the preparation of the Final EIR/EIS through consultation and comment; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the City, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game
(hereinafter referred to as the "Wildlife Agencies") further negotiated a number of aspects
of the 1996 Draft Subarea Plan, including but not limited to, the refinement of the
conditions of coverage for covered projects, the type and extent of protection for narrow
endemic species, the amount and type of public facilities and infrastructure to be allowed
in the Preserve, and an acceptable configuration for the university site adjacent to the
Preserve; and
WHEREAS, following a review by the Wildlife Agencies and public comment
period, the City issued a draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11,2000, and a Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, to the Wildlife Agencies and the
general public; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2000, the City submitted to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service an application for a Section 10(a)(I)(B) pennit for incidental take
pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the
Califomia Department of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization pennit
pursuant to Section 2835 of the Califomia Endangered Species Act, with both applications
including the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000, and a Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place
for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on October
17,2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and City Council; and
WHEREAS, approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan and adoption of the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 were discretionary actions covered
by the Final EIRJEIS, and therefore, as a responsible agency, the City had a more limited
role than does a lead agency under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA");
and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Addendum dated September 11,2000, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to fulfill the City's obligations as a responsible
agency; and
WHEREAS, the City issued Findings of Fact for each of the significant
environmental effects of implementing the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
September 11, 2000, in confonnance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which
enabled the City to make full use of the Final EIRJEIS and the Addendum (CEQA
Guidelines, sections 15101, 15093 and 15096, subd. (h)); and
WHEREAS, the City considered the Final EIRJEIS prepared by the lead agency
together with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 and the Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and reached its own conclusion
about whether and how to approve the MSCP Subn,gional Plan and the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11,2000; and
WHEREAS, the City also prepared an MSCP Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources dated October 12, 2000, in
compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIRJEIS prepared
and certified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in January,
1997, the Addendum to the Final EIRJEIS (October 2000), the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources (October 2000) and found that
the documents were prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and
also found that the Final EIRJEIS (January 1997) and Addendum to the Final EIRJEIS
adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the MSCP Subregional Plan and the
Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September 11, 2000; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2000, the City Council approved the MSCP
Subregional Plan dated August, 1998, as the framework plan for the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan; conditionally adopted the MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September II, 2000,
and the Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological
Resources dated October, 2000; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council conditional approval on October 17,
2000, the City decided to make further changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
September 11, 2000, including but not limited to additional information not previously
available about the Quino checkerspot butterfly, a federally listed endangered species. The
City believed it was prudent to add coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly into the
draft MSCP Subarea Plan prior to the Subarea Plan and associated implementing
documents being published in the Federal Register; and
WHEREAS, since October 2000, changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan have
been made as necessary to complete a final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, including 1)
measures to provide coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly; 2) the preparation of
three implementing ordinances; 3) final revisions to the Implementing Agreement, 4)
conservation of additional lands not previously anticipated to be preserved; and 4) other
revisions to address unresolved issues including, but not limited to, changed
circwnstances, wetlands, and funding for long term management; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that as part of the implementation of the MSCP
Subarea Plan, the City of Chula Vista General Plan would be amended to incorporate the
MSCP Subarea Plan as a separate element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
and Environmental Assessment (No. 03-01) to address all of the changes to the revised
final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002, the City submitted a revised application to the
Wildlife Agencies for a Section 10(a)(l)(B) permit for incidental take pursuant to the U.S.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the California Department
of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization permit pursuant to Section 2835
of the California Endangered Species Act, with all of the required application materials
including the revised Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, the revised Draft Implementing
Agreement, Draft Implementing Ordinances and the Draft Supplemental EIR and EA; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2002 a Federal Register notice was published
commencing a 60-day public comment period on the Incidental Take Applications, Public
Review Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated October 2002, implementing documents and
associated envirorunental documents. A public notice was also published on October 11,
2002 announcing the availability of the Draft SEIR and EA to meet the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, public review of the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan and implementing
documents closed on December 9, 2002. The City received 12 letters of comment from
the public and has prepared responses to the comments and made changes to the Public
Review Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated October 2002 and implementing documents, and
has prepared a final City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003, Draft
Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and final draft implementing ordinances;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place
for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on April 9,
2003 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the conditional adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan,
dated February 2003 and associated implementing ordinances will not constitute a binding
set of obligations on any public or private entity within the City of Chula Vista unless and
until 1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues a biological opinion which affinns the
conservation strategies in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003 and
the Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, 2) take pennits are issued by
both Wildlife Agencies that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
February 2003, and Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, and 3) the City
approves and executes an Implementing Agreement substantially in the fonn of the
Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan will also require an
amendment to the City ofChula Vista General Plan to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan
as an element of the General Plan (Part 2, Chapter 7 A) and adoption of three MSCP
Implementing Ordinances, including the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance, the
Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance and revisions to the Excavation, Grading and Fills
Ordinance. These ordinances will only take effect after issuance of the take pennits and
the necessary time lines for ordinances pursuant to the City Charter have passed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
Section I. That Chapter 17 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code be and the same is
hereby amended by adding Section 17.35 to read as follows:
Sec. 17.35
Sections:
17.35.010
17.35.020
17.35.030
17.35.040
17.35.050
17.35.060
17.35.070
17.35.080
17.35.090
17.35.100
17.35.110
17.35.120
17.35.130
17.35.140
HABITAT LOSS AND INCIDENTAL TAKE
Purpose and Intent
General Authorization
Definitions
General Application of Chapter
Exemptions
Application for HLIT Permit
Permit Process
Required Findings for Issuance of HLIT Permit
General MSCP Development Regulations
Specific MSCP Development Regulations
Mitigation
Biological and Open Space Easement
Deviation from Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Regulations
Emergencies
17.35.150 City Responsibility to Pnblish Gnidelines
17.35.160 Violations and Remedies
17.35.170 Conflicts
17.35.180 Local Coastal Program
17.35.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HUT) regulations is to protect and
conserve native habitat within the City of Chula Vista and the viability of the species supported by
those habitats. These regulations are intended to implement the City of Chula Vista Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan by placing priority on the preservation of
biological resources within the planned and protected Preserve. These regulations are intended to
assure that development occurs in a manner that protects the overall quality of the habitat
resources, encourages a sensitive form of development, and retains biodiversity and interconnected
habitats. The habitat-based level of protection achieved through implementation of the MSCP, is
intended to meet the conservation obligations of the Covered Species identified therein. These
regulations are also intended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare while being consistent
with sound resource conservation principles and the rights of private property owners.
17.35.020 General Authorization
As a participating jurisdiction in the MSCP Subregional Planning effort, the City of Chula
Vista is promulgating these regulations to implement the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan as a
condition of receiving an incidental take permit to be issued to the City pursuant to Section
lO(a)(I)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act and take authorization to be issued to the City
pursuant to Section 2835 of the Califomia Fish and Game Code.
17.35.030 Definitions
The following words and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall be construed as defined
in this section:
75-100% Conservation Area Lands for which hard-line Preserve boundaries have not yet been
established, but where development or impact is limited to 25% or less of the mapped area and
Preserve will total between 75% and 100% of the mapped area and where the conserved portion
will be managed for its biological resources. These mapped areas are shown on Figure 1-2 of the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be amended from time to
time.
100% Conservation Area - Lands within the City of Chula Vista for which hard-line Preserve
boundaries have been established and where the conserved portion will be managed for its
biological resources. These areas are shown on Figure 1-2 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan,
as adopted on , and as may be amended from time to time.
Ae:ricultural Operations ~ Soil disturbance activity for the preparation or maintenance of a site for
the cultivation of crops or other agricultural purposes where the activity has occurred continuously
within previous years, in compliance with all applicable regulations, and involves no
intensification of the use.
Appropriate Managing Entity - The entity that manages any portion of the Preserve, including but
not limited to, the City, a third-party under the direct control of the City, or the Otay Ranch
Preserve OwnerfManager.
Biological and Open Space Easement - A permanent legal encumbrance to protect biological
resources and dedicate land to the Preserve. The biological and open space easement is also
referred to as a conservation easement.
Biological Functional Equivalency - A modification to a Preserve boundary which results in a
Preserve configuration with a biological value that is equal to or higher than the original Preserve
configuration. The comparison of biological value is based on the "like or equivalent" exchange
concept for biological factors identified in Section 5.4.2 of the MSCP Subregional Plan.
Biologist - A person meeting the qualifications as established by the Director of Planning and
Building and approved by the same. At a minimum, the person shall have at least a four-year
college degree in biology, zoology, botany, wildlife management, or other closely related field,
with at least two years experience conducting field investigations in San Diego County.
Candidate Species - Those native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile,
or plant that the California Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under
review by CDFG for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened
species, or a species for which the Fish and Game Commission has published a notice of
proposed regulation to add the species to either list, pursuant to Section 2068 of the California Fish
and Game Code.
CDFG - California Department of Fish and Game, a subdivision of the State of California charged
with administering the California Endangered Species Act and the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act.
CEOA - The California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Public Resources Code Section 2100 et
seq.), including all regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act.
Chula Vista Covered Species Those Covered Species which are adequately conserved by the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, together with other Subarea Plans within the MSCP Subregional
Plan Area in effect during the duration of the City's Section lO(a)(1)(B) permit issued by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Take Authorization issued by CDFG, and
including Species Adequately Conserved. Adequate conservation for certain Chula Vista Covered
Species shall include the measures contained in the findings for those species in Table 3-5 of the
MSCP Subregional Plan.
Clearing - The cutting of Natural Vegetation by any means, without disturbance to the soil and
root system.
Clearing and Grubbing Permit - A permit issued pursuant to this chapter that allows clearing and
grubbing that is not in association with other Land Development Work.
Covered Proiect - Those projects within the City of Chula Vista or annexed into the City in which
hard-line Preserve boundaries have been established pursuant to the approved Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan and where conservation in those designated areas shall be consistent with the MSCP
Subregional Plan and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and have or will be specified as binding
conditions of approval in such projects' plans and approvals. Covered projects are identified on
Table 5-1 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be
amended from time to time.
Covered Species - Those species within the MSCP Subregional Plan which will be adequately
conserved by the MSCP when the MSCP is implemented through the Subarea Plans, and includes
Species Adequately Conserved and Chula Vista Covered Species.
Development - The uses to which land shall be put, including construction of buildings and
structures and all alterations of the land incidental thereto, excluding Agricultural Operations.
Development Areas - Mapped areas planned for development pursuant to the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan and within which the take of Chula Vista Covered Species is authorized by the
Section 10(a)(I)(B) Incidental Take Permit and Section 2835 Permit. These mapped areas are
shown on Figure 1-2 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may
be amended ITom time to time.
Endangered Species - A species listed as "endangered" under the Federal Endangered Species Act
or the California Endangered Species Act.
Future Facilities - Facilities that are necessary to support City services or planned development in
the future and are not specifically listed in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan as a Planned
Facility.
Grading - Any excavating or filling or combination thereof and shall include the land in its
excavated or filled condition.
Grubbing - The removal of Natural Vegetation by any means, including removal of the root
system.
Land Development Permit - A permit issued pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter
15.04.
Listed Non-Covered Species - A species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal
E.S.A or California Endangered Species Act, but for which a Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take
Permit or a Section 2835 Take Authorization has not been granted pursuant to the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan.
MSCP Implementation Guidelines - Guidelines formulated by the City of Chula Vista to aid in the
interpretation and facilitate implementation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and HUT
Ordinance. These Guidelines are complementary to the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and
HLIT Ordinance and do not include new substantive infonnation or requirements.
MSCP Subregional Plan - The Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan, dated August 1998,
which addresses multiple species habitat needs and the preservation of native vegetation for a 900-
square mile area in southwestern San Diego County, California.
MSCP Subregional Plan Area - Consists of approximately 900 square miles in Southwestern San
Diego County, California, referred to in the MSCP Subregional Plan as the "MSCP Subregional
Plan Study Area."
Narrow Endemic Species - Species that are highly restricted by their habitat affinities or other
ecological factors. These species are listed in Table 5-4 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as
adopted on , and as may be amended from time to time.
Natural Vegetation - Vegetation identified as Tier I, II or III on Table 5-3 of the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be amended from time to time.
NCCP Act The California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991, as amended
(California Fish and Game Code Section 2800 et seq.), including all regulations promulgated
pursuant to the Act. Amendments to the NCCP Act enacted effective January I, 2003 (Chapter 4,
sections 1 and 2 of California statutes 2002 (S.B. 107)) expressly provide that the Chula Vista
Subarea Plan will be solely governed in accordance with the NCCP Act as it read on December 31,
200 I, and not by the substantive provisions of S.B. 107.
Participating Local Jurisdiction - Any of the 12 local governments within the MSCP Study Area
that may prepare a MSCP Subarea Plan and receive a Section 10(a)(\)(B) permit from the USFWS
and Section 2835 Permit from the CDFG.
Planned Facilities - Facilities that have been specifically identified by the City of Chula Vista to
serve development approved by the City and specified in Table 6-1 of the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be amended from time to time.
Preserve - Areas within the City of Chula Vista incorporated limits which have been dedicated and
accepted by the City for permanent MSCP conservation and which will be managed for their
biological resources.
Proiect Area - An area considered for development and shall include the entire contiguous land
under the same ownership or like property interest, or in the case of development proposed by a
public agency, the area required for development as determined by the Director of Planning and
Building.
Section 10(a)(l )(B) Permit - The permit issued by the USFWS to the City of Chula Vista under
Section 10(a)(I)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (\6 U.S.C 1539 (a)(I)(B)) to allow the
Incidental Take of Species Adequately Conserved and/or Chula Vista Covered Species, as
identified in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be
amended from time to time, to the extent Take of such species is otherwise prohibited under
Section 9 of the Act. The Take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the ESA or
authorized under the Section 10(a)(\)(B) permit. However, plant species adequately conserved by
the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, or by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan in conjunction with other
approved MSCP Subarea Plans, are listed in the 10(a)(\)(B) permit in recognition of the
conservation measures and benefits provided for them under the approved Subarea Plans. Such
plant species receive assurances pursuant to the USFWS "No Surprises" Rule.
Section 2835 Permit - A permit issued by the CDFG to the City ofChula Vista under Section 2835
of the California NCCP Act to authorize the Take of Species Adequately Conserved and/or Chula
Vista Covered Species, as identified in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on
, and as may be amended from time to time.
Sensitive Biological Resources - Lands that contain Natura1 Vegetation and/or Wetlands; and/or
habitat occupied by Covered Species, other Listed Non-Covered Species, and/or Narrow Endemic
Species.
Species AdeQuatelv Conserved - Those species for which the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
provides substantial conservation and for which the City of Chula Vista shall receive Take
Authorization regardless of the participation or continued participation of any other Participating
Local Jurisdiction.
Take Authorization - Pennit authority granted through a Section 10(a)(I)(B) pennit pursuant to
the ESA and/or the Section 2835 pennit pursuant to the NCCP Act.
Temporary Impacts - Anticipated impacts that result during the course of construction but are not
part of the pennanent developed condition of a Project Area.
Threatened Species - A species listed as "threatened" under the ESA or CESA.
USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the United States Department of
Interior, charged with administering the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Wetlands Wetlands are generally defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. For purposes of the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan, Wetlands are those lands which contain naturally occurring wetland communities
listed on Table 5-6 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and further described in Appendix B of
the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Wetlands also include areas lacking wetland communities
due to non-pennitted filling of previously existing Wetlands.
Wildlife Agencies - The USFWS and the CDFG.
17.35.040 General Application of Chapter
A. In conjunction with the earliest decision on any entitlement related to a Project Area after
(the effective date of the ordinance), such as Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan approval, Design Review approval, conditional use pennit, variance, parcel map
approval, tentative map approval, Land Development Pennit, or Clearing or Grubbing pennit
the applicant shall obtain a HUT Penn it in the following mapped areas identified in the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, unless exempt pursuant to Scction 17.35.050 of this Chapter:
I. 100% Conservation Areas;
2. 75-100% Conservation Areas; and
3. Development Areas outside of Covered Projects
B. It is unlawful to begin development on lands in mapped 100% Conservation Areas,
75-100% Conservation Areas, and Development Areas outside of Covered Projects without
submitting required documentation and obtaining a HUT pennit (including CEQA
compliance), or obtaining an exemption as required pursuant to this Chapter. If unlawful
development occurs on such lands and an enforcement action has been commenced by the
City, no development pennit application may be processed until the enforcement action has
been concluded. Enforcement action may include penalties assessed for unpennitted clearing
and grubbing and could include increased rcplacement mitigation ratios.
17.35.050 Exemptions
A. The following are exempt from the requirements ofthis Chapter:
I. Development of a Project Area that is one acre or less in size and located entirely in a
mapped Development Area outside of Covered Projects.
2. Development of a Project Area which is located entirely within the mapped Development
Area outside Covered Projects, and where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning and Building, or his/her designee, that no Sensitive Biological
Resources exist on the Project Area.
3. Development that is limited to interior modifications or repairs and any exterior repairs,
alterations or maintenance that does not increase the footprint of an existing building or
accessory structure, that will not encroach into identified Sensitive Biological Resources
during or after construction.
4. Any project within the Development Area of a Covercd Project.
5. Any project that has an effective incidental take pennit from the Wildlife Agencies.
6. Continuance of Agricultural Operations.
17.35.060 Application for HUT Permit
The following are submittal requirements for projects that are not exempt from this
Chapter:
A. General Submittal Requirements
The following are general submittal requirements for all HUT Pennits:
1. Submit a completed application fonn to the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department - Planning Division;
2. Provide copies of a biological survey for the entire Project Area that is consistent with the
MSCP Implementation Guidelines and prepared by a Biologist. If the biological surveys
are conducted outside the acceptable time of year for identifying covered Narrow Endemic
Species, but the Biologist identifies indicators that Narrow Endemic Species could be
present in the Project Area, then surveys for Narrow Endemic Species must be conducted
during the acceptable time of year in accordance with the MSCP Implementation
Guidelines and must be conducted prior to consideration of issuance of an HUT Pennit by
the City. The HUT Pennit application will be held in abeyance until the applicant submits
subsequent surveys for Narrow Endemic Species conducted during the acceptable time of
year.
3. For Project Areas located in 100% Conservation Areas, 75-100% Conservation Areas,
Development Areas outside of Covered Projects with indicators or the presence of Narrow
Endemic Species or Wetlands, or as otherwise deemed necessary by the biological survey
as detennined by the Director of Planning and Building, or his/her desih'11ee, the applicant
shall prepare and submit an Opportunities and Constraints Analysis to evaluate the
proposed development and its relationship to the Sensitive Biological Resources. The
opportunities and constraints identified shall be used to determine the portions of the
Project Area that are most suitable for development and those that should be conserved for
biological purposes. The Opportunities and Constraints Analysis shall include:
a. Written evaluation of such factors as biological resources, Sensitive Biological
Resources, historical resources, visual resources, public facilities needs, public safely
issues, conserved Sensitive Biological Resources on adjacent lands, and adjacent land
uses;
b. For Project Areas in 75-100% Conservation Areas, written description of how the
proposed project has been limited to the least environmentally sensitive portions of the
mapped 75-100% Conservation Area within the Project Area in accordance with the
MSCP Implementation Guidelines;
c. For Project Areas containing the siting of proposed Planned or Future Facilities in
100% Conservation Areas and 75- I 00% Conservation Areas, a written analysis that
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the decision maker that the facilities siting criteria
in Section 17.35. 100.A.4.c have been met.
d. Map of the Project Area at a suitable scale, which includes and clearly delineates, to
the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, the following information:
(I) Identification of Sensitive Biological Resources;
(2) Limits of proposed development, including areas to be impacted on a temporary
basis, if Sensitive Biological Resources are avoided;
(3) Limits of the proposed development, including areas to be impacted on a
temporary basis, if Sensitive Biological Resources are impacted; and
(4) Limits of any mitigation area(s) proposed within the Project Area.
e. Written description of proposed mitigation, including:
(I) How biological values of the mitigation area are equal to or greater than the
impacted area;
(2) Biological and Open Space Easement or other legal method proposed to ensure
permanent conservation of the land for biological purposes;
(3) Long-term methods to ensure protection and management of the habitats and
Covered Species, which may include but not be limited to funding; and
(4) Long-term biological viability of the proposed mitigation if it is not within or
immediately adjacent to a 100% Conservation Area.
4. Any other requirements deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and Building for
consideration of the proposed HUT Permit application.
5. Payment of applicable fees and/or deposits in accordance with the City's Master Fee
Schedule.
B. Additional Submittal Requirements for Project Areas that Contain any Covered
Narrow Endemic Species
1. In addition to the submittal requirements listed in Section 17.35.060 (A), the following
written infonnation shall be provided by the applicant when the biological survey
identifies any Narrow Endemic Species within the Project Area:
a. A graphic depiction of all covered Narrow Endemic Species located in the Project
Area;
b. A written biological description of the status of the covered Narrow Endemic
Species;
c. Quantification of both preservation of Narrow Endemic Species and impacts to
Narrow Endemic Species associated with the project including direct and indirect
effects on an area and individual plant basis;
d. Written report of the feasibility or infeasibility of total avoidance of Narrow
Endemic Species' population(s);
e. Written description of project design features that reduce indirect effects such as
edge treatments, landscaping, elevation differences, minimization and/or
compensation through restoration or enhancement;
f. Any other requirements deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and
Building for consideration of the proposed HUT Pennit application.
2. When the applicant proposes to impact any Narrow Endemic Species population within
the Project Area in excess of the 5% threshold in 100% Conservation Areas, as identified
in Section 5.2.3.4 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and the 20% threshold in 75-
100% Conservation Areas and Development Areas outside of Covered Projects, as
identified in Section 5.2.3.5 and 5.2.3.3, respectively, of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea
Plan, the applicant shall submit a written analysis that demonstrates the project would
result in an overall Preserve design and configuration biologically superior to that which
would occur under a project alternative within the 5% or 20% threshold. The applicant
shall submit to the City a written analysis addressing the following factors that
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City the proposed project is the biologically
superior alternative:
a. Effects on conserved habitats;
b. Effects on Covered Species;
c. Effects on habitat linkages and function of Preserve areas;
d. Effects on Preserve configuration and management;
e. Effects on ecotones or other conditions affecting species diversity; and
f. Effects on Listed Non-Covered Species or other species of concern not covered by the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
C. Additional Submittal Requirements for Project Areas that Contain Wetlands
I. In addition to the submittal requirements listed in Section 17.35.060 (A) and (B), as
applicable, the following written infonnation shall be provided by the applicant when the
biological survey identifies Wetlands within the Project Area:
a. A graphic depiction of all Wetlands located in the Project Area;
b. A written biological description of the status of the Wetlands;
c. Quantification of proposed impacts to Wetlands associated with the project;
d. Written analysis of the inability to avoid impacts to Wetlands;
e. Written description of project design features that minimize impacts to Wetlands;
f. Any other requirements deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and Building
for consideration of the proposed HUT Pennit application.
17.35.070 Permit Process
The HUT Pennit shall be acted upon in one of the following manners:
A. When an applicant applies for more than one pennit, map, or other approval for a
single development, the applications shall be consolidated for processing and shall be
reviewed by a single decision maker. The decision maker shall act on the consolidated
application at the highest level of authority for that development. The findings required for
approval of each pennit shall be considered individually, consistent with Section 17.35.080 of
this Chapter.
B. The HUT Pennit may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the
Director of Planning and Building, or his/her designee without a public hearing in accordance
with Section 19.14.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, in the following circumstances:
l. Any Planned Facility project listed in Table 6-1 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea
Plan that only impacts Natural Vegetation and does not impact habitat occupied by
Covered Species, Listed Non-Covered Species, Narrow Endemic Species, or Wetlands.
2. Any Future Facility project listed in Table 6-2 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea
Plan associated with a Covered Project that only impacts Natural Vegetation and does not
impact habitat occupied by Covered Species, Listed Non-Covered Species, Narrow
Endemic Species or Wetlands.
C. For all other HUT Pennit applications, the Director of Planning and Building, and or
his/her designee, may approve, conditionally approve, or deny such penn it at a public hearing
noticed in accordance with Section 19.14.180 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The
Director of Planning and Building decision may be appealed to the City Council in accordance
with Sections 19.14.110 and 19.14.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
17.35.080 Required Findings for Issuance of an HUT Permit
A. In order to approve or conditionally approve a HUT Pennit, all of the following written
findings shall be made by the decision-maker:
I. The proposed development in thl' Project Area and associated mitigation is consistent with
the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be amended
from time to time, the MSCP Implementation Guidelines, and the development standards
set forth in Section 17.35.100 ofthis Chapter.
2. The PrOject Area is physically suitable for the design and siting of the proposed
development and the development results in minimum disturbance to Sensitive Biological
Resources, except impacts to Natural Vegetation in mapped Development Areas.
3. The nature and extent of mitigation required as a condition of the pennit is reasonably
related to and calculated to alleviate negative impacts created in the Project Area.
B. In order to approve or conditional1y approve an HUT Pennit where the Project Area contains
Narrow Endemic Species, all of the following additional written findings shall be made by the
decision maker:
1. Narrow Endemic Species' populations within the Project Area have been avoided
or total avoidance is infeasible.
2. If impacts to Narrow Endemic Species have not been avoided, one of the
following findings shall be made:
a. In cases where impacts to covered Narrow Endemic Species' populations
within the Project Area have been limited to 5% in 100% Conservation Areas, and
20% in 75-100% Conservation Areas and Development Areas outside of Covered
Projects, the proposed project design, including mitigation, will result in conservation
of the species that is functionally equivalent to its status without the project, including
species numbers and area, and must ensure adequate Preserve design to protect the
species in the 10ng-tenn; or
b. In cases where the 5% or 20% Narrow Endemic Species impact threshold has
been exceeded, the proposed project design, including mitigation, results in a Preserve
design for the Narrow Endemic Species population within the Project Area that is
biologically superior to the Preserve design that would occur if the impact had been
limited to 5% in 100% Conservation Areas or 20% in 75-100% Conservation Areas
and Development Areas outside of Covered Projects.
C. In order to approve or conditionally approve an HUT Pennit where the Project Area contains
Wetlands, all of the following additional written findings shall be made by the decision maker:
1. Prior to issuance of a Land Development Pennit or Clearing and Grubbing Pennit, the
project proponent will be required to obtain any applicable state and federal pennits, with
copies provided to the Director of Planning and Building, or his/her designee.
2. Where impacts are proposed to Wetlands the tollowing findings shall be made:
a. Impacts to Wetlands have been avoided and/or minimized to the maximum extent
practicable, consistent with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Section 5.2.4;
and
b. Unavoidable impacts to Wetlands have been mitigated pursuant to Section 17.35.110
of this Chapter.
17.35.090 General MSCP Development Regulations
The following development regulations apply to all development proposals in a Project
Area that do not quality for an exemption from this Chapter and are proposed in 100%
Conservation Areas. 75- I 00% Conservation Areas, or Development Areas outside of Covered
Projects:
A. All development proposals regulated by this Chapter shall be consistent with the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and MSCP Implementation Guidelines.
I. Overall development within the Project Area, including public facilities and circulation,
shall be located to minimize impacts to Sensitive Biological Resources, in accordance with
this Chapter, the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the MSCP Implementation
Guidelines.
2. Pursuant to Chapter 15.04 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, no Land Development or
Clearing and Grubbing Permit which allows clearing, grubbing, or grading of Natural
Vegetation shall be issued for any portion of a Project Area where impacts are proposed to
Wetlands or Listed Non-covered Species until all applicable federal and state permits
have been issued.
3. Impacts to Wetlands shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts
to Wetlands are not avoided, impacts shall be minimized and mitigated pursuant to Section
17.35.110 of this Chapter.
4. No temporary disturbance or storage of material or equipment is pennitted in Sensitive
Biological Resources, unless the disturbance or storage occurs within an area approved by
the City for development or unless it can be demonstrated that the disturbance or storage
will not cause permanent habitat loss and the land will be revegetated and restored III
accordance with the MSCP Implementation Guidelines.
5. Grading during wildlife breeding seasons shall be avoided or modified consistent with the
requirements of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and in accordance with the MSCP
Implementation Guidelines.
6. All fuel modification (brush management) zones required as a result of new development,
and as required by the City of Chula Vista Fire Marshal, shall be located outside the
Preserve.
17.35.100 Specific MSCP Land Use and Development Regnlations
In addition to the General MSCP Development Regulations listed in Section 17.35.090 of
this Chapter, the following specific land use and development regulations shall apply to a]] land
uses and to development proposals in a Project Area that do not qualify for an exemption from this
Chapter:
A. Land uses and development are pennitted within the 100% Conservation Areas consistent with
the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and this Section. If any portion of the Project Area is
located within a 100% Conservation Area, the fo]]owing regulations shall apply to that portion
of the Project Area located within the 100% Conservation Area:
1. Uses Pennitted
The following uses are pennitted in 100% Conservation Areas:
a. Access for litter and trash removal, maintenance, repair, and refurbishment;
b. Replacement of structures in existing locations;
c. Passive recreation such as hiking and bird watching;
d. Other recreation such as mountain biking, horse back riding, boating, sun bathing,
fishing, and swimming as in accordance with an approved project, an approved area-
specitic management directive or as detennined by the appropriate managing entity;
e. Fencing that does not significantly, adversely effect the full functioning of the
Preserve, including wildlife movement as approved by the appropriate managing
entity;
f. Scientific research related to habitat conservation, monitoring and habitat restoration
and enhancement activities, subject to approval by the appropriate managing entity;
and
g. Access for law enforcement agencies, fire control agencies, the National Guard, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and Border Patrol;
h. Existing uses operating legally at the time take authorization is b'I"anted to the City by
the Wildlife Agencies until the land has been provided to the City or other entity by an
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication or conveyed by easement or fee title to the Preserve,
whichever comes first, including:
(1) Existing, pennitted uses allowed by right III Chapter 19 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance);
(2) Uses dcemed to be legal, non-confonning uses pursuant to Chapter 19 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance);
(3) Accessory and conditionally pennitted uses pursuant to Chapter 19 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance);
(4) Existing agricultural and grazing uses outside of Otay Ranch;
(5) Existing agricultural and grazing uses within Otay Ranch in accordance with
Chapter 17 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance);
and
(6) Existing mining, extraction and processing facilities consistent with the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
2. Conditionally Compatible Uses
The following uses are conditionally permitted in 100% Conservation Areas, consistent
with the Chula Vista Subarea Plan:
a. New Mining Extraction and Processing Facilities; and
b. Flood control; and
c. Roads and infrastructure; and
d. Other Planned Facilities not covered under c above; and
e. Other Future Facilities not covered under c above; and
f. Otay Valley Regional Park Plan Uses.
3. The following uses are not permitted:
a. The following uses shall not be permitted without prior issuance of the appropriate
permit from the City:
1. Clearing and/or grubbing of Natural Vegetation, for purposes unrelated to
biological enhancement, prior to issuance of a Clearing and Grubbing Permit;
2. Clearing and/or grubbing of Natural Vegetation, for purposes unrelated to
biological enhancement, grading, excavation, or placement of soil, rock, sand,
gravel or other material prior to issuance of a Land Development Pennit;
3. Construction or placement of any building or structure prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit;
b. Recreational off-highway vehicle use; and
c. Storage of materials such as chemicals and equipment; and
d. Dispersal ofbiosolids.
4. Development Standards
a. Development shall be limited to the maximum extent practicable to achieve project
objectives and shall be located on the least environmental1y sensitive portions of the
Project Area in accordance with the MSCP Implementation Guidelines. Such
development shall be designed to avoid impacts to covered species to the maximum
extent practicable. Encroachment into more environmentally sensitive areas shall only
be authorized to achieve project objectives.
b. Development must avoid impacts to covered Narrow Endemic Species to the
maximum extent practicable. A list of the covered Narrow Endemic Species is
included in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and MSCP Implementation
Guidelines. Measures for protection of Narrow Endemic Species shall be required
such as management, enhancement, restoration and/or transplantation in accordance
with the MSCP Implementation Guidelines.
(1) Where impacts to a covered Narrow Endemic Species population are
demonstrated to be unavoidable, impacts shall be limited to 5% of the total
Narrow Endemic Species population within the Project Area, except as provided
by Section l7.35.100.A.4.b(2) of this Chapter. Written findings of equivalency
must be made by the City in accordance with Section l7.35.080.B of this Chapter.
The City will forward its written findings of equivalency to the Wildlife Agencies.
The Wildlife Agencies may submit to the City, within 30 days of a receipt of
mailed notice of written findings trom the City, a written finding of non-
concurrence on the facts of the City's findings. If such written finding of non-
concurrence is made within 30 days of receipt of mailed notice of findings from
the City, the City must confer with the Wildlife Agencies to resolve Narrow
Endemic Species issues with the proposed development. If the WiJdlife Agencies
do not respond within 30 days after receipt of mailed notice, the City shall deem
the written findings accepted.
(2) If. after comprehensive consideration of avoidance and minimization measures,
impacts excecd 5% of the covered Narrow Endemic Species population within the
Project Area, a detennination of biologically superior preservation, must be made
in accordance with Section l7.35.080.B of this Chapter. The City will forward its
written detennination of biologically superior preservation to the Wildlife
Agencies for review. The Wildlife Agencies may submit to the City, within 30
days of receipt of mailed notice of findings trom the City, a written finding of
non-concurrence on the facts of the City's findings. If such written finding of
non-concUrrence is made within 30 days of receipt of mailed notice of findings
from the City, the City must confer with the Wildlife Agencies to resolve Narrow
Endemic Species issues with the proposed development. If the Wildlife Agencies
do not respond within 30 days after recejpt of mailed notice, the City shall deem
the written findings accepted.
c. Development of Planned and Future Facilities shall be in accordance with the
following siting criteria:
(1) Planned and Future Facilities shall be located through developed or developing
areas where feasible and shall use existing roads, trails, and disturbed areas to the
maximum extent practicable.
(2) Planned and Future Facilities shan avoid, to the maximum extent practicable,
impacts to Sensitive Biological Resources and Covered Species. Where avoidance
of Sensitive Biological Resources and Covered Species has been demonstrated by
the applicant to be infeasible, impacts to Sensitive Biological Resources and
Covered Species resulting from Planned and, Future Facilities shall be minimized
and located in the least environmentally sensitive portion of the Project Area in
accordance with the MSCP Implementation Guidelines.
(3) Planned and Future Facilities shall avoid, to the maximum extent practicable,
impacts to Wetlands. If avoidance of Wetlands is not possible, any impacts to
Wetlands shall require mitigation in accordance with Section 5.2.4 and Table 5-6
of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be
amended from time to time.
(4) Where roads traverse the Preserve, they shaH, to the maximum extent practicable,
provide for wildlife movement in areas that are graphically depicted on and listed
in the MSCP Subregional Plan Generalized Core Biological Resource Areas and
Linkages map (see Figure 1- 4 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan) as a core
biological area or a regional linkage between core biological areas.
(5) At wildlife crossings, road bridges for vehicular traffic shall be preferred over box
culverts and pipe culverts. Box culverts shall only be used when they can achieve
the wildlife movement goals for the specific location. To the maximum extent
practicable, wildlife crossings shall be designed as follows:
(a) The substrate shall be left in a natural condition and planted with native
vegetation if appropriate;
(b) A line-of-sight from one end to the other shall be provided; and
(c) Low-level illumination shall be installed.
(6) To minimize habitat disruption, habitat fragmentation, impediments to wildlife
movement, and impacts to breeding areas, roads and/or right-of-way widths shall
be narrowed from existing City design and engineering standards to the maximum
extent practicable.
d. No single Future Facility project shall permanently impact more than two acres of
covered habitat without concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. Temporary Impacts
associated with Future Facilities shaH not be included in the limitations for permanent
impacts to Natural Vegetation, however, an areas of Temporary Impacts shall be
revegetated pursuant to the MSCP ImpJementation Guidelines. If the two-acre singJe
project threshold is to be exceeded, the City shall notify in writing and provide
applicable project infonnation to the Wildlife Agencies. The Wildlife Agencies may
submit to the City, within 30 days of a receipt of mailed notice and information from
the City, a written response of non-concurrence. If such written finding of non-
concurrence is made within 30 days of receipt of mailed notice from the City, the City
shall confer with the Wildlife Agencies to resolve the Future Facility issue. If the
Wildlife Agencies do not respond within 30 days after receipt of mailed notice, the
City shaH deem the written findings accepted.
e. The cumulative permanent impacts to covered habitats from all Future Facilities for an
projects shall not exceed a total of 50 acres without concurrence from the Wildlife
Agencies. If the 50-acre threshold is to be exceeded, the City shan notify in writing
and provide applicable project information to the Wildlife Agencies. The Wildlife
Agencies may submit to the City, within 30 days of a receipt of mailed notice and
information trom the City, a written response of non-concurrence. If such written
finding of non-concurrence is made within 30 days of receipt of mailed notice from
the City, the City shall confer with the Wildlife Agencies to resolve the Future Facility
issue. If the Wildlife Agencies do not respond within 30 days after receipt of mailed
notice, the City shall deem the written findings accepted.
f. Mitigation shall be provided pursuantto Section] 7.35. ] 10 of this Chapter.
g. For construction areas adjacent to occupied Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat, dust
contro] measures (e.g. watering) will be applied during grading activities.
B. Land uses and development are permitted within 75-100% Conservation Areas consistent with
the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and this Section. If any portion of the Project Area is
located within a 75-100% Conservation Area, the following shall apply to that portion of the
Project Area located within the 75-100% Conservation Area:
I. Land Uses Permitted
a. Permitted land uses include those uses permitted in the underlying zone.
2. Development Standards
a. Development shall be pennitted in 25% of the 75-100% Conservation Area within the
Project Area. Projects shall be designed to avoid impacts to Covered Species to the
maximum extent practicable and the 25% Development Area shall be located on the
least environmentally sensitive portions of the 75-100% Conservation Area within the
Project Area. The following list, in order of increasing sensitivity, shall be used to
determine the least environmentally sensitive portions of the 75-100% Conservation
Area within the Project Area. This list shall be used in combination with site-specific
biological information submitted pursuant to Section 17.35.060 of this Chapter, and
with other considerations such as but not limited to, potential edge-effects from
existing and proposed development, Preserve configuration, habitat quality, wildlite
movement, and topography.
(l) Areas devoid of vegetation, including previously graded areas and agricultural
fields;
(2) Areas of non-native vegetation, disturbed habitats and eucalyptus woodlands:
(3) Areas of chamise or mixed chaparral, and non-native grasslands;
(4) Areas containing coastal scrub communities;
(5) All other upland habitat communities;
(6) Occupied habitat of listed species, Narrow Endemic Species, and all Wetlands;
and
(7) All areas necessary to maintain the viability of wildlife corridors.
b. Development shall avoid impacts to covered Narrow Endemic Species to the
maximum extent practicable. A list of the covered Narrow Endemic Species is
included in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and MSCP Implementation
Guidelines. Measures for protection of Narrow Endemic Species shall be required
such as management, enhancement, restoration and/or transplantation in accordance
with the MSCP Implementation Guidelines.
(I) Where impacts to a covered Narrow Endemic Species population are
demonstrated to be unavoidable, impacts shall be limited to 20% of the total
Narrow Endemic Species population within the Project Area, except as provided
by Section 17.35.100.B.2.b(2) of this Chapter. Written findings of equivalency
will be made by the City in accordance with Section 17.35.080.B of this Chapter.
(2) If, after comprehensive consideration of avoidance and minimization measures,
impacts exceed 20% of the covered Narrow Endemic Species population within
the Project Area, a written determination of biologically superior preservation,
must be made by the City in accordance with Section 17.35.080.B of this Chapter.
The City will forward its written detennination of biologically superior
preservation to the Wildlife Agencies for review. The Wildlife Agencies may
submit to the City, within 30 days ofreceipt of mailed notice of findings trom the
City, a written finding of non-concurrence on the facts of the City's findings. If
such written finding of non-concurrence is made within 30 days of receipt of
mailed notice of findings trom the City, the City must confer with the Wildlife
Agencies to resolve Narrow Endemic Species issues with the proposed
development. If the Wildlife Agencies do not respond within 30 days after receipt
of mailed notice, the City shall deem the written findings accepted.
c. Mitigation shall be provided pursuant to Section 17.35.110 of this Chapter.
C. Land uses and development are pennitted within Development Areas outside of Covered
Projects consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and this Section. If any portion
of the Project Area is located within a Development Area, the following regulations shall
apply to that portion of the Project Area located within the Development Area outside of
Covered Projects:
!. Land Uses Pennitted
a. Pennitted land uses include those uses pennitted in the underlying zone.
2. Development Standards
a. Encroachment into Natural Vegetation is not limited except as may be provided by
Section 17.35.090 (A)(2) and/or (A)(3) of this Chapter.
b. Development shall avoid impacts to covered Narrow Endemic Species to the
maximum extent practicable. A list of the covered Narrow Endemic Species is
included in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the MSCP Implementation
Guidelines. Measures for protection of Narrow Endemic Species shall be required
such as management, enhancement, restoration and/or transplantation in accordance
with the MSCP Implementation Guidelines.
(I) Where impacts to a covered Narrow Endemic Species population are
demonstrated to be unavoidable, impacts shall be limited to 20% of the total
Narrow Endemic Species population within the Project Area, except as provided
in Section 17.35.100.C.2.b(2) of this Chapter. Written findings of equivalency
will be made by the City in accordance with Section 17.35.080.B of this Chapter.
(2) If, after comprehensive consideration of avoidance and minimization
measures, impacts exceed 20% of the covered Narrow Endemic Species
population within the Project Area, a written detennination of biologically
superior preservation, will be made by the City in accordance with Section
17.35.080.B of this Chapter. The City will forward its written
detennination of biologically superior preservation to the Wildlife
Agencies for review. The Wildlife Agencies may submit to the City,
within 30 days of receipt of mailed notice of findings from the City, a
written finding of non-concurrence on the facts of the City's findings. If
such written finding of non-concurrence is made within 30 days of receipt
of mailed notice of findings from the City, the City must confer with the
Wildlife Agencies to resolve Narrow Endemic Species issues with the
proposed development. If the Wildlife Agencies do not respond within 30
days after receipt of mailed notice, the City shall deem the written
findings accepted.
c. Mitigation shall be provided pursuant to Section 17.35.110 of this Chapter.
17.35,110 Mitigation
Where mitigation for project impacts is required pursuant to this Section, the level and type
of mitigation shall be consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on
, and as may be amended from time to time and the MSCP Implementation Guidelines.
The following mitigation standards shall be applied to impacts within 100% Conservation Areas,
75-100% Conservation Areas and Development Areas outside of Covered Projects:
A. The following mitigation standards shall be applied to 100% Conservation Areas:
I. Pennanent impacts to Natural Vegetation resulting from construction of Planned Facilities
associated with Covered Projects shall not require mitigation. These impacts have already
been considered in the project-specific conditions of coverage and/or mitigation for each
Covered Project.
2. Pennanent impacts to Natural Vegetation resulting from construction of Future Facilities
associated with Covered Projects where the impact to Sensitive Biological Resources is
less than or equal to two acres and the 50-acre threshold identified in Section
17.35.100.A..4.d of this Chapter has not been exceeded shall not require mitigation.
3. Permanent impacts to Natural Vegetation resulting from construction of Future Facilities
not associated with Covered Projects shall be mitigated pursuant to the mitigation
standards contained in Table 5-3 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on
, and as may be amended from time to time.
4. Mitigation for pennanent impacts to Narrow Endemic Species populations shall be
detennined on a case-by-case basis by the Director of Planning and Building, or his/her
designee, and may include such measures as management, enhancement, restoration and/or
transplantation. Mitigation shall be in-kind and mitigation ratios for such measures shall
be required at a 1:1 to 3:1 ratio depending on the sensitivity of the species and population
size and in accordance with Section 5.2.3 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as
adopted on , and as may be amended from time to time and the MSCP
Implementation Guidelines.
5. Impacts to Wetlands shall be mitigated pursuant to Section 5.2.4 and Table 5-6 of the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be amended from
time to time.
6. Temporary Impacts to Sensitive Biological Resources resulting from construction of
Planned and Future Facilities shall be revegetated pursuant to the MSCP Implementation
Guidelines.
B. The following mitigation standards shall be applied to 75-100% Conservation Areas:
1. Impacts to Natural Vegetation shall not require mitigation. As a condition of pennit
issuance, Natural Vegetation outside the Development Area as detennined by the HUT
Pennit, shall be left in a natural state and uses shall be consistent with Section
17.35.100.A.I-3.
2. Mitigation for impacts to Narrow Endemic Species populations shall be detennined on a
case-by-case basis by the Director of Planning and Building, or his/her designee, and may
include such measures as management, enhancement, restoration and/or transplantation.
Mitigation shall be in-kind and mitigation ratios for such measures shall be at a 1:1 to 3:1
ratio depending on the sensitivity of the species and population size and in accordance
with Section 5.2.3 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and
as may be amended !Tom time to time and the MSCP Implementation Guidelines.
3. Impacts to Wetlands shall be mitigated pursuant to Section 5.2.4 and Table 5-6 of the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be amended from
time to time.
C. The following mitigation standards shall be applied to Development Areas outside of Covered
Projects:
I. Pennanent impacts to Natural Vegetation shall be mitigated pursuant to the mitigation
standards contained in Table 5-3 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on
, and as may be amended from time to time.
2. Mitigation for pennanent impacts to Narrow Endemic Species populations shall be
detennined on a case-by-case basis by the Director of Planning and Building, or his/her
designee, and may include such measures as management, enhancement, restoration and/or
transplantation. Mitigation shall be in-kind and mitigation ratios for such measures shall
be at a 1:1 to 3:1 ratio depending on the sensitivity of the species and population size and
in accordance with Section 5.2.3 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on
, and as may be amended from time to time and the MSCP Implementation
Guidelines.
3. Impacts to Wetlands shall be mitigated pursuant to Section 5.2.4 and Table 5-6 of the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on . and as may be amended from
time to time.
17.35.120 Biological and Open Space Easement
A. When required, the applicant shall draft and submit a Biological and Open Space Easement
(Conservation Easement) that includes the following:
I. A legal description of the premises affected by the pennit with a description of the
mitigation area and the Sensitive Biological Resources that will be preserved;
2. To impart notice to all persons to the extent afforded by the recording laws of the state
regarding the restrictions affecting use of the Sensitive Biological Resources covered by
the pennit;
3. To ensure that the burdens of the easement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the
easement shall ensure to, all successors an interest to the affected land;
4. To ensure enforceability of the biological and open space easement by the City, or jointly
and severally by the City, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California
Department of Fish and Game in those instances when the biological and open space
easement affects land containing Sensitive Biological Resources or other lands that have
been accepted as mitigation, and
5. Uses consistent with those listed in Section l7.35.100.A.I-2 of this Chapter.
B. A public hearing shall be held to consider a fonnal, written request directed to the City by any
person requesting the release of a biological and open space easement recorded pursuant to
this Chapter. A release of any biological and open space easement recorded pursuant to this
Chapter shall be recorded by the City only when it is detennined by the City that restriction of
the property is no longer necessary to achieve the land use goals of the City. A detennination
by the City to release said easement may be made only with the written concurrence of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department ofFish and Game.
17.35.130 Deviation from Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Regulations
A. \\-'hen a deviation is requested from this Chapter because the applicant contends that strict
application of this Chapter would result in denial of all economically viable use, the HUT
Pennit shall include a detennination of economically viable use. Where a deviation is
requested from this Chapter, it may be approved or conditionally approved only if the
decision-maker makes all of the following supplemental findings in addition to the applicable
findings in Section 17.35.080 ofthis Chapter:
I. Based on the economic infonnation provided by the applicant, as well as any other
relevant evidence, each use provided for in this Chapter would not provide any
economically viable use of the applicant's property;
2. The use proposed by the applicant is consistent with the applicable zoning;
3. The use and project design, siting, and size are the minimum necessary to provide the
applicant with an economically viable use of the Project Area; and
4. The development proposal is the least environmentally damaging alternative and is
consistent with all provisions of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on
, and as may be amended from time to time and this Chapter, with the exception
of the provisions for which the deviation is requested.
B. The process for a deviation shall be in accordance with Section 17.35.070 of this Chapter.
17.35.140 Emergencies
Whenever development activity within Sensitive Biological Resources, as identified in the
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, is deemed necessary by order of the City Manager to
protect the public health or safety, the City Manager may authorize, without a public hearing, the
minimum amount of impact necessary to protect the public health or safety, subject to the
following:
A. If the emergency work involves only temporary impacts to Sensitive Biological Resources, a
HUT Pennit is not required, provided the Sensitive Biological Resources are restored to their
natural state in accordance with a revegetation plan approved by the Director of Planning and
Building, or his/her designee. The revegetation plan shall be submitted to the City within 60
days of completion of the emergency work.
B. If the emergency work results in pennanent impacts to Sensitive Biological Resources, a
subsequent HUT Pennit is required in accordance with all regulations of this Chapter. The
application for the HUT Pennit shall be submitted within 60 days of completion of the
emergency work.
17.35.150 City Responsibility to Publish Guidelines
The City Manager is authorized to promulgate and publish MSCP Implementation
Guidelines and other support documents as necessary to implement this Chapter. These
administrative guidelines shall serve as baseline standards for processing SPA Plans,
Design Review applications, conditional use permits, variances, parcel maps, tentative
maps, Land Development Permits or Clearing and Grubbing Permits pursuant to this
Chapter. Any revisions to the MSCP Implementation Guidelines will require review and
approval by the City Manager.
17.35.160 Violations and Remedies
The provisions of this Chapter shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions of Chapters
1.20 through 1.41 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
17.35.170 Conflicts
Except for exempt projects, if a conflict occurs between this Chapter and Chapter 15.04 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the stricter regulation shall apply.
17.35.180 Local Coastal Program
Prior to issuance of an HUT Permit for any project located within the Chula Vista Local
Coastal Plan (LCP) area, the applicant shall obtain a determination of project consistency with the
Chula Vista LCP from the Director of Planning and Building. If the project cannot be deemed
consistent with the LCP, an LCP amendment must be completed prior to issuance of the HUT
Permit.
Section II. This ordinance is conditioned upon the issuance of Take Authorizations from
the USFWS and CDFG to the City of Chula Vista.
Section III. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day from and
after the second reading of the ordinance which shall occur after issuance of Take
Authorizations from the USFWS and CDFG.
Presented by
Approved as to fonn by
Robert A. Leiter
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REPEAL SECTION 17.30
RELATING TO INTERIM COASTAL SAGE SCRUB
HABITAT LOSS PERMIT PROCESS AND IN ITS
PLACE ADD THE OT A Y RANCH GRAZING FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MSCP SUBAREA PLAN
WHEREAS, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subregional
Plan was developed as a comprehensive, long-tenn habitat conservation plan which
addressed multiple species and the preservation of natural habitat within a 900 square mile
study area in south San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, MSCP Subregional Plan contemplated that local jurisdictions,
including the City of Chula Vista ("City"), would participate in the MSCP Subregional
Plan and seek federal and state take authorization by adopting a subarea plan consistent
with the conservation strategies contained in the MSCP Subregional Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in August, 1996, for inclusion in
the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan and for consideration by the lead agencies in their
environmental review of the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan; and
WHEREAS, as lead agencies for the Multiple Species Conservation Program
("MSCP") Subregional Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego
prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species
due to urban growth within the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP")
planning area ("Final EIR/EIS") in January, 1997 and adopted the Final MSCP
Subregional Plan in August, 1998; and
WHEREAS, as a responsible agency, the City of Chula Vista ("City") participated
in the preparation of the Final EIRlElS through consuJtation and comment; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the City, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game
(hereinafter refetted to as the "Wildlife Agencies") further negotiated a number of aspects
of the 1996 Draft Subarea Plan, including but not limited to, the refinement of the
conditions of coverage for covered projects, thc type and extent of protection for narrow
endemic species, the amount and type of public facilities and infi-astructure to be allowed
in the Preserve, and an acceptable configuration for the university site adjacent to the
Preserve; and
WHEREAS, following a review by the Wildlife Agencies and public comment
period, the City issued a draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000, and a Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, to the Wildlife Agencies and the
general public; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2000, the City submitted to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Scrvice an application for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) pennit for incidental take
pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the
California Department of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization permit
pursuant to Section 2835 of the California Endangered Species Act, with both applications
including the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000, and a Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place
for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on October
17,2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and City Council; and
WHEREAS, approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan and adoption of the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 were discretionary actions covered
by the Final EIRlEIS, and therefore, as a responsible agency, the City had a more limited
role than does a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA");
and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Addendum dated September 11,2000, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to fulfill the City's obligations as a responsible
agency; and
WHEREAS, the City issued Findings of Fact for each of the significant
environmental effects of implementing the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
September 11, 2000, in conformance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which
enabled the City to make full use of the Final EIRlEIS and the Addendum (CEQA
Guidelines, sections 15101,15093 and 15096, subd. (h)); and
WHEREAS, the City considered the Final EIRlEIS prepared by the lead agency
together with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 and the Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and reached its own conclusion
about whether and how to approve the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City also prepared an MSCP Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources dated October 12, 2000, in
compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIRlEIS prepared
and certified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in January,
1997, the Addendum to the Final EIRlEIS (October 2000), the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources (October 2000) and found that
the documents were prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and
also found that the Final EIRlEIS (January 1997) and Addendum to the Final EIRlEIS
adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the MSCP Subregional Plan and the
Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September 11, 2000; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2000, the City Council approved the MSCP
Subregional Plan dated August, 1998, as the framework plan for the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan; conditionally adopted the MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September II, 2000,
and the Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological
Resources dated October, 2000; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council conditional approval on October 17,
2000, the City decided to make further changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
September 11, 2000, including but not limited to additional infomJation not previously
available about the Quino checkerspot butterfly, a federally listed endangered species. The
City believed it was prudent to add coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly into the
draft MSCP Subarea Plan prior to the Subarea Plan and associated implementing
documents being published in the Federal Register; and
WHEREAS, since October 2000, changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan have
been made as necessary to complete a final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, including 1)
measures to provide coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly; 2) the preparation of
three implementing ordinances; 3) final revisions to the Implementing Agreement, 4)
conservation of additional lands not previously anticipated to be preserved; and 4) other
revisions to address unresolved issues including, but not limited to, changed
circumstances, wetlands, and funding for long temJ management; and
WHEREAS, the City detemJined that as part of the implementation of the MSCP
Subarea Plan, the City of Chula Vista General Plan would be amended to incorporate the
MSCP Subarea Plan as a separate element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
and Environmental Assessment (No. 03-01) to address all of the changes to the revised
final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002, the City submitted a revised application to the
Wildlife Agencies for a Section IO(a)(I)(B) pemJit for incidental take pursuant to the U.S.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the California Department
of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization pemJit pursuant to Section 2835
of the California Endangered Species Act, with all of the required application materials
including the revised Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, the revised Draft Implementing
Agreement, Draft Implementing Ordinances and the Draft Supplemental EIR and EA; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2002 a Federal Register notice was published
commencing a 60-day public comment period on the Incidental Take Applications, Public
Review Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated October 2002, implementing documents and
associated environmental documents. A public notice was also published on October 11,
2002 announcing the availability of the Draft SEIR and EA to meet the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, public review of the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan and implementing
documents closed on December 9, 2002. The City received 12 letters of comment from
the public and has prepared responses to the comments and made changes to the Public
Review Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated October 2002 and implementing documents, and
has prepared a final City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003, Draft
Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and final draft implementing ordinances;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place
for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on April 9,
2003 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the conditional adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan,
dated February 2003 and associated implementing ordinances will not constitute a binding
set of obligations on any public or private entity within the City of Chula Vista unless and
until 1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues a biological opinion which affirms the
conservation strategies in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003 and
the Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, 2) take permits are issued by
both Wildlife Agencies that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
February 2003, and Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, and 3) the City
approves and executes an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the
Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan will also require an
amendment to the City of Chula Vista General Plan to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan
as an element of the General Plan (Part 2, Chapter 7 A) and adoption of three MSCP
Implementing Ordinances, including the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance, the
Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance and revisions to the Excavation, Grading and Fills
Ordinance. These ordinances will only take effect after issuance of the take pemlits and
the necessary timelines for ordinances pursuant to the City Charter have passed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
Section I. That Chapter 17 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code be and the same is
hereby amended by repealing Section 17.30 Interim Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Loss
Permit Process and in its place add Section 17.30 to read as fol1ows:
Sec. 17.30
OTAYRANCH GRAZING
Sections:
17.30.010
17 .30.020
1 7.30.030
17.30.040
17.30.050
17.30.060
Purpose and Intent
General Authorization
Definitions
General Application of Chapter
General Regulations
Violations
17.30.010
,
Purpose and Intent
The purpose of these regulations is to implement the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan and Resource Management Plan within the City of Chula Vista.
Specifically, these regulations implement the preserve management goals and
recommendations for the Otay River Valley Management Area of the Range Management
Plan (Appendix F7 of the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan).
17.30.020 General Authorization
As a participating jurisdiction in the MSCP Subregional Planning effort, the City of Chu1a
Vista is promulgating these regulations to implement the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan as a
condition of receiving an incidental take permit to be issued to the City pursuant to Section
lO(a)(I)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act and take authorization to be issued to the City
pursuant to Section 2835 of the California Fish and Game Code.
17.30.030
Definitions
100% Conservation Area - Lands within the City of Chula Vista for which hard-line
Preserve boundaries have been established and where the conserved portion will be
managed for its biological resources. These areas are shown on Figure 1-2 of the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be amended /Tom
time to time.
Otav Ranch Preserve - The land mapped as "resource preserve" in the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan and the Il,375-acre habitat conservation area established by
the Otay Ranch Phase I Resource Management Plan.
Pastufe Defined areas used fOf grazing, demarcated by fences and gates that allow for
control of grazing patterns.
Prcserve - Areas within the City of Chula Vista incorporated limits which have been
dedicated and accepted by the City for pennanent MSCP conservation and which will be
managed for their biological resources.
17.30.040
General Application of Chapter
11 is unlawful to conduct grazing activities in the City of Chula Vista on land
designated by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan as Otay Ranch Preserve, except
as provided for by this chapter.
17.30.050
General Regulations
The following General Regulations shall apply to all land designated by the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan as Otay Ranch Preserve and as 100% Conservation
Area in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, as adopted on , and as may be
amended from time to time:
A. Existing grazing uses shall be pennitted to continue in compliance with all
applicable fegulations, only whefe the uses have occurred continuously within
previous years; and
B. No increase in irrigation shall be allowed, except for temporary irrigation that
may be installed as part ofrestoration plans; and
C. Grazing by sheep and goats shall not be allowed; and
D. Any existing or future fencing and gating installed for range management
purposes shall be maintained and kept in good repair; and
E. Grazing of cattle in pastures 6 (Horse), lOa, lOb, lOc (River Valley West), lla,
lib, l1c (River Valley East), l2a, l2b, and l2c (O'Neal), as set forth in
Exhibit 4 of the Otay Ranch Range Management Plan, shall be prohibited from
January 1 through August 31, annually; and .
F. Grazing of cattle in pastures 12 (O'Neal) and 15 (Salt Creek), as set forth in
Exhibit 4 of the Otay Ranch Range Management Plan, shall be prohibited
during the breeding season of the Califomia gnatcatcher from February 15
through August 15, annually; and
G. In areas designated for restoration, grazing shall be removed for a period of
time prior to initiation of restoration activities to facilitate soil preparation and
exotic plant control.
17.30.060
Violations
The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions of
Chapters 1.20 through 1.41 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Section II. This ordinance is conditioned upon the issuance of Take
Authorizations from the USFWS and CDFG to the City ofChula Vista.
Section III. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day
from and after the second reading of the ordinance which shall occur after issuance
of Take Authorizations from the USFWS and CDFG.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING TITLE 15,
CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO EXCAVATION, GRADING AND FILLS AS IT RELATES TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MSCP SUBAREA PLAN
WHEREAS, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subregional
Plan was developed as a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation plan which
addressed multiple species and the preservation of natural habitat within a 900 square mile
study area in south San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, MSCP Subregional Plan contemplated that local jurisdictions,
including the City of Chula Vista ("City"), would participate in the MSCP Subregional
Plan and seek federal and state take authorization by adopting a subarea plan consistent
with the conservation strategies contained in the MSCP Subregional Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in August, 1996, for inclusion in
the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan and for consideration by the lead agencies in their
environmental review of the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan; and
WHEREAS, as lead agencies for the Multiple Species Conservation Program
("MSCP") Subregional Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego
prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species
due to urban growth within the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP")
planning area ("Final EIRJEIS") in January, 1997 and adopted the Final MSCP
Subregional Plan in August, 1998; and
WHEREAS, as a responsible agency, the City of Chu]a Vista ("City") participated
in the preparation of the Final EIRJEIS through consultation and comment; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the City, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game
(hereinafter referred to as the "Wildlife Agencies") further negotiated a number of aspects
of the 1996 Draft Subarea Plan, including but not limited to, the refinement of the
conditions of coverage for covered projects, the type and extent of protection for narrow
endemic species, the amount and type of public facilities and infrastructure to be allowed
in the Preserve, and an acceptable configuration for the university site adjacent to the
Preserve; and
WHEREAS, following a review by the Wildlife Agencies and public comment
period, the City issued a draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000, and a Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, to the Wildlife Agencies and the
general public; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2000, the City submitted to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service an application for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for incidental take
pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the
California Department of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization permit
pursuant to Section 2835 of the California Endangered Species Act, with both applications
including the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000, and a Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place
for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on October
17,2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and City Council; and
WHEREAS, approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan and adoption of the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000 were discretionary actions covered
by the Final EIR/EIS, and therefore, as a responsible agency, the City had a more limited
role than does a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA");
and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Addendum dated September II, 2000, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to fulfill the City's obligations as a responsible
agency; and
WHEREAS, the City issued Findings of Fact for each of the significant
environmental effects of implementing the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
September 11, 2000, in conformance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which
enabled the City to make full use of the Final EIR/EIS and the Addendum (CEQA
Guidelines, sections 15]0], ]5093 and ]5096, subd. (h)); and
WHEREAS, the City considered the Final EIR/EIS prepared by the lead agency
together with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000 and the Draft
Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and reached its own conclusion
about whether and how to approve the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11,2000; and
WHEREAS, the City also prepared an MSCP Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources dated October 12, 2000, in
compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(I); and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIR/EIS prepared
and certified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in January,
1997, the Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS (October 2000), the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing
Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources (October 2000) and found that
the documents were prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and
also found that the Final EIR/EIS (January 1997) and Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS
adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the MSCP Subregional Plan and the
Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September 11,2000; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2000, the City Council approved the MSCP
Subregional Plan dated August, 1998, as the framework plan for the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan; conditionally adopted the MSCP Subarea Plan, dated September 11, 2000,
and the Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological
Resources dated October, 2000; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council conditional approval on October 17,
2000, the City decided to make further changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
September 11, 2000, including but not limited to additional information not previously
available about the Quino checkerspot butterfly, a federally listed endangered species. The
City believed it was prudent to add coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly into the
draft MSCP Subarea Plan prior to the Subarea Plan and associated implementing
documents being published in the Federal Register; and
WHEREAS, since October 2000, changes to the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan have
been made as necessary to complete a final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, including 1)
measures to provide coverage for the Quino checkerspot butterfly; 2) the preparation of
three implementing ordinances; 3) final revisions to the Implementing Agreement, 4)
conservation of additional lands not previously anticipated to be preserved; and 4) other
revisions to address unresolved issues including, but not limited to, changed
circumstances, wetlands, and funding for long term management; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that as part of the implementation of the MSCP
Subarea Plan, the City of Chula Vista General Plan would be amended to incorporate the
MSCP Subarea Plan as a separate element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
and Environmental Assessment (No. 03-0 I) to address all of the changes to the revised
final Draft MSCP Subarea Plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002, the City submitted a revised application to the
Wildlife Agencies for a Section 10(a)(l)(B) permit for incidental take pursuant to the U.S.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the California Department
of Fish and Game an application for a take authorization permit pursuant to Section 2835
of the California Endangered Species Act, with all of the required application materials
including the revised Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, the revised Draft Implementing
Agreement, Draft Implementing Ordinances and the Draft Supplemental EIR and EA; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2002 a Federal Register notice was published
commencing a 60-day public comment period on the Incidental Take Applications, Public
Review Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated October 2002, implementing documents and
associated environmental documents. A public notice was also published on October 11,
2002 announcing the availability of the Draft SEIR and EA to meet the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, public review of the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan and implementing
documents closed on December 9, 2002. The City received 12 letters of comment from
the public and has prepared responses to the comments and made changes to the Public
Review Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, dated October 2002 and implementing documents, and
has prepared a final City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003, Draft
Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and final draft implementing ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place
for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
givcn by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on April 9,
2003 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the conditional adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan,
dated February 2003 and associated implementing ordinances will not constitute a binding
set of obligations on any public or private entity within the City of Chula Vista unless and
until 1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues a biological opinion which affirms the
conservation strategies in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003 and
the Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, 2) take permits are issued by
both Wildlife Agencies that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated
February 2003, and Draft Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, and 3) the City
approves and executes an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the
Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan will also require an
amendment to the City ofChula Vista General Plan to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan
as an element of the General Plan (Part 2, Chapter 7 A) and adoption of three MSCP
Implementing Ordinances, including the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance, the
Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance and revisions to the Excavation, Grading and Fills
Ordinance. These ordinances will only take effect after issuance of the take permits and
the necessary timelines for ordinances pursuant to the City Charter have passed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
Section I. That Chapter 15.04 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code be and the same
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sections:
15.04.005
15.04.010
15.04.015
15.04.017
15.04.020
15.04.025
15.04.030
15.04.035
15.04.040
15.04.045
15.04.050
15.04.055
15.04.060
15.04.065
EXCA V ATlON, GRADING, CLEARING, GRUBBING AND FILLS'
Purpose and intent of provisions.
Definitions.
Permit required for all land development work and soil investigations.
Other Reauired Permits.
Compliance with conditions and specifications required-Deviations from standards
permitted when.
Provisions not to affect other code requirements.
Facilities within public rights-of-way-Assignment of costs.
Commencement and completion of work-Extension of time.
Slopes-Design requirements generally.
Building pads-Design requirements.
Embankment requirements-Soil engineer may be required.
Expansive soil grading requirements.
Landscaping and irrigation system.
Slopes-Tops and toes to be rounded.
15.04.070
15.04.075
15.04.080
15.04.085
15.04.090
15.04.095
15.04.100
15.04.105
15.04.110
15.04.115
15.04.120
15.04.125
15.04.130
15.04.135
15.04.140
15.04.145
15.04.150
15.04.155
15.04.160
15.04.165
15.04.170
15.04.175
15.04.180
15.04.185
15.04.190
15.04.195
15.04.200
15.04.205
15.04.210
15.04.215
15.04.220
15.04.225
15.04.230
15.04.235
15.04.240
15.04.245
15.04.250
15.04.255
15.04.260
15.04.265
15.04.270
15.04.275
15.04.280
Slopes-Blending into existing terrain.
Slopes-Horizontal slope rounding.
Preservation of existing monuments.
Work in conjunction with subdivision of property-Requirements generally.
Work in conjunction with subdivision of property-Standard land development
permit-Requirements.
Work in conjunction with subdivision of property-Contract for completion of
improvements-Requirements-Bonds.
Building construction-Land development permit required- Prerequisite to building
permit.
Damaged or disused public improvements-Notification- Corrective action required.
Public to be protected from hazards during construction-Fences and barricades
required when.
Safety precautions.
Fence specifications-Modification permitted when.
Noncompliance.
Modificatioa of approved plans.
Responsibility of permittee-Compliance with plans and requirements.
Completion of work-Final reports.
Notification of completion.
Exemptions from applicability designated.
Contractor-Qualifications required.
Work to be performed by licensed contractor.
Inspection of land develoDment work grading opEratioRs Responsibility therefore.
Transfer of responsibility for approval.
Plans and reports to be prepared by engineers.
Private contract performance bond-Required when-Issuance conditions generally.
Private contract performance bond-Conditions-Notice of deCault-Contents-Effect.
Private contract performance bond-Principal or surety liable for cost of completing
work when.
Private contract performance bond-Liability of eityCitv for performance of certain
work.
Private contract performance bond-Cash deposit accepted in lieu when-Default
correction procedure.
Private contract performance bond-Not required when.
Private contract performance bond-Required from certain contractors
when-Exception.
Private contract performance bond-Conditions-Compliance with certain terms and
provisions required.
Private contract performance bond-Method of estimating amount-Schedule.
Release of bonds/security.
City cngincerCitv En~ineer-Enforcement responsibility and permit issnance
authority.
Citj ~HgiH~~rCitv Ent!ineer-Powe.-s and duties generally.
Ci~ engineerCitv Ea~ineer-Authority to determine applicable fees.
Cif:) t:RgiReerCitv Enllineer-Duty to consider certain recommendations and deny
certain applications.
City engineerCitv En~ineer-Grounds for cancelling permit or amending plans.
Appeals-Authorized when-Determination authority.
Appeals-Time limit for filing-Form.
Permits-Application-Procedure generally-Detail plan required.
Permits-Application-Detail plans and specifications required.
Permits-Issuance-Prerequisites and contents.
Investigations authorized and required when-Fee.
15.04.285
15.04.290
15.04.295
15.04.305
15.04310
15.04.315
15.04.320
15.04.325
15.04.326
Agreement required for uncontrolled embankments-Additional specifications.
Fees-Collection-Method of estimation- V erification- Payment required-Exemptions.
Fees-Schedule for computation.
Fees-To be doubled in certain cases-Effect of imposition.
Violations-Declared unlawful and public nuisance-Abatement authority.
Abatement of dangerous conditions.
Emergency abatement by eityCitv-Liability for costs.
Costs of abatement-Special assessment procedure-Statutory authority.
Conflicts.
15.04.005 Purpose and intent of provisions.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum requirements for land development work fradin-g,
exes". sting ana ftlliflg of land, to provide for the issuance of pennits and for the enforcement of the
requirements. These provisions are supplemental)' and additional to the subdivision and zoning regulations of
this code and shall be read and construed as an integral part of said regulations and the land development
patterns and controls established thereby. It is the intent of the ~ity ~ouncil to protect life and property and
promote the general welfare; enhance and improve the physical environment of the community; and preserve,
subject to economic feasibility, the natural scenic character of the city. In administering these provisions, the
following goals should be respected:
A. Ensuring that future development oflands, particularly in the hilly areas of the city, occurs in the manner
most compatible with surrounding areas and so as to have the least adverse effect upon other persons or
lands, or upon the general public;
B. Ensuring that soil will not be stripped and removed trom lands in the more scenic parts of the city,
leaving the same barren, unsightly, unproductive, and subject to erosion and the hazards of subsidence
and faulty drainage;
C. Encouraging the planning, design and development of building sites in such fashion as to provide the
maximum in safety and human enjoyment, while adapting development to and taking advantage of the
best use of the natural terrain;
D. Encouraging and directing special attention toward the retaining, insofar as practical, the natural
planting and a maximum number of existing trees.
E. Ensuring anv inmact to sensitive biological resources. as dermed bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula
Vista MuniciDal Code. is consistent with the Q.oals and Dolicies of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
(Ord.1797 1 (part), 1978).
15.04.010 Definitions.
The following words and phrases. when used in this chapter, shall be construed as dermed in this
section:
"Appurtenant structures" means man-made structures related to and necessitated by the proposed grading and
includes paved drainage ditches, inlet structures, lined channels, culverts, outlet structures and retaining walls.
"Building pad" means that portion of an embankment and/or excavation contained within an area bounded by a
line five feet outside the foundation footing.
"Building site" means that portion of an embankment and/or excavation containing the building pad(s) and
lying within an area bounded by the top of slopes and/or toe of slopes within the lot or parcel.
"Certify" or "certification" means a signed written statement that the specific inspection and tests which were
required have been perfonned and that the works comply with the applicable requirements of this chapter, the
plans, and the permit.
"Clearing" means the cutting of natural vegetation bv any means. without disturbance to the soil and root
svstem.
"Clearing and Grubbine: Permit" means a oermit issued oursuant to this chapter that allows clearine: and
grubbine: that is not in association with other Land Development Work.
"Compaction" means densification of a sailor rock fill by mechanical or other acceptable procedures.
"Contractor" means a contractor licensed by the state to do work covered by this chapter. A contractor may be
authorized to act for a property owner in doing such work.
"Contract. private" means an agreement between a property owner and a qualified contractor to do land
development work.
ttEmbankment" or "fill" means any act by which earth, sand, gravel, rock or any other material is deposited,
placed, pushed. dumped, pulled, transported or moved to a new location and the condition resulting therefrom.
"Embankment, uncontrolled" means any embankment constructed as land development on which no soil
testing was performed or no compaction reports or other soil reports were prepared or submitted.
"Engineer, private" means a civil engineer registered by the state. A private engineer may be authorized to act
for a property owner in doing work covered by this chapter.
"Engineering Geologist" means a certified engineering geologist, registered by the state, who is engaged in the
practice of applying geological principles and data to engineering problems dealing with naturally occurring
rock and soils for the purpose of assuring that geological factors are recognized and adequately interpreted in
engineering practice.
"Erosion" means the process by which the ground surface is wonl away by the action of water or wind.
"Excavation or cut" means any earth, sand, gravel, rock or any similar material which is cut into, dug, quarried,
uncovered, removed, displaced, relocated or bulldozed by man, and the conditions resulting therefrom.
"Grade" means the elevation and cross-sections established for the finished surface. All grades shall be based
upon the official datum of the city.
"Grading" means any excavating or filling or combination thereof and shall include the land in its excavated or
filled conditions.
"Grubbing" means the removal of natural vel!etation bv anv means incJudine: removal of the root system.
"Land development permit" means a permit.. issued pursuant to this chapter. to conduct Land Development
Work..
ULand J2evelopment Work" means making of excavations and embankments on private property and the
construction of slopes, drainage structures, fences and other facilities incidental thereto, where it is necessary to
safeguard life, limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction
and quality of materials. Land develooment work also includes other associated e:radimz. and c1earim! and/or
e:rubbine: conducted in oreoaration for such develooment.
"Landscape architect" means a landscape architect, registered by the state, who perfonns professional work in
physical land planning and integrated land development, including the design of landscape planting programs.
"Landscape manual" means the current "City ofChula Vista Landscape Manual" approved by resolution of the
~ity ~ouncil.
"Minor slope" means a slope four feet or less in vertical dimension in either cut or fill, between single family
lots and not parallel to any roadway.
"Natural terrain" means the original contour of a site prior to any grading.
"Pennittee" means any person to whom a pennit is issued pursuant to this chapter.
"Property owner" means the owner, subdivider or developer of real property which will be benefited by the
proposed land development work.
"Property, public" means property owned in fee by the eityCitv, or dedicated for public use.
"Public improvement" means publicly owned construction, structures or facilities in the public right-of-way
designed for the public use, safety or general welfare.
"Public rights-of-way" means public easements or dedications for streets, alleys and/or other use.
"Rough grading" is the condition where the ground surface approximately confonns to the design grade,
generally within 0.5 feet.
"Slope" means the inclined exposed surface of a fill, excavation or natural terrain.
"Slope, natural" means the predominant slope or slopes of land in its original condition prior to any grading.
"Soil engineer" means a civil engineer registered by the state who submits evidence to the satisfaction of the
eit) engincerCitv Ene:ineer that:
1. He is engaged in the practice of civil engineering and spends a majority of his time in the field of applied
soil mechanics and foundations engineering;
2. He has at least four years of responsible practical experience in the field of applied soil mechanics;
3. He is qualified to make the investigations and determinations, render the reports and opinions and
perfonn the duties of a soil engineer as required by this chapter.
All persons meeting the qualifications set forth above shall be recognized by the Ceity Eengineer as
qualified to -perfonn soil engineering under the provisions of this chapter.
"Soil, expansive" means any soil which swells more than three percent when prepared and tested by a method
approved by the ~eity Eengineer.
"Subdividerlt means a person, f~ corporation, partnership or association who causes land to be divided into
one or more subdivisions for himself or others as defmed by those sections of the Government Code known as
the Subdivision Map Act.
(Ord.2128 I (part), 1985; Ord. 1877 1,1979; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.015 Permit required for aU land development work and soil investigations.
No person, either as property owner, contractor, private engineer or otherwise, shall do or shall cause to
be done any land development work without fust having obtained either a land develooment permit or clearing
and grubbing pennit to do such work and having held a pre-grading or pre--clearing meering if reauired bv the
Cit'; En~iBeErCitv Engineer, except as provided in Section 15.04.150 of this Chapter.
Soil investigations by a soils engineer or engineering geologist which involves trenching or scarifying of
the natural terrain shall require a permit. A special investigation fee shall be paid prior to issuance of such
pennit.
(Ord. 1797 1 (part), 1978).
15.04.017 Other Reauired Permits
Prior to the City's issuance of a land develooment oermit or clearinl! and 1!rubbing oermit. the aoplicant
shall show comoliance with a Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) Permit issued pursuant to Chaoter
17.35 of the Chula Vista Municioal Code. for areas that contain sensitive biological resources. as dermed bv
Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. and are within:
I) development areas outside of Covered Proiects. as defined bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code;
2) 75%-100% Conservation Areas. as dermed bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code: or
3) 100% Conservation Areas. as defmed bv Section 17.35.030 ofthe Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Prior to the City's issuance of a land development permit or clearinl! and e:rubbim! pennit for areas that
contain sensitive biological resources. as dermed bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. and
are within the development areas of Covered Proiects. as defined bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, the applicant shall show compliance with all applicable provisions of previous proiect
entitlements issued bv the City and with anv apolicable conditions of coverae:e listed in the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan. as determined bv the Director of Planning and Building or desienee.
Prior to the City's issuance of a land development permit or clearing and grubbing pennit for areas that
will result in impacts to wetlands or to listed non-covered species. as dermed bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula
Vista Municioal Code. the applicant shall obtain. and show compliance with. all apolicable federal and/or state
oermits.
15.04.020 Compliance with conditions and specifications required-Deviations from standards
permitted when.
Except as herein provided, all land development work "Blk dBRe iB hmd de. dBl'ment shall be done in
accordance with the conditions of the required pennit, and shall conform to the approved plans, standard
drawings, specifications, landscape manual, subdivision manual, and general conditions as may be deteIlTlined
by the eit) etlgineeFCitv Eneineer to be applicable to the work. Such documents are on file in the office of the
\":eity .E:;engineer and shall be kept for public distribution in accordance with fee schedules in said office. In
connection with land development work. deviations from the requirements of these standards may be pennitted
by the !:eity ~engineer based upon written reports and recommendations by qualified and recognized
authorities subject to review by the ~itv. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.025 Provisions not to affect other code requirements.
This chapter shall not affect the requirements of any other chapter of this code requiring permits, fees or
other charges, including those for sewer and services, or affect any provisions concerning the granting of
franchises. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.030 Facilities within public rights-of-way-Assignment of costs.
The following provisions of this section shall apply unless provision is made by an agreement pursuant
to Sections 15.04.085 through 15.04.095 of this chapter:
A. The property owner shall pay the ~itv for all the cost of placing, repairing, replacing or maintaining a
city-owned facility within a public right-of-way when the ~itv's facility has been damaged or has
failed as a result of the construction or existence of the owner's land development work during the
process of such work.
B. The costs of placing, replacing or maintaining the city-owned facility shall include the cost of obtaining
a necessary alternate easement.
(Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.035 Commencement and completion of work-Extension of time.
All graaiRg_6nfl Jand development work shall be executed in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter and the tenns of the permit issued by the <:;eity I:;engineer. Once commenced, work shall be carried out
diligently until completed. Unless otherwise specified upon the pennit. all work shall be completed within one
hundred eighty days from the date of issuance of the permit. The <:;eity I:;engineer may grant one extension of
time for the completion of the work Such extension shall not exceed the original length of time designated on
the permit. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.040 Slopes-Design requirements generally.
The inclination of each cut or fill surface resulting in a slope shall not be steeper than two horizontal to
one vertical except for minor slopes as herein defmed.
All constructed minor slopes shall be designed for proper stability considering both geological and soil
properties. A minor slope may be constructed no steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical
( 1.5: I) contingent upon:
A. Submission of reports by both a soils engineer and a certified engineering geologist containing the
results of surface and subsurface exploration and analysis. These results should be sufficient for the soils
engineer and engineering geologist to certiIY that in their professional opinion the underlying bedrock
and soil supporting the slope have strength characteristics sufficient to provide a stable slope and will not
pose a danger to persons or property, and
B. The installation of an approved special slope planting program and irrigation system.
(Ord.2128 2,1985; Ord. 1797 I (part). 1978).
15.04.045 Building pads-Design requirements,
. I
All building pads and building sites shall drain to an approved drainage facility unless otherwise
approved by the !;:eity J;;engineer. (Ord.1877 2 (part), 1979; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.050 Embankment requirements - Soil engineer may be required.
A.
Unless otherwise specified on the permit, all embankment for land development work shall be
compacted in confonnance with the provisions of the standard specifications. The permit may require
that an engineering geologist and/or soils engineer, as appropriate, be responsible for the inspection and
testing of the embankment work and inspection of excavations. The soils engineer and engineering
geologist, if one or both are required by the permit, shall file with the !;:eity J;;engineer reports as required
by Sections 15.04.140 and l5.04.270B.
I B.
Where, in the opinion of the !;:eity J;;engineer, the construction of an uncontrolled embankment would
not be contrary to the public interest or welfare, a permit for such land development work may be issued
in accordance with Section 15.04.285. Plans for uncontrolled embankment shall be complete in all
respects except for soil analysis and compaction requirements. Uncontrolled embankment slopes shall
not be steeper than three horizontal to one vertical.
(Ord.1877 2 (part), 1979; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.055 Expansive soil grading requirements.
If, during the land development work I?rading operatioR, expansive soil is found within two feet in cut or
three feet in fill of the finished grade of any area intended or designed as the location for a building, the
pennittee shall cause such expansive soil to be removed from such building area to a minimum depth of two
feet in cut or three feet in fill and replaced with non-expansive soil properly compacted; provided, however, the
~eity Eengineer may, upon receipt of a report by a soils engineer certifying that he has investigated the
property and recommending a design or footings or floor slab or other procedure that in his opinion will
alleviate any problem created by such expansive soil, waive the requirement that such expansive soil be
removed and replaced with nou-expansive soil. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.060 Landscaping and irrigation system.
All cut and fill slopes shall be planted and irrigated in accordance with an approved plan. Said plan shall
be prepared in accordance with the city landscape manual and shall be approved by the City Landscape
Architect.. and the Director ofPlannine: and Buildine: or desie:oee. as necessary. (Ord 2678 2,1996; Ord 2128
3.1985; Ord 1797 1 (part). 1978).
15.04.065 Slopes-Tops and toes to be rounded,
The tops and toes of all major slopes in public view shall be rounded in accordance with the city
standard drawings. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.070 Slopes-Blending into existiag terrain.
All man-made slopes shall be blended into existing terrain to produce a natural-appearing transition from
the face of man-made slopes into natural ground. This blending shall be accomplished in accordance wi1h City
of Chula Vista Standard Drawings. Undulating top and toe of slopes and variable slope ratios should be used to
achieve natural-appearing slopes. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.075 Slopes-Horizontal slope rounding.
Rounding shall be accomplished in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Standard Drawings. (Ord.
1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.080 Preservation of existing monuments.
All existing survey monuments shall be shown on the grading plan. Evidence indicating that
arrangements have been made for the preservation and/or relocation of existing monuments shall be submitted
to the eil) engineerCitv Engineer prior to issuance of a land development pennit. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978.)
15.04.085 Work in conjunction with subdivision of property-Requirements generally.
A subdivider of land required to do land development work as the result or condition of the approval of
the tentative map shall perform such work under one of the following procedures, as set forth in Sections
15.04.090 and 15.04.095. (Ord. 1797 1 (part), 1978; Ord. 1596 I (part), 1974; Ord. 1455 I (part), 1973;
prior code 29.2.6 (part)).
15.04.090 Work in conjunction with subdivision of property-Standard land development
permit-Requirements.
Should the subdivider desire to do certain land development work prior to entering into contract with the
eity!;;itv to install and complete all subdivision and land development work, he may make application to do so
under a standard land development permit or clearing and grubbing permit. if the land development work is
limited to clearing and grubbing onlv. This application shall be accompanied by detailed plans and
specifications based upon the approved tentative map and in conformity with the provisions of Sections
15.04.017 and 15.04.040 through 15.04.075 of this chapter. A schedule and estimate based upon such plans
and specifications shall accompany the application. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.095 Work in conjunction with snbdivision of property-Contract for completion of
improvements-Requirements-Bonds.
A. Should the subdivider desire to do certain land development work in conjunction and concurrently with
installation and construction of required public improvements, he may enter into a contract with the
ei-tyC...J!y to make, install and complete all improvements and land developments in accordance with
approved plans and specifications.
I B. Prior to any construction of improvements and/or land development work, the subdivider shall have
complied with and perfonned the following requirements:
1. Subdivider shall file with the S;;eity S;;elerk detailed plans and specifications (or statement that work
will be accomplished in accordance with standards and specifications of the city) approved by the
Ceity gengineer for all public improvements and land development together with a detailed cost
estimate approved by the .ceity J;engincer and an estimate of time reasonably necessary to
complete the same.
2. Subdivider shall enter into a contract with the eityCitv to make, install and complete within the
time fixed by the eit) engiBeei'Citv Engineer but in no case more than two years from the date of
execution of said contract, all improvements and land development in accordance with the
approved plans, and shall cause to be filed with the eit) elerkCitv Clerk a faithful performance
bond payable to the ci!yCitv which shall insure the performance of the contract and the completion
of the improvements and land development work. The subdivider shall additionally file with the
eit) elefkCitv Clerk a labor and material bond to inure to the benefit of those persons entitled to the
protection of Part III, Title IV, Chapter II of the Code of Civil Procedure. A cash deposit or letter
of credit may be submitted in lieu of bonds herein_before described. Bonds and other forms of
guarantee shall be in full conformity with the requirements for subdivision guarantees as set forth
in the subdivision ordinance codified at Title 18 of this code.
3. The bond or other guarantee shall be based on the cit) cngincei'Citv Engineer's estimate of the cost
of the work and in accordance with the following schedule:
a. Faithful performance bond:
Public improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . 50% of cost estimate,
Land development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% of cost estimate;
b. Labor and material bond:
Public improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . 50% of cost estimate,
Land development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% of cost estimate.
(Ord.1797 1 (part), 1978).
15.04.100 Building construction-Land development permit required-Prerequisite to building permit.
A. An owner of land desiring to do land development work incidental to and in connection with the
construction of a building or structure shall present an application and obtain a land development permit
or clearing and erubbing permit. The cit} efigmeerCitv Engineer may require an on-site field inspection
of the rough grading phase of the work between representatives of the ~eity's ~engineering, Eplanning
and ~building .Qtlepartments and the permittee, civil engineer, soils engineer, bioloeist. as dermed bv
Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municival Code. and engineering geologist, as appropriate, before
the issuance of a building permit. The permittee shall request a field inspection of the rough grading
phase, if required, five working days prior to the inspection. The rough grading phase of the land
development work described on form PW-E-106B shall be completed prior to the issuance ofa building
permit except as provided below. The ci!yCitv may suspend any building permit where it is found that
land development work is being done or has been done without a land development permit or clearine:
and e:rubbine vennit until a land development permit or clearine: and I:!rubbine: permit -is issued. The
city may not certify to the completion of the building where land development work has been done until
a land development permit is obtained and certified as complete.
B. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in Subsection A. walls which are designed and
constructed to retain earth and are also integral portions of buildings may be constructed under building
permits concurrently with land development ~ work within the project site.
(Ord.2128 4,1985; Ord. 1877 2 (part), 1979; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.105 Damaged or disused public improvements-Notitication-Corrective action required.
The eif) efi~ifleerCitv Ene:ineer shall notify the property O\\l1er of such damage or failure as set forth in
Section 15.04.030. The ci!yCitv may withhold certification of the completion of a building or other permitted
work where a notice has been issued. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.110 Public to be protected from hazards during construction-Fences and barricades required
when.
During the eOMtftletien of land development work. the contractor and owner shall take all necessary
measures to eliminate any hazard resulting from the work to the public in its nonnal use of public property or
right-of-way. Any fences or barricades installed shall be substantially constructed and shall be properly
maintained as long as the hazard resulting from the work exists. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.115 Safety precautions.
If at any stage of the work the eil) cnginecrCitv Engineer detennines that further land develovment work
gr.ding as authorized is likely to endanger any public or private property or result in the deposition of debris
on any public way or interfere with any existing drainage course, the eit) engineerCitv Engineer may require,
as a condition to allowing the work to be continued, that such reasonable safety precautions be taken as he
considers advisable to avoid such likelthood of danger. The permittee will be responsible for removing any silt
and debris, deposited upon adjacent and downstream public or private property, resulting from his grading
operations. Silt and debris shall be removed and damage to adjacent and downstream property repaired, as
directed by the eit) Ell1!;meerCitv Engineer. Erosion and siltation control may require temporary or pennanent
siltation basins, energy dissipators, or other measures as field conditions warrant. whether or not such measures
are a part of approved plans. (Ord.1877 2 (part), 1979;Ord.1797 I (part). 1978).
15.04.120 Fence specifications-Modificatioa permitted when.
A. Where a slope is created adjacent to a public right-of-way or other publicly used property, and the top of
slope is within ten feet of the property line and the height of the slope is three feet or greater and steeper
than 4:1, a forty-eight inch high fence shall be erected between property line and the top of slope. The
design of said fence shall be approved by the eil) engincerCitv Engineer. Publicly used property is that
property used frequently by persons other than the residents.
I B. The "it) engineefCitv Engineer may modify or delete the above requirements where it is evident that the
land development work will present no hazard to the adjacent property or public right-of-way.
(Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.125 Noncompliance.
A.
If, in the course of fulfilling his responsibility under this chapter, the private engineer~ (}f----t:he-soils
engineer or biologist. as defmed in Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municival Code. fmds that the
work is not being done in substantial conformance with this chapter or the plans approved by the eity
ERgine:etCitv Engineer or in accordance with accepted practices, he shall inunediately notify the
permittee, the person in charge of the land development work...gfflcHRg and the eity eHgmecrCitv
Enl2:ineer, in writing, on the nonconformity and of the corrective measures which should be taken.
B.
In the event the work does not confonn to the permit or the plans or specifications or any instructions of
the cit) engmeerCitv Eneineer, notice to comply shall be given in writing by the dt) engineelCitv
En2:ineer to the permittee. As soon as practical after a notice to comply is given, the permittee or his
contractor shall begin to make the corrections.
Ie
If the dt) efigmeerCitv Emdneer fmds any existing conditions not as stated in the application, land
development permit. clearin2: and grubbin2: permit. or approved plans, he may refuse to approve work
until approval is obtained for a revised grading or clearinl:?: and Q:rubbinQ: plan which will conform to the
existing conditions.
(Ord.1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.130 Modification of approved plans.
A. Modifications of the approved grading or clearing and grubbing- plan must be in writing and be
approved by the <it) engincerCitv Engineer and/or his designated representative. All necessary soils and
geological reports shall be submitted with any substantial proposal to modify the approved grading plan.
B. No land develoDment work gfliamg in connection with any proposed modifications shall be permitted
without the approval of the eit) ERgmeefCitv EnQ:ineer and/or his designated representative.
C. An odditiolHll fee ,hall be paid for the eoat inctirred by the eil} in re. ie ...ing and checking reviscd pllffi3.
Said fce ,hall be $19.90 per hom and aooll be paid prior Ie appro. 01 of the ro .bed plan,.
(Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.135 Responsibility of permittee-Compliance with plans and requirements.
All permits issued hereunder shall be presumed to include the provision that the permittee, his agent,
contractors and employees, shall carry out the proposed work in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications and in compliance with all the requirements of the permit and this chapter. The civil engineer
shall file a report as specified in Section 15.04.140. (Ord.1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.140 Completion of work-Final reports.
Upon completion of the work the following reports shall be filed with the city cRgihEerCitv EnQ:ineer
unless waived by him:
A. A written statement by the private engineer that all land development work Eftu:iing and/or associated
drainage facilities have been completed in confonnance with Sections 15.04.165 and 15.04.225.
B. An as-built plan of the completed work prepared by a civil engineer.
C. A fmal as-built soil engineer's report which shall include a written statement that inspections and tests
were made during the grading, and that in his opinion all embankments and excavations are in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the pennit and are acceptable for their intended use.
Soil bearing capacity (except where the cit) eRgiflEerCitv Emdneer determines such is inapplicable),
summaries of field and laboratory tests and locations of tests if not previously submitted, and the limits
of compacted fill on an "as-built" plan shall be included in the report. The report shall include reference
to the presence of any expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, wonld lead to
structural defects in buildings constructed on the site. If such report discloses the presence of such
expansive soils or such other soil problems, it shall include recommended corrective action designed to
prevent structural damage to each building proposed to be constructed upon the site. The fmal "as-built"
report shall also contain a seepage statement or study as appropriate.
D. A fInal "as-built" engineering geology report by an engineering geologist based on the "as-built" plan
including specific approval of the grading as affected by geological factors. Where required by the eity
en~ineerCitv EnQ:meer, the report shall include a revised geologic map and cross-sections and
recommendations regarding building restrictions or foundation setbacks.
E. A final biologv report. if detennined necessary bv the Director of Planning and Building or designee.
which includes an assessment of the imDacts on sensitive biolo!rical resources affected bv the land
develooment work.
(Ord. 1877 2 (part), 1979; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.145 Notification of completion.
The permittee shall notify the eit) eR!;rnecICitv Engineer when the land development work 2ftltliflg
operatieR is ready for fmal inspection. He shall also notify the City Landscape Architect and the Director of
Planning and Building. or designee. when planting and irrigation are completed. Final approval shall not be
given until all work, including installation of all drainage structures and facilities. sprinkler irrigation systems,
planting and all protective devices have been completed and any required planting established and all as-built
plans and reports have been submitted. The eit) eflgineerCitv Ene:ineer may accept in writing the completion
of all work, or any portion of the work, required by the permit issued in accordance with this chapter and
thereupon accept said work or portion thereof. (Ord 2678 3, 1996; Ord 1797 1 (part), 1978).
15.04.150 Exemptions from applicability designated.
No person shall do any land development work ~ without first having obtained a .!eland
dQevelopment Pennit or Clearing and Grubbing !J>ermit except for the following:
A. The depositing of materials in any disposal area operated or licensed by the ~itv:
B. The making of excavation on any site or contiguous sites held under one ownership, in which all of the
following are characteristic of the work:
1. A cut slope having a maximum steepness of three horizontal to one vertical.
2. A cut having a maximum vertical depth of three feet at any point and a maximum average depth of
eighteen inches.
3. No adverse effect upon an existing drainage pattern.
4. A top of slope no closer than one foot from an exterior boundary line, and
5. The movement ofless than two hundred fifty cubic yards of material;
C. The making of embankment on any site or contiguous sites held under one ownership, in which all of the
following are characteristic of the work:
1. None of the embankment exceeds three feet in vertical depth or has an average maximum depth in
excess of eighteen inches,
2. None of the embankment is placed on existing ground having a slope steeper than five horizontal
to one vertical,
3. Proposed fill slopes are no steeper than three horizontal to one vertical,
4. The embankment does not change or adversely affect the existing drainage pattern,
5. Adequate provisions are proposed to protect the embankment from erosion,
6. The toe of the embankment is no closer than one and one-half feet to an exterior property line. and
7. The total volume of embankment does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards of material;
D. Excavation for foundations of buildings, structures, basements, cellars, swimming pools or basins which
are authorized by appropriate permits obtained from the Planning and Building ,milding ana fteusing
I>aepartment;
E. Excavation or embankment perfonned by a governmental agency, franchise holder, or their contractor
incidental to the construction of roadways, pipelines, or utility lines within their rights of way;
F. Foundations, as referred to herein, shall not be construed to include foundations for retaining walls,
drainage structures, or other structures appurtenant to the land development;
G. Routine maintenance of omamentallandscaoim!:
H. A2:ricultural ooerations. as defined pursuant to the Chula Vista Municioal Code Section 17.35.030:
I. Maintenance of ve2:etation in accordance with an aooroved habitat mana!!ement olano or other such
similar olan. if consistent with such olano and oreDared pursuant to the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan:
J. Maintenance of vegetation in a designated fuel modification zone. consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan:
K. Clearing and Ilrubbing in an area located entirely within a mapped Development Area. as defined bv
Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municioal Code. where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Director of Plannin!! and Building. or desillnee. that no sensitive biological resources. as dermed bv Section
17.35.030 of the Chula Vista MuniciDal Code. exist:
L. Clearing and grubbim! entirelv located in a development area outside of a Covered Proiect. as dermed bv
Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. in an area that is one acre or less in size. is not Dart of a
larger contiguous clearinll and grubbing Dralect. and does not imDact sensitive biological resources. wetlands
or listed non-covered sDecies, as defmed bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista MuniciDal Code.
(Ord. 1797 1 (part), 1978).
15.04.155 Contractor-Qualifications required.
Every person doing land development work shall meet such qualifications as may be determined by the
eit) efl-gifi(:etCitv Enllineer and/or Director of Plannine: and Building to be necessary to protect the public
interest. The city cflgirLeerCitv Engineer and/or Director of Plannine: and Buildinl! may require an application
for qualification which shall contain all information necessary to determine the personts qualifications to do the
land development work. (Ord. 1797 1 (part), 1978).
15.04.160 Work to be performed by licensed contractor.
All land development work shall be perfonned by a contractor licensed by the state. (Ord. 1797
(part), 1978).
15.04.165 Inspection of land development work gt'ftdiHg operatioH' Responsibility therefor.
A. City EflgHLcerCitv Engineer. The cit) cfigineerCitv Engineer shall be responsible for all inspections of
work not otherwise delegated to some other person. These inspections include, but are not limited to:
drainage facilities, fencing, and compliance with state and city regulations in regard to the health and
safety of the general public.
B. Private Engineer. The private engineer shall be responsible for all surveying work necessary for proper
construction of the grading and drainage facilities. He shall inspect the site to insure that the
embankment and cut slopes are placed at their proper line and grade. He shall, prior to the release of
bonds and surety, provide a written statement that in his professional opinion, all work incorporated in
the grading and drainage plans, authorized under the grading permit to include grading, drainage, and
construction of appurtenant structures, have been constructed to the lines and grades in substantial
confonnance with the approved plans, and any approved revisions thereto.
C. Soil Engineer. The soil engineer shall be responsible for the testing of compaction and determination of
stability of the various slopes. He shall, prior to release of the bond and surety, provide a written
statement that inspections and tests were made by him, or under his supervision, and that in his
professional opinion, all embankments have been compacted to city standards and in accordance with
the eahhwork specifications for the project.
D. Landscape Architect All landscaping work shall be designed under the supervision of a landscape
architect; however, a registered civil engineer or registered architect may be responsible for the
inspection of all landscaping and irrigation required in accordance with the grading permit and plans if it
is in conjunction with a project he has been contracted to do. He shall, prior to the release of the bond
and surety, provide a written statement that in his professional opinion all work incorporated in the
landscape and irrigation plans authorized under the pennit have been constructed in accordance with the
approved plans and revisions thereto.
E. Biolo.is\. A biolo.is\. as defined bv Section 17.35.030 of the Cbula Vista Municipal Code.
shall be reuuired to inspect all land development or clearing and .rubbing sites prior to work occurrin.
in areas of sensitive biological resources. as dermed bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista MuniciDal
Code. to insure comoliance with the pennit issued pursuant to this Chapter. The bioloQist shaH identify
areas to be Dfotected with approoriate stakin~ and fencin~. insure that these sensitive biological
resources. as defined bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, are correctlv identified
on the e:radine: or clearing and grubbing olano and inspect the staking and fencim! after installation to
insure installation according to plan. In addition. the biologist shall conduct an inspection after the work
is completed. Prior to the release of the bond and surety. the biolo.ist shall provide a written statement
that in his/her orofessional opinion all work was conducted as authorized under the pennit in accordance
with approved plans and revisions thereto.
FE. Prior to the release of building permits for any given lot or lots, the private engineer shall submit a
statement (Form PW-E-106B) as evidence that rough grading for land development has been completed
within standard tolerance in accordance with the approved plans, and that all embankments and cut
slopes and pad sizing are as shown on the approved plans.
T11e sons engineer will submit a statement that all embankments, under his direction, have been
completed to an indicated ninety percent relative compaction of dry density.
(Ord.1877 2 (part), 1979;Ord.1797 1 (part), 1978).
15.04.170 Transfer of responsibility for approval.
If the private engineer, soil engineer, landscape architect, 6f engineering geologist, or biologist, as
dermed bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, of record are changed during the course of
the work, the work shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed to accept the responsibility within the area
of their technical competence for approval upon completion of the work. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.175 Plans and reports to be prepared by engineers.
I A. Plans for public improvements and land development work tlu 01. mE. lana ae. elepmeHt authorized
under this chapter shall be prepared by a civil engineer. Where soil or geologic reports or soils and
geologic investigations are required, the reports and investigations shall be prepared and conducted by
an engineering geologist and/or Soils engineer as appropriate.
B. A seepage statement or study is required as a part of all soils reports. All soils engineering, geologic,
and geologic engineering reports shall consist of a preliminary and a fmal "as-built" report. Whenever
blasting is to be perfonned or bedrock is to be exposed, a seepage study must be perfonned to determine
method of handling excess water infiltration.
C. Plans prepared for land development work which includes clearing and grubbing onlv. shall be
prepared with input from a biolol!ist.
(Ord. 1877 2 (part), 1979; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.180 Private contract performance bond-Required when-Issuance conditions generally.
Persons performing private contract work under a permit issued in accordance with this chapter shall
furnish a bond/bonds or cash deposit or instrument of credit executed by the owner or his agent, or both. as
principal in accordance with the provisions codified in Sections 15.04.180 through 15.04.215.
The performance bond/bonds shall be issued by a surety company authorized to do business in the state
and shall be approved as to fonn by the Ceity Aattorney. The bondJbonds shall be in favor of the ~ity and
shall be conditioned upon the completion. free of liens, of the work authorized by the pennit in accordance with
the requirements of this chapter and the conditions prescribed by the pennit. Slope planting and irrigation bond
will be separate from the perfonnance bond requirements for appurtenant structures and grading. They will be
held in the office of the I2director of Eplanning and Buildinl! until satisfactory compliance with landscaping and
irrigation has been accepted. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.185 Private contract performance bond-Conditions-Notice of default- Contents-Effect.
The bondJbonds shall be conditioned upon the payment to the cityCity of any costs incurred by the
eityCitv or its agent in completing the required work or performing work necessary to leave the site in a non
hazardous condition and restoring habitat as may be needed. The bond/bonds shall be further conditioned upon
the payment to the eityCitv or its agents in completing the work required to protect or repair adjacent public or
private properties from damage from work performed under the permit. Whenever the cit) en-gineerCitv
Enl!meer fmds that a default has occurred in the performance of any term or condition of work authorized by a
pennit. he shall give written notice of such default to the principal and surety of the bond. Such notice shall
state the work remaining to be done. the estimated cost of completion and the time estimated by the city
cngineefCity Engineer to be necessary for the completion of the work. After the receipt of such notice, the
principal or the surety must, within the time specified, either complete the work satisfactorily or deposit with
the cityCity an amount equal to the city engineerCity Engineer's estimate of the completion cost plus an
additional sum equal to twenty-five percent of such cost. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.190 Private contract performance bond-Principal or surety liable for cost of completing work
when.
Tn the event that the principal or surety fails to complete such work within the time specified in the
notice, or fails to deposit the estimated cost plus twenty-five percent with the ~itv, the ei1.) en:gim:e:rCitv
En2:ineer may cause the required work to be completed. The principal and the surety shall be liable for the cost
ofcornpleting such work. (Ord.1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.195 Private contract performance bond-Liability of eityCitv for performance of certain work.
If the principal or surety deposits the estimated cost plus twenty-five percent as set forth in the notice,
the city e:ngineefCitv Emlineer shall cause the required work to be completed. The unexpended money shall be
returned to the depositor at the completion of such work, together with an itemized accounting of the cost. The
principal and surety shall hold the ~itv blameless !Tom any liability in connection with the work so
performed by the ~itv or contractor employed by the eityCitv. The ~itv shaH not be liable in
connection with such work other than for the expenditure of said money. (Ord. 1797 I (part). 1978).
15.04.200 Private contract performance bond-Cash deposit accepted in lieu when-Default correction
procedure.
In lieu of a bond, the permittee may post a cash deposit with the J2tiirector of Efmance in an amount
equal to the required bond. Notice of default as provided above shall be given to the principal, and if the
default is not corrected within the time specified, the eity engmeefCitv Engineer shaH proceed without delay
and without further notice of proceeding whatever to use the cash deposit or any portion of such deposit to
complete the required work. The balance, if any, of such cash deposit shall, upon the completion of the work.
be returned to the depositor or to his successors or assigns after deducting the cost of the work. (Ord. 1797 1
(part),1978).
15.04.205 Private contract performance bond-Not required when.
No performance bond under the provisions of this chapter shaH be required from the state, or any of its
political subdivisions or any governmental agency. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.210 Private contract performance bond-Required from certain contractors when-Exception.
A contractor working for the state or any of its political subdivisions or any govenunental agency shall
present a perfonnance bond unless proof is submitted that the work is covered by a bond inuring to the benefit
of the state or agency. (Ord. 1797 I (part). 1978).
15.04.215 Private contract performance bond-Conditions-Compliance with certain terms and
provisions required.
Every bond or other perfonnance guarantee shall include conditions that the pennittee shall:
A. Comply with all provisions of this chapter;
B. Comply with all terms and conditions of the land development pem,it or clearing and grubbing permit;
C. Complete the land development work within the time limit specified in the land development permit or
clearing and grubbing permit.
(Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.220 Private contract performance bond-Method of estimating amount- Schedule.
The amount of the bonds or cash deposits covering a specific job shall be based on the amount of the
estimate submitted by the person doing the work and approved by the eit} EngineerCitv Engineer and in
accordance with the following schedule:
A. Appurtenant structures.....lOO% of the estimated cost of retaining walls, drainage facilities or other
grading appurtenances;
I B. Grading.....25% of the estimated cost. This percentage may be varied by the eit) eagineerCitv Engineer
to fit conditions which are unusual in his opinion;
C. Slope planting and irrigation.....lOO% of the estimated cost of required landscaping and irrigation
facilities;
D. Maintenance of landscaping..... 100% of the estimated cost of maintaining landscaping for the period
specified upon the penni!.
E. Habitat restoration ...... 100% of the estimated cost of repairing or replacing sensitive bioloeical
resources. as dermed bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. including short-tenn
maintenance and long-term monitoring (typicallv five-years). as specified bv a biologist.
(Ord. 1797 1 (part), 1978).
15.04.225 Release of bonds/security.
Bonds and other security shall be released thirty-five days after filing a "Notice of Completion" with the
~eounty lUecorder (recorded copy to Eft) efl;gmeerCitv Em!ineer) for improvements accepted by this eityCitv
and upon acceptance of completed Fonn PW-E-106 (Request for Release of Bonds) submitted by the
pennittee. This fonn is available in the office of the tit) EllgmeefCitv Engineer.
Such fonn may not be accepted until the end of the maintenance period for the required landscaping,
unless a separate bond is or has been submitted to guarantee maintenance of landscaping. (Ord. 1877 2 (part).
1979; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.230 City engifteerCitv En2ineer-Enforcement responsibility and permit issuance authority.
The Eit) cngineerCitv Emdneer shall enforce the provisions of this chapter. He shall, upon application
by qualified persons, issue permits in connection with land development work when all applicable conditions
established by this chapter for such permits have been met. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.235 City enghteerCitv En!!ineer-Powers and duties generally.
The City Engineer He shall cause land development work being done without a permit to be stopped
until a pennit has been obtained. He may require that such work done without a permit be removed or
corrected... including habitat restoration. at the expense of the responsible nerson. Where land development
work involves an embankment improperly constructed or constructed without adequate testing, he shall cause
such embankment to be reconstructed or, in lieu thereof. shall cause a declaration of improper land
development to be recorded in the office of the CflUlit) County fRecorder. He shall have work done in
connection with land development to insure compliance with the provisions of this chapter and shall release the
bond when such work is properly completed. (Ord. 1797 I (part). 1978).
15.04.240 Cit) eogioecrCitv En2ineer-Authority to determine applicable fees,
The eity ellEiRcerCitv En2ineer shall detennine the fees applicable under the provisions of this chapter.
(Ord. 1797 1 (part): 1978).
I 15.04.245 City eogioecrCitv En2ineer-Duty to consider certain recommendations and deny certain
applications.
When the nature of the work requested is such that it comes within the requirements of, or affects the
operation of any other department of the ~itv, the oi!) cogineerCitv En2ineer shall obtain and consider the
recommendations of applicable ~itv departments in determining the disposition of the application. He shall
deny applications which are not in the interest of the public health, safety or general welfare, or do not
constitute a reasonable use ofland as indicated by the existing zoning or an approved land use plan. (Ord. 1797
I (part), 1978).
15.04.250 CiI) oogiocerCitv En2ineer-Grounds for canceling permit or amending plans.
The eity eIlgineerCitv Engineer may cancel a permit or may require the plans to be amended when it is
in the interest of public health, safety and welfare and under any of the following:
A. Upon the request of the permittee;
B. When the facts are not as presented by the permittee in application;
C. When work as constructed or as proposed to be constructed creates a hazard to public health, safety and
welfare.
(Ord.1797 I (part). 1978).
15.04.255 Appeals-Authorized when-Determination authority.
An applicant may appeal the eit} EngineerCitv Emrineer's denial of, or the conditions of approval of, an
application for a land development or clearing and grubbing permit to the ~eity ~eouncil. (Ord. 1797 I
(part), 1978.)
15.04.260 Appeals-Time limit for filing-Form.
The applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this chapter, or the permittee, may appeal to the ~eity
~eouncil from any decision of the eity ettgrneel'Citv Engineer within ten working days after said decision.
Appeals shall be in writing and shall state the specific nature of the appeal. Appeals shall be filed with the etty
eleft<Citv Clerk. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.265 Permits-Application-Procedure generally-Detail plan required.
Applications for permits authorizing land development work shall be made in accordance with
procedures established by the ei~ enEincerCitv Engineer. Applications shall be accompanied by such detailed
plans, specifications and schedules as listed in the subdivision manual, landscape manual, and as otherwise
requircd by the e:ity engmeuCitv Engineer. See Sections 15.04.290 and 15.04.295 of this chapter regarding
fees. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.270 Permits-Application-Detail plans and specifications required.
A. Detailed plans and specifications for land development work shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Those requirements listed in the subdivision manual;
2. A vicinity sketch or other data adequately indicating the site location;
3. A plot plan showing the location of the land development boundaries, lot lines, and public and
private rights-of-way lines;
4. A contour map showing the present contours of the land aud the proposed contours or grid
elevations. Contours will extend beyond the limits of grading at least one hundred feet;
5. The location of any buildings or structures within the land development boundaries, and the
location of any building or structure on adjacent property which is within fifteen feet of the land
development boundary;
6. Typical sections showing details conceming proposed cut and fill slopes;
7. Adequate plans of all drainage devices, walk or other protective devices to be constructed in
connection with, or as a result of the proposed work, together with a map showing the drainage
area of land tributary to the site and the estimated runoff of the area served by any drainage
facilities and devices;
8. An estimate of the quantity of excavation and fill involved, quantities relative to construction of
appurtenant structures, estimate of cost and estimated starting and completion dates;
9. A landscape and irrigation plan indicating the total landscaped square footage, plant quantity,
spacing, type and location and the layout of the irrigation system, and an estimate of cost of the
landscaping and irrigation facilities.
10. A map. prepared bv a biologist. as dermed bv Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
illustratine: the proposed land development work relative to sensitive bioloe:ical resources in
compliance with the applicable Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Pennit issued pursuant to ChaPter
17.35 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
11. An erosion control plan as mav be recuired bv the City Engineer or the Director of Planning and
Building.
B. A soils investigation may be required to correlate surface and subsurface conditions with the proposed
land development plan. The results of the investigation shall be presented in a soils report by a soils
engineer which shall include, but not be limited to location of faults; data regarding the nature,
distribution, and strength of existing soils and rock on the site; the soils engineer's conclusion;
recommendations for grading requirements, including the correction of weak or unstable soil conditions
and treatment of any expansive soils that may be present; and his opinion as to the adequacy of building
sites to be developed by the proposed land development operations. The soils engineer shall provide an
engineering geology report by an engineering geologist when required by the oil) cngineerCitv
Engineer. A seepage statement or a study is required as a part of all soil reports. Whenever blasting is to
be perfonned or bedrock is to be exposed, a seepage study must be perfonned to detennine method of
handling excess water infiltration.
I c. The city cngin.::erCitv Engineer may require other data or information as he deems necessary. He may
eliminate or modify any of these requirements where, in his opinion, they will serve no practical
purpose.
(Ord. 1887 2 (part), 1979; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.275 Permits-Issuance-Prerequisites and contents.
The eil) fnginee.citv Engineer shall issue pennits for land development work J!pon approval of
applications. plans, receipt of the prescribed fees and bonds and receipt of letters from the private engineer,
soils engineer, engineering geologist, landscape architect, biolmdst, and others as required by the city
enginee.citv Engineer, that they have been retained by the pennittee to perform the work specified in Section
15.04.165. The pennits shall include, or refer to, the conditions, plans and specifications which shall govern
the work authorized. (Ord. 1877 2 (part), 1979; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.280 Investigations authorized and required when-Fee.
The cit) engm.::efCitv Emrineer may require the payment of the prescribed fees for special investigations
when the proposed work or inquiries necessitate that special work be performed by the eityCitv. Special
investigations shall include all requests for time extensions or variance requests and shall be accompanied by
the special investigation fee. (Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.285 Agreement required for uncontrolled embankments-Additional specifications.
A. Applications for land development permits involving uncontIolled embankment shall be accompanied
by an agreement signed by the property owner. The agreement shall be prepared by the eity
cngine:erCitv En!2:ineer and shall contain the following provisions and such other provisions as may in
the opinion of the eity engineerCitv Engineer afford protection to the property owner and cityCitv:
1. The land development work shall be designated as uncontIolled embankment and shall be
constructed in accordance with plans approved by the eit) engifleerCitv Engineer.
2. The owner acknowledges that as an uncontrolled embankment, the site is not eligible for a building
permit unless special soils analysis and foundation design are submitted.
3. The land development work shall be done and maintained in a safe and sanitary manner at the sole
cost. risk and responsibility of the owner and his successors in interest, who shall hold the eityCitv
hannless with respect thereto.
B. The agreement for uncontIolled embankment shall be approved by the !;;eity !;;eouncil and recorded by
the ci~ elerkCitv Clerk in the Qeffice of the !;;eounty &ecorder as an obligation upon the land involved.
The notice shall remain in effect until release of the agreement is filed by the fil) enginee.citv Engineer.
(Ord.1797 1 (part), 1978).
15.04.290 Fees-Collection-Method of estimation-VerifIcation-Payment required- Exemptions.
\A
I B
Fees required by this chapter shall be collected by the eil) en!;ificerCitv Engineer and deposited with the
:Q.tiirector of Efmance. Such fees shall be as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended, in
the master fee schedule.
No permit shall be issued, and no land development work shall be pennitted nntil the fees applicable
under this chapter have been received by the eit) engifleerCitv Engineer.
c.
The state or any of its political subdivisions or any governmental agency shall file applications for
permits and shall be issued permits as required by this chapter. No fees shall be required when the work
is done by persons working directly for the state or agency.
D.
The City Manager, or his designee, may authorize, without advance appropriation, the refund of fees
required by this Chapter to be collected, or snch portion of the fees deemed appropriate for refund by the
City Manager (net of costs incurred by the City in processing the permit application or unless the City
has used the fees to construct facilities for a development for which the fees were paid), if the City
Manager finds that the permit for which they were collected has been revoked, surrendered or terminated
without use by the permittee and the refund is less than $100,000. All other refunds shall be authorized
by the City Council.
(Ord.2594 1,1994; Ord. 2011 I (part), 1982; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
15.04.295 Fees-Schedule for computation.
Fees shall be as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended, in the master fee schedule.
(Ord.2506 I (part), 1992; Ord. 1961 I (part). 1982; Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978J.
15.04.305 Fees-To be doubled in certain cases-Effect of imposition.
In the event that land development work is commenced without a land development or clearing and
grubbing permit, the E:it) cngifi.;;crCitv Eneineer shall cause such work to be stopped until a permit is obtained.
The permit fee, in such instance, shall then be the normally required permit fee, plus $500. The payment of
the increased permit fees shall not relieve any person from fully complying with the requirements of this
chapter in the performance of the work. Such fee shall defray the expense of enforcement of the provisions of
this chapter in such cases. The pa)'ffieHt ee sHeh fee shall net pIe, eIlt the iftlpesitioH of aft) penal!) prE:3cribca
ar irnpa3ea by thisehol'tcr> ar Chapter L1 L (Orcl2718 I (part), 1998, Ord. 1797 I (part), 1978).
\\'hen land development work commences without a permit and results in damage to sensitive biological
resources. as dermed by Section 17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. restoration reauirements
(including maintenance and monitoring) shall be imposed at the sole discretion of the Director of Planning and
Building and the full cost of the restoration shall be bome bv the property owner.
When land development work is inconsistent with a permit issued pursuant to Chapter] 7.35 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code and results in damage to sensitive biological resources. as dermed bv Section
17.35.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. restoration requirements (including maintenance and
monitoring) shall be imposed at the sole discretion of the Director of Planning and Building and the full cost of
the restoration shall be borne by the propertv owner.
The pavment of such fees or penalties as described above shall not prevent the imvosition of any penalty
prescribed or imposed bv this chapter. Chapter L4L or other federal or state law. lard 2718 I (part), 1998:
Ord. 1797 I (part). 1978).
15.04.310 Violations-Declared unlawful and public nuisance-Abatement authority.
Any land development work commenced, done, maintained or allowed contrary to the provisions of this
chapter, shall be. and the same is hereby declared to be, unlawful and a public nuisance. Upon order of the
t,;;eity t,;;eouncil, or upon the detemrination of the t,;;eity Mmanager or the I:::eity 8,ottorney, necessary
proceedings for the abatement, removal and/or enjoinment of any such public nuisance shall be commenced in
the manner provided by law. Alternatively the procedures to abate under Chapter 1.30 may be used. Any
failure, refusal, or neglect by a responsible party to obtain a pennit as required by this chapter shall be prima
facie evidence of the fact that a public nuisance has been committed in connection with any land development
work commenced or done contrary to the provisions of this chapter. (Ord 2718 I (part), 1998; Ord. 1797 I
(part), 1978).
15.04.315 Abatement of dangerous conditions.
Where the eit) engmeeFCitv Enlrineer detennines that land development work ~has created a
danger to public or private property or has resulted in the deposition of debris on any public way or interferes
with any existing drainage course, the city e:Rgi11~erCitv Engineer shall serve written notice on the property
owner, describing the condition and requiring that the property owner abate the dangerous condition within ten
days after the notice is received. If the property owner fails to so abate the condition, the eitj engmeerCitv
Engineer may do so, in which event the property owner shall be liable for all costs of such abatement, including
but not limited to reasonable attorney fees. The expenses of abatement shall be a lien against the property on
which it is maintained and a personal obligation against the property owner. (Ord. 1877 3 (part), 1979).
15.04320 Emergency abatement hy ci!y!;;itv-Liability for costs.
If it appears to the eit) cngincerCitv Engineer that an emergency exists because land development work
gt'!Idfflg has resulted in a danger to public or private property, then, without following the procedure established
by Section 15.04.315, the eitj 0BgifleerCitv Engineer may order all work necessary to remove, abate or mitigate
the condition creating such emergency. The eit) cngmceFCitv Engineer may do the work with his own
employees or may contract to have the work done; in either event, the eit) eflgiReerCitv Enlrineer shall keep a
record of thc costs of the work and charge the cost of the work to the property owner who shall repay the
eilyCitv for the cost thereof. (Ord. 1877 3 (part), 1979).
15.04.325 Costs of abatement-Special assessment procedure-Statutory authority.
The costs of abating a dangerous condition within the meaning of this chapter shall be imposed as a
special assessment against the land on which such abatement was done. Costs and assessment procedures will
be in accordance with Chapters 1.40 and 1.41. The property owner may raise and the t,;;eity Mmanager shall
consider, as a complete or partial defense to the imposition of the assessment, questions as to the necessity of
the abatement and the means in which it was accomplished. Pursuant to Government Code 38773.5 abatement
costs shall be transmitted to the tax collector for collection. This assessment shall have the same priority as
other city taxes. (Ord 2718 1 (part), 1998; Ord. 1877 3 (part), 1979).
15.04.330 Conflicts
Except for exempt proiects. if a conflict occurs between this Chapter and Chapter 17.35 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. the stricter regulation shall apply.
Section II. This ordinance is conditioned upon the issuance of Take Authorizations from the USFWS and
CDFG to the City of Chula Vista.
Section III. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day from and after the second
reading of the ordinance which shall occur after issuance of Take Authorizations from the USFWS and CDFG.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attomey
RESOLUTION NO. XXXXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALT
CREEK RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS
(SPA) PLAN
I. RECITALS
A Project Site
WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Resolution are
diagrammatieaIly represented in Exhibit "A" and hereto incorporated herein by this Resolution,
and commonly known as Rolling Hills Ranch Subarea III and consist of 606.9 acres located
north of Proctor Valley Road and east of Hunte Parkway, within the Rolling Hills Ranch
(formerly Salt Creek Ranch) Planned Community("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2001, Pacific Bay Properties and as assumed by its successor
in interest ("Developer") filed applications with the Planning and Building Department of the
City of Chula Vista requesting amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan
and Sectional Planning Area Plan due to density changes within 606.9 acres within the Rolling
Hills Ranch development known as Subarea III ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and
Sectional Planning Area Plan are necessary in order to: 1) elimination of Neighborhood 13 and
replace this area as open space, 2) adjust the land use boundaries of Neighborhood 9, lOA, lOB,
11 and 12;3) transfer residential units lost by the elimination of Neighborhood 13 to other
neighborhoods within Subarea III and 4) change the land use designation of Neighborhood 9
from SFl to SFE and reduce the minimum lot size requirement from 15,000 to 10,000 square
feet and; and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and
Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan consist of changes to figures and tables
contained in these documents, as further depicted in Exhibit B"; and
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, prior discretionary action for the development of the Subarea III portion of
the Rolling Hills Ranch Planned Community has been the subject matter of 1) a General
Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan previously approved by City
Council Resolution No. 15875 on September 25, 1990; 2) the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional
J;'lanning Area Plan ("SPA"); 3) Salt Creek Ranch Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP); 4) Salt
Creek Ranch Water Conservation Plan (WCP); 5) Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District
Resolution xxxxxx
Page 2
Regulations; 6) Salt Creek Ranch Design Guidelines; 7) Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities
Financing Plan; and 8) Salt Creek Ranch Affordable Housing Program, all previously approved
by City Council Resolution No. 16555 on March 24, 1992 and Ordinance No. 2499 on April 7,
1992 and Ordinance No 2499 on April 7, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Public Facilities Financing Plan was modified by Resolution No. 16834 on
October 6,1992 and modified by Resolution 2000-190 on June 13, 2000.
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on April 23, 2003, and voted xxxxxx to forward a recommendation to the City Council on a
proposal to amend the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan; and
WHEREAS, The proceedings and all evidence introduce before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on this project held on March 23, 2003, and the minutes and
resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and
E. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Projeet
applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of
the exterior boundaries of the Project Sites at least ten days prior to the hearing.
F. City Council Hearing
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed pub lie hearing was held before the City Council
on May 13, 2003.on this Project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby find, determine
and resolve as follows:
II. PREVIOUS SEIR 91-03 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS;
APPROVALS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered,
and certified FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and Addendum.
Resolution 2001-220
Page 3
III. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmenta] Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with
the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FSEIR 91-03,
Salt Creek Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FSEIR. The Tentative
Map is in substantial conformance with the conceptual tentative map and grading plans on
which the FSEIR analysis was based and, therefore, approval and implementation of the
Tentative Map does not change the basic conclusions of the FSEIR. The Addendum has
been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula
Vista.
IV, INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum to FSEIR 91-03, reflects the independent
judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby considers the
Addendum to FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch.
V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS/ APPROVAL
A. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN, AS AMENDED.
The proposed amendments to the GDP are consistent with the amendments to the General
Plan as concurrently being approved as part of the MSCP Subarea Plan for the City. The
proposed amendments to the GDP fully implements the concept envision in the General
Plan by providing the necessary standards and guid",lines for the preparation of
implementing plans and regulatory documents for the Woods and Vistas.
An amendment to the adopted General Plan Diagram is being processed concurrently as
part of the approval of the MSCP Subarea Plan for the City, and is required to establish
GDP consistency with the General Plan, and is necessary to implement the MSCP. The
land use designations included in the amended Salt Creek Ranch GDP are those proposed
as amendment to the General Plan Diagram.
With the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Diagram of the General
Plan, the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan will be in substantial conformance
with the amended General Plan.
Resolution xxxxxx
Page 4
B. A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE INITIATED BY
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
PLANS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED
COMMUNITY ZONE.
A Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA) has been previously established for the Project
site, and amendments to this SPA Plan are included with this proposed project. These
amendments allowing the deletion of Neighborhood 13 and modification to the
circulation pattern and boundaries of remaining neighborhoods within Subarea III, , will
allow for the implementation of the MSCP as well as allow Subarea III to be developed
in a similar manner as depicted in the originally adopted GDP.
C. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF
SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN
HARMONY WITH OR PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER
OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC
F ACILITlES SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS, ARE
ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND APPEAR
ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION
THEREOF.
The proposed amendment to the General Development Plan will allow for the remaining
portions (Subarea III) of the Rolling Hills Ranch Master Planned Community to be
developed in an orderly fashion. Although Neighborhood 13 is being eliminated in order
to allow this area as part of the MSCP preserve, the remaining neighborhoods will be
modified in such as a way as to minimize deviations from the originally adopted
development vision contained in the GDP. A reduction in the minimum lot size for
Neighborhood 9 from 15,000 to 10,000 square feet will allow for residential units which
would have otherwise been lost by the elimination of Neighborhood 13 to be
"transferred" to Neighborhood 9 while still maintaining the low density character
envisioned for Subarea III. These amendments are being done in conjunction with the
adoption of the MSCP Subarea Plan for the City.
The proposed modification of the previously approved neighborhood patterns within
Subarea III (including the elimination of Neighborhood 13) can be adequately served by
the public facilities incorporated herein in the respective Public Facilities Financing Plan
and as modified by a new condition contained in the Resolution for the amending
Tentative Map, and, therefore will constitute a residential environment of sustained
durability and stability; Further, the proposed development will be in harmony with or
provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites
proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds and parks, are adequate to
Resolution 2001-220
Page 5
serve the anticipated population and acceptable to the public authorities having
jurisdiction thereof.
D. ADOPTION OF AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In light of the findings above, the amended Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plans
are hereby approved and adopted in the form presented as Attachment xxxx and
referenced on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
VI. SPA FINDINGS! APPROVAL
A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLANS (AS AMENDED) ARE IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE SALT CREEK RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The amended Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan reflect the land use,
circulation systems and public facilities that are consistent with the Salt Creek Ranch
General Development Plan, as amended.
These amendments allowing the deletion of Neighborhood 13, change in PC zoning
designation and resultant reduction in minimum lot size required in Neighborhood 9 as
well as modifications to boundaries of all neighborhoods within Subarea III, will allow
for the implementation of the MSCP as well as allow Subarea III to be developed in a
similar manner as depicted in the originally adopted SPA. These amendments will be
consistent with the amendments to the General Development Plan.
B. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY
SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREAS.
A condition of approval of the amending Tentative Map for Subarea III, being processed
in conjunction with the amendments the Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan delineates the timing
of required public improvements in conjunction with the development of Subarea III.
Compliance with this condition will ensure the orderly sequentialized development of
Subarea III.
Although Neighborhood 13 is being eliminated in order to allow this area as part of the
MSCP preserve, the remaining neighborhoods will be modified in such as a way as to
minimize deviations from the originally adopted GDP and SPA plans. These
modifications will include adding 36 additional units to Neighborhood 9 than what was
shown in the original SPA. These amendments are being done in conjunction with the
adoption of the MSCP Subarea Plan for the City
Resolution xxxxxx
Page 6
C. THE SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLANS, AS
AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE,
RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The 44 residential dwelling units which would otherwise be lost due to the
elimination of Neighborhood 13 will be transferred to other neighborhoods within
Subarea III, primarily Neighborhood 9. While there results will be elimination of some
of the lowest density residential development and subsequent increase in density
elsewhere within Subarea III, the overall density of Subarea III will remain Low Density
Residential. Thus it is anticipated there will be no adverse affects on adjacent land uses,
residential development, circulation of environmental quality. It is anticipated that that
the development of the MSCP which resulted in these required changes to Subarea III
will enhance the overall environmental quality of the area.
D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND
OVERALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO
CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED
DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL
MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE.
The amendments do not involve areas planned for industrial or research uses.
E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR
NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE
APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE
PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED
FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
The amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch SPA do not involve these Institutional,
Recreational or similar uses.
F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND
ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON.
Road improvements will be constructed per the timing requirements outlined in the
Public Facilities Financing Plan as modified by condition of approval of the amending
Tentative Map for Subarea III which delineates the required timing of road improvements
in conjunction with proposed residential development.
G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED
ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION (S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE
Resolution 2001-220
Page 7
ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH
PROPOSED LOCATION (S).
The Salt Creek Ranch SPA amendment does not involve Commercial uses.
H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND
ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID
DEVELOPMENT.
The amended SPA plan is consistent with the approved plans and regulations applicable
to surrounding areas and therefore, said development can be planned and zoned in
coordination and substantial compatibility with said development. The proposed SPA is
consistent with the General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan, amended.
I. In light of the findings above, the City Council does hereby approve the Salt Creek Ranch
SPA amendments.
VII. SPA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VlII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and
maintained according to the their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all
approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of shall future building permits,
deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of
approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel their compliance or seek
damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Developer or successor in interest by
the City approval ofthis Resolution.
IX. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon enforceability of each and every term provision and condition herein stated; and that in the
event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by the Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the city so determines in its sole
discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in effect.
Resolution xxxxxx
Page 8
Presented By
Approved as to form by
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
Robert A. Leiter
Planning and Building Director
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 13th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
1, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2001-220 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24th day of July, 2001.
Executed this 24th day of July, 2001.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
EXHIBIT 'A'
BELLA
LAGO
PROJECT
LOCATION
SAN MIGUEL
RANCH
EASTLAKE
WOODS
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~~: McMilLIN COMPANIES PROJECT DESCRIPnON:
C) GDP/SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT NORTHEAST OF HUNTE PARKWAY
ADDRESS: PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD Request Proposed amendments to !he Salt Creek Ranch
GDP/SPA to eliminate Neighborhood 13; modify neighborhood
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: boundaries and lot configurations within subarea III.
NORTH No Scale PCM-02-11 Related Case: IS-02-o14, PCS-02-04, PCS-9Z-oZA.
C :\OAIFILES\locators\PCM0211.cdr 02/26/03
EXHIBIT B
SEE ATTACHED ROLLING HILLS RANCH BINDERS
FOR:
. PROPOSED GDP REVISIONS
. PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
REVISIONS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALT
CREEK RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS TO AMEND THE ZONING DISTRICTS MAP
AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO DELETE
NEIGHBORHOOD 13, CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF
NEIGHBORHOOD 9 FROM SFE TO SFl AND REDUCE THE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF NEIGHBORHOOD 9 FROM 15,000 TO
10,000 SQUARE FEET.
I. RECITALS
A Project Site
WHEREAS, the areas ofIand which are the subject of this Resolution are diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and hereto incorporated herein by this Resolution, and commonly known
as Rolling Hills Ranch Subarea III and consist of 606.9 acres located north of Proctor Valley Road
and east of Hunte Parkway, within the Rolling Hills Ranch (formerly Salt Creek Ranch) Planned
Community{"Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, on October 15,2001, Pacific Bay Properties and as assumed by its successor in
interest ("Developer") filed applications with the Planning and Building Department of the City of
Chula Vista requesting amendments to the City ofChula Vista General Plan and Salt Creek Ranch
Gcneral Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan due to density changes within 606.9
acres within the Rolling Hills Ranch development known as Subarea III ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and
Sectional Planning Area Plan consist of: 1) elimination of Neighborhood 13 and replace this area as
open space, 2) adjust the land use boundaries of Neighborhood 9, lOA, lOB, II and 12;3) transfer
residential units lost by the elimination of Neighborhood 13 to otherneighborhoods within Subarea
III and 4) change the land use designation of Neighborhood 9 from SFl to SFE and reduce the
minimum lot size requirement from 15,000 to 10,000 square feet and; and
Co Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, prior discretionary action for the development of the Subarea III portion of the
Rolling Hills Ranch Planned Community has been the subject matter of 1) a General Development
Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution
No. 15875 on September 25, 1990; 2) the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA");
3) Salt Creek Ranch Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP); 4) Salt Creek Ranch Water
Conservation Plan (WCP); 5) Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations; 6) Salt
Creek Ranch Design Guidelines; 7) Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan; and 8) Salt
Creek Ranch Affordable Housing Program, all previously approved by City Council Resolution No.
16555 on March 24, 1992, and Ordinance 2499 on April 7, 1992; and
Ordinance No,
Page 2
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
April23, 2003, and voted xxxxxx to forward a recommendation to the City Council on a proposal to
amend the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan;
and
WHEREAS, The proceedings and all evidence introduce before the Planning Commission at
the public hearing on this project held on April 23, 2003, and the minutes and resolution resulting
there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and
E. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project applications
and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior
boundaries of the Project Sites at least ten days prior to the hearing.
F. City Council Hearing
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on
May 13, 2003 on this Project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
II. PREVIOUS SEIR9I-03 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS
The City Council of the City ofChula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and
certified FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and Addendum.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impaets associated with the
proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FSEIR 91-03, Salt
Creek Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FSEIR. The Tentative Map is
in substantial conformance with the conceptual tentative map and grading plans on which the
FSEIR analysis was based and, therefore, approval and implementation of the Tentative Map
does not change the basic conclusions of the FSEIR. The Addendum has been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
IV, INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum to FSEIR 91-03, reflects the independent judgment
of the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista and hereby considers the Addendum to FSEIR
91-03, Salt Creek Ranch.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as
follows:
A. FINDINGS FOR P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE AMENDMENTS
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch
Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the City ofChula Vista General
Plan, as concurrently anlended, and public necessity, convenience, the general welfare and
good zoning practice support the amendment.
B. APPROVAL OF ZONE AMENDMENTS
The City Council does hereby approve the amendments to the Planned Community
District Zoning District Map and Residential Property Development Standards as as
represented in Exhibit Band C.
V. INV AUDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCA nON
It is the intention ofthe City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in [he event
that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforcable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
VI. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bob Leiter
Planning and Building Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
EXHIBIT 'A'
BELLA
LAGO
PROJECT
LOCATION
SAN MIGUEL
RANCH
EASTLAKE
WOODS
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANT: McMilLIN COMPANIES GDP/SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT NORTHEAST OF HUNTE PARKWAY
ADDRESS: PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD Request: Proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch
GDP/SPA to eliminate Neighborhood 13; modify neighborhood
SCALE: FIlE NUMBER: boundaries and lot configurations within subarea III.
NORTH No Scale PCM-02-11 Related Case: IS-02-014, PCS-02-04, PCS-92-02A.
C:\DAIFllES\locators\PCM0211.cdr 02/26/03
EXHIBIT 'B'
~ ~.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ i ~ i'i i I I ~ ~
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~
:E:E~:f~11:~~~6~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q m m ~ m m m ~ 0 0 ~ U
z
g00@]~00~rn~B~
(/} =-
!-< =.
U ...
~ [H
\Q
a g
~ I
N
L.._.._.._.._.r-
~
,,~
~
. ,
-
:g
..-....,
III'
.~ iii
~J ~
'J
~ ~g z
~
~
IIi I< J
. B
~ J
~II
E-4 ~
~ ,
~I n --
~
EXHIBIT 'C'
2.3 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
2.3.1 General Standards:
The fOllowing Property Development Standards shall apply to all land and
buildings. other than accessory buildings. permitted in their respective
residential land use district. The use of the symbol "SP" indicates that the
standard is established by the approval of a Site Plan. Dimensions and
standards are minimums. Minor variations may be permitted subject to site plan
or tract map approval. providing that the minimums specified herein are
maintained. Lot widths and depths are typical minimums but may vary
slightly with irregularly shaped lots and site specific conditions. The parking
standards for a planned Senior Citizen or "affordable" residential development
,
may be reduced from those specified herein for the district in which it is
located by the City Council through the C.U.P. procedure.
,
Final Salt Creek SPA
213/47.008
November ]2, 1991
11-13
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
NEIGHBORHOOD !I-B '711&8 1&2 6&7A 3 5 4A,4B
!!ill 7B-9
SFE SFl SF2 SF3 SF4 SFA MF
Lot area minimum 15,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 5,400 5,000 4,500 SP SP_
(square feet) 10.000' (70'10) (20%) (10%)
Minimum Lot width
(in feet) (measured at setback line)
"- Lot Frontage 90 60 60 60 60 50 45 SP SP
SO'
b. Flag Lots
Frontage4 ;!Qli ;!Q15 20 20 20 20 20 NA NA
c. Knuckle or
Cul-de-Sac 35 35 30 30 30 30 30 NA NA
Lot depth (in feet) 125 100 117 100 90 100 100 SP SP
Lot Coverage (%) 40% 45% 45% 45% 45% 50% 50% SP SP
Floor Area Ratio .45 .55 .55 .55 .55 .60 .60 SP SP
Front yard setback These setbacks are minimums, but front
(fiom public street ROW and rear yards shall vary so that the view
infect): fromthes~etchang~
a. to direct entry 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 SP SP
garage
b. to side entry garage 20 15 15 15 15 10 10 SP SP
or house
c. To main residence 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 SP SP
Note: Accessory structures are excluded from lot coverage percentages.
I Single-family pennitted per the SF3 district standards.
2 Single-family permitted per the SF4 district standards with a minimum lot size of3.8oo
Square feet and a 40-foot wide by 95-feet deep lot. Maximum lot coverage 50% (.60 FAR).
Setbacks: Per SF3 District.
3 Site Plan.
4 One lot-~l2..feet. Two to four lots on same flag-28 feet.
S Minimum Lot Size in Neiehborhood 9 is 10 000 sauare feet Minimwn Lot F rootalle is 80 feet.
Final Revised Salt Creek SPA
213/17.008
Neve""'... 12, 1991612012002
11-14
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
NEIGHBORHOOD 'H3 'ffi&8 1&2 6&7A 3 5 4A,4B
10-12 7B-9
SFE SFI SF2 SF3 SF4 SFA' MF'
Side yard setback
(in feet):
a. To adjacent 10/5 10/5 10/5 10/5 10/5 10/5 10/5 SP SP
residential Jot (min.
totaUone side)
b. Distance between 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 SP NA
detached residential
units
c. To adjacent street 15 15 10 10 10 10 10 SP SP
(corner lot)
Rear yard setback (in feet) 25 20 15 15 15 15 10 10 SP
Scenic highway setbacks:
a. East H Street
(from right-of-way)
0 Minimum 20
0 Comers
E. H and Hunte 100
Pkwy.
E. H and Other 30
Streets
b. Hunte Parkway
0 Minimum 20
Building height (in feet)
Maximum:
Accessory building 28' 28' 28' 28' 28' 28' 28' 35 28<
Maximum (in feet)
4 Maximum height is 35' for two-story single-family homes, if approved by the Zoning Administrator.
S Maximum height is 45' for three-story multi-family home structures.
FiooI Revised Salt Creek SPA
212/17.988
No. ember 12, 199112/17/2001
11-15
NEIGHBORHOOD
9-B
10-12
SFE
Parking spaces per unit:
Single-Family Estate
SF!
SF2
SF3
SF4
SF5
SFA
MF
Fffi&! Revised Salt Creek SPA
212/17.098
Na.ember 12, 1991121!7/200l
m&8
7B-9
SFI
1&2
SF!
2 garage spaces
2 garage spaces
2 garage spaces plus 1 guest on street
2 garage spaces plus 1 guest on street
2 garage spaces plus I guest on street
2 garage spaces plus I guest on street
6&7A 3
SF3 SF4
2 spaces per dwelling units (1 covered) plus guest parking
1.5 spaces per 1 bedroom unit
2.0 spaces per 2 bedroom unit
2.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit
11-16
5
SFA'
4A,4B
MF'
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF THE
AMENDING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR ROLLING HILLS
RANCH SUBAREA III (FORMERLY SALT CREEK RANCH), 92-02A
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A, copies of which are on file in the Office of the
City Clerk, incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as Rolling Hills Ranch
Subarea III amending Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02A; and for the
purpose of general description herein consists of 606.9 acres located north of Proctor Valley
Road and east of Hunte Parkway, within the Rolling Hills Ranch (formerly Salt Creek
Ranch) Planned Community ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on October 15,2001, Pacific Bay Properties and as assumed by its
successor in interest ("Developer") filed an amending tentative subdivision map with the
Planning and Building Department of the City of ChuIa Vista requesting approval of the
amending Tentative Subdivision Map for Rolling Hills Ranch Subarea III, ChuIa Vista Tract
02-02a in order to modify the Project Site and create 425 single-family lots and 6 open space
lots (CC, EE-GG, DDD, HHH), 29 Master HOA open space lots, 4 HOA lots and 1
recreational lots (Rec Lot 9A); and various special lots (i.e., slope lots) throughout the
subdivision ("Project"); and,
c. Prior Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of
various entitlements and agreements, including: 1) Salt Creek Ranch General Development
Plan (GDP) approved by City Council Resolution 15875 on September 25, 1990; 2) Salt
Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan approved by the City Council Resolution
No 16555 on March 24, 1992; and, the amended Rolling Hills Ranch Planned Community
District Regulations and Land Use Map approved by City Council Ordinance No. 2499 on
April7, 1992; and,
WHEREAS, the original Tentative Map CVT 92-02 with Conditions of Approval
for Salt Creek Ranch was originally approved by Resolution No 16834 on October 6, 1992
and modified by Resolution 2000-190 on June 13,2000.
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 19
WHEREAS, this constitutes a supplemental Resolution which only affects Subarea
III and whose only intent is to modify, delete or add to previously adopted conditions of
approval as they relate to said subarea, and
WHEREAS, the TM conditions of approval pursuant to Resolution 16834 and 2000-
190 except as specifically modified, deleted, or added as to Subarea III remain in full force
and effect as to the entirety of CVT 92-02, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on April 23, 2003 and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted
(......) recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the
findings and subject to the conditions listed below; and,
Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before
the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista on May 13, 2003., on the Project and to receive
the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard
to the same; and,
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said tentative
subdivision map application, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to
property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days
prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00
p.m. October .. .2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City
Council and said hearing was thereafter closed.
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the Project held on April 23, 2003, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. PREVIOUS SEIR 91-03 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered,
and certified FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and Addendum.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with
the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FSEIR 91-03,
Salt Creek Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FSEIR. The Tentative
Resolution No.
Page 3 of 19
Map is in substantial conformance with the conceptual tentative map and grading plans on
which the FSEIR analysis was based and, therefore, approval and implementation of the
Tentative Map does not change the basic conclusions of the FSEIR. The Addendum has
been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula
Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum to FSElR 91-03, reflects the independent
judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby considers the
Addendum to FSElR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch.
VI. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the amending Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein
for Rolling Hills Ranch Subarea III, Chula Vista Tract No. 92-02a, is in
conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following:
1. Land Use
The Rolling Hills Subarea III Plan (Residential Neighborhoods 9-12) provides for
low density residential development with densities ranging between 1.05 and 2.0
dwelling units per acre. The project will provide for 425 single-family units. The
project as conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the amended Salt Creek
Ranch GDP and SPA, and since the GDP and SPA are in substantial conformance
with the General Plan, the Tentative Map is also in substantial conformance with the
General Plan.
2. Circulation
All on-site and off-site streets required to servc the subdivision will be constructed
or DIP fees paid by the developer.
The public streets within the Project will be sized as prescribed in the circulation
element of the General Plan and designed per City design standards and! or
requirements, or modifications accepted by the City Engineer. The required and
anticipated off-site improvements would be designed to handle this Project and
future projects in the area.
3. Housing
The applicant has entered into an agreement with the City to provide for required
low and moderate income housing and in currently ahead of schedule in terms of
meeting the conditions of this agreement.
Resolution No.
Page 4 of 19
4. Conservation
The Environmental Impact Report SEIR 91-03 and Addendum addresses the goals
and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and found the
development of this site to be consistent with these goals and policies. In addition,
subarea III boundaries and densities have been modified to specifically comply with
the requirements of the Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) being adopted
concurrently.
5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
Subarea III is a portion of the overall Salt Creek Ranch Deve]opment which will
provide a 29 acre (gross) community park, a 7.3 acre (gross) neighborhood park and
the payment of pad fees or additional improvements as approved by the Director of
Building and Park Construction. In addition, equestrian and recreational trail
systems will be provided throughout the project, ultimately connecting with other
open space areas and trail systems in the region including the Chula Vista City-wide
"Greenbelt" trail.
6. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of the
Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site
7. Safetv
The Fire Department and other emergency service agencies have reviewed the
proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined
that the proposal meets the City Threshold Standards for emergency services.
8. Noise
Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report FSIER 91-
03 and Addendum adequately address the noise policy of the General Plan. The
project has been conditioned to require that all dwelling units be designed to
preclude interior noise levels of 45 dBA and exterior noise exposure over 65 dBA
for all outside private patio areas
9. Scenic Highway
The Subarea III portion of the Rolling Hills Ranch project is located east of the
intersection of Hunte Parkway and East H Street. The portion of Proctor Valley
Road adjacent to Subarea III, which serves the eastward extension of East H Street is
not delineated as a scenic highway within the Land Use Element of the General
Plan.
Resolution No.
Page 5 of 19
10. Bicycle Routes
Although no designated regional off-street bicycle routes are included as
components of the intemal circulation network, bicyclists will be readily able to
share the intemal streets with motor vehicles due to low traffic volume and limited
speeds allowed. Bicycle route segments to connect to regional systems have been
incorporated as prescribed by the Circulation Element of the General Plan. On-
street bike lanes are included on the adjacent arterial highways. The bike lanes will
be paved components ofthe street systems indicated.
11. Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the project site. The project is subject to RCT
fees prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it
has considered the effect of this proposal on the housing needs of the region and has
balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and
the available fiscal and environmental resources.
C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the
optimum setting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as
required by Govermnent Code Section 664 73.1
D. The site is physically suited for residential development and the proposal conforms
to all standards established by the City for such project.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extend to the impact
created by the proposed development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOSLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the
Project subject to the general and special conditions set forth below.
VII GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as
described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02A and FSEIR 91-03
and Addendum, except as modified by this Resolution.
B. Implement Mitigation Measures
Resolution No.
Page60f 19
Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation
measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report, FSElR 91-03 and Addendum. Any such measures not satisfied by a specific
condition of this Resolution or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the Director of Planning and Building. Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the
Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with the FSElR and Addendum.
Modification of the sequence shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and
Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision.
C. Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan
Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the EastLake III Public Facilities
Financing Plan, as amended or as required by the City Engineer, to meet the threshold
standards adopted by the City ofChula Vista. The City Engineer and Planning and Building
Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should
conditions change to warrant such a revision.
D. Design Approval
Per section 2.3.1.3 of the Community Design Section of the approved Salt Creek Ranch
SPA, single family detached residential areas with lots 4,500 s.f. or larger in any residential
district may use the tentative tract map with typical building elevations and typical building
locations on lots as a substitute for elevations and siting of all buildings. Specific
requirements for application and review procedures are published in the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
VIII SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
All conditions listed below are either modified conditions of previous Resolution
No's.l6834 and 2000-190 or are new conditions which only affect Subarea III. As such, the
numbering of conditions shown is consistent with the existing condition number shown in
Resolution No. 16834 which is herewith shown for purposes of being modified or deleted.
All other conditions of approval adopted pursuant to Resolution 16834 and 2000-190 remain
in full force and effect as to Subarea III and the entirety of CVT 92-02
Streets, Ril!hts-Of-Wav and Improvements
19. Grant in fee the City a I-foot control lot at the northerly terminus of Hunte Parkway and &reet
"YYYY" the easterly terminus of both Ranch Estate Place and Ranch Lakes Way and the
southerly terminus of Duncan Ranch Road. (Engineering)
22. Provide J'Hll3lie street aecess to the northern adjacent properties UpOR dcvelopmeRt of
Ncighbcrhood 11 BY moans of Streot YYY stabbing iRtO said arca, as dcpietod OR the
TeRtativc Map, sabjoct to approval of tho City ERgiRecr and the Diroctor ofPlanRing. Prior
to approval of the first Final Map for Neighborhood 12, the northern adjacent property
owners of record shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of
Resolution No.
Page 7 of 19
Planning that alternative public street access to the northern adjacent properties can be
reasonably and feasibly constructed by them, at their own expense, from an economic,
planning, environmental, engineering and legal standpoint. Upon such a showing, the
developer shall provide private easement access up to the existing dirt roads located at the
end of Street MMMM and Street NNNN, by means of Street SSSS, as depicted on the
Tentative Map. (Engineering, Planning)
27. Construct private streets in accordance with the standards contained in the subdivision
manual and street design standards unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Private
street cross sections shall conform to those shown on the tentative map for curb-to-curb
width and right-of-way width '.viti! the exceptioR of the private street sectioR for
Neig!HJorhood 13, \vhieh shall ha'le a 48 ft. right of way ',vieth, and 32 ft. cera to ellra.
(Engineering)
Sewers
29. Grant to the City fee title to a parcel within which the Salt Creek Ranch sewer pump station
shall be located. Design and construct the sewer pump station subject to the approval of the
Cities of ChuIa Vista and San Diego. Developer shall complv with Council Policv 570-03 and
provide the Citv of Chu\a Vista with a deposit for the maintenance and operation of said facility
as outlined in Council Policy No. 570-03 for permanent sewer pump stations. (Engineering)
31. Delete
Gradine: and Drainae:e
Water
43. Design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to include BMP's to minimize non-point
source pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the City of San Diego Water Utilities
Director.
a. The Development shall complv with all applicable regulations established bv the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP At as set forth in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES), permit requirements for urban runoff and
storm water discharge, the Clean Water Act, and anv regulations adopted bv the City of
Chula Vista, pursuant to the NPDES regulations Or requirements. Further, the
Developer shall file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to
obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activitv and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities.
The SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction pollution prevention
and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post
construction control measures.
Resolution No.
Page 8 of ]9
b. The developer shall comply with all the proyisions of the NPDES Permit during and
J:lfter all phases of the development process, including, but not limited to, mass grading,
rough grading. construction of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of
dwelling units.
c. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project. Developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City where Deve]oper agrees not to protest the formation of a
facilities benefit district or any other funding mechanism approved bv the Citv to
finance the operation. maintenance, inspection, and monitoring of NPDES facilities.
This agreement to not protest shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the
amount of any assessment, which may be imposed due to the addition of these
improvements and shall not interfere with the right of anv person to vote in a secret
ballot election. The above noted agreement shall run with the entire land contained
within the Proiect.
th At such time as required by the Citv Engineer for the Project. the Developer shall submit
and obtain approval from the City Engineer of a maintenance program for the proposed
post-construction BMP's. The maintenance program shall include, but not be limited to:
1) a manual describing the maintenance activities of said facilities, 2) an estimate of the
cost of such maintenance schedule and activities, and 3) a funding mechanism for
financing the maintenance program. In addition, the Developer shall enter into a
Maintenance Agreement with the City to ensure thc maintenance and operation of said
facilities.
eo Prior to approval of each grading, construction, and building permits for the project. the
Developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer compliance with all
of the applicable provisions of the municipal code and the adopted City of Chula Vista's
Storm Water Management Standards ReQuirements Manual. which includes the Local
SUSMP. The Developer shall incorporate into the project planning and design effective
post-construction BMP's and provide all necessarY studies and reports demonstrating
compliance with the applicable regulations and standards. BMP's shall be identified and
implemented that specificallv prevent pollution of storm drain svstems to the Maximum
Extent Practicable (MEP) from certain project feature, land use, areas and activities.
t The Developer shall incorporate in the Project design. water qualitv and watershed
protection principles and all post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
selected for the Project, in compliance with the NPDES Permit.(EnlZineerinlZ)
Fees/Pavments
53. Deposit $5,000 $30.000 or a sum up to that amount if otherwise approved bv the City
Engineer in hislher discretion to provide for the first years' maintenance costs prior to approval
of the Final Map of any phase or unit, which rcquires the Salt Creek Ranch pump station to
provide sewer service. (Engineering)
Resolution'No.
Page 9 of 19
Agreements/Covenants
55. EHler into an agreement '.vith the City for each fJhase or IInit thereof, whereby:
a. The develofJer agrees the City may '.vithhold occllfJancy permits for any IInits in the
sllbject subdiyision in any of the follO'.ving occm:
(1) Regional deyelofJmeHl threshold limits set by the East Chllla Vista
TransfJertation Phasing P]an have been reached.
(2) Traffie '/oltimes, levels of service, fJllblie titilities and/or serviees exeeed
the adopted thresheld standards.
b. The de'/eloper agrees that the City may withhold bllilding fJermits for any of the
phases of develofJment identified in the Pllblie Faeilities Financing Plan (PFFP) if
the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or otherwise
conditiened ha'le not been comfJleted or constructed to the satisfaction of the City.
The property owner may propose ehanges in the timing and sequeneing of
develofJment and the construction of imfJrovements affected. In slleh ease, the PFFP
may be amended as !lf1fJroved by the City Pla_ing Director and Pllblie 'Norks
Director (Engineering. P!anlli.~g)
55. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each Final Map, where
the developer agrees to the following:
a. That the Citv may withhold building permits for the subiect subdivision if anyone of the
following occur:
1. Regional development threshold limits set bv the Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan, as amended from time to time, have been reached or in order
to have the Proiect complv with the Growth Management Program, as mav
be amended from time to time.
2. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services either
exceed the adopted Citv threshold standards or fail to comply with the then
effective Growth Management Ordinance, and Growth Management
Program and anv anlendments thereto. Public utilities shall include, but not
be limited to, air Quality, drainage, sewer and water.
3. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or
otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to the
satisfaction of the Citv. The developer mav propose changes in the timing and
seQuencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. In
such case. the PFFP mav be amended as approved bv the City's Director of
Planning and Building and the Public Works Director. The Applicant agrees
that the City mav withhold building permits for anv of the phases of
development identified in the Public Facilities financing Plan (PFFP) for the
Resolution No.
Page 10 of 19
Proiect if the required public facilities. as identified in the PFFP or as amended
by the fu-.naal Monitorim.: Prol'.:fam have not been completed.
b. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Proiect, should the
Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of the Tentative
Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The City shall provide the Developer of
notice of such determination and allow the Developer reasonable time to cure said breach
66. Enter into all agreement with the City to inslH'e fuat all franchised cable television companies
("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and pro,,.ide cable
television serviee to each lot within the subdivision prior to the approval of Final Maps for each
phase or anit. Reotrict access to the eonduit to only those franchised cable television companies
who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and
which are in farther compliancc with all other rules, regulations, erdinallccs and procedlH'es
regulating !IfId affuctmg the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or
may from time to time be issued by the City of COOla Vista. (Enginccring)
66. Permit all cable television companies franchised by the City ofChula Vista equal opportunity
to place conduit and provide cable television service for each lot or unit within the final map
area. Developer further agrees to grant, by license or easement. and for the benefit of, and to
be cnforceable bv. the Citv of Chula Vista, conditional access to cable television conduit
within the properties situated within the final map onlv to those cable television companies
franchised bv the Citv of Chula Vista, the condition of such grant being that: (a) such access
is coordinated with Developer's construetion schedule so that it does not delay or impede
Developer's construction schedule and does not require the trenches to be reopened to
accommodate that placement of such conduits; and (b) anv such cable companv is and
remains in compliance with, and promises to remain in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the franchise and with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures
regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same mav have been,
or may from time to time be, issued bv the City of Chula Vista. Developer hereby convevs to
the Citv of Chula Vista the authority to enforce said covenant bv such remedies as the Citv
determines appropriate, including revocation of said grant upon determination bv the City of
Chula Vista that thev have violated the conditions of grant. (Eni!ineering. Plannini! &
Buildini! )
Public Parks and Trails
68. Pr0jJare, SHbmit and obtain Director of Parks and Recreation approval of a comprehensive
Maoter PlaR for the opoo space system, recreation trails and parIes which shall include, but not
be limited to, phasing of the inotallatien of facilities in accoro!lflce '.vith the recreation needs
llIJalysis.
Tl1e Master PlaR shall reflect:
a. More precise location, size and configuration sf parl.:s, recreation and eqtleotrian trails
and fDllcing thllH iadicated on the Tentati...e Map.
Resolution No.
Page 11 of 19
b. ,\ multi use bridged trail crossiRg of gaIt Creek to the CORlliRlflity park iR Paase I to
create 00 cast/west lilli, over SaIt Creek.
c Tae eJltensioR of eqHeGtllan aRd recreatio,R trail systems to tae eastern property booodary
OR the soHth side of Proctor Valley Road:
d PedestriaR '.yaIkv.ays from cui ee sac eRds OR gtreets DD, FF, aRe GG desigRee with
opeR eRds along Proctor Valley Road west of HuRte Park','.ay to the walk system
adj acent to Proctor Yalley Road.
e. All opeR space access poiRts shall haye a minimHm of ] 0 ft. dear yehimxlar sIHface, with
00 additioRal 2 ft. clear OR either siee of ooy vertical obstructioRs.
f. DctormiflatioR of the open space eistrict parcel bOillHlaries aRd maiRtenance
respoflsibilities.
g. ,\n eqHestrian style f-cnce adj aceRt to the 10 foot recreation trail along the florth siee of
the COffiffillRit)' Park, adjacent to Proetor Valley Roae, aRd eoRtHming along the trail at
the east side of the park to the poiRt where the trail eRters the park.
h. Extension of the reereation trail within lots K and L aejaeeRt to EastLake, aloHg the
soHtherly property line ef Neigflborhood 1 d, along the ',vesterl)' property liRe of said
Neighboraooe (futIHe San Miguel Road), aOO the westerly edges of the NeiglWeraoee
Park ane the Fire gtatieR site. This trail shall be a mini_ ef 10 feet iR ',Vieth and
provide maiRteRanee vehicle acceGS to each adjaeeRt opeR eRded residential cHI de sae.
1. All aspeets of '.york iR the open space fle!'Nork and the park sites shall comply ','.ita all
approved loodscape ood irrigatieR staRdards.
J. The desigA, and iRstallation and imprevemeflt of the parks/open spaees shall be in
accordanee '.vit-h the st!!fldards set forth iR tae Citj' LaRdseape MaRlfal as may be
amended from time to time. (P-arffS & Rcacdtiem, P!tl1l/!i,~g, Engi:iCcring)
68. Witlrin 60 davs from City Council approval of the Amending Tentative Map, prepare. submit
and obtain the approval of the Director of Planning and Building for a comprehensive
Landscape Master Plan for Subarea III. The Landscape Master Plan shall reflect the
requirements of the Landscape Architecture Division's checklist and the City of Chula Vista
Landscape Manual.
70. Dedieate all reqHired parkland (22 gross acres, Community Park. 7 gross acres. NeighbBrhoed
Park and plli'k imprevemeflls in aeeordaRee with the Master Plan and construction doeumel!!s
prepared pIHsHant te Condition 73 as "turn key" projects. The Direetor ef Parks & Reereation
shall have the right of fiflal appro'lal in the selectien preeess of t-he general eentraetor fer bolh of
the park sites. (P-ar!ES & Rccrcati6/Z)
Resolution No.
Page 12 of 19
70. Developer shall provide a title report showing the Community Park site is free and clear of all
encumbrances prior to acceptance of the park except for those easements of record in favor of
the City on the Final Map for the site.
Street Trees/Open Space
82. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls, which are to be maintained by Opef! SjJace
districts shall be constructed entirely within open space lots dedicated to the City. (Planning,
Engineering)
82. a. Concurrently with approval of the first final map for the Proiect. the MSCP Preserve lots
(Lots CC, EE, FF and GG) and Tarplant Management Areas (Lots DDD and HHH) shall be
conveved through an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to the City or other appropriate
management entitv deemed acceptable to the Director of Planning and Building. Prior to the
first final map, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the Citv which requires the
Developer to assure interim management of the lots for a period not to exceed two years. A
conservation easement or other similar restriction. acceptable to the Director of Planning and
Building, shall also be provided that precludes the use of lots CC, EE, FF. GG for anv use
other than preserve, as set forth in the MSCP Subarea Plan. unless agreed to bv the City and
the Wildlife Agencies.
b. Fencing and/or walls shall be installed, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator. adiacent to both the MSCP Preserve lots (Lots CC, EE. FF and GG) and the
Tarplant Management Areas (Lots DDD and HHH) in order to prevent impacts to the
biological resources from domestic pets and human activitv. An alternative to fencing
would be the planting of native barrier plants subiect to the approval of the
Environmental Review Coordinator at his/her sole discretion. Perpetual maintenance of
the fence or barrier shall be provided by the HOA (PlannilllZ & Buildilllz. EmzincerinJZ)
c. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all fencing and/or walls to be maintained bv the
HOA shall be constructed entirely within HOA-maintained open space lots or easements
granted to the HOA and irrevocablv offered to the City of Chula Vista.
84. EstablisH IIOIHeowners Associations for NeigfllJorhoods 5 (Lot 93 J, 8, 12 and ] 3 to pf13vide for
the maiBtenance of private open space and streets prior to the apprD'/al of Fina1 Maps for said
neighborhoods, subject to the appr-oval of the Director ofPlall:llflg. (Planning)
84. Prior to the approval of final maps for Neighborhoods 9, lOa, lOb, ] 1 and 12 and subiect to the
approval of the Director of Planning and Building, establish homeowners associations (HOA)
for said neighborhoods to provide for the maintenance of those areas as identified by the
Director of Planning and Building and the Citv Engineer, including open space areas. private
streets. drainage facilities and fencing, walls or other barriers as identified on the amending
tentative map (CVT 92-02A) (PlanninJZ & BuildinJZJ
85. Submit a compreHensive landsoape plan for reviev.' and approval of the City Landscape
Architeet and Director of Parks and Recreation prior to approval of the first Final Map. Submit
Resolution No.
Page 13 of 19
eomprehoosive, detailed landseape and irrigatioR plans, erosioR control plaas aHd detailed water
maHagement gHidelines fDr all limdscape irrigatioR in accordaRce with the Cffilla Vista
LaHdscape Maffiml for the assoeiated landscapiRg in ea€h Final Map. These detailed landscape
and irrigation plans shalllJe fDr the revie'.', and approval of the City Landscape .'\rchitect and
Director of Parks aHd Recreation prior to the approval of each Final Map. The laRdscaping
format within the projeet shall be in soostantial conformance with Section 3.2 (Landscape
Concept) of the Salt CreeI~ RaHch SPA (P!all/'li.~g, P-ar!;s & Recr~tlti8/1)
85. a. Prior to issuance of each the first grading permit for the Project. prepare, submit and
obtain approval of the Director of Planning and Building for Landscape slope erosion
control plans for the area encompassed within each the grading permit in accordance with
the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance and the Landscape Manual. Revegetation of
slopes external to Subarea III and/or adjacent to open space lots or undisturbed areas shall
be accomplished with native plant species. which are appropriate to the area as
determined by the City's Landscape Architecture Division and Environmental Review
Coordinator.
b. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project. prepare, submit and obtain
approval of the Director of Planning and Building for landscape and irrigation plans in
accordance with the Citv of ChuIa Vista Landscape Manual for all streets. common areas
and open space lots.
87. Include in the CC&R's that the maintenance of all private facilities and improvements within
open space areas are managed by home owners associations. Prior to approval of the first
final map for the Proiect, the Developer shall: I) create a Master Homeowners Association
("HOA") to own and maintain in a professional manner open space areas, medians.
parkwavs. and all other improvements not maintained by community facilities district or
other entitv; and 2) complete the fomlation of the HOA which shall be structured to allow
annexation of future tentative map areas in the event the Citv Engineer and Director of
Planning and Building requires such annexation of future tentative map areas. Submit to and
gain approval of said CC&R's by the Director of Planning prior to approval of the associated
final map. The CC&R's shall include the following;
a Maintain all the facilities and improvements within the open space lots offered for
dedication to the City until acceptance of the open space lots for maintenance bv a
communitv facilities district.
b. The HOA shall not seek to dedicate or convev for public streets, land used for private streets
without approval of] 00% of all the HOA members or holders of first mortgages within the
HOA.
Notwithstanding the above. if the Developer chooses to annex into an existing HOA and
provide supplemental CC&R's, all above requested provisions applv and shall be incorporated into
said CC&R's to the satisfaction of the Citv Attomev. Director of Planning & Building and City
Engineer. (Planning and Building. Engineering, Citv Attomev)
Resolution No.
Page 14 of 19
Fire and Brush Manal!ement
88. Pro'iide tfle initial eyele of fire managementlbmsh elearanee \vitmn lots adjaeent to HaMal open
Sj3aee areas in SaiJarea 3 saiJjeet to apprO'ial of tfle Fire Marshal 8fld the Director of Bailding
and Park Construction. (Fir<J, P-arks & Reereati8n)
88. Provide the initial cycle of fire management/brush clearance within designated brush
management HOA lots in Subarea III and conduct slective thinning on Pareel YY subiect to
the approval of the Fire Marshal and the Landscape Architecture Division and Environmental
Review Coordinator. (P/anninl? & Buildinf!. Fire. Buildinf! and Parks Construction)
90. Locate fuel modilieation areas in Subarea 3 eHtirely \vitmn aff.ccted lots. Indieate lot line
exteH5ions reqllired to IlCcBR-HRodate said areas on the Final Mapes) ofSIlBar€a 3, SIlbject Ie the
approva: of tfle City Engineer, Fire MarGhal, and Director of Plar~<ing. (Engineering, Fir<J,
P!anning)
90. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Developer shall contribute, in an amount
and form acceptable to the Director of Planning and Building, to the City of Chula Vista's
Repetitive Fire Restoration Reserve Fund ("Reserve Fund"). The contribution shall satisfy
the Developer's long-term proportionate share to the Reserve Fund and is in lieu of annual
contributions IP/anninf! and Buildinf!).
91. Dedicate to the City open space easements eOSE) over all dOYiR,'ll1l side or rear slopes adjacent
to OpeR Spaee lots Z, .'\..'\. and CC throagh CG in Subarea 3. These OSE's shall preelade the
eonstruction of any stmeMes within said easemeHts and shall limit aeti'iities withffi the
easemeHts to liilldseape maiRtenaHee of fliel modificatiBR plant materials. The wording of the
OSE's shall be saiJject to the apprBval of tfle Direetor of Pliillning and the City AttBmey.
(P!all1zing, C.A.)
91. Dedicate to the City open space easements lOSE) over all downhill side and rear slopes
adjacent to MSCP Preserve lots in Subarea III. These open space lots shall preclude the
construction of anv structures within said easements and shall limit activities within the
easements to landscape maintenance of fuel modification plant materials. The wording of the
OSE's shall be subiect to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building, and the Citv
Attorney. (Planninf! & Buildinf!. CA.)
92. PrCj3are and exeeate fael modifieation plans eonsistOl-1t withSeetien 3.6 ofilie Salt Creek Raneh
SF;\. sabject to the approval ofthe Directors ofPlar~<ing iilld Parks and Recreation and the Fire
Marshal priBr to approval Bf any FiHaI Map in SaiJarea 3. (Plt/nning, Fire. P-ar!;;s & RecrCdtieli)
92. Prepare and execute fuel modification plans consistent with Section 3.6 of the Rolling Hills
Ranch SPA subiect to the approval of the Directors of Planning & Building, Building and
Parks Construction, and the Fire Marshal prior to approval of any Final Map in Subarea III.
Anv new plantings within the Fuel Modification Zone shall be non-invasive and subiect to
the approval of the Environmental Review Coordinator and Landscape Architecture
Division. (P/anninf! & Buildinf!. Fire, Buildinf! and Parks Construction
Resolution No.
Page 15 of 19
Miscellaneous
99. Delete
117. Delete
] 18. Delete
119. Delete
NEW CONDITIONS
129. Upon conveyance of the Tarolant Management Areas (TMA) (Lots DDD and HHH) as
depicted on C.V.T. Map 92-02A, the TMA will be managed by a qualified preserve manager
subiect to the approval of the Citv of Chula Vista after consultation with the Wildlife Agencies.
Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit for the Proiect. the applicant shall provide a
$100.000 cash deposit to the Citv of Chula Vista or management entitv as approved bv the City
to be placed in a non-wasting endowment for long-term management of the TMA. Maintenance
of all drainage facilities through the TMA shall be the sole responsibilitv of the HOA. (Planllinf!
& Buildinf!. Enf!ineerinf!')
130. Grading plans for Neighborhood 11 shall provide for the removal of topsoil containing tar-
plant in Neighborhood 11 to be relocated to graded slopes within the TMA (Lots HHH and
DDD). A qualified biologist, as approved by the Environmental Review Coordinator. shall
supervise movement of topsoil containing tarolant. (Planninf! & Building. Eni!ineerinf!')
131. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit for Subarea III, the Developer shall provide
offsite mitigation for tarplant to incJude: (I) preservation of5.8 acres (containing approximately
15.080 plants) within the San Miguel Mitigation Bank; and. (2) conservation of one ]0 acre
parcel containing a minimum of 15,000 plants in a location within the MSCP Preserve subiect to
the approval of the Director of Planning & Building. An endowment for perpetual management
of the 10 acre offiste mitigation parceL shall be provided to the Citv or designated management
entitv approved bv the Citv. The endowment shall be in an amount and form acceptable to the
City or the designated management entitv approved bv the City. (Planninf!' & Building)
132. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit for Subarea III, Area Specific Management
Directives (ASMDs) for the MSCP Preserve lots (Lots Cc. EE, FF, and GG) and the TMA lots
(Lots DDD and HHH) shall be prepared by the Developer subiect to the approval of the Director
of Planning and Building. The ASMDs will contain short-term management measures. to be
implemented bv the Developer during the construction of the proiect. and long-term
management measures which will be implemented bv the City or designated management
entitv. Developer shall assure funding. in an an10uni consistent with funding levels identified in
the MSCP and form approved by the Director of Planning and Building, for implementation of
the ASMDs. (Planninf! & Buildinf!)
Resolution No.
Page 16 of 19
133. The approval of this map by the City of Chula Vista does not authorize the applicant to
violate any Federal, State or Citv laws, ordinances, regulations or policies, including but not
limited to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and any amendments thereto (16 U.S.c.
Section 1531 et seq.)
134. In accordance with authorization granted to the City of Chula Vista from the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the ESA and by the California
Department ofFish & Game (CDFG) pursuant to Fish & Game Code Section 2835 as part of
the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), the City of Chula Vista through the
approval/issuance of this 1;Jermitlmap hereby confers upon permittee the status of Third Party
Beneficiarv as provided for in Section 17 of the Citv of Chula Vista Implementing Agreement
(IA) approved by the City Council on 2003. Third Partv Beneficiary status is conferred
upon permittee bv the City: (1 ) to grant permittee the legal standing and legal right to utilize the
take authorization granted to the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the MSCP in accordance with
those limitations imposed under this permit and the provisions of the lA, and (2) to assure
permittee that no existing mitigation obligation imposed by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to
this permit shall be altered in the future by the City of Chula Vista, USFWS, or CDFG. except
in the circumstances described in the IA. If mitigation lands are identified but not yet accepted
by the Citv or other designated management entity or preserved in perpetuitv, maintenance and
continued recognition of Third Partv Beneficiary status bv the Citv is contingent upon permittee
maintaining the biological values of anv and all lands committed for mitigation pursuant to this
permit and of full satisfaction bv permittee of mitigation obligations required bv this permit. as
described in accordance with the IA.
135. Construct or enter into an agreement to construct the following street improvements prior
to the approval of the corresponding Final Map for the neighborhoods identified. The
required securitv shall be provided for each facility prior to approval of the Final Map for the
corresponding neighborhood or portion thereof. Construction of appropriate improvements
for each neighborhood portion thereof shall be completed prior to issuance of the first
building permit for each affected neighborhood or portion thereof.
NEIGHBORHOOD Facilities Needed *
9 A, B, C, G, H,
lOA A, B, C, D, E,F, G, H
lOB A,C,D,G,H,L
11 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K
]2 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J
* Should there be a conflict between this condition and condition no. 7 of
Resolution No. 16834, this condition shall control.
Facility
A
Description
Proctor Valley Road from Coastal Hills Drive to Agua Vista Drive,
including transition to existing dirt road and dedicate to the City in a
form acceptable to the City Engineer, the "future Proctor Valley Road
Resolution No.
Page 17 of 19
easement" as shown on the Tentative Map east of Agua Vista Drive.
B Coastal Hills Drive from Proctor Valley Road, to north boundary of
Neighborhood 9 ( & cui-de sac within SDG&E Easement)
C Agua Vista Drive from Proctor Valley Road, to north boundary of
Neighborhood 9
D Agua Vista Drive from north boundary of Neighborhood 9 to Ranch
Estate Place
E Agua Vista Drive from Ranch Estate Place to north boundary of
Neighborhood lOA (& cui-de sac within SDG&E Easement)
F Coastal Hills Drive from north boundary of Neighborhood 9 (SDG&E
Easement) to sewer access road easement within Lot GGG, at the
southerly boundary of Neighborhoood 11, Lot 8. Sewer access road
from Coastal Hills Drive to Adams Ranch Court; Adams Ranch Court
G Stormwater detention and diversion facility at south end of
Neighborhood 9 (Lot AA)
H Sewer Pump Station on Agua Vista Drive, north of Proctor Valley
Road (Lot BB)
I 1296 Zone Hydropneumatic Pump (Lot GGG) and complete the 980
zone water distribution loop from Agua Vista Dr to Coastal Hills Dr.
such that the pump will have two sources of 980 zone water.
J Iron Gate and Butterfly Way to Coastal Hills Drive.
K Ranch Lakes Way and Agua Vista Dr. to easterly subdivision
boundary.
L Ranch Estate Place from Agua Vista Dr to easterly subdivision
boundary and off-site cul-de-sac.
136.In the event of a final map. which requires over-sizing of the improvements necessary to
serve other properties. said final map shall be required to include the installation of all
necessarv improvements to serve the Proiect, plus the necessary improvements for over-
sizing of facilities required to serve such other properties. At the request of Developer. Citv
shall consider formation of a reimbursement district or anv other reimbursement
mechanism in accordance with the restrictions of State Law and City Ordinances.
(Engineering)
137.Prior to approval of each Final Map containing any public streets, the Applicant shall agree
to contract with the Citv's current street sweeping franchisee. or other server approved by
the Assistant Director of Public Works (ADPWO) to provide street sweeping for each phase
of development on a ftequencv and level of service comparable to that provided for similar
areas of the City. The developer shall cause street sweeping to commence immediately after
the final residence. in each phase. is occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time
that the Citv has accepted the street or 60 davs after the completion of all punch list items.
whichever occurs earlier. The developer further agrees to provide the ADPWO with a copv
of the memo requesting street sweeping service. which memo shall include a map of areas
to be swept and the date the sweeping will begin. (Public Works)
Resolution No.
Page 18 of ]9
138.Prior to approval of the first final map for the Proieet, developer shall enter into an
agreement assuring HOA membership in advance notice service sueh as USA Dig Alert in
perpetuitv.
X. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and
maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according
to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or
further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and
prosecute li:igation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval
of this Resolution.
XI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the
enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event
that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be
automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
It is in the public's interest for City to require EastLake to indemnifY the City against the adverse
risks and costs of a challenge to City's actions in preparing and approving a second Addendum to
FSEIR 01-01 and approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for EastLake III, Chula Vista Tract 01-
09 and related discretionary approvals, if any; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby approve an Agreement for Indemnification and Covenants for Actions Taken by City
related to EastLake III, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Robert A. Leiter
Planning & Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this xxxx day of xxx xxx xxx xxx, by the following vote:
AYES:
Concilmembers:
Resolution No.
Page 19 of ]9
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
Steve Padilla, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the ChuIa Vista City Council held on the 13th day of May, 2003.
Executed this 13 th day of May, 2003.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
A:\TM conditions June 12 strikeout version.doc
ItJHt ...
. y~~o '"
I ~
~ 6
, , ''Ii<c ~
'I ',II h, ~a:=~<
~~ n'H~oi~~:i~~
i ~ -- h~=!~~:
II ~ :;:r:cn<t;:o:
<) I Ci;( I Z"",::J~O
i! ~tii I! ~zcn~
~ ~3~ III ~3:5
III II! ~ ~
, !
, j" !' " 'I'!'" '!'I' '
: 'i'! '!I" "I .,d" "i ,.1
i ~ I ~!~ ~~IU : ~ i .U ~ ; I~i ! ~ i i h !~ ! ;i if I
..... i i ,.i j:' ~'i! 1\1 ~ "iil;; i 1.1: ,: j i! I;
i I ; 1~; _~ii ~i, i .~i) ;i~!~ ~ ~ kit ;Iif!II1 rill::
; ~ ti~iii! I!;I !~; ~:i!i :~i~!!: I in~=~il~i;J :~I;!I
! Ii . ;11. ~I!;!;! !~U Ii! i~I:1 !:i'!:!,i I!i;!lini!:! 111!:;
1~~!sH~ , i ~Jt !1.lell,lfWI!~ ': itl'~~ll~;!d!~ii!j~~h~itl:~
UiH;::i!,d!!~~,iUdI1!ii!!;iii!!!1!IIi;i!i:ii!!!j!I!:m!!ill
I~: :, ~~~ :i:!~h~~!:i~!:~J:!~~~;~;:I:~:i~g~;~:iJ~~!tt~.:
!t ~
>1~i ~
~ ~ ;u :i
~;~ I" I'
". ',I:
. ,.! .I.~I li;!-
\; ~ ~~ ~.
ill'i1'1
. ",UIII,
, &~ ~ :1~. I~
~ . . ~~~ ~
., ~ ; ~ j-l<! ""
. . , , ~I~"
~ hi ~I~t ~~
. 1;' II'" II
~ ~~ u!t i~
".
.'
,
,
,
,
.
g~~ Ii)
j\ji:j
"h~ ~"
~i:UJj~
!j
'J
"
i!
..
j !!
, !'
hi
! II
, .'
! ' i
l!,i
Ji;~~
'il"'
I !.IL .
"I'
~ jl! ~~ !
I L~Ba_ i'~
,!:\'j, II.".
to ~~'. ~ ~t.i
~ ~ m~
,,;
I'-<
H
"'
H
'"
><:
"'
. .
. , "
"-;: ~ ,~!
J ~ ~ nn~~~
.~
;~
- - ,~ "= ~..
. .. - ~ Ii ( '( ~ _ ~;_I ~~. ~~.(.~
'I" ! i~~ ,(~ ~':I (~ :i"" !:j. ; ,,"- "~~~~ iL
!! . .~. ~ ..~ l . , .~ ".~'. ( '.
M i! I!,! I~.:ii~~~i UJ "i~ ~. ~~ ":I"':'; ~!, . \ <~~r: _
, .!, ' . """ '.. .,., , ""., ", . " EO, i
I "~I "',;1'. ;i~ir,. ',1'1 i!~i i..1i ;i :;. "'.to':!';. j! ~; f4-jilI; \. "" I
I, s; i ~;~..~. il. I(t ..,,,- :I.~(" i ~ .i " \"1. .
" I !:i,! f S 11111"I!i~i:f .g! ~~i ~!';oi ~~:'~ I ~ ;~ \...-- .--:. ,\, \@j,",';
. - )p, - k t ~ _0 o! ,,>i w~ -,,:, ~I " ~
a_ ~ I')!i~ E : i.~ ~t~ili!tlll. ilt 1"_1i !I- "::j,, I!":i=:"" !~;. __, \:' /
5 .. I~~ [ Ii' tif'".. ,;" Ii, i".~A".Oj.:r:_~_-~~~ I; ~t ~_' ,':4 ~~
~ R !~:U 1 ! "!~ IJ~iI~~~grj '~:HIj~!i;' ~~":::;~~~ ! I i~ Qd 'rr --. > \ /^~ _', @~ Il
. ,,'j}o ~ ~. i I~~"fi;;'~i ~1'''R'':a,; ;,,'1&, _,,_~n! !~ ,,~ (, '. ~
I. 1~ I 1_ Of~' 'if . a .~"-:! .';n,,>1!~Ij..' ',- 1:\
,I q'I!!;!! j'I,!,.,,;!;I!!',;. !!!!'''''';''';':'''!' jj /.. ~< ~
"'!!'!'" II ""I',,;..., .....,...,......,'''',.., '. "" - *
" I a. a J.~. ~, t gl ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~_ ~ ..., ,~'
. in 1:,11' ;. , !liii;'''!dl,!,NI,!',''," ,. ,: .: ~ n! II ,i, \!\ . i
Ii!, i I; !i..jnll.., "i' !I II III !:; ~~to;.=
=1::111. !:..II ".. ... :!~!!
- -- ~~
I j';' HIDDUJD
d -! I ~
- .... i ~ t'
; ili!, d .1 I ! ~Ii !!i
"I' Ii " '<",
le~dBn~; lUiji
I'
,
'j
, ',.
j'
!;
,
!
j.
i!
b~~, ~,
Ii " / =:
- J
. . is
. '. ~
,1l fl
"" ~
" ~
~ ~t.,
. .
~ ~,
I I I II r' I' ,
: I ~8~U~1 i ~~ I- -Ie i
I I II I I .
., .
j.1! .: ,'" j il
I I " ~ " 5 i t ~ -;, ~~
~"'I"!ip;,!,il I II!
~~~,,~;i!hI5 Iii ~ ;1:::
fi
<(
~W
00:
c\i<(
mC()
t-=""""I
'..J u
>'CJ)Z
() <(
c:
a... :r: ~,d
4:0lli~
:2: Z c:~
w O~
> <( ~~
I- 0: <(~
<( en",
I- CJ) ~~
Z.....l c:~
W Wo
1-.....1:2
('J_C:
Z:r:f2
~CJ~
Wz
:2:_
<(.....I
.....I
o
0:
(")
-7~/ /
/" /'
//
/
/
w
I
(J)
..
~~
",.
>-.
~~
li~
~ ,~ 1!i
; I"
.. "
.-' 1
! -'
'I
..
"'
....
W
w
J:
(J)
....
W
~ -----, t
en I ~,~
"
....
W
W
I
(J)
------
','
.-'0' ':r>Y:>< I _72
--------.J
. ,
o .
~ I
~ .
~ !
. I
~ I
~ .
~ i
. I
~I In
o I"
~~ ..~
=>c aa
&-~ I 2 E
> I
~ ,
~ . !
, I
~ j
~ ' !
- !
< !
t I
,~ '
<\i~
~~~"
~~8t
>-i1!S
~~~~
~.I'~
c~ ~
. "~~ ~ ~!
!~~~~~ II ,-
~~>u:!i.. ~!
::>:J;:!j!x!:i! i
....=cz~~ I:
i1~~~
?;:~~~~
~~~~~
oo...!!;,:
~!i~fg
~a;~;;!t
~~~~~
;t:o:::I8c
il
..I~
q
u
~ I.
~~
~d
I'I
o
I
~ .
EH!
~ .11
~~ I ;
is: $.JI
~
~
~
~
%
'I
.
o
.~
.[~
i...f
E~~
~!i .
~I:lt;
i~~
; E~~~ Ii
~~~~ /1
~~g~ ('
<!:a;zci i
~ fffizcr:: ..
-, ~g~"
ci:!i~
C!!o-:I:
!i:w~
o~~
~ ~~~
gJ7l, i~
'.J \
~~
J_
'~
.
<
~"
~:
%.
o
. 5
.: --
~
1
J ,"-
t-
!!!
~
!,.
d
"
"1,,,,,
,
~~i
!' '
! i
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
, I
L
II Vi
It If
IliI
I ! 1~1
~f ! III
i: i >>1/
~f 1/'51 r I I
.fl i. d"ll! I
\ ~J' .lJL I
" '...~ I
if- _r;: lit t -
-, ':f, I ,I II i
- '-"'.o.:c:"J.--1 J.I 1--
..~' l.J
,
o
t
!
~
~
._a::;:.~-
-.
--
~
I
!
!
II
Ii
"
c1i
,
~"'T--
c
,
~
~
"
,
~
,
I
!
!
,
~!!:
"I"
~.,..,-
1-
-f ;;
! - ~
j
I .
r ~
I
In
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I :
r
I
!
,
~
,
~
,
,_"II ~
.,15 s:
.a i
,p
!~fi
,
!
!
,
@ii~
~
,
I
~
,
--._-.,~, II ':11
-, -!
- ~ 8;
.
~
w
.
~
-.
,..":~
-.
--
P,-":'I-"9~ 'M~
7/~
I I I
'_'or",_,..
\
/"-
,_ _1" "::;~<; I"~~-
i "" '" \
:x: \
\/~ ,~\ 1
.' I~'\\' \
\ \ ~\ i~~<;'~t\
. ' ,"\'"
, . . ii",
"'" \\': ~ \: .~ :
l[y-a<".;.ti""IW'(hO",,"\S.""~O"'1 ~~,-"",~~,I<~~ L- ",,,,.,,,,~__" .~:.:-------- ~a\l\,\~
" ..' - --~ ~ . ", '
\aY\\
lei
~ 0 ~
- -- lIi\'
, 8 \
\ ~
0
~
. \
II
~
\
\
~
~
)
II~'
.~
. ~
a.~il:'
"~..
~
.g
.0
~
g
a
~
,
:\
: ,
\ \
~
}
,
,
"
_~n\
\ .
\
\
\
\\
.'
~
I
~
ANi 59~.{};Q .'3
7f . f-]~
~r" /'
f -~/,\ / / ..:
Y'JII j//
4@~ /' !:
~ . /
!~~ /
v'
Ai'/< 595~aYJ~JB
~'_"';.J-I ,
AFN595-Q7<).;9
%\ "
g ~ , ~ .
- .{ . @~;
. :x: i <
I ~ t
II> t I
~ 5
, iii
, \
i z
~
,I
! ;
*t~?
~~~ :.
~~~~
j;g
,> '1
I
i
i \
, ~.. I
\ji' ~ ,it
-' (.,1 '1: "" ~ ~ :
7' ~, .~,-
i f 0)t,~?5
t\. ~~~~,
~ ,h
.. \1.~t1g
d ,,' "-__~'.I '"
" j/~r;f;
, y"
~~9
b u ~
~
b
"
I
!
"
!! i
II
.
ij
\iI'
1<
.~
~
~~1
t
,
,-
, .
,
----~.Jt~
<~ ~
t~
~S
.-
"
'.'
"
"
\
.
~....<C
i!, I
i ~%\ III
'''Iii
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:
,
"
,,>
1,1 II I Ib
II' 1:1 II!
II!, IllIill!!
Ii ~ !I..~ I,~
,llh II i! lin
!!I. 41'1'i'1
illl:11 !!lii lih
HI , 4
-<I <i
.
:,
1
r -
,
!
- - I r-~~
,
,
,
c
I
,
,
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
-1-
i i
: ,
; j
: ,
, ,
,-~
, ,
, ,
::Co I I
u..... I ,
~Oo I I
1 "'", i ,
:'::Q I I
t,oJO I )
........ fJ.10 I /j
.-~"* (Ji1 'II
--...g : i:
~5 111
l (f)~ I j
z , J'
,... ~ i
i
' "
~ "
, , ,
. c~ ,
: I ,
~ li--,:
, 'I--~- ~
,,~L~~_.._ \j
:~~~ ~ ~
~5~~ 5 i
.t1:~ C .
.....
-',
-.. I u
fTUI I L.",u
:1-.1 ! ..--
_'UK_';'....I I
,
,
i---
,
~-,~~~.
0,
~" '::' :
:~ot:.~ ~ I
~-~;~ Jhi I
'.;~~:! - ~" . I
- "!!-h)1;:~
;u,~/v "
,,~.,; 1'/ "j
"',~~ ", j
.l-/;;: /:,
.~..;p , J "
'" I 1/
.. : 1/
~ '\,I
/ j'
, ,
/' :
,
. ,
' ,
1-)>r. :
/1, ,
. .1 :
i' :
. ,
t,."
~ . i
! (\
~,;
~~!Ht
r~i!M!H
,,'"'.. \'i'i:.'
i ~ .'ie I' '.
.-. .I~~ ',"
.~ _ii.
e~ ~~.'
~.u.'
~
i;]
"'
"
~
'"
~
'"
'"
IE
,
,
,
,
,
,
:
,
:
,
,
, .
: !
(',,\-
--- :
- o. ,. ~i
1:.!DC:iaS: :
'''''''''IH
. fu
~l
~
i
,
,
, ....~...
i /. t~,
" ~ Zc<~~
1 t~c,~
: .~ '*i
fi .~
:::--'----~-~) > '.
~ .1 ';,.--; -:-:~c~;::,;
~ - J /--. _c,~ ._: "_
.:'j \ i' -
,..""",,,,, 'I' ~:-
I , ,... . '_''''''''''~'=. _...,
Trw:>> T7 ~ - .1 '*-'QI<,~,tv<I,- ~11!'> \
~LL-. ~ ...,,--'-1_.... '.\ If:ilWi:~.""_.~-!Q/'l;.)_ \
.. - ~ . ;."" ":~:,,;. . "
<> !
"
!
U
ij
,i
-.
,".1;"0
,gNJ1
,
;.-.-
I
~ --.--!-
i U') ~ CD i
J: -i !
o _
z :
;~=.~ ;
~~~ha !
~:Ea\~~.
iCl::>~Q
~zU)'"
.:J !
<... g
o
It:
E, I
I~; 'I
.. .: 1,1
;; ""1.
1.111
.
j
"I
o
8 ·
% j
~ .
%
o
w.
% .
.
- -
.
1t.!1i I;
~ ,
I j.
%
o
W,
% .
:t.
JJ! :;:~
.,:;f. ~.
"I "
i'" ~ _.' i
,
j
! :
~ i
~ .
m
%
S ;
Z g
! -,:: i~ - Ii
~ r,- ~
.
8 .
P
~ i
Ii!
~h
!i! .
L:~H;,_ L;!!!
____;. i::" _J~..
~;;- --~!~~~;~
_~;;- ~__:;.; J _~
J. -;!i"!! :I~
. ..
" j'
'"
-;
~ I~ -. !
Ic'"
, Ii i
~ .
~ ,
~ 'I,; - .1
m "
!; :
~ ,
;
I' .. ;;I!
. , ~I
!!!- ;
~t "
~~~=~-=,.
=H= 1.;
i;;~~_~:.~,,~!!! i,,~ ~~n
R''''';
n;;_
>H-
=~=
~!-~_ :=J~-L
=;~_L;;~
~;~,.
~ ~ .;:
~o;E_
..:" II
~ -I ~
Iii;;;':~ 11."'111
E~~ !I 5 .Sl~~~-~;~-~_:~!~=
,,-
!#; ,
.- .
n-
o '.
1111 i
~ '!
. ,
Iii! '
"
ii, ,
:t..:"
~~-
~ IE
-
--
~Ui~
"
till
ell iFFI~~Ii>:i;;~:~:~~
~~
~; - - ''''
i ~ - - ,.:>:J. --:;{
%
o
wi
z.
;~:<,,: :.-;;~ ~_1_;~~~:!;- __I!_;-~..!~~ ~~~!I~!~!.:;":i=;;_~~~~..::~:-_~I=I~_.- '~~'i _.
~_,_~~; i_~~ __! !:; ~_:=;~;! ;~~ _ I~!t~!~;_:;;:;i;; r_. _Lll. -_~_:~ ~: = t_=
,
-
, -
-
, LLLLLl
.--.-- -
.
- .-.-
. II; .
-
leo,eo
:J:
~~ g
2<t i
~a:=~~
.~~g~
~..Ja:"~
~z:iiA~
~CJ::I~
zZ(i)~
~3 ~
o -
a:
~. .
U;.,I
> , j'l
. <. I
lliijl
:J:
- ",""','I,b~~j;iIQl
-~ri'r r IT!'(ITI rf-F~il
-
,,' - ~
-
RESOLUTION NO. 16834
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SALT
CREEK RANCH, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02 AND MAKING THE
NECESSARY FINDINGS, RECERTIFYING SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SEIR 91-03 (SCH #89092721)
AND READOPTING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
THE SEIR
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is
identified and described on Chula Vista Tract 92-02. and is commonly known as
Salt Creek Ranch ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, the Baldwin Company filed a duly verified application for the
subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known
as Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02. with the Planning Department of the
City of Chula Vista on June 15, 1992 ("Project'); and,
WHEREAS, said application requested the approval for the subdivision of
approximately 1197.4 acres located on both sides of Proctor Valley Road, east of
the easterly terminus of East H Street, into 2.609 residential lots, open space
areas, two school lots, two parks and two community purpose facility lots; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
Genera 1 Development Pl an ("GDP") previ ous ly approved by the Ci ty Counci 1 on
September 25, 1990 by Resolution No. 15875 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City
Council. in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part on the Salt
Creek Ranch, General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report No. 89-03, SCH
No. 89092721 ('Program EIR 89-03'), a program environmentill impact report as same
is defined in CEQA Guideline Section 15168; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
Section Planning Area Plan ('SPA Plan") previously approved by the City Council
on March 24, 1992 by Resolution No. 16554 ("SPA Plan Resolution") wherein the
City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA Plan, relied in part
on the "Salt Creek Ranch, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report No. 91-03", SCH No. 89092721 ("SEIR 91-03"); and.
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the pr09ram of
deve 1 opment envi ronmenta lly eva 1 uated under Program EIR 89-03 and SEIR 91-03 that
is virtually identical in a]] relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers,
lot configurations. transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions
in said former environmental evaluations; and,
WHEREAS, the Ci ty Envi ronmenta I Revi ew Coordi nator has revi ewed the
proposed Tentative Map and determined that is in substantial conformance with the
SPA Plan, therefore no new environmental documents are necessary;
---_..~-
Resolution No. 16834
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said
project on September 23, 1992 and recertified SEIR 91-03, voted to recommend that
the City Council approve the Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and
conditions listed below and readopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations
and the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said
tentative subdivision map application and notice of said hearing, together with
its purpose, was given by its publication a newspaper of general circulation in
the City and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
4:00 p.m., October 6, 1992, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL finds, determines and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. CEQA Finding re Previously Examined Effects.
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as a later activity
to that evaluated in the Program EIR 89-03 and SEIR 91-03, would
have no new effects that were not examined in the preceding Program
EIR 89-03 and SEIR 91-03 (Guideline 1516B (c) (I); and,
SECTION 2, CEQA Finding re Project within Scope of Prior Program EIR.
The City Council hereby finds that (1) there were no changes in the
project from the Program EIR and the SEIR which would require
revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have occured
with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information of
substantial importance to the project has become available since the
issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that therefore, no
new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be
required in addition to those already in existence and current made
a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council
approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the
project covered by the Program EIR and SEIR, and therefore, no new
environmental documents are required (Guideline 15168(c)(2)),
SECTION 3. Incorporation of All Feasible Mitigation Measures and Alternatives.
The City does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for
all appro va 1 s herein granted a 11 miti gati on measures and
alternatives, if any, which it has determined, by the findings made
in the GDP Resolution and the SPA Resolution, to be feasible in the
approval of the General Development Plan and the SPA Plan,
respectively.
___~_.u_._ "_.__..___.__....~._. _____~______.__._
Resolutfon No. 16834
Page 3
SECTION 4. Notice with Later Activities.
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by
law, that this Project is an activity within the scope of the
program approved earlier in the GDP Resolution and the SPA Plan
Resolution and the Program EIR and SEIR adequately describes the
activity for the purposes of CEQA (Guideline 15168 (e)).
SECTION 5. General Plan Findings--Conformance to the General Plan.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, in the Subdivision Map
Act, finds that the tentative subdivision map as conditioned herein
for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract no. 92-02, is in conformance
with all the various elements of the City's General Plan, the Salt
Creek Ranch General Development PI an and Sect i ona 1 Pl anni ng Area
plan based on the following:
------,..
a.
Land Use - The project is a planned community which provides
a variety of land uses and residential densities ranging
between 1.2 and 17.9 dwelling units per acre. The project is
also consistent with General Plan policies related to grading
and 1 andforms.
b.
Circulation - All of the on-site and off-site publ ic and
private streets required to serve the subdivision consist of
Circulation Element roads and local streets in locations
required by said Element. The applicant shall construct those
facilities in accordance with City standards or pay in-lieu
fees in accordance with the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities
Financing Plan.
Housing - The applicant is required to enter into an agreement
with the City to provide and implement a low and moderate
income program within the project prior to the approval of any
Final Map for the project.
Conservation and Open Space - The project provides 452 acres
of open space, 37% of the total 1197.4 acres. Grading has
been limited on steep hillsides and grading plan approval will
require the revegetation of slopes in natural vegetation.
c.
d.
e.
Parks and Recreat i on - The project wi 11 provi de a 22 acre
(9ross) community park, a 7 acre (gross) neighborhood park and
the payment of PAD fees or additional improvements as approved
by the Director of Parks and Recreation. In addition,
equestri an and recreati ona I trail systems will be provi ded
throughout the project, ultimately connecting with other open
space areas and trail systems in the region.
f.
Seismic Safety - No seismic faults have been identified in the
vicinity of the property.
._~--_.-
Resolution No. 16834
Page 4
g. Public Safety - All public and private facilities will be
reachable within the threshold response times for fire and
police services.
h. Public Facilities - The applicant will provide all on-site and
off-site streets, sewers and water facilities necessary to
serve this project. In addition, the project is preserving a
potential fire station site. The developer will also
contri bute to the Otay Water Oi stri ct I s improvement
requirements to provide terminal water storage for this
project as well as other major projects in the eastern
territories.
i. Noise - The project will include noise attenuation walls as
required by an acoustic study dated July 15, 1992 prepared for
the project. In addition, all units are required to meet the
standards of the UBC with regard to acceptable interior noise
levels.
j. Scenic Highway - The roadway design provides wide landscaped
buffers along the two scenic highways, Proctor Valley Road and
Hunte Parkway.
k. Bicycle Routes - Bicycle paths are provided throughout the
proj ect.
1.
Public Buildings - The project provides
and two school sites to serve the area.
be subject to RCT and OIF fees.
a fire station site
The project is also
SECTION 6. Subdivision Map Act Findings.
A. Balance of Housing Needs and Public Service Needs.
Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Hap Act, the
Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this
approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced
those needs against the public service needs of the residents
of the City and the available fiscal and environmental
resources, The development wi 11 provi de for a vari ety of
housing types from single family detached homes to attached
single family and multiple family housing and will provide low
and moderate priced housing consistent with regional goals.
8, Opportunities for Natural Heating and Cooling Incorporated.
The configuration, orientation and topography of the site
partially allows for the optimum siting of lots for passive or
natura 1 heati n9 and coo Ii n9 opportuniti es as requi red by
Government Code Section 66473.1.
~--. --_. - ---.
Resol~tion No. 16834
Page 5
C. Finding re Suitability for Residential Development.
The site is physically suitable for residential development
and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the
City for such projects.
SECTION 7. Conditional Approval of Tentative Subdivision Map.
The City Council does hereby approve, subject to the fo1lowing
conditions, the tentative subdivision map for Salt Creek Ranch.
Chula Vista Tract 92-02 (Unless otherwise specified. all Conditions
and Code Requirements sha1l be fu1ly completed to the City's
satisfaction prior to the approval of the First Final Map. Unless
otherwi se sped fi ed. "dedicate" means grant the appropri ate
easement, rather than fee title):
------ - --,-
The developer shall:
General/Preliminarv
1.
Prepare amendments to the Public Facilities Financing Plant
(PFFP) to reflect the modifications to the sequence of de-
velopment as indicated on Exhibit A (attached) and condition
No.2 herein and which indicates a reduction in Phase 1 to
1,137 dwelling units by deleting lots/dwelling units in
locations and numbers. subject to the approval of the Director
of PI anni ng and the City Engi neer. For purposes of these
conditions, phases 1-3 cited in these conditions sha1l be
composed of those neighborhoods or portions of neighborhoods
as indicated on Exhibit A. (Planning, Engineering)
Install public facilities in accordance with the Public
Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the
City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City
of Chula Vista. In addition. the sequence that improvements
are constructed sha1l correspond to any future East Chula
Vista Transportation Phasing Plan as may be amended in
accordance with the final HNTB SR-I25 Financing Study adopted
by the City. The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at
thei r di scret ion. modi fy the sequence of improvement
construction should conditions change to warrant such a
revi s i on. (Engineering)
2.
3.
The mitigation measures required before Final Map approval by
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Salt Creek
Ranch (FSEIR) 91-03 are hereby incorporated into this
Resolution by reference. Any such measures not satisfied by
a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project
design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning. Mitigation measures shall be monitored
via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction
--~ ._~.'---'-'--'-_. ----------_.
Resolution No. 16834
Page 6
with the FSEIR. Modification of the sequence of mitigation
shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning should
changes in circumstances warrant such revision. (Planning)
4. Unless otherwise conditioned, the developer shall comply with,
remain in compliance with, and implement, the terms,
conditions and provisions of the Salt Creek General
Development Plan, Sectional Planning Area Plan, and such
Master Plan of Reclaimed Water, Urban Runoff Report, Habitat
Enhancement Plan, Master Plan of Sewage, Water Conservation
Plan, the Air Quality Improvement Plan Design Guidelines and
the Public Facilities Financing Plan approved by the Council
('Plans") as are applicable to the property which is the
subject matter of this Tentative Map, prior to approval of the
Final Map, or shall have entered into an agreement with the
City, providing the City with such security (including
recordation of covenants running with the land) and
implementation procedures as the City may require, assuring
that, after approval of the Fi na 1 Map, the developer shall
continue to comply with, remain in compliance with, and
implement such Plans. Developer shall agree to waive any
claim that the adoption of a final Water Conservation Plan or
Air Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent imposition
of the condition. (Planning, Engineering)
Streets. RiQhts-of-Wav and ImDrovements
5. provi de security in accordance wi th Chapter 18.16 of the
Municipal Code and dedicate construct full street improvements
for all public and portions of private streets shown on the
Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary or off-site, as
requi red for each unit or phase. Sai d improvements shall
include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement,
base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewal k, sewer reclaimed
water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights,
signs, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements.
All streets shall conform to the City's Street Design
Standards Policy adopted by City Council Resolution #15349
unless otherwise conditioned or approved by the City Engineer,
Construct transitions to existing improvements in the manner
required by the City Engineer, (Engineering)
6. Dedicate for public use all the streets shown on the tentative
map within the subdivision boundary except private streets.
(Engineering)
7. Construct or enter into an agreement to construct the
following street improvements prior to the approval of the
corresponding Final Map for the neighborhoods identified. The
required security shall be provided for each facility prior to
approval of the Final Map for the corresponding neighborhood
or portion thereof. Construction of appropriate full or
~~ ~- ~
Resolution No. 16834
Page 7
partial improvements for each neighborhood or portion thereof,
as indicated in Mattix A (full) or Matrix B (partial) shall be
comp 1 eted pri or to issuance of occupancy permi ts for each
affected neighborhood or portion thereof.
MATRIX -A-
NElGHI!ORHOOD FACIUIlES NEEDED'
I 1,2,3,18
2 t, 2,".10,11,18
3 1,18
4A 18
4B J,18
S 1,18
6 1,4,9, 18, 20
7A 1,4, la, ]8, 20
7B ],4,5, 9. 18,20
. 5, 6, 9. ZO, 21
9 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20
lOA 5,6,7,8,9, IS, 16, 20
lOB 5,6,7, 9, 15, 16,20
11 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, ) 7, 20
12 5.6,9,12, 13,20
13 5, 6, 9, 12, 20
.$ee Table 1 for description of each facility.
-- - ---_. .-.---.---------"-----------
-----~-
Resolution No. 16834
Page 8
MA11IIX "B"
Construct the following partial improvements in acconlance with the phasing plan (or revised devt=lopmenr sequence)
as indicated on Exhibit A anached.
Pha.eIA
Ndghbomood PARTIAL PAClU\1ES NEEDED
3a, 3b, 4b, Sb, 6a 1, 18 full improvements. Facility No. ]9. Proctor Valley Road, shall be graded fun
widtll and paved with two lanes in lieu 0( consU'Ucting facility #18.
Pha.e IB
Ndghlxxhood
#la 90 units a. 3 . g["ade to ultimate, improve 4 lanes and center median.
#2a,b-213 units
#4.3-100 units b. 4, 5 - grade ro ultimate, construct a 2 lane facility to the satisfaction of the Ci[)/
#5a-119 uniLS Engineer.
#6b-113 units 9, 10, 20 full improvements
c.
d. 21 - construct 2 lanes of Duncan Ranch Rd. to the park entrance. Improve the ] 2
acre park.
Facility 11:
Deposit cash with the City Engineer to provide security for the future
construction of full street improvements for Hunte Parkway, including underground
utilities, north of its intersection with Street IIII to the northerly
subdivision boundary in lieu of constructing said full improvements. The amount
of depos it shall be based on a developer's cost estimate submi tted to and
improved by the City Engineer. The deposit shall be paid prior to approval of
the Final Map for Neighborhood 2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, construct a 24-
foot wide paved access road between street "1111" and the northerly subdivision
boundary at the time Hunte Parkway, between Proctor Valley Road and Street
"IIII", is constructed, or at such time as the existing access road is removed,
whichever occurs first. (Engineering)
Facility 19:
Provide security for facility #19 (Proctor Valley Road offsite) prior to issuance
of the building permit for the 1138th unit. Complete full grading and construct
two lanes prior to occupancy of the 1756th unit. Construct full improvements
prior to issuance of the 2176th building permit.
---_.- - --~---- ~-- --
Reso 1 ution No. 16834
Page 9
TABU! 1
DESaUP110N OF TRANSPORTATION FACJJJ11fS
Facility No. SInet -
1 Lane Avenue South Subdivision boundary to Proctor Valley Road
2 Lane AVenue Proctor Valley Rd. to entrance NH 1&2
3 Proctor Valley Rd. West Subdivision Boundary to Lane
. Proctor Valley Rd. Lane to Hunte Parkway
5 Proctor Valley Rd.* Hunte to Neighborhood 7B
6 Proctor Valley Rd.. Neighborhood 7B to YYYY
7 Proctor Valley Rd.- St. YYYY to St. CCCC
8 Proctor Valley Rd. * St. CCCC (0 East Sulxlivision Boundary
9 Hunte Parkway South Subdivision Doundary to Proctor ValJey Road
10 Hunte Parkway Proctor Valley Road (0 Emrance of Neighborhood 7 A
II Hume Parkway Neighborhood 7A Entrance to Nonh Subdivision Boundary,
grade rull width, pave
2 lane road, cash bond for ultimate improvements, extend
utilities to Subdivision Boundary
12 yyyy Proctor Valley Road to Neighborhood 9 Northern boundary.
13 yyyy Neighborhood 9 to Neighborhood 12.
I' yyyy Neighborhood 12 to Northern Subdivision boundary.
lS CCCC Proctor VaHey Road to Northern Boundary NeighborhOCKJ 9.
16 c= Nejghborhood 9 to North Boundaty Neighborhood lOA.
17 = Neighborhood 10A (0 YYYY
18 MacKenzIe Creek Rd. West Sulxlivision Boundary to Lane.
19 Proctor Valley Road West Subdivision Boundary to Mt. Miguel Rd.
20 Hunte Parkway South Subdivision Boundary to Dray Lakes Road.
21 buncan Ranch Road Within Sulxlivision.
. These segments of Proctor Valley Road shall be graded and constructed to 6 Jane prime standards unless
s{Udies conducted for the Otay Ranch development indicate a lesser street standard is adequate and that
reduction is approved through a change of the street classification in the dn:ulation clement of the
General Plan.
.En21neenn
_._n__ _..____...__ __~_.
.
Resolution No. 16834
Page 10
8. Provide on the Final Map City rejection of an irrevocable
offer to dedicate (lOD) the right-of-way for Hunte Parkway
north of Street "III" in Neighborhood 2. Grant an open space
easement over the balance of the right-of-way within the IOD
subject to the condition that it revert to street purposes if
and when the City later accepts the IOD. (Engineering)
g. Provide red curbs and "no parking" signs to prohibit on-street
parking on Lane Avenue and stripe bicycle lanes.
(Engineering)
10. Provide red curbs and "no parking" signs to prohibit on-street
parking on the westerly side of Hunte Parkway between Proctor
Va 11 ey Road and the southerly subdi vi s i on boundary.
(Engineering)
11. Design and construct Lane Avenue as a Class 1 collector.
(Engineering)
12. Requested Waiver 1 is approved subject to compliance with
parking requirements in Street Design Standard Policy, item
#20, page 12. Requested waivers 2 through 7 as listed on the
tentative map and reduction of the centerline radius of Street
"CCC" to 150 feet are hereby approved subject to submission of
a letter from a registered civil engineer indicating that the
results of the waivers requested conform with common
engineering practice and standards in consideration of public
safety. (Engineering, Planning)
13. Construct a temporary turnaround at the end of any streets
which are not constructed to their full lengths that are
greater than 150 feet in length as measured from the nearest
intersection, except as approved by the City Engineer.
(Engineering)
14. Construct or provide to the specifications or satisfaction of
the City Engineer the following features to all neighborhoods
with private streets with controlled access devices, such as
gates:
a. Gates located to provide sufficient room to queue up
without interrupting traffic on public streets,
b. Turn arounds at the gates.
c. Delineation of border between public street and private
street by enhanced pavement. No enhanced pavement shall be
located within public right-of-way.
d. Emergency vehicle access. (Engineering)
15. Install fully activated traffic signals including interconnect
------.- ---"-- ,-~---_._._._._-
Resolution No. 16834
Page 11
wiring at the following intersections:
a. Proctor Va 11 ey Road/Lane Avenue
b. Proctor Va 11 ey Road/Hunte Parkway
c. Proctor Valley Road/Duncan Road
d. Proctor Valley Road/Oak Creek Road
e. Proctor Valley Road/Street "yyyy"
f. Lane Avenue/Otay Lakes Road
g. Hunte Parkway/Otay Lakes Road
Insta 11 underground improvements, standards and 1 uminari es
wi th constructi on of street improvements, and i nsta 11 mast
arms, signal heads and associated equipment when signal
warrants are met, as determined by the City Engineer.
(Engineering)
16. Install interconnect conduit, pull boxes and pull rope to
connect the traffic signals along Proctor Valley Road within
the subdivision. (Engineering)
17. Install traffic counting station loops at seven locations
determined by the City Engineer, (Engineering)
18. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer striping
plans for all major and collector streets simultaneously with
the associated improvement plans. (Engineering)
19. Grant in fee the City a I-foot control lot at the northerly
terminus of Hunte Parkway and Street "YYYY" and the southerly
terminus of Duncan Ranch Road. (Engineering)
20. Install transit amenities on both sides of Proctor Valley Road
(East "H" Street) at the following locations, or appropriate
alternative locations as approved by the City Engineer:
a. Proctor Va 11 ey Road (East "WI Street)/Hunte Parkway
intersection.
b. Proctor Valley Road (East IIHu Street)/Lane Avenue
intersection
Transit amenities include, but are not 1 imited to benches
and/or shelters, and are subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
Pay a $10,000 cash deposit to the City to fund transit
-- ~ -- ._-~---_._._.._---- - "
-.---. _._-
Resolution No. 16834
Page 12
amenities when required. (Engineering)
21. Dedicate to the City right-ot-way at the easterly end of
Street II II to provi de for the future extens i on of sai d
street. Said dedication shall extend to the subdivision
boundary the exact configuration and location of which are
subject to approval of the City Engineer and the Director of
Pl anni ng. All ri ght-of-way whi ch is not ut i 1 i zed by the
street to be constructed shall be rejected by the City on the
Final Map. This dedication shall be in lieu of the easement
indicated on the Tentative Map over lot 76, Neighborhood 11
which shall not be shown on the Final Map. (Engineering,
Planning)
22. Provide public street access to the northern adjacent
properties upon development of Neighborhood 11 by means of
Street YYY stubbing into said area, as depicted on the
Tentative Map, subject to approval of the City Engineer and
the Director of Planning. Prior to approval of the first
Final Map for Neighborhood 12, the northern adjacent property
owners of record shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and Director of Planning that alternate public
street access to the northern adjacent properties can be
reasonably and feasibly constructed by them, at their own
expense, from an economic, planning, environmental,
. engineering and legal standpoint. Upon such a showing, the
developer shall provide private easement access up to the
existing dirt roads located at the end of Street MMMM and
Street NNNN, by means of Street SSSS. as depicted on the
Tentative Map. (Engineering, Planning)
23. Grant to the City an easement or easements for street tree
planting and maintenance, and landscape buffer areas along all
public streets in the width required by the City's Street
Design Standards. (Engineering)
24. Acquire and then grant to the City all offsite rights-of-way
necessary for the installation of required street improvements
for the affected phase or unit, prior to approval of each
Final Map for each affected phase or unit of the subdivision.
(Engineering)
25. Notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the
affected Final Map by City, if offsite right-of-way cannot be
obtained as required by Condition 24. (Only offsite right-of-
way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the
Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition).
After said notification and prior to the approval of the
affected Final Map, the developer shall:
-.-- ----- .-_._._,---" --_._. ----- --.
Resolution No. 16834
Page l3
a. Pay the full cost of acquiring offsite right-of-way or
easements requi red by the Condit ions of Approva] of the
Tentative Map.
b, Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said
right-of-way or easements. The amount of the deposit is
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
c, Prepare and submit all easement and/or right-of-way
documents, plats and appraisals necessary to commence
condemnation proceedings,
If the developer so requests, the City may use its power of
eminent domain to acquire right-of-way, easements or licenses
needed for offsite improvements or work related to the
tentative map. The developer shall pay all costs, both direct
and indirect incurred in said acquisition,
The condition to construct the related offsite improvements
which fall under the purview of Section 66462.5 of the State
Subdivision Map Act are waived in accordance with that section
of the Act, if the City does not acquire or commence
proceedings for immediate possession of the property within
the 120 day time limitation specified in that section.
(Engineering)
26,
Widen intersection
Pa rkway to the
(Engineering)
approaches for Proctor Valley Road/Hunte
satisfaction of the City Engineer,
27, Construct pri vate streets in accordance with the standards
contained in the subdivision manual and street design
standards unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Private street cross sections shall conform to those shown on
the. tent at i ve map for curb-to-curb wi dth and ri ght-of-way
width, with the exception of the private street section for
Neighborhood 13 which shall have a 48 ft. right-of-way width,.
and 32 ft. curb-to-curb. (Engineering)
28. Provide standard curb and gutter for all public streets.
Street sections as shown on the Tentative Map are approved
unless otherwise conditioned. (Engineering)
Sewers
29. Grant the City fee title to a parcel within which the Salt
Creek Ranch sewer pump station shall be located. Design and
construct the sewer pump station subject to the approval of
the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego. (Engineering)
30. Provide security and construct the following offsite sewer
improvements prior to approval of any Final Map which requires
, - ____._ _0..__
.- -- - - - - -- - -------------"
Resolution No. 16834
Page 14
the East1ake sewer pump station on Otay Lakes Road to provide
sewer service:
a. A gravity sewer right-of-way from the southerly subdivision
boundary to the EastLake pump station.
b. Upgrade the EastLake pump station. as detennined by the
City Engineer, to provide pumping capacity and emergency
measures to accommodate temporary sewage flows from Salt
Creek Ranch.
Obtain approval of the design of said improvements from the
City Engineer. (Engineering)
31. Request and complete incorporation into the existing sewer
service surcharge district to provide for future maintenance
of the Salt Creek Ranch and East1ake pump stations, prior to
approval of the first Final Map of a phase or unit served by
the Eastlake pump station. Deposit $2.000 to cover costs of
incorporation. Pay the full cost of said incorporation.
(Engineering)
32. Provide access to all sanitary sewer manholes via an improved
access road with a minimum width of 12 feet. designed an H-20
wheel load, or other loading, subject to the approval of the
City Engineer. (Engineering)
Gradinq and Drainaqe
33. Grade rear or side yard access to all public stonn drain
structures. including inlet and outlet structures, and
construct paved access thereto except as otherwise directed by
the City Engineer. (Engineering)
34. Place all lot lines at top of slope, except in Neighborhoods
9-13, where the SPA concept allows for this exception. Final
grading plans and lot line locations shall be subject to
approval of the City Engineer and Directors of Planning, and
Parks and Recreation and the Fire Marshal. (Engineering,
Planning, Parks & Recreation, Fire)
35. Submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the
structure will be located on fill. cut, or a transition
between the two situations prior to aPRroval of each Final Map
for single family residential use. (Engineering)
36, Submit grading proposals for review and approval by the City
Engineer and the Directors of Planning and Parks and
Recreation for consideration of balanced cut and fi 11. contour
grading. utilization of appropriate soil types, effective
1 and scapi ng and re-vegetat i on where app 1 i cab 1 e. Grade in
separate phases unless a single phase operation is approved
_.._____J____
--_..~~--"
Resolution No. 16834
Page 15
with the grading plan.
Recreation)
37. Provide a letter of permission for grading from SDG&E prior to
any grading within or adjacent to an SDG&E easement or which
would affect access thereto. (Engineering)
(Engineering. Planning. Parks &
38. Construct retention/detention facilities as approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits to reduce
the quantity of runoff to an amount equal to or less than
present flows for the 100 year frequency storm, (Engineering)
39. Prepare and obtai n approval by the Ci ty Engi neer and the
Director of Planning an erosion and sedimentation control plan
and landscape/irrigation plans as part of the mass grading
plans. (Engineering. Planning, Parks and Recreation)
40. Obtain notarized letters of permission for a11 offsite grading
prior to issuance of a grading permit for work requiring said
offsite grading. (Engineering)
41. Accomplish the following prior to approval of a Final Map for
any unit or phase whi ch requi res drai nage detenti on and/or
filtration basin(s):
a. Prepare a maintenance program including a schedule and a
fi nanci n9 mechani sm for sai d detenti on and/or fi Heri ng
basins. Said program shall be subject to approval of the
City Engineer.
b. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista and
the State Department of Fish and game wherein the parties
agree to implement the basin maintenance program.
(Engineering)
42. Provide a comprehensive Best Management Practices (BMPs) study
regarding off-site drainage satisfactory to the City Engineer
and the City of San Diego's Water Utilities Director prior to
approval of any Final Map in Neighborhoods 9-13. Install all
facilities as recommended in the study and shall implement a
maintenance district for these drainage facilities,
satisfactory to the Water Utilities Director. (Engineering)
43. Design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to
include BMPs to minimize non-point source pollution.
satisfactory to the City En9ineer and the City of San Diego
Water Utilities Director. (Engineering)
44. Present evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that
an agreement has been reached between the developer and the
City of San Diego Water Utilities Director to provide for the
protection of the reservoirs from urban pollutants prior to
- --_._..".~.__.....__..
._-~ ----- -...- .---
Resolution No. 16834
Page 16
the approval of any Final Maps, implementing permits, or
issuance of any grading permits in Neighborhoods 9-13. Such
measurement shall include, but not be limited to ensurin9 BMPs
for stormwater and/or urban runoff including erosion control.
(Engineering)
Water
45. Gain approval by the City Engineer and the Otay Water District
(OWD) of a Master Plan of Water for Salt Creek Ranch prior to
approval of any Final Map, This plan shall include a
discussion of implementation and phasing, and participation in
the water all ocati on program and TSF fi nanci ng for thi s
project and other projects in the OWD Master Plan service
area. (Engineering, OWO)
46. Determine the exact locations for the proposed pump station
and reservoir to serve the 1296 Zone prior to approval of the
first Final Map requiring said facilities. (Engineering,
Planning, OWO)
47. Annex the project site to the OWD into Improvement District
No. 22, or establish a new improvement district for the
project area prior to approval of any final map. Obtain
written verifi cati on from OWD at each phase or uni t of
deve 1 opment that the tract or parcel will be provi ded adequate
water service and long term water storage facilities.
(Engineering, OWO)
48. Make cons i stent with the Water Conservati on Pl an for Salt
Creek Ranch dated October 1991 water conservation measures for
roadside landscaping and landscape maintenance subject to the
approval of the Director of Planning. (Planning, Parks and
Recreat ion)
Reclaimed Water
49, Enter into an agreement with OWD to commit to use of reclaimed
water at the earliest possible date so that OWD can ensure
that an adequate supply is available prior to approval of any
Final Map. Make all reclaimed water use conform to the
applicable regulations of Chula Vista, Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the State Department of Health.
(Engineering, OWD)
50. Pay all costs incurred from retrofitting the reclaimed water
system, when reel aimed water becomes avail ab 1 e. Determi ne the
amount of said deposit, subject to City approval, and pay said
depos it pri or to approval of each associ ated Fi na 1 Map.
(Eng inee ring)
51. Install reclaimed water lines as outlined in the Public
~ __ _u____.".
- -+ --. -- -
Resolution No. 16834
Page 17
Facilities Financing Plan at such time as the. road
improvements are constructed or the City Engineer determines
that the facilities are necessary to provide a link to a live
system. (Engineering)
Fees/Pavments
52. Pay the following fees:
a. Spring Valley Sewer Trunk connection fees ($130/acre) and
Frisbee trunk sewer fee prior to Final Map approval for any
phase or unit thereof contri buti ng flow to the Spri ng
Valley Trunk Sewer.
b. Telegraph Canyon drainage fees in accordance with ordinance
2384 pri or to Fi na I Map approval for any phase or unit
tributary to said basin. (Engineering)
53. Deposit $5,000 to provide for the first year's maintenance
costs prior to approval of the Final Map of any phase or unit
which requires the Salt Creek Ranch pump station to provide
sewer service. (Engineering)
Aqreements/Covenants
54. Enter into and execute an agreement to fund the project's fair
share of a park-and-ride faci I ity to be located in the
vicinity of the East H Street and SR-125 interchange.
(Engineering)
55, Enter into an agreement with the City for each phase or unit
thereof, whereby:
a. The developer agrees the City may withhold occupancy
permits for any units in the subject subdivision if anyone
of the following occur:
(1) Regional development threshold 1 imits set by the
East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have
been reached.
(2) Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities
and/or services exceed the adopted City threshold
standards.
b. The developer agrees that the City may withhold building
permits for any of the phases of development identified in
the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) if the required
public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended
or otherwise conditioned have not been completed or
constructed to satisfaction of the City. The property
owner may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of
-- ----_.-_.- ---- ~ ..-- -- _.._-_.~
Resolution No. 16834
Page 18
development and the construction of improvements affected.
In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the
City Pl anni ng Di rector and Publ i c Works Di rector.
(Engineering, Planning)
56. The developer shall agree to comply with the requirements of
the revised Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan
and Transportation Development Impact Fee Program or as said
documents may be revised based on the conclusions of the
H.N.T.B. State Route 125 financing study. (Engineering)
57. Enter into an agreement with the City agreeing not to protest
format i on of a di stri ct for the maintenance of landscaped
medians and parkways along streets within and adjacent to the
subject property pri or to approval of any Fi na 1 Map whi ch
includes those facilities. (Engineering)
58. Enter into an agreement to defend, indemnify and hold harmless
the City and its agents, offi cers and employees, from any
claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any
approval by the City, including approval by its Planning
CO/llTlission, City Councilor any approval by its agents,
officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision
provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any
claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that
the City fully cooperates in the defense. (Engineering)
59. Enter into an agreement with the City wherein the City is held
harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase
flow of drainage resulting from this project. (Engineering)
60. Develop an interim urban runoff management plan and agree to
install required facilities to protect the water quality of
the Otay Lakes prior to approval of any Final Map for any lot,
unit or phase which drains to the Otay Lakes drainage basin,
subject to the satisfaction of the Cities of Chula Vista and
San Diego and the State Office of Health Services.
(Engineering)
61. Agree to participate in funding the development of a
comprehensive Otay Lakes watershed management plan and to pay
a fair share of the construction cost of long term facilities
as may be determined by said plan. Enter into and execute an
agreement with the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the
County of San Diego wherein the parties agree to implement the
management plan, said to be executed prior to Final Map
approval for any lot, unit or phase which drains to the Otay
Lakes drainage basin. (Engineering)
62. Obtain permission from the City to deposit sewage in a foreign
basin and enter into an agreement whereby the City shall agree
._"-----~..__.., ,--
Resolution No. 16834
Page 19
to such transfer, and the circumstances under which said
permission may be revoked, (Engineering)
63. Enter into an agreement and provide appropriate security to
guarantee the ability to restore the sewer systems' reserve
capacity to that which currently exists, on a length-by-length
basis, for sewage diverted into the Telegraph Canyon Basin.
(Engineering)
64. Agree to participate in the monitoring of existing sewage
flows in the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and, pursuant to any
adopted Basin Plan, agree to participate in the financing of
improvements set forth therein, in an equitable manner.
Execute said agreement prior to Final Map approval for any
phase or unit thereof proposing to discharge sewage into
Telegraph Canyon trunk sewer. (Engineering)
65. Enter into an agreement with the City to participate in
funding of the offsite Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor.
(Engineering)
66. Enter into an agreement wi th the City to insure that a 11
franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company') are
permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable
television service to each lot within the subdivision prior to
the approval of Final Maps for each phase or unit. Restrict
access to the conduit to only those franchised cable
television companies who are, and remain in compliance with,
all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are
in further compliance with all other rules, regulations,
ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the
operation of cable television companies as same may have been,
or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
(Engineering)
Public Parks and Trails
67. Prepare, submit and obtain Director of Parks and Recreation
approval, for a recreation needs analysis which identifies the
demand for various park facilities, to ensure that the parks
are equi pped to meet the expressed needs of the community.
(Parks and Recreation)
68. Prepare, submit and obtain Director of Parks and Recreation
approval of a comprehensive Master Plan for the open space
system, recreation trails and parks which shall include, but
not be limited to, phasing of the installation of facilities
in accordance with the recreation needs analysis.
The Master Plan shall reflect:
a. More precise location, size and configuration of parks,
-------.--.--- --....--.-
--
Resolution No. 16834
Page 20
recreation and equestrian trails and fencing than indicated
on the Tentative Map.
b. A multi-use bridged trail crossing of Salt Creek to the
community park in Phase 1 to create an east/west link over
Sa It Creek.
c. The extension of equestrian and recreation trail systems to
the eastern property boundary on the south side of Proctor
Va 11 ey Road.
d. Pedestrian walkways from cul-de-sac ends on Streets DD, FF,
and GG designed with open ends along Proctor Valley Road
west of Hunte Parkway to the walk system adjacent to
Proctor Valley Road.
e. All open space access points shall have a minimum of 10 ft.
clear vehicular surface, with an additional 2 ft. clear on
either side of any vertical obstructions.
f. Determination of the. open space district parcel boundaries
and maintenance responsibilities.
g. An equestrian-style fence adjacent to the 10 foot
recreat i on trail along the north si de of the Community
Park, adjacent to Proctor Valley Road. and continuing along
the trail at the east side of the park to the point where
the trail enters the park.
h. Extension of the recreation trail within lots K and l
adjacent to Eastlake, along the southerly property line of
Neighborhood 4d. along the westerly property line of said
Nei ghborhood (future San Mi gue 1 Road), and the westerly
edges of the Neighborhood Park and the Fire Station site.
This trail shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and
provide maintenance vehicle access to each adjacent
open-ended residential cul-de-sac.
i. All aspects of work in the open space network and the park
sites shall comply with all approved landscape and
irrigation standards.
j. The design, and installation and improvement of the
parks/open spaces shall be in accordance with the standards
set forth in the City Landscape Manual as may be amended
from time to time. (Parks and Recreatton, Planning,
Engineering)
69. Prepare agreement(s) to phase the parks as follows:
a. Complete construction of the portions of Proctor Valley
Road and Duncan Ranch Road necessary to access the parking
-- -~_.._-----------_.--~---_._-
70.
71.
72.
Resolution No. 16834
Page 21
lot driveway of the community park shall be constructed.
These streets shall be constructed prior to the completion
of the initial 12.0 acre phase of the community park. The
streets shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the Director of Parks and Recreation.
b. The initial 12 net usable acres of the Community Park shall
be dedicated in fee and improvements commenced prior to or
concurrent with the recordation of the Final Map for the
5g2nd lot in Phase I. Complete construction of an the
facilities required for the first 12 acres of the community
park within one year fol1owing the recordation of the Final
Map for the 592nd lot.
c. The remainder of the Community Park (8.23 net usable acres,
10 gross acres) shall be dedicated in fee and improvements
commenced prior to, or concurrent with the recordation of
the Final Map for the 1447th lot. Complete construction of
all the facilities required for the remaining 10 acres of
the community park within one year following the
recordation of the Final Map for the 1447th lot.
d. The Neighborhood Park (5.71 net usable acres, 7,1 gross
acres), shall be dedicated in fee and improvements
commenced prior to the recordation of the Final Map of the
2200th lot. Complete construction of all the facilities
required for the neighborhood park within one year
following the recordation of the Final Map for the 2200th
lot.
e. At no time is the project to be deficient in park acreage.
If the standard of 3 acres per 1000 residents is exceeded
at any time, then the next phase of the community park or
the neighborhood park shall begin immediately.
Dedicate an required parkland (22 9ross acres, Community
Park, 7 gross acres, Neighborhood Park) and park improvements
in accordance with the Master Plan and construction documents
prepared pursuant to Condition 73 as "turn-key" projects. The
Director of Parks and Recreation shall have the right of final
approval in the selection process of the general contractor
for both of the park sites. (Parks and Recreation)
Prepare, submit and obtain approval from the City Engineer,
and Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation for the
design of the equestrian crossing of Proctor Valley Road at
Hunte Parkway where i ndi cated on the Tentati ve Map. The
crossing shall include staging areas, the design shall be
approved prior to any Final Map for Phase 2. (Parks and
Recreation, Engineering, Planning)
Locate underground, surface or overhead easements off-site of
"- - -----.-------
Resolution No. 16834
Page 22
either park site, except for the necessary and required
easements for the on-site park and recreation facilities.
(Parks and Recreation, Engineering)
73. Enter into a Chula Vista standard three party agreement with
the City of Chul a Vi sta and a des i gn consultant, for the
design of all aspects of the neighborhood and community parks
in accordance with the Master Plan whereby the Parks and
Recreation Director selects the design consultant. The
agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the design
development phase, the construction document phase and the
construction supervision phase for the park sites. The
construction documents shall reflect the then current
requirements of the City's Code/Manual requirements. (Parks
and Recreat ion)
74. Prepare the Final Map in accordance with Exhibits Band C, to
indicate:
a. The modification in size and configuration to the community
park as set forth in the Master Plan.
b, Dedication in fee of the community and neighborhood parks
in corrected configuration,
c. Grading of the sites in accordance with the revised grading
schemes as indicated on Exhibits Band C. (Parks and
Recreation)
Street Trees/ODen SDace
75. Grant all open space lots to the City in fee on the applicable
Fi na 1 Map and a deed executed and recorded for each lot.
(Engineering)
76. Submit a schedule outlining the proposed turnover of
maintenance for open space areas to the City, subject to
approval of the Directors of Planning Parks and Recreation.
(Planning, Parks & Recreation)
77. Submit a list of open space items to be maintained and a rough
estimate of maintenance costs to allow City staff to determine
a preliminary cost and spread for the open space district.
(Engineering, Parks & Recreation)
78. Request that the City form an Open Space District to maintain
public Open Space lots and submit to the City the associated
diagram, cost estimate, description of work and a deposit of
$8,000 for processing the formation of the district.
(Engineering, Parks & Recreation)
79. Gain approval of access to all of the open space areas for
-- --~---- ---,~.-'- '--
Reso.l ution No. 16834
Page 23
maintenance purposes by the Directors of Parks and Recreation
and Planning, Fire Marshal and City Engineer during the Open
Space Master Plan stage as indicated in Condition 68. (Parks
& Recreation, Planning, Fire, Engineering)
80. Provide a 10 ft. wide access path for maintenance vehicles in
the greenbelt open space area (lots D-8 through G-8) bisecting
Neighborhoods 1 & 2. Final landscape materials and design for
thi s area shall be consi stent with open space criteri a,
subject to approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation
prior to approval of the final subdivision map for Subarea 1.
(Parks & Recreation)
81. Prepare, submit to and obtain approval of the Directors of
Parks and Recreation and Planning and the Fire Marshal, prior
to approval of final grading and landscape plans for Phase 3,
of final details of habitat enhancement. protective measures
for sensit i ve habi tat/speci es and temporary i rri gati on in open
space areas within Phase 3. (Parks & Recreation. Planning.
Fire)
82. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls which
are to be maintained by open space districts shall be
constructed entirely within open space lots dedicated to the
City. (Planning. Engineering)
83. Dedi cate Lots A through HH to the City for open space
purposes. As biological habitat, lots Z and CC through GG
shall generally be restricted from any use except that access
roads to serve the SDG&E transmission towers and the drainage
retention ponds shall be permitted. In addition, in
accordance with Condi t ion 22, a road provi di ng access to
northerly adjacent properties may be permitted subject to the
approval of the Director of Planning and the City Engineer.
(Planning. Engineering)
84. Estab 1 i sh Homeowners Associ ati ons for Nei ghborhoods 5 (Lot
93), 8, 12 and 13 to provide for the maintenance of private
open space and streets prior to the approval of Final Maps for
said neighborhoods, subject to the approval of the Director of
PI anni ng. (Planning)
85. Submit a comprehensive landscape plan for review and approval
of the City Landscape Architect and Director of Parks and
Recreation prior to approval of the first Final Map. Submit
comprehensive, detailed landscape and irrigation plans,
eros i on contro 1 plans and detai 1 ed water management gui del i nes
for a 11 landscape i rri gat ion in accordance wi th the Chul a
Vista Landscape Manual for the associated landscaping in each
Fi na 1 Map. These detail ed 1 andscape and i rri gati on plans
shall be for the review and approval of the City Landscape
Architect and Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the
0.. ._____._______
Resolution No. 16834
Page 24
approval of each Final Map. The landscaping format within the
project shall be in substantial conformance with Section 3.2
(Landscape Concept) of the Salt Creek Ranch SPA. (Planning,
Parks & Recreation)
86. Maintain a width on all open space lots adjacent to public
rights-of-way so as to provide 10 feet of landscaping
treatment behind the back of sidewalk. (Planning)
87, Include in the CC&R's that the maintenance of all private
faci 1 ities and improvements within open space areas are
managed by home owners associ at ions. Submi t to and gai n
approval of said CC&Rs by the Director of Planning prior to
approval of the associated Final Map. (Planning)
Fire and Brush ManaQement
88. Provide the initial cycle of fire management/brush clearance
within lots adjacent to natural open space areas in Subarea 3
subject to approval of the Fire Marshal and the Director of
Parks and Recreation. (Fire, Parks & Recreation)
89. Install fire hydrants every 500 ft. for single family
residential and every 300 ft. for multi-family dwellings.
Install and make operable the hydrants prior to delivery of
combustible building materials. (Fire)
gO. Locate fuel modification areas in Subarea 3 entirely within
affected lots. Indicate lot line extensions required to
acconunodate said areas on the Final Map(s) of Subarea 3,
subject to the approval of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal,
and Director of Planning. (Engineering, Fire, Planning)
91. Dedi cate to the City open space easements (OS E) over all
downhill side or rear slopes adjacent to Open Space lots Z. AA
and CC through GG in Subarea 3. These OSE's shall preclude
the construction of any structures within said easements and
sha 11 1 imi tact i vit i es wi thi n the easements to 1 andscape
maintenance of fuel modification plant materials. The wording
of the OSE's shall be subject to the approval of the Director
of Planning and the City Attorney. (Planning, C.A.)
92. Prepare and execute fuel modification plans consistent with
Sect ion 3.6 of the Salt Creek Ranch SPA subject to the
approval of the Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation
and the Fire Marshal prior to approval of any Final Map in
Subarea 3. (Planning, Fire, Parks & Recreation)
93. Offer lot FS-l (fire station site) for dedication in fee to
the City prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the
first Final Map in Phase 2. (Fire, Engineering)
..".~- ------.-
Resolution No, 16834
Page 25
94. Provide fire 'prevent10n facilities and equipment, including
the construction of a fire station, if required, in accordance
with the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan.
Provide or secure said facilities and equipment in accordance
with a schedule as approved by the Fire Chief. (Fire)
Miscellaneous
95. Include in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions provisions assuring maintenance of private
facilities including the private streets, sewer, and drainage
systems. Name the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta as party to sai d
Decl arat i on authori zi ng the Ci ty to enforce the terms and
conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner
within the subdivision. (Engineering, Planning)
96. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-
Zone VI (1983). (Engineering)
97. Submit copies of Final Maps in a digital format such as (DXF)
graphic file prior to approval of each Final Map for any unit.
Provide computer aided Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map
based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit
the information in duplicate on 5 1/2 HD floppy disk prior to
the approval of each Fi na I Map. (Engineering)
98. Agree to participate in a regional or subregional multispecies
coastal sage scrub conservation plan prior to the approval of
the first Final Map. (Planning)
.
99. Suspend development of Neighborhood lOb and reconfigure the
northeastern Subarea 3 neighborhood to provide a wider open
space area for a regional wildlife corridor if, at the time
development is proposed for Neighborhoods lOa, lOb, and II, an
off-site regional wildlife corridor linking San Miguel
Mountain with the Upper Otay Reservoir has not been approved
as part of a habitat conservation plan. Make the width of the
open space area sufficient to ensure long-term viability of
the wildlife corridor, as indicated in the SPA Plan (PCM 91-4)
subject to the approval of the Director of Planning.
(Planning)
100. Submit and gain approval by the Design Review Committee
Precise Plans for the multiple family area within
Neighborhoods 4a (reference lot 1) and 5 (reference lot 93) at
gross densities of 18 dwelling units per acre and 6 dwelling
units per acre respectively. (Planning)
101. Provide sales disclosure documents which identify the
allowable uses in the Eastlake Business Center, subject to
review by the Director of Planning prior to the approval of
Final Maps in Neighborhoods 5 and 6. (Planning)
~ - .- ~--~ -.- ---~ -
.---...-------.---.-----.---
Resolution No. 16834
Page 26
102. Mitigate noise impacts on the residences along Proctor Valley
Road by the placement of solid walls or wall/berm combinations
on the building pads at the top of the slopes adjacent to the
roadway. The walls shall be solid masonry construction with
a material weight of at least 3,5 pounds per square foot which
would not allow any air spaces along their entire length. The
end of each noi se wall shall wrap around the buil di ng pad
enough to block the 1 ine of sight from all points in the
exterior living space to any portion of the impacting roadway.
Indicate on the grading plans for Neighborhoods 1. 3. 7B and
8 said walls in compliance with the Salt Creek Ranch SPA SEIR.
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the Director
of Planning. (Planning. Engineering)
103. Retain a qualified biologist/environmental specialist to
oversee the construction of Proctor Valley Road, Hunte Parkway
and the reservoir and associated waterline and to monitor the
implementation of the mitigation measures related to
Biologica] Resources as required by City Council Resolution
16555-Mitigation Monitoring Program. (Planning)
104, Retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor the implementation
of the mitigation measures relative to Cultural Resources
required by the City Council Resolution 16555-Mitigation
Monitoring Program. (Planning)
105. Provide the proposed list of fertilizers. pesticides.
herbicides and fungicides, and the landscaping plans to the
City of San Diego Water Utilities Department for approval
prior to approval of any Final Map in Neighborhoods 9-13.
(Planning) .
106. Submit for approval by the Director of Planning and the City
Engineer copies of proposed CC&Rs for the subdivision prior to
approval of each Final Map. (Planning, Engineering)
107. Design and improve lot A-3 in Neighborhood 3 (private park)
subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, Design
the park prior to the approval of any Final Map in
Neighborhood 3 and improve the park concurrently with the
immediate surroundin9 area, as determined by the Director of
Planning. (Planning)
108. Design and improve lots 0-8 through G-8 in Neighborhood 8
(private recreation area) subject to the approval of the
Director of Planning. Design these areas prior to the
approval of any Final Map in Neighborhood 8 and improve the
areas concurrent with the immediate surrounding area as
required by the Director. (Planning)
109, Show evidence satisfactory to the Director of Planning that
the CC&R' s for Nei ghborhood 12 i nc1 ude a statement that
----_.~ -.~--
Reso)ution No. 16834
Page 27
Streets MMMM and NNNN may be requi red to provi de access to
roads which provide access to properties to the north, prior
to the approval of any Final Map for Neighborhood 12.
(Planning, Engineering)
110. Reserve lots S-l and S-2 (school sites) for school purposes to
be offered for dedication in fee to the Chula Vista City
Elementary School District in accordance with a schedule as
indicated in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, as
approved by the School District, which shall be established to
the satisfaction of the District. (Planning)
111. Establish and participate in a school facility financing plan
as well as providing classroom space as required by the
Sweetwater Union High School District. Provide a letter from
the District verifying compliance with this condition.
(Planning)
112. Reflect on the Final Map for Neighborhood 78 the provision of
a minimum setback of 100 feet between lots 103 and 104 and the
northerly right-of-way 1 ine of Proctor Valley Road.
Accomplish this setback by deleting said lots and shortening
Street FFFF accordingly or by rearranging lots along said
street to provide the required setback, subject to the
approval of the Director of Planning. (Planning)
113. Enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City
subject to the approval of the City Counci 1. (Community
Development)
114. Submit to the Director of Planning and gain approval by the
City Council of all street names for this project. (Planning)
115. Note 10 on Sheet 3 of 8 regarding quitclaiming of a right-of-
way dedication is denied until such time as the City Engineer
and the Director of Planning determine that said right-of-way
is not required to provide access to the subject property or
adjacent property. (Engineering, Planning)
116. Prepare an amendment to the Salt Creek Ranch Mitigation
Monitoring Program to require subsequent environmental review
to be conducted on the urban runoff detention basins in Phase
3 when the final configuration of said basins are determined.
Should this environmental review result in the requirement for
measures to mitigate any perceived environmental impacts, such
measures shall be incorporated into the revised Mitigation
Monitoring Program, subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning. (Planning)
117. Reflect on the Final Map for Neighborhood g the deletion of
one lot from the north side of Street AAAA and consolidation
of the remaining lots to create larger lots subject to the
--~ ---.....------- -~-
Resolution No. 16834
Page 28
approval of the Director of Planning. (Planning)
118. Reflect on the Final Map for Neighborhood 9 the deletion of
two lots from the east side of Street CCCC (Neighborhood 9)
and consolidation of the remaining lots to create larger lots,
subject to the approval of the Director of Plannin9.
(Planning)
119. Reflect on the Final Map for Neighborhood 13 the deletion of
one lot from the west side of Street RRRR south of Lot 33 to
expand open space lots B-13 and C-13, subject to the approval
of the Director of Planning. (Planning)
120. Payoff all existing deficit accounts associated with the
processing of this application to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning.
a. Provide permanent City bench marks tied to the City system
at the following locations:
1. East "H" Street/Mt. Miguel Road
2. Lane Avenue/Otay Lakes Road
3. Hunte Parkway/Otay Lakes Road
4. Mt. Miguel Road/Mackenzie Creek Road
5. East "H" Street/Both Subdivision Boundaries
6. East "H" Street/Lane Avenue
7. East "H" Street/Hunte Parkway
8. Otay Lakes Road/Rutgers
Said bench marks shall be tied to the existing City bench
mark system at points 465, 1350, and 1655. Completion
shall occur prior to acceptance of the associated street
improvements. The monumentati on bond for the correspondi ng
final map which contains the intersection shall include the
cost of this work. Offsite bench marks shall be set prior
to approval of the first final map.
b. Provide the City with a copy of the disclosure to
homeowners of costs associated with Mello-Roos, Assessment,
and Open Space Di stri cts as requi red by Ordi nance 2275
prior to approval of each final map. (Planning)
Code Requirements
121. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans
shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance an
Subdivision Manual. (Engineering, Planning)
122. Underground all ut il it i es withi n the subdi vi s ion in accordance
with Municipal Code requirements. (Engineering)
-- .-..- ._- --~ .
- -----
Resolution No. 16834
Page 29
123. Provide some lots with residential fire sprinkler systems due
to access requirements as determined by the Fire Marshal. 1n
multi-family dwellings, if a sprinkler system is required for
one building, all buildings in the project shall be
sprinklered. (Fire)
124. Make all proposed development consistent with the Salt Creek
Ranch SPA Planned Community ~istrict Regulations, subject to
the approval of the Director of Planning. (Planning)
125. Comply with Title 24 and any other energy conservation
ordinances and policies in effect at the time construction
occurs on the property in conformance with this Tentative Map.
(Building and Housing, Planning)
126. Comply with all relevant Federal, State and Local regulations,
including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be
responsible for providing all required testing and
documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by
the City Engineer. (Engineering)
127. Comply with the Cormnunity Purpose Facility Ordinance. The
developer shall provide areas proposed to show compliance with
said ordinance and obtain approval of said areas from the
Di rector of PI anni ng. (Planning)
128. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and
Counci I Pol icy:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact
Fees prior to the issuance of any building permit.
b. Signal Participation Fees
c. School fees
d. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to
sewer connection fees
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance
of buil di ng permits. (Engineering)
failing any of which conditions, or failing the continued
maintenance of same as the condition may require, this conditional
approval and any entitlement accruing hereunder, shall, following a
publ i c heari ng by the City Counci 1 at whi ch the App 1 i cant or hi s
succeSS6r in interest is given notice and the opportunity to appear
and be heard with regard thereto, be terminated or modified by the
City Council.
.__.,-~~-
Resolution No. 16834
Page 30
SECTION 8. CEQA Findings
(1) Re-adoption of Findings.
The Council does hereby re-approve, accept as its own, and re-
incorporate as if set forth full herein, and make each and
everyone of the CEQA Findings attached hereto as Exhibit D.
(2) Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Re-dopted.
As more fully identified and set forth in the Program EIR and
the SEIR, and in the CEQA Findings for this Project, which is
hereby attached hereto as Exhibit 0, the Council hereby finds
that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091, that the mitigation measures
described in the above referenced document are feasible and
will become binding upon the appropriate entity such as the
Applicant, the City, or other special districts which has to
implement these specific mitigation measures.
(3) Feasibility of Alternatives.
As is also noted in the environmental documents referenced in
the immediately preceding paragraph, alternatives to the
Project which were identified as potentially feasible are
hereby found not to be feasible.
(4) Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program.
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, City
Council hereby re-adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ("Program") set forth as Exhibit E to this
resolution and incorporated herein by reference as set forth
in full. The City Council recommends that the Council find
that the Program is designed to ensure that during the project
implementation and operation, the Applicants and other
responsible parties implement the project components and
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the
Findings and in the Program.
(5) Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Even after the re-adoption of all feasible mitigation
measures, certain significant or potentially significant
environmental affects caused by the project or cumulatively
will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista re-issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, as
set forth and attached hereto, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations identifying the specific economic, social, and
other considerations that render the unavoidable significant
adverse environmental effects still si9nificant but
acceptable.
- -~
Resolution No. 16834
Page 31
SECTION 9. Notice of Determination.
City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a
Notice of Determination and file the same with the County Clerk.
Presented by
to form
/'7 ,.. /
//' ;/'
'j',/{;'/// //
/ Y t.- (., -t.__
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
Ci ty Attorney
-, .----- - - --_._--"--..--------
-- ~--------
Resolution No. 16834
Page 32
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 6th day of October, 1992, by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers: Horton, Moore, Rindone, Nader
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Malcolm
ABSTAIN: Counc i 1 members: None
r-/~
~.~.:/l ./1.-.
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16834 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council held on the 6th day of October, 1992.
Executed this 6th day of October, 1992.
- --- ._~._._-_._---
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 1 -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PlAN
SCH #89092721
PROJECT NAME:
Rolling Hills Ranch General Development
Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative
Revisions
Plan,
Map
PROJECT LOCATION:
City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Corky McMillin Companies
DATE:
February 26, 2003
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Final Supplemental EIR, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan contains a
comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with
the implementation of the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) project. The
Salt Creek Ranch project, which is now referred to as Rolling Hills Ranch, has an
approved General Development Plan (GDP), SPA Plan and Tentative Map (TM). The
purpose of this Addendum is to discuss proposed revisions to the SPA Plan and TM, as
well as changes to the GDP to provide consistency with the revised SPA Plan. The
proposed changes would remove development in certain areas containing sensitive
biological resources, and would add development in less sensitive areas.
Since the time that ElR 91-03 was certified, additional biological data has been collected
on the site, revealing the presence of Ouino checkers pot butterfly (Euphydryas editha
quina; hereafter referred to as "OCB"), a federally listed endangered species, Otay tarplant
(Deinandra conjugans), a federally and state listed species, and populations of sensitive
plant species, including variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata) within proposed
development areas. As a result of discussions with the V.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
California Department of Fish and Game (collectively referred to as the "Wildlife
Agencies"), and the City of Chula Vista, the project applicant has agreed to modify the
development boundaries in exchange for designation as a Covered Project under the Chula
Vista Draft MSCP Subarea Plan ("Subarea Plan"). The net effect of the revisions would be
a reduction in total development area for the purposes of increasing conservation of
species that are covered in the Subarea Plan. This Addendum will document the
relationship of the proposed changes in the GDP, SPA Plan, and TM to what was
analyzed in the Final ErR 91-03.
327H)1
312712003
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 t -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PIAN
SCH #8909272 t
2.0 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEOA guidelines discuss a lead agency's
responsibilities in handling new information that was not included in a project's final
environmental impact report (ErR).
Section 15162 of the CEOA Guidelines provides:
(a) When an ErR has been certified...for a project, no subsequent ErR shall be prepared
for that project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in
the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the EIR.. .due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the ErR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the [Final] EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the [Final] ErR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be
feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one
or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
327H)1
3/2712003
2
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 t -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING ARFA PIAN
SCH #8909272 t
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
from those analyzed in the [Final] EIR would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
In the event that one of these conditions would require preparation of a subsequent ErR,
but "only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the [Final] EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation," the City could choose instead to
issue a supplement to the Final EIR (CEOA Guidelines, ~ 15163, subd. (a)).
In the alternative, where the changes or new information will result in no new impacts,
or no more severe impacts, than any that were disclosed in the Final ErR for the Project, it
is appropriate for the City to prepare an addendum pursuant to CEOA Guideline, ~ 15164.
That section states that an addendum should include a "brief explanation of the decision
not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to ~ 15162," and that the explanation needs to
be supported by substantial evidence (CEOA Guidelines, ~ 15164, subd. (e).) The
addendum need not be circulated for public review, but may simply be attached to the
Final ErR (Ibid.; CEOA Guideline, ~ 15164, subd. (c)).
Likewise, under CEOA Guideline Section 15088.5, where the Final EIR has not yet been
certified, recirculation for public review is not required unless "significant new
information" is added to the document (CEOA Guideline, ~ 15088.5, subds. [a], [bJ).
"Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure
showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or
from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would
result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a
level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different
from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant
environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline
to adopt it.
3271.01
3/2712003
3
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 t -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PIAN
SCH #8909272 t
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and
conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were
precluded.
Recirculation is not required when new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or
amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR (CEOA Guideline,
15088.5, subd. (b)).
Thus, in the following inquiry the City considers under the standards articulated above
whether each of these three changed circumstances reveal or create previously-undisclosed
significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
disclosed impacts (CEOA Guidelines, ~~15162, 15163, 15164, subd. (a); 15088.5, subds. [a],
[b]). As the discussion demonstrates, it is appropriate for the City to prepare this
Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Sectional
Planning Area Plan (EIR 91-03), pursuant to CEOA Guideline, ~ 15164.
3.0 PROJECT SETTING
Rolling Hills Ranch encompasses approximately 1,200 acres in the southern foothills of
the San Miguel Mountains in the City of Chula Vista. Elevations on the project site range
from 550 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to over 1,100 feet AMSL. The project is
located east of I-80S, north of Otay Lakes Road and the Eastlake Business Park, and
northwest of the Otay Lakes Reservoir. More specifically, the area affected by the
revisions to the SPA Plan is located in the undeveloped, eastern portion of the Rolling
Hills Ranch parcel, north of "H" Street and east of Hunte Parkway referred to as "Subarea
III" (Figures 1 and 2, Regional and Site Vicinity Maps).
Existing adjacent land uses include the proposed Bella Lago residential community to the
east, Otay Lakes Reservoir to the southeast, Eastlake development to the south, San
Miguel Ranch to the northwest and Otay Water District Auld golf course to the west.
Regional roadway improvements have been constructed on and off-site, about 40 percent
of the residential units have been completed to date, and approximately 50 percent of the
overall project has been graded. The portion of the project that is subject to this
Addendum (the eastern portion) has not been graded. Vegetation primarily consists of
coastal sage scrub and annual grasslands.
327HJ1
312712003
4
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 t -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PIAN
SCH #8909272 t
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Rolling Hills Ranch project currently has an approved TM that identifies development in
areas that would be redesignated as Preserve under the Subarea Plan. Based on the changes
proposed in July 2001, an amendment to the approved Salt Creek Ranch (now known as Rolling
Hills Ranch) GDP, SPA Plan and Tentative Map are proposed to implement the agreed upon
development and conservation boundaries (see Figure 3, Rolling Hills Ranch Revised
Boundaries). The area affected is entirely within Subarea ill, the remaining undeveloped area of
Rolling Hills Ranch. The following is a brief summary of the modifications of the project.
The specific amendments to the GDP, SPA and Tentative Map for Rolling Hills Ranch
Subarea III include: a) elimination of development in Neighborhood 13 and replacing this
area as MSCP Preserve open space; b) reducing the minimum lot size requirement for
Neighborhood 9 from 15,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet (in order to accommodate
36 units from former Neighborhood 13 to be transferred to Neighborhood 9); c) adjust the
land use boundaries of Neighborhoods 9, IDA, lOB, 11 and 12; and d) revise the circulation
plan to include an easement that would accommodate a 128 foot wide right-of-way for
the future alignment of Proctor Valley Road from the easternmost edge of Neighborhood
9 to the Rolling Hills Ranch eastern boundary, and to remove street connections from
Neighborhood 9 to 13 and from Neighborhood 11 to the northerly portion of Bella Lago.
The resulting amending Tentative Map for Subarea III will accommodate a total of 425
single-family units.
5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following environmental analysis provided in Section 6.0 determines that approval
and implementation of the Rolling Hills Ranch SPA and TM revisions would not result in
any additional significant environmental effects beyond those previously covered under
EIR 91-03 for the project.
327H)1
312712003
5
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-91-03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PIAN
SCH #89092721
6.0 ANALYSIS
Land Use, Planning and Zoning
The net result of the proposed modifications would be the deletion of 63 residential lots
and the addition of 60, resulting in the net loss of three residential lots. While the
proposed modifications would require amendments to the GDP, SPA and TM for the
project to maintain technical conformity with those plans, the overall land use impact
represented by the proposed modifications is not considered to be significant. In addition,
the resulting changes to the development plan area provide conservation and habitat
linkage for GCB. The additional conservation provided by the revised project design is
therefore consistent with the goals of the Subarea Plan.
Landform Alterations! Aesthetics
View impacts of the Rolling Hills Ranch would not substantially change as a result of the
implementation of the revised SPA Plan, which include a net loss of three residential lots
and an additional 82.5 acres of open space contributed to the MSCP Preserve. The
approximately seven-acre area previously proposed for open space that would be
developed under the proposed modifications does not contain unique landforms or other
visual or aesthetic resources whose loss would be considered significant. The proposed
revisions do, however, result in preservation of additional unique topographical features in
Neighborhood 13. Therefore, no new or increased levels of impact to landforms or
aesthetics beyond those identified in EIR 91-03 would occur as a result of the proposed
project modifications.
Biological Resources
The proposed project involves boundary adjustments that result in increased conservation
of species and habitats covered in the Subarea Plan. Conservation of additional areas
within Rolling Hills Ranch would enhance conservation primarily for GCB, Otay
tarplant, and variegated dudleya. The additional conservation that is currently proposed
is a result of additional data collected on the project site and an agreement between the
Wildlife Agencies and property owner to preserve additional biologically sensitive areas
within the project site. The net effect of the proposed changes in the Rolling Hills Ranch
development boundaries is to add conservation areas to the MSCP Preserve and/or to shift
development from higher sensitivity areas to lower sensitivity areas.
3271-01
3/2712003
6
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 1 -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PIAN
SCH #89092721
The additional conservation of lands within Rolling Hills Ranch would also contribute to
the increase of habitat linkage opportunities within the Subarea Plan. In addition to
facilitating wildlife movement, the reduction in total development area within Rolling
Hills Ranch would increase habitat areas for sensitive plant and wildlife species. The
additional conservation proposed would not have a significant adverse impact upon the
movement of any resident or migratory species.
Because the proposed revisions would increase conservation of species and habitats and
would enhance wildlife movement and habitat connectivity, no new or increased levels of
impacts to biological resources beyond those identified in ErR 91-03 would result from
implementation of the proposed modifications.
Cultural Resources
EIR 91-03 prepared for Rolling Hills Ranch determined that the project site contained 27
archaeological sites. The ErR indicated that direct and indirect impacts to a number of
those archaeological sites would occur, and with implementation of mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR, all impacts would be reduced to below significant. The proposed
project modifications would involve development in areas previously identified as
Preserve. These areas have been reviewed using the archaeological survey data assembled
as part of the analysis conducted for EIR 91-03. Based on that review, no significant
archaeological resources area located in the area to be added as development. Therefore,
the proposed project modifications would not impact any additional archaeological sites
and no increase in the level of impacts to these resources beyond those identified in ErR
91-03 would occur.
Geology and Soils
Pacific Soils Engineering prepared a Revised Geotechnical Feasibility and Due Diligence Study
Report in September 2001, which evaluated the geotechnical conditions of the project site
based on the revised SPA Plan. The 2001 geotechnical investigation determined that there
were no geologic or geotechnical issues which would preclude development as proposed in
the revised SPA Plan, and development of the site would not require extraordinary
mitigation or practices beyond those customary or previously identified in ErR 91-03
(Pacific Soils Engineering 2001). Findings and recommendations presented in the 2001
geotechnical study are similar to those included in geotechnical studies prepared for ErR
91-03. Therefore, the proposed project modifications would not result in new or
3271-01
3/27/2003
7
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 t -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PlAN
SCH #8909272 t
intensification of impacts related to geologic or soil constraints beyond those identified in
EIR 91-03.
Paleontological Resources
EIR 91-03 determined that the project site possess a high potential for the existence of
paleontological resources and implementation of mitigation measures including
paleontological monitoring during grading would reduce potential impacts to less than
significant. No new impacts or intensification of impacts to paleontological resources
would result from the proposed project revisions and the same mitigation measures would
apply.
Agricultural Resources
EIR 91-03 determined that impacts to agricultural resources would not be significant on a
project-specific basis but would contribute to the cumulative loss of these resources. No
new impacts or intensification of impacts to agricultural resources would result from the
proposed project since the adjustment in the development boundary would not change
the total acreage of agricultural areas being converted to other uses (residential or open
space). Under the original SPA Plan, all of the land within the project boundary would be
unavailable for future agricultural uses, as it would either be developed or placed into
permanent conservation for biological purposes, precluding the ability to continue
agricultural production. The proposed revisions to the SPA Plan would not change this
condition.
Population and Housing
The proposed project involves a net loss of three residential lots and additional lands
conserved as part of the MSCP Preserve. Removal of these lands from potential
development and inclusion into the Preserve would result in the substantial reduction in
the developable land supply within the City. Growth projections provided by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) forecast the housing supply in Chula Vista
to be approximately 96,000 units in 2020. From a regional perspective, the total reduction
of three residential lots is not considered to substantially reduce the housing supply in the
City of Chula Vista. Therefore, the decrease in the developable land supply would not
preclude the City from meeting its projected General Plan residential land needs.
3271-01
3/27/2003
B
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 t -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PIAN
SCH #8909272 t
Water Resources and Water Quality
The proposed project would result in a net loss of three residential lots and an overall
reduction in graded areas. No additional demand for water or substantial increase in
impervious surface would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore,
no new impacts, or intensification of impacts to water resources or water quality would
occur from implementation of the proposed project modifications.
Transportation, Circulation and Access
As a result of the additional conservation, density has been increased in some portions of
the Rolling Hills Ranch development; however, there will be a net decrease in the number
of residential units proposed within RoIling Hills Ranch, and a net decrease in residential
development overall. Therefore, a slight decrease in the projected average daily trips on
roadways within the City would be anticipated. In addition, the minor increases in
density within RoIling Hills Ranch would not affect traffic or circulation systems since
the proposed roadways are designed with adequate capacity to accommodate such
densities. Therefore, no increase in traffic congestion or unacceptable level of service as a
result of the proposed project modifications are anticipated to occur.
The addition of these lands would also not result in significant modifications to
circulation patterns or significant reconfiguration of roads to access existing or proposed
development. Minor modifications to residential/collector roadway alignments and
intersections within RoIling Hills Ranch may occur to address changes in lot
configurations and boundary adjustments for neighborhoods, but planned major access
points to the development and within the proposed development remain largely
unchanged. Therefore, no significant impacts to circulation patterns would result from
the addition of development lands to the Preserve.
Modifications to the improvement requirements resulting in payment of a Traffic
Development Impact Fee (TDIF) in lieu of construction of Proctor Valley Road between
the project's easternmost access point and the eastern project boundary would not result
in any significant traffic impacts, because no project traffic is projected to travel on that
segment of road, since the remainder of the road off-site to the east is unimproved. At the
point in time when the offsite easterly extension of Proctor Valley Road is aligned and
constructed, the easterly segment within the project boundary can be constructed using
the TDIF money that will be collected in lieu of the road improvements. As proposed,
there will be flexibility in the alignment of Proctor Valley Road to accommodate future
327HJ1
3/2712003
9
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 t -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PIAN
SCH #8909272 t
alignment considerations for the easterly extension of the road within the unincorporated
County area.
Air Quality
EIR 91-03 determined that the Rolling Hills Ranch project would contribute to both
short-term construction and cumulative local air quality impacts. The revised SPA Plan
would not result in any substantial difference in air emissions from what was assumed in
the impact analysis in the ErR because the same types of land uses and similar traffic
patterns would be maint"ained. Therefore, no new or increased level of air quality impacts
beyond those identified in EIR 91-03 would occur with implementation of the revised SPA
Plan.
Noise
The proposed project would not change any of the traffic assumptions used as the basis
for the noise analysis in the ErR. Therefore, the additional conservation and net loss of
three residential lots would not result in any new or increased level of noise impacts
beyond those identified in EIR 91-03.
Public Services and Utilities
Portions of the Rolling Hills Ranch have been removed from proposed development and
designated as part of the MSCP Preserve. Dedication of these additional lands as part of
the MSCP Preserve would not result in the elimination or relocation of existing utility
corridors, nor would it prohibit the siting of future utility corridors through these areas.
Future utility corridors are considered compatible uses within the Preserve, and are subject
to the Facilities Siting Criteria described in Section 6.3.3.4 of the Chula Vista Subarea
Plan.
The additional conservation occurring on the Rolling Hills Ranch would also not affect
public service facilities, or existing and future recreational facilities. None of these types of
facilities were previously identified within those areas, therefore, elimination or relocation
of public service facilities and recreational facilities as a result of the proposed
modifications would not occur.
3271-01
312712003
10
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR-9 t -03
SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PlANNING AREA PIAN
SCH #8909272 t
While the Chula Vista Subarea Plan requires the application of siting and design criteria
that may affect the specific alignment and location of future facilities within the Preserve,
public utilities, public service facilities and recreational facilities would not be eliminated
as a result of the proposed additional conservation. Therefore, no significant impact
related to the need for or provision of public services and utilities would result from the
proposed project modifications.
7.0 CONCLUSION
This document has identified all changed circumstances and potentially significant new
information since certification of ErR 91-03, and memorializes in detail the City's
reasoned conclusion that none of these changes create the conditions requiring the
preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental ErR pursuant to CEOA Guidelines, Sections
15162 and 15163.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEOA Guidelines and based upon the above
discussion, I hereby find that approval and implementation of the proposed project will
result in only minor technical changes or additions, which are necessary to make the Final
Supplemental ErR 91-03 for the project adequate under CEOA.
J;;~/ t?~1b'
Marilyn Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
05/0 ;y-
Date
REFERENCES
Chula Vista, City of. Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR-91-03). February 1992.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan. Rolling Hills Ranch Traffic Assessment. January 2003.
Pacific Soils Engineering, Ine. Revised Geotechnical Feasibility and Due Diligence Study, Rolling
Hills Ranch Project, Sub Area 3, Neighborhoods 9 through 12, in the City of Chula Vista,
California. September 2001.
3271-01
312712003
11
o
. 'I~ ft I t 1(, Jot ~ n f. 1.'1 ,: r i I;>J !~ "Ij T' I ~r r I" ,,/'
, :,(,111 H r Ij\ll~ f' 11.\ S:., l
I
ORRIC;K
I
<'uITL ,.:!Un
1\1S."\I'J,~..LL<,..r:\ '1nnl;""~:,,,
:,,/ ~~ 1 :;'-(,_~9.">()"'!)
1(1,\ :"'1 J.(,J:!.2IJ~1,?
WWW,OflRllK.' LJM
Ap<i] 23. 2003
Michael A. McAndre.....s
(213) 612.2449
rnmcandrews@o((ick,coo,
VIA FACSIMILE (619) ~09.5B59
Chamnan
Planning Cotrurussion
City of Chula Visla
,
276 Fourth AV'cmle
Chula Vista, Calif~rnia 91910
Re; The Step lien & Mary Birch Fourtdation, Inc.; Final MSCP Subarea Plan
Dear Mr. Chairmin:
,
This firm represents The Stephen & Mary Birch Foundation, Ine. As you know, the Foundati(,n
owns land within the City of Chub Vista which is affected by the Multiple Species ConV'eISatio'l:
Program, which is, the subject of Public Hearing PCM 95-017 and Public Hearing PCM 02-11 (,ri the
agenda of the Plac,ning Commission this evening. The Foundation and this fInn only received i
copies of the Com;mission's agenda and the Staff Rcport for the above agenda items today, and .
consequently have not had an oppottunity w review these documents. Accordingly, the FoundaTIon
requests that the Blanning Corrunission adjourn the referenced public hcarings without final action
on the related Actmn Items until the next scheduled meeting of the COlnm1ssion, so that the '
FoundaTIon and it" represcntatives may consider the Staff Repor< and the substance of the proposals
in advance of the Planning Corrunission's action.
Thank you for you,r consideration.
,
Very truly YO/7./
4 (/f/-
,
Michael A McAnqrews
MAM/jc
cc Ms. Mary Ladi~na (via facsimile 619/585-5698)
,
Apr-23-03
13:58
From-HEWITT O'NEil llP
+
T-713 P 002
HZ?
HEWITT & O'NEILLLP
ATIORNE.\S o\TLAW
"HlA M, COC~R."I.N
D1>AN DUN"N.[tANKlN
SANDRA A GALLE
WIl.LlAM l:, I-lALl.E
'\NDREW K. HARTZELL
HUGH I lEwln"
LAWRENCE] HILlON
JOHN D, HUDSON
WRl'l't-R, 'S DII\E.CT D1 AL: (1;149) 19x,0714
EMAIL. sJJ",rt;::cll(~~ h~w'\lul1t:.i\.":'(Jm
SnVEN B. IMHoor.
DENNIS D, O'NP.JL
JAY r: PALCHIROn
PACL A ROWE
WILL1AM L TWOM"E'r
JOHN r YEAGER
19900 MAtARTIIDR BOutEVARD, SUITE 1050
IRVINE, CALIFIIRNJA 92612
(949) 798,0500 . (9 ~9) 798-001 J (FAX)
EIv1ArL: coul'Iscl@IH:wirrO!\~jJ.C:Om
OrC01..'NSCL
A,'I'fY W LAKKII";
Apli123.200'
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
c/o Mary Ladiana
Environmental Projects Manager/Planning and Building Dept.
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Chula Visla MSCP Subarea Plan and Implementing Agreement
Dear ChaimH~n Hall and Members of the Commission.
Tllis firn1 repre,;ents NNP-Trimcu-k San Miguel Ranch, LLC, owners, planners and
developers of the San Miguel Ranch (SMR) mixed-use residential project. SMR and its
predecessors have worked diligently for many yecu-, with the City, the County of San Diego, the
U.S, Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Ca]lfoI11ia Department ofFish aDd Game, among
others, to help establish the San Diego-area Multipk Species Conservation Program and the City
ofChula Vista's MSCP Subar<:a Plan. These noteworthy specics and habiIat consetvation efforts
have resulted in more than 2,038 acres of the SMR property -- more than 78% of 0111' lands -
being dedicated for permanent wildlife conservation and management.
SMR supports the concept behind the MSCP and belIeves that the City has
developed a Subarea Plan which, if implemented, will provide substantial conservation benefits
to the region's wildlife, including the many rare and sensitive species \.ll1ique to this area of
California. WI:; also wish to acknowledge and commend the hard work of City Staff involved in
tbe Subarea Plall development process.
4/22/03 :;017-6
H&0:#6904 v J
Apr-13-03
13:58
From-HEWITT O'NEil llP
t
T-713 P 003/011 F-417
Planning Commission
April 23. 2003
Page 2
SMR submitted comments to the USFWS and City on Decembet 9, 2002
concenring the City Subarea Plan and the propo~,ed MSCP Implementing Agreement. Those
comments were aimed at improving the operation and long-term success of the Subarea Plan.
We have carefully reviewed the responses provided by the City and Wildlife Agencies on all the
comments raised by ourselve$ and others.
We write to request one clarification nom the. City and two modifications to the
Subarea Plan (specifically, the Implementing Agr"ement). Details regarding the importance of
these requests to the ultimate success of the MSCP and City Subarea Plan are included in our
earlier comment letter of December 9. 2002 (,'ttached). We strongly urge the Planning
Commission to rcquest that the City provide this clarification and adopt these two modifications,
which are in the best interests of the conservation program and which would correct a major
imbalance in the rights of the Program's major contributing stakeholders to cnsure the proper
implementation of the Program.
1. The City should specifically identify which State and local laws the City
refers to as cu....ently protecting landowners and Third Party Beneticiaries against further
requests for biological mitigation in the future under the Subarea Plan.
In responding to our December request that landowners and Third Party
Beneficiaries of the MSCP be given the same protection against increased biological mitigation
demands that the City is obtaining for itself, the City stated that existing State and local laws
already exist to provide an equivalent level of prolection to such persons. (See City Response to
Comments 4a, 40, and 4r). Unfortunately, the City does not identify these laws. We n:spectfully
request that the City specifi,:ally identify the laws 10 which it is referring so landowners may
evaluate the level of protection bemg offered by the City. We request that we be provided with
this information within the next 7 days.
2. The City should provide Third Party Beneficiaries under thc Subarea Plan
with the explicit right to bring a lawsuit for' iolations of the MSCP program that effect
their interests_
TIle MSCP and Subarea Plan w<.:re largely forged out of a scientific and
consensus-building process among the environmental community, local government, the State
and federal wildlife agencies and the landowner/development comlmmity. The law already
recognizes and provides the right of the environmental community to bring legal challenges to
the MSCP and the implementation of the program. The Wildlife Agencies and City are
provided similar rights under the MSCP, yet the Implementing Agreement explicitly purports to
deny Third Party Beneficiaries these same rights. Thus, the Implementing Agreemem, as
currently drafted, allows all who panicipated in creating d1e MSCP d1<': right to seek the redress
of grievances in a court of law except the landowners who contributed so much to this program.
The Implemen.ting Agreement therefore inappropriately discriminates against Third Party
Beneficiary landowners. These persons should not be denied the same right enjoyed by the City,
the Wildlife Agencies and the biocentrists. We respectfully request that the IA be modified to
provide landowners with eqtJaI rights in this regard.
4/22/03 5017-6
H&0:rl6904 vi
Apr-13-03
13:59
From-HEWITT O'NEil llP
+
T-713 P 004/011 F-417
Planning CommissIOn
April 23, 2003
Page 3
3. The City should provide landownrrs and Third Party Beneticiaries with the
explicit right to intervene if others bring litigation challenging the MSCP or City Subarea
Plan.
At a minimum, landowners and Third Party Beneficiaries, who worked so hard to
help create the MSCP, should not be excluded Jrom helping to def~nd it if others initiate
litigation to undermine the conservation program. Providing landowners and Third Party
Beneficiaries with an explicit right to intervene in existing litigation will not provide any
opportunities for increased litigation and may well help to discourage any future litigation aimed
at undermining the program The active participation oflandowners in the City was essential to
the development of the Subarea Plan To allow th", possibility that these landowners might be
the only stakeholder excluded from the table in the ~vem of litigation against the program would
be patently unfair. We request that the City COlTect this deficiency to avoid this pOlential
ini ustice.
We respectfully ask that the Plarming Commission support these three requests.
Thank you for you thoughtful consid,:ration of the above.
~:l.~~
Andrew K. Hartzell
AKH/pm
Enclosure
cc: Ann Moore, City Attorney (via fax and US mail)
Robert Leiter, City ofChula Vista (via fax and 1 Smail)
Steve Thompson, Director, USFWS CallNevada Operations Office (via U.S. mail certified)
The Honorable H. Craig Manson, United Stares Department of the Interior (via U.S, mail,
certified)
4n:/103 50)7,6
H&O:#G904 v1
Apr-23-03 13 :59
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
+
T-/13 P 005/022 F-42/
HEWITT & 0 'NEIL LLP
A TTORNE'VS A r LAW
TRIA M. COCHRAN
DEAN DUNN~R..\NKIN
SANDRA A GAllI::
WILL.JAM E. HALLE
ANDREW K.- HAR1ZELL
HUGH HEWITT
LAWRENCoJ. HILTON
JOHN D. HUDSON
19900 M^cARTHURBOULFVARD, SUITE ]050
IRVINE. CALJFORNlA 9:1612
(949) 798-<)500 . (949) 798-<)511 (PAX)
EMAIL: coW\se.\@l1~ttcn!;\I.~om
STEVE>< B. IMIIOOF
DENNIS D. O'NEIL
JAyF PAlCHIKOFF
r AUL A. ROWE
WILLIAM L. TwOM~Y
Jom.' P. YEAGER
WRITER'S DIRECTDlAL (949) 79'.0714
OF COUNSEl.
AM" W. I.AJu<IN
December 9.2002
VIA MESSENGER AND FAX
Mr. Jim Bartel
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Cormnents on the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and Implementing
Agreement
Dear Mr. Bartel:
This fmn represents NNP- Trimark S;m Miguel R=ch, LLC, owners, planners and
developers of the San Miguel R=ch (SMR) mixed use residential project in the City ofChula
Vista. SMR has worked with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), County of San Diego and
City of Chula Vista (City) for more than eight years in designing the San Diego-area Multiple
Species Conservation Program - both in the County and in the City of Chula Vista. Such
cooperative efforts for permanent species and habitat conservation have resulted in more than
2,038 acres of the SMR - more than 78% of the property - being permanently protected and
managed for wildlife conservation.
SMR is pleased to see that the City and FWS have reached the final stages in the
development of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. We recognize and applaud the tremendous efforts
that City staff, as well as the wildlife agencies, have made to develop this plan to the point where
it soon can become a reality. SMR strongly supports the MSCP and believes that the City's
Subarea Plan will be able to provide substantial species conservation. We wish to continue OUT
strong support for a Subarea Plan covering Chula Vista. However, SMR cannot support the
Subarea Plan and Implementing Agreement in their current form!
Apr-13-03 13:59 From-HEWITT O'NEil llP
Mr. Jim Bartel
December 9, 2002
Page 2
+
T-713 P 006/012 F-427
The Subarea Plan -- in particular, the Implementing Agreement (IA) -- curreatly
falls short of providing the minimmn uecessary levd of take authorization assurances for SMR,
other Tbird Party Beneficiaries, and other Covered Projects. Ullless these deficiencies are
corrected, the Subarea Plan cannot provide the mirumally necessary assurances to SMR that it
wiJl be able to coroplete its development of the San Miguel Ranch. Other landowners in the City
would be similarly prevented from obtaining a basic level of certainty as to the extent of their
biological mitigation obligatioas during the development of their projects.
Before SMR can support adoption of the Subarea Plan and Implementing
Agreement, several corrections to the plan and IA need to be made. The necessary corrections to
the Subarea Plan and IA are relatively few in number - although extremely important. Thus,
SMR hopes that the FWS and City will carefully consider the attached comments and modify the
Subarea Plan and IA to adequgtely address the concc:rns identified herein. To assist with
completion and correction of the Subarea Plan and IA without significant delay, we have
eaclosed our suggestions for conecting the identified deficiencies.
Should you have any questious regarding the following or wish to discuss these
matters further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerdy,
. ~~~g
AKBIsml
Encls.
cc: Robert Leiter, City ofChula Vista
Steve Thompson, Director, FWS Cal./Nevada Operations Offic
The Honorable H. Craig Manson
David P. Smith
Stephen Hester
~J785 vI
Apr-23-03 13:59 From-HEWITT O'NEil llP
Me. Jim Bartel
December 9,2002
Page 3
+
T-II! P 001/021 F-411
bee: Laurie Madigan
Julie MacDonald
Ann Moore
Apr-13-03 13:59
From-HEWITT O'NEil llP
+
T-713 P 008/011 F-417
SECTION I. COMMENTS ON CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN
The necessary modifications to the Subarea Plan, briefly identified below, are discussed
in this Section 1. For each of the issues requiring correction, we have provided suggested
modifications to Un.prove the Subarea Plan and satisfY the concern. In many cases, these issues
also require modification to the Implementing AgreeIrif:Dt (LA). Necessary modifications to the
IA are discussed in Section II
· The Subarea Plan must provide stronger assurances for Third Party Beneficiaries.
· The Subarea Plan must provide Incidental Take Authority for plant species, and
thus be consistent with the MSCP Subregional Plan and the City of San Diego and
County of San Diego subarea plans.
· The future listing of an unknown nOD-covered species must not result
automatically in changes to the biological mitigation requirements of the Subarea
Plan in ways that are unknown today.
· The Subarea Plan must provide greater specificity as to "Chula Vista Covered
Species" and "Species Adequately Conserved" and the effect on species coverage
should specific other subarea plans become inoperable.
· The description of incidental take for San Miguel Ranch must be clanfied and
must not be reduced from that provided by the MSCP Annexation Agreement.
. The Subarea Plan must be more clear regarding the Covered Projects' obligations
for management activities.
L The Needfor Stronger Assurances Protecting Third Party Beneficiaries
Page 5-30, Section 5.7, Paragraph 2; Page 5-32, Second full paragraph; and Page 5-44,
Section 5.8.6.
The last sentence of all three paragraphs must be modified to require the need for the
Third Party Beneficiary's consent for any inc.eased mitigation/conservation measures affecting
1'l1ITd Party Beneficiaries.
Page 5-31; Section 5.7.3.
This paragraph should also provide that Third Party Beneficiaries are protected in the
same manne. and degI'ee as is the City.
#3661 v3
I
Apr-23-03 13:59
From-HEWITT O'NEil llP
+
T-713 P 009/022 F-427
2. The Future Listing of a Non-Cuvered Species in this Subarea Plan is Not Properly
Classified as a Changed Circumstance
Pages 5-33 and 5-43.
The listing of an unknown Non-Covered Species is not properly characterized as a
Changed Circumstance under the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. In some instances the future listing
of a species whose conservation wa:; not provided for in the MSCP to a level sufficient to grant
incidental take authority pursuant to Section lO(a)(l)(B) can be viewed as a Changed
Circumstance. 63 Fed. Reg. 8859 (Feb. 23, 1998) (USFWS discussion of its Habitat
Conservation Plan Assurances ('No Surprises') Rule). However, certain conditions must exist
for such an event to qualify as a Changed Circumstance. Under the regulation, the listing of a
Non-Covered Species would constitute a "Changed Circumstance" where the City and USFWS
recognized that one or more specifically identified unlisted species: (1) occupied portions of the
Chula Vista Subarea Plan Area, (2) was /were likely to be listed as "threatened" or "endangered"
at some time during the life of the pennit, and (3) the City nevertheless chose not to provide
sufficiently for this/these species' conservation in the Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
A future listing of a Non-Covered Species can constitute a "Changed Circumstance"
requiring some a priori agreed-to response by the City only when the above three conditions are
met, because the City, USFWS and the Chula Vista Subarea Plan can only identify a meaningful
set of responses and additional conservation measures to address this change, and incorporate
such in the HCP, when they know/understand the biological and conservation needs of the
particular species at issue. In such an instance, the change in circumstance can be "plauned for
in the conservation plan," and the plan can "describe the modifications in the project or activity
that will be implemented ifthese circumstances arise." 63 Fed. Reg_ at 8868. When the above
three conditions are not met, the appropriate response for the City to take on a generic, a priori
basis, is to recognize that its Subarea Plan and Section 10(a) Permit do not authorize incidental
take of such species and to acknowledge that it wiUnot "take" any members of such species
unless and until it has obtained federal authorization to do so. Under such a circumstance, and
consistent with the USFWS' s own regulations, the Subarea Plan cannot provide for more than
this, as no specific modifications in the functioning of the Subarea Plan can be identified in
advance without knowing the species at issue and its particular biological and conservation
needs.
In addition. the listing of a Non-Covered Species does not inherently effect the plan's
protection of any of the Covered Species, a characteristic which differentiates the list.iJJ.g ofa
Non-Covered Species from other, legitimate categories of "Changed Circumstances."
If the regulation had intended to classify any listing of a Non-Covered Species as a
Changed Circumstance, the regulation would have incorporated the proactive federal control
language being proposed in this Subarea Plan as standard required language in all RCP !As.
However, the regulation did no such thing.
Furthermore, the Subarea Plan's proposal to p;rovide FWS with potentially unlimited
proactive authority to controlland use within Chula Vista should it decide to list a non-covered
species directly undermines the central purpose behind the No Surprises Rule, which is that
#3661 v3
2
Apr-23-03 14:00
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
+
T-713 P 010/022 F-427
"non-Federal property owners should be provided economic and regulatory certainty regarding
the overall cost of species conservation and mitigation. . .. Specifically, permittees, who are
properly implementing their HCP win not be required to provide additional conservation and
mitigation measures involving the commitment of additional land, water or financial
compensation or addition restrictions on the use ofland, water or other natural resources without
their consent." 63 Fed. Reg. 35242,25242-35243.
The principal behind the "Changed Circumslances"provision is that this category of
events can be plaIlI1ed for in advance, and the HCP developers can put in the plan specific
measures that will beimplemented to respond to the event. Thus, those affected by the HCP will
know in advance how the HCP program will be modified if such Changed Circumstance occurs.
However, no certainly regarding specific mearsure to be taken I nthe event of the listiIlg of an
tmknown non-covered species can be identified - and none are identified in the Subarea Plan.
We recognize that the Subarea plan calls for the City, FWS and CDFG to "jointly identifY
measures that the City will follow to avoid take, jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical
habItat" of a non-covered species. However, under the Subarea Plan. the Wildlife Agencies
would, in many cases, be able to effectively coerce the City into agreeing to a set of proactive
land use mitigation measures which exceed the requrrements of the ESA. As there is no legal or
statutory authority requiring the Wildlife Agencies to make the City susceptible to this extra
federal land use control, we respectfully request that tbe Wildlife Agencies not attempt to obtain
such unlimited and \1I1checked authority, but rather simply enforce the existing ESA, CESA and
NCCP regulations in the event of a non-covered species listing and allow the City to freely
choose whether to apply for incidental take authority for this newly listed species.
Neither the City nor the FWS h::c;; identified any particular species occupying a portion of
the Subarea Plan area which is likely to become listed within the life of the permit but for which
take authorization is not being applied for under the City's pennit application. Accordingly, the
Subarea Plan has not identified any non-listed species whose future listing could qualifY as a
Changed Circwnstance.
The steps to be undertaken by the City as the result of the listing of a Non-Covered
Species are mmeco:;ssary and go beyond the requirements of the ESA. The language proposed in
Section 5.8.5 could result in the Wildlife Agencies unfairly leveraging the City and landowners
within the City to agree to new Jand use restrictions and mitigation obligations which are beyond
the existing requirements of the ESA. Nothing in Section 5.8.5 prevents this potential problem.
Since the City and FWS are unable to identify any non-covered species which is likely to be
listed during the life of the penn it, the simple response for such a listing should merely be to note
that the City's Section 10(a) permit and NCCP Autborization will not apply to that species.
Thus. the City and landowners in the City will need to comply with the provisions of the ESA_
The USFWS should have to identifY a list of possible uncovered species which it believes
may likely be listed in next 50 years, and then the City and FWS can identi;()r specific changes in
the Subarea Pl<l!1 now that they may invoke in the future if the species is listed. OthelWise, the
FWS should simply note that the City will not have any legal authority to "take" the species until
specific authorization to do so is obtained. A listing of new uncovered species shouldn't be seen
tJ'3661 v3
3
Apr-23-03 14:00
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
+
T-7l3 P 011/022 F-427
to federalize the entire area within the Subarea Plan Just becau:;e the applicant has a Section
lO(a) permit from Service
3. "Chula Vista Covered Species" and "Speciey Adequately Conserved. "
Page 1-5 - Chula Vista Covered Species.
The City's definition of "Chula Vista Covered Species" needs to provide a specific list of
these species. Such a list would greatly alleviate fuhcre uncertainty as to whether Take
Authorization is being provided to a particular species. This approach is consistent with the City
of San Diego and County of San Diego's Subarea Plans.
Page 1-1 I - Species Adeauately Conserved.
It is not clear from this definition whether the full suite of species meeting this defurition
are being listed in Table 4-1, or whether the spec;ies qualifying for this definition are just a subset
of the larger group in Table 4-1, which subset is vaguely defined as "the species in the table for
which the Chula Vista Subarea Plan provides substantial conservation... .n If the latter, the
Subarea Plan creates an illusory definition. The Subarea Plan should provide a concrete,
objective list for "Species Adequately Conserved," "Covered Species," and "Chula Vista
Covered Species." Otherwise, individuals trying to understand the MSCP agreements and the
program's operation in the City will be subjected to great uncertainty and confusion. If the City
intended to provide a specific concrete list of these species in Table 4-1, then the definition
should be reworded to state:
"Those species listed in Table 4-1 of this Subarea Plan" ^The
Chula Vista Subarea Plan provides substantial conservation for
these species. and the City shall receive Take Authorization
regardless ... . "
Page 4-6; Table 4-3.
The Subarea Plan needs to provide a list of the entire set of species for which the City is
b.:ing granted incidental take (including those species that are not expected to occur withm the
City). This number of species should not be lower than the number of species authorized for
incidental take under the County of San Diego's Sublcrea Plan and IA. The Chula Vista Subarea
Plan is confusing on this issue.
Page 1-6.
"Covered Species" should be defmed concretely, with reference to a list of specific
species so that the reader can easily understand whicb specific species are "Covered Species." It
should be made clear in this definition that all "Covered Species" of the larger, regional MSCP
Plan and the Qillno checkerspot butterfly are Chula Vista Covered Species under the Chula Vista
Subarea Plan.
#3661 v3
4
Apr-13-03 14:00
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
+
T-TI3 P 011/011 F-41T
Page 4-20; Sectiou 4.2.
The Subarea Plan needs to be specific as to which particular subarea plans within the
larger Subregioual MSCP must be in effect to provide the City of Chula Vista, its Third party
Beneficiaries, Covered Projects, etc. with incidental take authority for which particular species.
Each Chula Vista Covered Spedes should be listed in one column, and next to each species'
name should be listed the other subarea plans which must be in effect in order for the City to
have incidental take authority for it.
4. Incidental Take for Plant Species
Page 1-10 - PlaItt Species.
The Chula Vista Subarea Plan is proposing to not issue federal incidental take authority
for plant species, despite the fact that sucb take authority was provided to the City and County of
San Diego in their subarea plans and lAs, was anticipated to be provided to all Participating
Local Jurisdictions I1I1der the MSCP Subregional Plan, and despite the fact that such take
authority may be necessary duriug the 50-year life of the penuit.
Contrary to the statements in the Subarea Platl, in some cases the take of federally-listed
plants is prohibited, and a Section ID(a) permit may be necessary for such incidental take. 16
U-S.c. Section 1538(a). The Chula Vista Subarea PJan (CVSP) should provide th,at to the extent
!hat the take of covered plants requires a federal I 0(<1) permit under the particular circumstances
of the Covered Activity, the City's federal ipcidental take permit (ITP) provides such incidental
take authorization. Although ip maI1Y cases under currently existing federa1law the take of
federally-listed plants iB not prohibited, the fact remains that (1) such take may be prohibited in
some circumstances, and (2) the ESA maybe modified during the 50-year period of the permit to
increase the circumstaoces under which such incidental take authority may be required under
Section lO(a).
5. Description of Incidental Take for San Miguel Ranch
SectiolJ. 2.1.9 (first bullet item) and Sectiop 3.1 A (first bullet item).
The incidental take authorization being provided SMR under the MSCP Annexation
Agreement is take authorization for those species on the list of"Covered Species Subject to
Incidental Take" under the COUI\ty of San Diego's Implementing Agreement (IA) wi!h the
Wildlife Agencies, as well as take authorization for any additional species for which take is
authorized under the City of Chula Vista's lA/ITP. The City Subarea Plan should not reduce the
scope of take autborization already given to SMR under \he County's IA, as SMR. is a Third
Party Beneficiary. This point should be made clear i.ll!he Chula Vista Subarea Plan, aod the
reference to those species authorized for incidental take on SMR should refer to the "Covered
Species Subject to Incidental Take" defined in the County lA and !he "Chula Vista Covered
Species." If there is intended to be any difference in these lists (except for the added take
authority for the Quino checkerspot butterfly under the City ITP), the City should infonu SMR
immediately as to those species which the City is proposing to eliminate ftom SMR's current
incidental take authority.
#366] v3
5
Apr-23-03 14:00
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
+
T-713 P 013/022 F-427
The San Miguel Ranch (SMR) project has coverage for 85 species under the MSCP
Annexation Agreement and County Subarea Plan. It would be wholly inappropriate and unfair
for the City to remove the federal incidental take authority which SMR currently has for
approximately 46 plants under the County's ITP and MSCP Annexation Agreement, especially
where SMR has contributed substantially more to the MSCP program than it was required to do
under the COUIJty Subarea Plan. Is the FWS prepared now to place in writing a guarantee to
SMR that for the next 50 years it will not claim that SMR needs an incidental take permit for one
or more of the 46 covered plant species, regardless 0 f any change in federal law?
6. CV\lered Projects' Obligations for Management Activities Under Table 3-5
SectIon 4.1.
The Subarea Plan is unclear regarding the extent to which Covered Projects must provide
any of the general management requirements for these species if such requirements have not
othetwise been imposed on these approved projects. The Subarea Plan should be clarified to
note that these "Relevant Management Requirements" and the requirements in the MSCP
Subregional Plan Table 3-5 do not apply for Covered Projects unless such management
requirements have already individually and specifically been imposed on such Covered Projects
apart from the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. This seems to be the intent of the statements at page 5-
3, but such clarification should be provided at Section 4.1.
7. Critical Habitat
Page 5-49.
Since the Subarea Plan will provide the pecessary special management copsiderations for
the gnatcatcher, the Quipo checkerspot butterfly and Otay taIplant within the Chula Vista
Subarea, the FWS should announce its intention to remove the critical habitat designation for
those species within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan concurrent with the approval
ofllie Subarea Plan under Section 10(a)(1)(B)_
Minor Items
Page 3-5. The final bullet point on this page should reference the "SDNWR" (SaD Diego
National Wildlife Refuge), as opposed to simply the -'NWR."
Page 2-6, Section 2.1.9, Paragraph 2. Consistent with the abbreviations at the front of this
document, the abbreviation for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge should be "SDNWR.,"
not'~."
Section 3.1.4 (fourth bullet)_ Reference should be made to "SDNWR," instead of"NWR."
Section 4.1, Paragraph I. The secopd sentence of this paragraph needs clarification. Perhaps the
final two words of the sentence ("in the'') simply need to be removed.
#3661 v3
6
Apr-23-03 14:01
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
+
T-713 P 014/022 F-427
SECTION II. DRAFf IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
(FOR CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN)
The necessary modifications to the Subarea }'lan Implementing Agreement (lA), briefly
identified below, are discussed in this Section n. For each of the issues requiring conection, we
have provided suggested modifications to improve the IA and satisfY the concern. Several minor
corrections to the IA have also been noted at the end of Section n.
· The rights and assurances extended tQ Third Party Beneficiaries and Covered
Projects must not be diluted, as currently proposed. Additionally, these
assurances need to be real, and not an illusion. Therefore, the IA needs to provide
Third Party Beneficiaries with the right to bring suit for violations of the IA and
to intervene if others bring suit to challenge the Subarea Plan..
. The IA must provide Incidental Take Authority for plant species.
· The future listing of an unknown non..covered species must not result
automatically in changes to the biological mitigation requirements of the Subarea
pIan in ways that are unknown today_
· The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protections must extend to all birds which are
Chula Vista Covered Species, not just those listed under the ESA.
· The protections against future disruptions to the plan as a result of future critical
habitat designations must be strengthened.
· The lA needs clarity in identifying "Chula Vista Covered Species" and
"Sufficiently Conserved Species."
1. Third Parry Beneficiaries - Necessary Rights and Assurances
In the Service's final rule adopting the "No Surprises" Rule, the FWS stated its belief that
the "No Surprises" assurances should be available to Third party Beneficiary landowners and
developers who participate through a larger regional planning process such as the Chula Vista
Subarea PIau and MSCP Subregional Plan. 63 Fed. Reg. 8859, 8865. However, under the
current language of the draft IA, the FWS is proposing less assurances to Third Party
Beneficiaries and Covered Projects than it is proposing to give to the City. We believe that there
is no legal or regulatory justification for giving Third Party Beneficiaries and Covered Projects
diluted assurances, and we respectfully request that the assurances be modified to con-ect this
:!it)o(:Jl v3
7
Apr-Z3-03 14:01
from-HEWITT O'NEil llP
+
T-713 P 015/022 f-4Z7
City. Perhaps this was simply an oversight, since tI1e CDFG has agreed to this assurance for
TIllrd Party Beneficiaries in S",ction 9.2(a)(2).
Unforeseen Circumstances (Section 9.2(a)(3)).
The fmal sentence of this subsection should require not only llie COnsent of the City, but
also the consent of Third Party Beneficiaries if such "additional conservation and mitigation
measures" would involve the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or
additional restrictions on the use ofland, water or other natural resources on the part of Third
Parry Beneficiaries. Bolli the City and County of San Diego's IAs provide this assurance to
TIlird Party Beneficiaries, and the City should insisI that its IA does the same.
Degree of Assurance to Third Party Beneficiaries that Mitigation Obligations will not be
Changed (Section 17.I(c)).
The City and FWS have inappropriately diluted the assurances provided to Third Party
Beneficiaries by insertion of the final sentence to this p<U'agraph (a limitation, we note, which
does not exist for t.he City or County of San Diego Subarea Plans or IAs).
Such a senteJJce demonstrates another comp~l!jng reason why Third Party Beneficiaries
must be provided with the right to bring claims for specific performance, injunctive relief Or
declaratory relief against the Wildlife Agencies or City for 3Uy breaches of llie IA. If the
Wildlife Agencies and City are going to reserve the right to unilaterally impose additional -
potentially significant ~ mitigation burdens on Third Party Beneficiaries after they have relied on
a different set of mitigation obligations, t.hen TIrird Party Beneficiaries must be able to provide a
check on this reserved, unilateral authority via the CQurts.
Revocation., Tennination. or Suspension ofIncidental Take AuthoritX (Section 17.2).
Again, the last phrase of the final sentence ("unless USFWS or CDFG determines that
continuing to authorize take by Third Party Beneficiaries would likely result injeopardy to a
listed species") should be removed.
The Wildlife Agencies are inappropriately viewing their grant ofinciden.tal take authority
to Third Party Beneficiaries via the issuance of the take permits to the City as some sort of
ongoing and continuous action - as opposed to a discrete act of authorization. Neither the law
nor applicable judicial decisions require such a view The decision to authorize incidental take
for a particular project (or "Covered Activity") is a discrete event and decision.. See, e.g.,
Environmental Protection Informalion Center v. Simpson Timber Company, 255 F. 3d 1073 (9th
Cir. 2001).
The attempted reserved right of the Wildlife Agencies to revoke or suspend a TIrird Party
Beneficiary's take authorization is not subjected to any set of review procedures by an
mdependent and impartial authority. Moreover, the standard proposed for revocation of the take
authority is very low; the standard does not use the 'j eopardize the continued existence of the
species" standard found in ESA Section 7, but rather uses a vague and arbitrary "jeopardy to the
species" standard which has no parallels in the ESA or NCC? Act.
#J661 v3
8
Apr-23-03 14:01
from-HEWITT O'NEil llP
+
T-713 P 016/021 f-417
The attempted reserved right of the Wildlife Agencies to revoke or suspend a Third Party
Beneficiary's take authorization is not subjected to any set of review procedures by an
independent and impartial authority. Moreover, the standard proposed for revocation of the take
authority is very low; the standard does not use the 'jeopardize the continued existence of the
species" standard found in ESA Section 7, but rather uses a vague and arbitrary "jeopardy to the
species" standard which has no parallels in the ESA or NCCP Act
This extra reserved right of revocation is inappropriate, not required by law and
unnecessarily undermines the intent behind the "No Surprises" regulation. Furthermore, this
right was not reserved to the Wildlife Agencies or the local jurisdiction in either the City or
County of San Diego lAs. It should be eliminated from the IA.
Moreover, this provision provides yet anothc:r example of why Third Party Beneficiaries
must be provided with the acknowledged right under the IA to bring a legal claim against FWS,
CDFG or the City for any violations of the lA.
Third P;rrty Beneficiary Right to Sue DDon a Violation of Subarea Plan or IA and Right to
Intervene in Litigation Challenl..>ing the MSCP (Section 17.4).
This section must be changed to clearly provide Tlilid party Beneficiaries with the
explicit right to bring suit against the FWS, CDFG, and City for specific perfounance, injunctive
relief and declaratory relief ifFWS, CDFG, or City are violating the terms of the IA, the MSCP
Subregional Plan or the Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
The ongoing litigation brought by the Center for Biological Diversity against the FWS
and City of San Diego to undermine the San Diego MSCP is but one example of why the IA
must be changed. It is inappropriate for the Wildlife Agencies and City, knowing that various
so-called environmental interests have the ability to bring suit against them relating to the
Subarea Plan, to attempt to preclude Third Party Beneficiaries who have contributed so much
land and money to the MSCP program - from similarly looking to the courts should the FWS,
CDFG or City violate the terms of the IA.
Moreover, the Service's final rule promulgating the "No Surprises" assurances
specifically notes that Third party Beneficiaries should receive the same degree of assurances as
that ofthe direct local jurisdiction permit holder, 63 Fed. Reg. 8859, 8865. Such level of
protection can only be given Tlilid Party Beneficiaries if they have all actual right to bold the
Wildlife Agencies and City accountable for the assurances that they are purportedly being
provided.
Furthermore, given the various rights which me Wildlife Agencies and/or City are trying
to reserve through the IA to modify, delay, suspend or revoke the take authorizations to Third
Patty Beneficiaries, Third Patty Beneficiaries will have no recourse against actions which
improperly administer or revise the MSCP regulatory program, a program which they have done
so much to help create and the reliance upon which is so important to their continued existence.
Finally, should one or more entities challenge the MSCP Subregional Plan or Chula Vista
Subarea Plan or IA in court, Third Party Beneficiaries must be given the explicit right in the lA
to intervene in the litigation. Not only is such a right appropriate for public policy reasons (i e.,
#3661 v3
9
Apr-23-03 14:01
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
+
T-713 P 017/022 F-427
why should some non-Party organizations (such as environmental advocates) who helped form
the MSCP be allowed to initiate litigation while others (such as landowners) would be denied the
right to even intervene if litigation was brought by others), but such a right has now been firmly
recognized by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v.
Berg, 268 F.3d. 810 (9th Cir. 2001).
Third Party Beneficiaries and Covered Projects (if not landowners within the City in
general) need to have the explicit right to intervene in any lawsuit filed against the MSCP
Subregional Plan, the City of Chula Vista Subarea p Lan, or any other integral document to the
MSCP Subregional Plan or Chula Vista Subarea Plan, such as the lA. Recent litigation against
the MSCP has uncontrovertibly demonstrated the essential need for the lA to recognize this
right.
SMR requests that the LA. be modified at Section 17.4 to add the following:
"The Parties agree and acknowledge that 111ird Party Beneficiaries and owners of
undeveloped land within the City have a significant and independent interest in maintaimng the
validity and effectiveness of the Permit and Take Authorizations issued to City and that the
interests of those Third Party Beneficiaries and landowners would not be adequately protected
or represented in the eve1!t of a judicial challenge seeking to invalidate or suspend. in whole or
ill part, the Pemlit, Take Awhorization, HCP, EIR/EIS, MSCP Subregional Plan, Chula Vista
Subarea Plan or the supporting documentation unless such Third Party Beneficiaries and
landowners a7'e able to intervene to parricipate in such litigation. Therefore the Parties
recognize that such Third Part)' Beneficiaries and landowners should be entitled to intervene
and participate as independent parties in any such litigation. "
Critical Habitat Protections for Third PartY Benefici~ (Section 9.13).
The protections regarding future critical habi tat designations should extend equally to
Third Party Beneficiaries and Covered Projects, as well as the City. The provisions should be
modified to clearly accomplish this. As currently worded, the City is allowed to consent
unilaterally to the imposition by the Wildlife Agenci es of additional mitigation obligations on
Third Party Beneficiaries and Covered Projects. Accordingly, the COllsent ofporentially
affected Third Party Beneficiaries or Covered Projects, as applicable, should be required in the
final sentence oftrus paragraph.
As currently worded, the City has elected to anow itself the power to impose additional
mitigation (such as land donations, land use restrictions or conservation dollars) beyond those
already established by the Subarea Plan in the event the FWS designates ctitical habitat for a
species within the Chula Vista Subarea. Exposing Third Party Beneficiaries and Covered
Projects to the uncertainty of potential additional biological mitigation is improper - especially
in light of the fact that the City negotiated such protection for itself. Neither the City of San
Diego nor County of San Diego Implementing Agreements exposed Third Party Beneficiaries
and Covered Projects this way. Thus, cum:ntly San Miguel Ranch has this protection under its
MSCP Annexation Agreement. It would be improper for the FWS or City to attempt to dilute
the existing regulatory protections provided to SMR under the MSCP Annexation Agreement
through the adoption or approval of a Subarea Plan that is less protective of SMR's rights.
#3661 v3
10
Apr-23-03 14:01
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
T
T-713 P 018/022 F-427
On-Set of Third party Beneficiary Status (Section [7.1(A)) .
It is inappropriate to delay Third Party Beneficiary status until completion of a Section 7
consultation. Neither ESA nor any other law requires this, and allowing such a delay in Third
party Beneficiary status removes critical certainty to landowners and developers that they will
not be subject to duplicative mitigation for the same biological impacts from a particular land use
or project.
The City and FWS should both provide a soJid, credible legal explanation of why Third
Party Beneficiary status must be delayed. Absent such a credible explanation - and we believe
none exists - the City and FWS should remove the 1ollowing phrase from Paragraph A:
"provided [hat within [sic) regard to projects with a federal nexus that are required to undergo
consulrarion under Section 7 of the ESA, Third PartY Beneficiary Status shall not attach until the
Section 7 consultation is also completed."
2. Incidental Take Authority for Plant Specie:!
Recital 1.4. The recital is incorrect with respect to its characterization of the prohibition
on the take of plant species under the ESA [See Comment No.4 in Section J, above.] In some
cases Section 9 of the ESA does make it a federal violation to take listed plants. Therefore the
lA should be revised to provide authorization under the IA and the ITP for incidental take of
covered plant species, to the extent such authorization is required under the ESA Moreover, the
fact that the ESA could well be modified during the 50-year life of tile Chula Vista ITP to require
a Section 10(a) permit for the take of plant species provides another reason why the IA and ITP
should provide now for such incidental take authority. Since the City Subarea Plan (as well as
the City of San Diego and County of San Diego subarea plans) satisfies the IO(a)(l)(b) permit
issuance criteria for these plant species, the pennit sl10uld provide for such take authorization -
to the extent such authority may be required (now, or in the future).
Section 2.21 -Incidental Take.
Again, tile IA inappropriately limits incidental take authorization to animals and not
plants. The IA is incorrect to suggest that there will not be instances or circumstances during the
50-year life of the permit in which federal incidental take authorization for plants will be
necessary. The City should c1e:.rly redraft the IA to make it clear that incidental take authority is
given now for plants, to the extent that such authority may be necessary under the ESA.
A similar change to provide incidental take authority for plant species should be made at
Section 2.38, "Section IO(a)(I)(B) Pennit
3. Future Listings of Non-Covered Species and City Obligations
Section 9.3(c)(2)(e). The IA and Subarea Plan inappropriately require the City to become
tile loca] enforcer of the Wildlife Agencies' essentially unchecked interpretation of the ESA and
CESA in the event of the Agencies' listing of a Non-Covered Species. The City and the FWS
staff are misreading the FWS regulation on "Changed Circumstances." The regulallon does not
require the measures set forth in Section 9.3(c)(2)(e) and Subarea Plan Section 5.8.5. The
regullLtion does not require the City to slinply follow the instructions ofFWS staff as to land use
#3661 v3
11
Apr-23-03 14:02
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
+
T-713 P 019/022 F-427
activities (oJ: "Covered Activities") within the City of Chula Vista Subarea. [See Comment
No.2 in Section I, above for a more in-depth discmssion.]
The Wildlife Agencies and the City endanger the proper and reliable functioning of the
Subarea Plan and seriously we!lken the certainty for landowners in Chula Vista who wish to rely
on the Subarea Plan by unnecessarily establishing art unknown set of "no take/no adverse
modification/no jeopardy" measures. The Changed CirC1.Ullstances regulation does not require
anytlUng more than what the City and County of San Diego agreed to on this issue in their
respective IAs. The "No Surprises" regulation (63 Fed. Reg. 8859) does not require the language
or approach pJ:oposed in Section 9.3(c)(2)(e) of the draft IA.
The second sentence of paragraph (e) should be replaced with the following sentence:
"Upon the listing of a non-covered species and until such non-covered species is added to the
list of Chula lIista Covered Species and, if appropriate, to the list of Species Adequately
Conserved, the Take of such species will be governed by applicable state and federal law. "
This is all that the law requires, unless the Wildlife Agencies and City have identified specific
Non-Covered speCIes which are likely to be (or maybe) listed and have provided specific
response measures in the Subarea Plan tailored to the individual conservation needs of those
species during the period between their listing and any t!lke authorization for such species issued
to the City.
Section 2.7 - Changed Circ1.Ullstances.
Tbe listing of a Non-Covered Species which the parties did not anticipate could be listed
during the life of the ITP (and hence, for which the parties could not develop planned responses
for in the MSCP in the event of the subsequent listing) is not properly characterized as a
"Changed CiJ:curnstance" and should not be included as an example of one.
4. . Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Section 9.4(A) ~ Migratorv Bini Treaty Act.
The SectioIlIO(a) Permit ought to be treated as a Special Purpose Permit under the
MBT A for the take of unlisted Chula Vista Covered Species - as well as the ones that are
currently federally listed under the ESA. Nothing in the META prevCllts the FWS from
extending this protection for these species to the City (and Third Party Beneficiary and Coven,:d
Projects). After all, the IA (see, e.g. Section 1.9) and the Subarea PIan specifically note that the
Chula Vista Subarea Plan is treating the unlisted Chula Vista Covered Species as if they were
already federally listed ill tenns of the degree of conservation measures being directed at such
unlisted species.
5. Critical Habitat
Section 9.13.
We suggest that the Parties add the following language to Section 9.13 to provide more
explicit assurances and greater certainty to land use planning wIthin the Subarea:
#3661 v3
12
Apr-23-03 14:02
From-HEWITT O'NEil llP
+
T-713 P 020/022 F-427
ESA Section 4(b)(2) provides that critical habitat designations shall take into
consideration "the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat." The USFWS acknowledges that the
MSCP provides an extraordinary conservation benefit to the Chula Vista Covered
Species and their habitats within the MSCP Plan Area. The MSCP has been
deszgned to provide for the sustained, healthy fUnctioning of multiple habitats and
ecosystems within the 900-square mile plan area. Because of the large number of
sensitive species and habitats sought to be conserved by the MSCP and the large
amount of land to be permanently conserved by the Subarea Plan,
conservationJpreserve area boundaries and allowable development area
boundaries have been carefUlly demarcated in many instances. The significant
large, interconnected open space preserve areas could only have been achieved,
in many cases, after assuring the availability (frcJm a biological perspective) of a
certain amount of off-settingfUture development area. Accordingly,fUture
designations of critical habitat could have substantial economic and other
relevant impacts that will cause substantial disruptive effects to the ability of the
MSCP to continue to be an ongoing conservation program should such
designations include any lands outside of those planned for species conservation
by the MSCP. The potential for such future disruptions provides a strong
disincentive to continuing efforts to mainrain the conservation program created
by the MSCP and a stnmg disincentive for the City to adopt the City of Chula
Vista Subarea Plan. AccordinglyJor any future critical habitat designation for
any Chula Vista Covered Species, the USFWS will not designate critical habitat
within the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan Area unless the Secretary of the
Interior determines, baRed on the best scientific and commercial data available,
that the failure to designate certain areas within the City of Chula Vista Subarea
Plan Area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
6. Clarity in IdentifYing "Chula Vista Coveretl Species" and "Sufficiently ConseTVed
Species"
The Recital also makes reference in Section 1.4 to "all other approved MSCP subarea
plans on which the conservation of the particular Cbula Vista Covered Species depends" needing
to "remain in effect and [be] properly implemented" in order for the Take Authorization of the
Section 10(a) permit to be valid for these species. The lA (and ITP) need to specify clearly
which other subarea plans must remain in effect and be properly implemented, because take
authorization is not to depend on functioning subarea plans for some of the smaller subarea
plans, such as Coronado, Del Mar, Lemon Grove and National City. The MSCP Subregional
Plan and City of S3IJ Diego Subarea Plan were clear that for all- or nearly all- of the Chula
Vista Covered Species, take authorization should be provided and maintained as long as the City
of San Diego, County of San Diego and Chula Vista had operating MSCP subarea plans.
Section 3.40 - Species AdeQuate1v Conserved.
This definition fails to concretely define the term and, consequently, is illusory. As
CUITeIJ.tly worded, the reader does not know which species the Parties are agreeing are "Species
Adequately Conserved." We agree that these particular species should be concretely ideJJtified
in an Exhibit to the IA. Perhaps the deficiency in the defInition can be corrected by breaking the
defInition into two sentences, as follows:
#.3661 v3
13
Apr-23-03 14:02
From-HEWITT O'NEil llP
+
T-/13 P 021/022 F-42/
Subarea Plan and the City shall receive talw authority for Them,
regardless of... . "
Section 2.8 - Chula Vista Covered Species.
The definition should specifically identify which subarea plans (in addition to Chula
Vista's) ueed to be approved Hnd functioning in order to grant Chula Vista incidental take
authority for which particular "Chula Vista Covered Species."
Minor IA Comments
The assurances related to Section 7 Consultations should be streng;thened for Covered Pr01ects.
Section 13.1.
This provision should also extend protections to Covered Projects in the same manner as
protection is extended to existing and prospective Third Party Beneficiaries.
The final sentence of this paragraph should reference "reasonable and prudent
alternatives" in addition to "take avoidance and take minimization measures," such that the start
ofllie last sentence should begin: "Any take avoidance and take minimization measw-es and any
reasonable and prudent alternatives included UJJ.de1' the terms and conditions of the Section 7
biological opinion... ."
The permit revocation provisions must comply with existing re!1;Ulations and should not allow for
partial revocation of the Section lO(a) pennit
Section 16.2(c).
The language purports to allow the FWS to only parTially revoke or tenninate the City's
pennit Existing FWS regulations do not allow for only a partial revocation of the pe=it.
The IA should not try to incorporate hundreds of 0 ther documents.
Section 25.4.
The final sentence of this paragraph is inappropriately vague. The sentence contaills the
phrase "and other documents associated with these plans," which should be eliminated - as DO
one possibly cau tell what "other documents" are to be viewed as integral to the IA. The
administrative record of the MSCP Subregional Plan and Chula Vista Subarea Plan cODSists of
hundreds - perhaps thousands - of such documentR. Although it may be appropriate to reference
the Subregional Plan and Subarea Plan, no other documents should be referenced in this
sentence.
Section 3.2.
Similar to the City and County of San Diego's Implementing Agreements, we suggest the
following sentence be added to the end of Section .,.2:
#3661 v3
14
Apr-23-03 14:02
From-HEWITT O'NEIL LLP
+
T-713 P 022/022 F-427
Section 3.2.
Similar to the City and County of San Diego' s hnplementing Agreements, we suggest the
following sentence be added to the end of Section 3.2:
The three-volume MSCP Subregional Plan Resource Document,
and all MSCP-relared drafts, posilioll papers, working documents
and orher documents, are specifically not incorporared inTO this
Agreement.
The provision for tennination of the IA bv the City must be clarified.
Section 22(B).
The obligations which the City would be required to continue to carry out must be limited
to those obligations which are tied to, or directly associated with, the incidental take which is
going to be continued to be authorized by the Subarua Plan and City ITP.
A reference date should be corrected.
Section 2.19.
The MSCP Subregional Plan prepared by the City of San Diego is dated 1997, not
August 1998.
#3661 v3
15