Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1998-18989 RESOLUTION NO. 18989 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO TRANSMIT COMMENTS TO THE U,S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT, SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF AN ACQUISITION BOUNDARY WITH MODIFICATIONS WHEREAS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a Draft Environmental Assessment for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge; and WHEREAS, the City, as a stakeholder in South Bay issues has expressed concerns over the proposal and desires to express those concerns in the context of the public review of the Environmental Assessment; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared recommendations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address its concerns; and WHEREAS, the City has gained support for its specific recommendations for a modified boundary of the "Preferred Alternative" for the proposed Refuge from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and participating environmental organizations; and WHEREAS, the City must formally transmit their comments identifying the modified boundary as a part of a comment letter for the Environmental Assessment, a draft of which is attached NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby: Authorize the Mayor to transmit comments to the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in support of the adoption of an acquisition boundary with modifications as identified in the attached letter, known as Exhibit A. Presented by Approved as to form by Resolution 18989 Page 2 Exhibit A May 11, 1998 Mr. Dean Rundie Refuge Manager San Diego National Wildlife Refuge U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Cadsbad, CA 92008 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT, SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Dear Mr. Rundie: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The City understands that the proposed project is the definition of an acquisition boundary for the proposed Refuge. It is also our understanding that the establishment of the refuge will occur when the Service acquires land or negotiates management agreements for lands within the boundary. Further, the actual management activities, which involve issues that the City has great interest in, will be detailed at a later date after the acquisition process is complete. The City would prefer that all activities related to the establishment of the proposed Refuge, including management, be addressed now rather that in incremental stages, and feels that such an approach more adequately meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The establishment and management of the Refuge is reasonably foreseeable at this time and is "connected" to the establishment of acquisition boundaries, in accordance with the definition provided in 40 CFR 1508.25. Additionally, the Refuge boundary includes an active recreation area shown on the Qtay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan, a product of a Joint Exercise of Powers Authority formed between the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. This appears to be a clear conflict with the park plan, since the refuge, by definition, cannot support active recreational uses. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.16, such inconsistencies must be identified and addressed in the EA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City has specific issues related to the Refuge planning efforts and has been working with the Service and local environmental organizations to seek resolution. The following is a description of those issues and the City's proposed resolution. I. Boundaries: The Chula Vista City Council suggests that the boundary be redefined at a more westerly location which would allow the following: A. Navigation Channel Use: Utilization of the existing navigation channel year round consistent with existing regulation. Resolution 18989 Page 3 B. New Boundary: The new boundary would be west of the existing channel, and will be defined in a way that would allow a new "straightened channel" to be created west of the existing "dog leg" at some point in the future (see exhibit). It is acknowledged that this new western channel alignment will benefit the maritime and recreational interests, as well as the viability of the remaining mud flats and salt water marsh areas at 1) the F and G Street marsh, 2) the Midbayfront propSrty, and 3) the Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge. C. Maintenance and Dredging: Maintenance and dredging of the existing navigation channel or a new "straightened channel" would not be precluded by the SSDG-NWR. D. Mud Flats: Although outside of the proposed boundary, it is recognized that the mudflats off 1 ) the F Street Marsh, 2) the Sweetwater Marsh NWR, and 3) the Chula Vista Midbayfront should ultimately be preserved and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These areas could be conveyed separately. This could be done in the future through a special action on the part of the Regional Director to expand the Sweetwater NWR to include these mudflat areas. The Chula Vista City Council suggests that the boundary be located west of the existing navigational channel in order to accommodate the new channel alignment which the EDC, CVCC, and the SCEDC understand will be in place within one year (see attached exhibit). II. Navigational Channel Utilization: The "current conditions" of the channel including speed limit and traffic activity is an acceptable condition. Should this "existing condition" change, the management committee (depicted in "IV" below) will be assembled to contemplate provisions and implement actions to preserve the targeted natural resources which have come under threat. III. Recreational Activities: The "current conditions" of the recreational utilization of the South San Diego Bay area is an acceptable condition. Should this "existing condition" change in a way that negatively impacts the natural resources, the management committee (depicted in "IV" below) will be assembled to contemplate actions to preserve the targeted natural resources which have come under threat. IV. Management Committee: Should the natural resources be corn promised or changes be sought to boating or recreational access within the ultimate refuge boundary a" management" committee will be convened by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard. This committee is envisioned to be comprised of the following representation: A. Habitat Group(s) B. Independent Biologist(s) C. Local Jurisdiction Representation (City Mayor or designee) 1. National City 2. Chula Vista 3. Coronado 4. imperial Beach Resolution 18989 Page 4 5. San Diego D, Owners of property adjacent to the refuge E. Owners of the property inside the refuge boundary F. Chairman of the San Diego Unified Port Commission G. Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors H. Chairman of the South County Economic Development Council Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency J. California Coastal Commission K. Yacht Club Associations L. Friends of South Bay Wildlife It is envisioned that the group would be assembled as a committee to deal with, provide input to and seek mutually beneficial resolution to issues and conflicts which might arise as a result of the varied interests and endeavors (public, private and environmental) being pursued. This to include but not limited to recreational activities, project development maritime uses, transportation issues and industrial activities. Modification of the boundary for the preferred alternative, as proposed in this letter would satisfy the concerns of the City of Chula Vista for the boundary setting phase of this project. The City is aware of other issues raised by the cities of Coronado, National City and Imperial Beach. It is the City's intention to maintain an ongoing dialog with these cities, the Port of San Diego, the Service and interested environmental organizations, in an effort to resolve all remaining conflicts. The City of Chula Vista believes that our participation in such an effort would not, and should not jeopardize the progress we have made to date. Thank you again for your attention to issues that are important to Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista remains committed to balancing the needs of economic development and environmental protection, and believes that creative solutions, including the proposed modifications to the boundaries of the preferred alternative and ongoing discussions regarding management can lead to mutually beneficial results. Sincerely, Shirley Horton Mayor Resolution 18989 Page 5 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 5th day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Padilia, Rindone, Salas and Horton NAYES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: ~Autt~elet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) 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. 18989 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 5th day of May, 1998. Executed this 5th day of May, 1998. ~Authelet, City Clerk