The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 1997/01/07 Tuesday, January 7, 1997 4:00 p.m. "I declare ynder penalty of periurv thRt I Rm employed by the City of Chul& ;;s'. In the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this Agends/Notice on the Bull",:" Board et the Public iC.jlB Building and .1 City Hall on DATED . . .- SIGNED C-.1'<~ ~. Re!mlar eetinl! of the City of h-uta visufCitv Council Council Chambers Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER Councilmembers Moot _, Padilla _, Rindone_, Salas _, and Mayor Horton _' 1. ROLL CALL: 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 10, 1996 (City Council Meeting) and December 10, 1996 (Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency). 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Office: Eleanore Valdovinos - Library Board of Trustees. b. Annual Report by Port Commissioner David Malcolm. ***** Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting. Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However, final actions reported wiU be recorded in the minutes which will be avaiwble in the City Clerk's Office. ***** CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 through /2) The staff recommendations regarding the foUowing items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff requests that the item be puUed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fiU out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Items puUed from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items puUed by the public will be the first items of business. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that the City Council did not meet in Closed Session on 12/17/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. b. Resignation from the Planning Commission - Mary Salas. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library. Agenda -2- January 7, 1997 6. ORDINANCE 2694 APPROVING THE PREZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 10.1 ACRES TO THE PC ZONE (PCZ-96-C) (second readim, and adoDtion) - The owners of the 10.1 acres (Mother Miguel Estates), located adjacent to the north side of the San Miguel Ranch property's south parcel, propose to amend the General Plan to Low-Medium Residential, the same classification requested for the adjacent San Miguel Ranch property. Also requested is the prezoning of the property to the PC zone, the same prezone as presently exists on the San Miguel Ranch. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) 7. RESOLUTION 18536 TRANSFERRING FUNDS WITHIN THE CITY ATTORNEY'SBUDGET- In accordance with Council Policy 220-02, "Financial Reporting and Transfer Authority" adopted on 1/23/96, Council approval is required for transfers of appropriations which are greater than $15,000 between summary accounts within a department. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Attorney) 8. RESOLUTION 18537 ADOPTING THE 1997 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM AND LEGISLATIVE WORK PROGRAM - The Legislative Program represents the Council's position on items likely to be acted upon by the State Legislature, Congress, or administrative agencies. By adopting a Legislative Program at the beginning of each two-year legislative session and amending it at mid-term, Chula Vista can take a proactive role in sponsoring, supporting, or opposing bills related to the City's various legislative priorities. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Legislative Committee and Assistant City Manager) 9. RESOLUTION 18538 ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY MATCHING FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CIruLA VISTA LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 BUDGET - The California State Library has awarded a one-year extension of its matching fund grant to literacy programs who had been awarded the original five-year grant in 1987. This award provides $32,528 to supplement monies raised locally to support the Library's adult literacy program. Funds will be used to continue the contract with the computer lab coordinator and to hire an instructor to lead small group writing classes. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director) 4/5th's vote required. 10. RESOLUTION 18539 APPROVING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER PE-393 FOR INSTALLING AN EARTHEN RAMP ACROSS AND CLOSING OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY SOUTH OF FENTON STREET - EastLake Development Company has requested permission to install an earthen ramp across EastLake Parkway, just south of Fenton Street in the EastLake area. The ramp will be used to provide a crossing for the scrapers transporting earth from the east side of EastLake Parkway to the parcel on the west side which needs fill material in order to develop. This temporary Encroachment Permit will allow the closure of the portion of BastLake Parkway between Fenton Street and Otay Lakes Road. Although temporary in nature, Council must authorize the issuance of the permit since it involves closure of the street. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Agenda -3- January 7, 1997 11.A. RESOLUTION 18540 ACCEPTING OPEN SPACE LOT A OF MAP 12691, LOT B OF MAP 12692 AND LOTS C AND D OF MAP 12693 - On 8/14/90, Council approved the Final Maps for Montillo Phase 1, 2 and 4 and rejected the acceptance of open space lots A, B, C and D. The City is now ready to accept these open space lots. Execution of a Quitclaim Deed is required to complete a boundary adjustment requested by the developer to accommodate landscape walls constructed by adjacent property owners, which encroach into open space lots A and B. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks and Recreation) B. RESOLUTION 18541 QUITCLAIMING A PORTION OF LOT A, MAP 12691 AND A PORTION OF LOT B, MAP 12692 TO MONTILLO LIMITED AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE DEED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY 12. RESOLUTION 18506 WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "LOMA VERDE PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PR-183B), EUCAL YPfUS PARKPLA YEQUlPMENT (PR-I46C) AND GAYLE L. MCCANDLISS MEMORIALIHALECREST PARK IMPROVEMENT (PR-178B)"; AND REAPPROPRIATING $53,250.00 FROM PARK ACQUISITION (PR-185) TO PLAYGROUND RENOVATION (PR-I83) TO FUND THE CONTRACT - On 10/2/96, bids were received. Staff recommends Council approve the resolution and award the contract to Star Paving Corporation - San Diego. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks, Recreation and Open Space) 4/5th's vote required. Continued from the meeting of 11/26/96. * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. 13. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - The Plan consists of the County- wide Summary Plan and Siting Elements. The Summary Plan outlines the Source Reduction, 'Reuse, Recycling, Composting Plans and Waste Generation Estimates for all jurisdictions within the County. The Siting Element is intended to identity the disposal capacity needed by jurisdictions within the County for a 15 year period. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Conservation Coordinator) Continued from the meeting of 12/17/96. A. RESOLUTION 18542 ADOPTING THE SUMMARY PLAN FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN B. RESOLUTION 18543 ADOPTING THE SITING ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSIDERING THE V ACA TlON OF A PORTION OF THE 100 BLOCK OF JEFFERSON AVENUE - The Chula Vista Elementary School District has applied to the City to vacate the portion of Jefferson Avenue from Flower Street to approximately 300 feet south, along the frontage of Feaster Elementary School. In order to vacate, a resolution must be adopted ordering the vacation, and that resolution may contain conditions to be met by the applicant prior to its recordation. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) RESOLUTION 18544 ORDERING THE CONDITIONED V ACA TlON OF A PORTION OF THE 100 BLOCK OF JEFFERSON AVENUE Agenda 14. PUBLIC HEARING 15. PUBLIC HEARING -4- January 7, 1997 CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINDER PORTION OF PHASE 2A OF VILLAGE FIVE OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, TRACT 96-04, CONSISTING OF 262 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND 265 MULTI- FAMILY UNITS ON 148.6 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN FUTURE LA MEDIA ROAD AND THE FUTURE SR-125 ALIGNMENT - On 11/19/96, Council approved Village One and Phase lA and a portion of Phase 2A of Village Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Tract 96-04. The remaining 148.6 acres in Phase 2A of Village Five were continued to 117/97 hecause they are located adjacent to land owned by West Coast Land Fund (WCLF). The purpose of the continuance was to allow Village Development and WCLF the opportunity to meet together with City staff to resolve any issues that WCLF might have with this portion of the SPA One Plan. WCLF has not been available or prepared to jointly participate in a cooperative replanning of their property with adjacent property owners. Staff recommends the public hearing be continued to the meeting of 2/4/97. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch) BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees. None submitted. ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes. 16. RESOLUTION 18545 APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR $69,000 WITH MARTY CHASE FOR UPDATING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (PFDIF) PROGRAM AND THE RELATED FIRE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN (PS-147) AND APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS THEREFOR - The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee program provides for the funding required to construct needed public facilities and prevent existing residents from subsidizing the City's capital costs to serve new development. In order to properly reflect changes in the City's facility needs and their respective costs since the last update, it is proposed that the City enter into a contract to update both tbe Public Facilities DIF and the related Fire Facilities Master Plan. The timing of this update is intended to incorporate the Otay Ranch annexation area into the DIF prior to issuance of any building permits. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl) 4/5th's vote required. Agenda -5- January 7, 1997 17. REPORT CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND LAND PROTECTION PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE - The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has requested comments regarding the Draft Conceptual Management Plan, Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the proposed San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed Wildlife Refuge will consist of three units administered by the Federal government: (1) the Otay-Sweetwater Unit; (2) the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project; and (3) the South San Diego Bay Unit. An environmental assessment and draft plan will be issued for comment on the South San Diego Bay Unit in the Spring of next year. Only the Draft Conceptual Management Plan, Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project have been distributed for comments at this time. Staff has prepared a draft letter for transmittal to USFWS which contains comments and concerns. Staff recommends Council authorize staff to forward the draft letter and any additional Council COmments regarding the draft Conceptual Management Plan, Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Plan to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (Director of Planning) 18. REPORT APPROVING ENHANCEMENT OF EAST "H" STREET LANDSCAPE - JM Development Company, the developers for Rancho La Cuesta, have proposed to enhance the landscaping of slopes, medians and parkways along East "H" Street, in the EastLake Maintenance District Number I "Zone D" Open Space assessment area. The enhancement would include the planting of 195 box Schinus Molles (Pepper Trees) along the slopes, parkways and medians. They also propose to plant an additional 1,288 one-gallon Cistus Purpureas (Rock Rose) throughout the medians. Staff recommends Council approve JM Development's request to enhance the landscape along East "H" Street in the EastLake Maintenance District-Zone "D", subject to staff conditions. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Continued from the meeting of 12/17/96. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. OTHER BUSINESS 19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(Sl a. Scheduling of meetings. b. Metro Sewer Committee appointees. c. Proposal to modifY ageoda to combine City Council and Redevelopment Agency Consent Calendars. Agenda -6- January 7, 1997 20. MAYOR'S REPORT IS) 8. Ratification of appointments to the Human Relations Commission - Marcia H. Walker and Virgil Pina. 21. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a worksession/meeting on Thursday, January 9, 1997 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Administration Building and thence to the regular City Council meeting on January 14, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting. "I declare IInder penalty at parjury that I am employed by the City at Chula Vista in the Office of the City CierI< and thaI I posled this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at Tuesday, January 7, 1997 the Public e ices BUildingb.1 City;? on Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. DATED. I '..3. SIGNED ~. .Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council eef g) --- City of Chula Vista City Council CLOSED SESSION AGENDA Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the Jollowing items oJ business which are pennitted by ww to be the subject oJ a closed session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests oJ the City. The Council is required by ww to return to open session, issue any reports oJ final action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length 0/ time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return/rom closed session, reports oJ final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report oJ final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be avaiwble in the City Clerk's OJfice. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existing litigation pursuant to Goyermnent Code Section 54956.9 . Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Goyermnent Code Section 54957.6 . Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION ~{~ ~ ....~ ~ ~~~~ ......~--~ ~- ~- OlY OF CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Date: December 19, 1996 To: From: The Honorable Mayor and C1ty Counc1l John M. Kaheny, City Atto~ney ~ Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session for the Meeting of 12/17/96 Re: The city Council did not meet in Closed Session on December 17, 1996. JMK:lgk C:\lt\clossess.no - .!:J 6- ' / 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612 i'J'I'osI~Aiqi3dP"" ftECEIVEO '96 lEe 16 AlO :\9 Mary Salas For Chula Vista City Council .,X '( If mA V,I$T ~ IfflLlIfS tfI~E December 15,1996 Mr. Robert Leiter, Director of Planning Mr. Frank Tarantino, Chair of the Planning Commission 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Dear Bob and Frank, Please accept my resignation from the Planning Commission, As you are well aware, my recent election to Chula Vista City Council necessitates this action, It has been my honor and pleasure to serve on the commission, Please extend my appreciation to my fellow commissioners and to the planning staff for their dedication, professionalism and long hours of hard work to ensure Chula Vista will continue to be a wonderful place to live and to raise our families, My special thanks to Nancy Ripley and Ken Lee for their humor, patience and efficiency, Sincerely, ~ cc ~ WfU'fTEN ; ("XU a-/G ~)7 "'~/, U", "f(;:F~ 5J- 802 East) 5t Chula Vista, Ca 91910 - Lne/Fax (619) 421-0049 Paid forby Mary Salas for City Council .".., 5 "'0 A' ,0," [.;;" U"''' ,a ,.,." +'q " ~, , ,,', Big) , 'IF', "\.,' 1">, '''If'J: ".'''1, "\ > ,:'" - "!,,Iii!.. '" ~,," " ;"',"'," . . '-'!l\ ~ ~~_,,:"~' ''lj~,:~ /;7/:J? , ORDINANCE NO. .2~jr ,(''<''" , ,,,) \." , , ,) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCI't 0 OF THE CITY OF '.J CHULA VISTA TO APPROVE o,;rHE PREZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 10.1 ACRES TQ;;tH'E PC ZONE (pCZ-96-C) '..) ',,)' WHEREAS, an application for prezonlng of two parcels containing approximately 10.1 acres of presently unincorporated land were filed with the City of Chu1a Vista Planning Department on June 12, 1996 by James H. A1gert and Billy R. Scott (" Applicant"), and; WHEREAS, LAFCO policy requires that prior to a city annexing property, said property must be prezoned. Thus, the proposed prezoning has been requested in order to bring said parcels, which are to be annexed to the City, into conformance with LAFCO policy ("Project"), and; WHEREAS, those parcels to be prezoned PC are identified by their Assessor Parcel Numbers as: 585-130-16 and 585-130-18, as shown on Exhibit I, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project and notice of said hearings, 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 tenants within 1,000 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 on November 20, 1996, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated August 1996, was prepared for the San Miguel Ranch, which also included the Mother Miguel Estates project, and; WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the following issues were significant and not mitigab1e for the proposed project: Land Use Landform/Visual Quality Parks, Recreation and Open Space Air Quality; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment, and; ;?~,r ~ rj Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law, and; WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996, and; WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing and accepted public testimony on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report on October 9, 1996, and; WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the Prezoning on November 20, 1996, and made certain recommendations regarding the project, and; WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called and noticed public hearing on December 17, 1996, regarding the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the Prezone; WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the ordinance approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Draft SEIR held on October 9, 1996, their public hearing held on this Project on November 20, 1996, and minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. ~ ~;-~ Ordinance No. Page 3 II. ACTION The City Council hereby approves the prezoning of 10.1 acres to the PC Zone, identified by their Assessor Parcel Numbers as: 585-130-16 and 585-130-18 finding that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice supports the prezoning of said parcels. III. PREZONlNG That the property identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 585-130-16 and 585-130-18, consisting of approximately 10.1 acres, generally located between the north boundary of the south parcel of the San Miguel Ranch property and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company property, as diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit I, be prezoned Planned Community and that future development of the property shall be governed by either: a) a Precise Plan, to be approved by the City Council, which shall be in conformance with the R -1-7 standards contained in Title 19 of the Municipal Code, or b) a SPA Plan submittal which is consistent with and/or incorporated into the SPA Plan for the adjacent San Miguel Ranch SPA. IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA That the City Council does hereby find that FSEIR-96-02, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. V. The zoning of those parcels to PC shall become effective at the same time that the annexation of said parcels to the City of Chula Vista becomes effective. VI. ATTAC~ENTS All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning N:\sbared\aUomey\A-I.ord ~&-3 Ordinance No. Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California this December 17, 1996, by the following vote: YES: NOES: ABSENT: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATIEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 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 Ordinance No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a City Council meeting held on the 17th day of December, 1996. Executed this 17th day of December, 1996. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk ~-7i' council Agenda statement / Item: Item Title: Meeting Date: January 7, 1997 I~~' . Resolution - Transferr1ng Funds within the City Attorney's Budget John M. Kaheny, city Attorne~ 4/5tbs Vote: Yes___No-K-) Submitted by: In accordance with Council Policy 220-02, "Financial Reporting and Transfer Authority" adopted on January 23, 1996, Council approval is required for transfers of appropriations which are greater than $15,000 between summary accounts within a department. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution transferring funds within the City Attorney's budget. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: In the current fiscal year, the City Attorney's office has operated with less than full staffing. One Assistant city Attorney has been working only 2-3 days per week and the office was without a full-time city Attorney since June 4, 1996. In order to continue services as best as possible, the Attorney's office has employed contract attorneys to backfill the Assistant city Attorney's position and to fill the void created by the termination of the City Attorney in June and until a new City Attorney could be recruited. For the first six months of this fiscal year, contract attorneys have been retained in order to maintain basic service levels within the City Attorney's office. Their services were paid from Other Specialized Services (5202) from the original $250,000 which was budgeted for additional unanticipated legal expenses throughout the year. However, since this account is intended for the use of con- tractual legal counsel outside of the normal operations within the City Attorney's office, the use of these monies to pay for backfilling attorneys within the office should realistically have 7'1 Page 2, Item___ Meeting Date: 1/7/97 come out of the salary savings from these two positions. It is recommended that we transfer the salary and other benefit savings from this interim vacancy and part-time work schedule to reimburse the Other Specialized Services account so that this will be available for outside counsel as will be necessary for the remainder of this fiscal year. The City Attorney will be reviewing in further detail the use of staff vs. contract attorneys and will be addressing this issue at length in connection with next year's budget. FISCAL IMPACT: Transfer $88,175 (the amount available from Employee Services Accounts as specified in Exhibit A.I 2 ?~ RESOLUTION NO. J ?5.:r " RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TRANSFERRING FUNDS WITHIN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S BUDGET WHEREAS, in accordance with Council Policy 220-02 "Financial Reporting and Transfer Authority", approval is required for transfers of appropriations which are greater than $15,000 between summary accounts within a department; and WHEREAS, it has been necessary for the City Attorney's office to employ contract attorneys to backfill the Assistant City Attorney's position and to fill the void created by the termination of the City Attorney in June and until a new City Attorney could be hired; and WHEREAS, available monies need to be transferred into Specialized Services Account 5202. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby transfer $88,175 from the Employee Services Accounts as specified in Exhibit A to Account 100-0150-5202 within the city Attorney's budget to reimburse said account for contract attorneys. Presented and Approved as to form by c:\a113\transfer.ca ?-J EXHIBIT A Transfer $88,175 from the following Employee Services Accounts in 100-0150 to Account 100-0150-5202: 5101 5106 5131 5141 5142 5143 Salary & Wages Car Allowance sick Leave - Pay in Lieu Retirement Contribution Employee Benefit Plan Medicare $64,800 5,550 1,955 11,500 4,170 200 $ 88,175 7-'1 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item r Meeting Date 1/7/97 ITEM TITLE: Resolution /lJ5;J? Adopting the 1997 Legislative Program and Legislative Work Program. . \ SUBMITTED BY: Legislative Committee \ ~(1 Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager>,dLL \ .r /~ REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ NoX) The Legislative Program represents the City Council's position on items likely to be acted upon by the State Legislature, Congress, or administrative agencies. By adopting a Legislative Program at the beginning of each two-year legislative session and amending it at mid-term, Chula Vista can take a proactive role in sponsoring, supporting, or opposing bills related to the City's various legislative priorities. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution adopting the 1997 Legislative Program and Legislative Work Program. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: This report from the Legislative Committee reflects their comments as well as input from the department directors. A copy of this draft was sent to Council as an Information Item 12/5/96; no Council comments received as of 12117/96. DISCUSSION: Background The purpose of the Legislative Program (as instituted by Council Policy 300-01 in 1987) is to identify and adopt position statements regarding a variety of issues which reflect the policy and direction of the Council. This action sets guidelines which permit staff to make timely responses consistent with Council's desires to sponsor, support or oppose bills during the legislative process. By taking action on a comprehensive program at the start and midpoint of the legislative and congressional sessions, the City is able to work with our local elected representatives to introduce needed legislation as well as pro actively position itself on a wide range of issues. Presented in this report is an updated 1997 Legislative Program and a Work Program to guide staff and our legislative consultant throughout the 1997/98 session. ?'-/ Page 2, Item Meeting Date 117/97 Legislative Program In general, the Legislative Program lays out the City's positions in the following subject areas: A. Bayfront/Redevelopment B. Fiscal Support/Home Rule C. General Government D. Housing and Community Development E. Economic Development F. Land Use Planning G. Environmental Protection H. Public EmployerlEmployee Relations 1. Public Liability J. Public Safety K. Public Works/Transportation 1. Recreation M. Library The Program is divided into two categories. Category I consists of those items "which can be acted upon directly by staff with concurrence of the Legislative Committee" (the Mayor, the City Manager and City Attorney). Category II includes items on which Council is interested in taking a more active role, and which are therefore subject to formal Council action. Procedurally, Category I is administered by the Legislative Committee. Such items are generally non-controversial, and include: . Supporting additional state or federal funding for local governments and/or Chula Vista programs . Opposing unfunded mandates . Protecting City plarming and land use authority . Recommending reforms in various state and federal programs Via unanimous adoption of the program by the City Council, related bills can be acted upon directly by the Legislative Committee, so that the City's position can be communicated to legislators in the quickest, most effective way. Notification of positions taken and copies of any letters sent are then forwarded to the City Council for information. Category II contains items which have general City Council support, but on which there is still some debate among Council, and formal City positions may depend upon the exact intent and wording of the proposed bills. ~,.~ Page 3, Item Meeting Date 117/97 These items are to be actively monitored by the Legislative Committee but are subject to formal Council consideration before any actions may be taken to support or oppose. Examples include: Supporting efforts to: . Consolidate state and/or federal environmental regulations . Fund school facility construction programs Opposing efforts to: . Enact additional mandates through the Brown Act. Proposed Changes for 1997 The proposed amendments address issues raised during the latter half of the 1995-96 Legislative session, new City Council priorities, and new priorities in Sacramento and Washington. The remainder of the program is carried over from the 1995-96 Legislative Program, as adopted by Council 12/12/96. In most cases, the City's priority issues for 1997 (e.g. Veterans Home construction, Clean Water Act exemption, selecting Chula Vista as the site of a new University of California campus) are already included in the Legislative Program and thus do not require any amendments. A complete list of amendments is shown in Exhibit A, with additions denoted by underline and deletions by strikeout. Individual amendments are each accompanied by a brief justification for their inclusion. Major amendments as proposed are listed below: Supporting efforts to: . Revise speed limit laws to allow for radar enforcement of residential street speed limits (e.g. at levels below the 85th percentile as determined by a traffic study). . Clarify certain provisions of Proposition 218, specifically as they affect existing assessment districts. . Reverse the State take-aways of local property tax revenues into mandatory Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund contributions. . Prevent the loss of affordable housing units through federal funding for acquisition of at-risk units by non-profit agencies; and special section 8 subsidies for affected low income tenants. r"-:; Page 4, [tern Meeting Date 1/7/97 With an up-to-date Legislative Program, staff is better able to communicate the City's interests to Congress and to the State Legislature. Most importantly, we will be able to communicate that message to our State and Federal representatives and work with them to introduce or advance legislation effecting Chula Vista's priority issues. The Legislature convenes in January and will immediately take up the issue of trial court funding which remained unresolved at the end of calendar 1996. One facet of this issue is the reallocation of vehicle code violation fines. Chula Vista is working cooperatively with the League of California Cities to increase that portion of the fines allocated to cities, with the ultimate goal being a return to 100% city allocation as was the case until 1991 (in 1991-92 the State reallocated 50% of vehicle code fines away from cities and into the State General Fund to help support traffic courts). Sacramento's deadline to introduce new bills for 1997 is Januarv 24. Since this window of opportunity is a short one, Council is encouraged to share at this time any additional issues or interests they have in pursuing changes in state law. Legislative Work Program In an effort to maximize the City's resources and impact at the State level, the attached work program (Exhibit "B ") has been developed to guide staff and our legislative consultant. This document is the result of discussions with City departments and the Redevelopment Agency staff, as well as input from Councilmembers. It serves several purposes: a) as a work plan for staff and the legislative consultant; b) as a means of narrowing the scope of the legislative efforts to specific issues of concern to Chula Vista; and, c) as a valuable tool for setting the City's agenda and evaluating our lobbying endeavors in the state legislative process. The proposed work program is divided by category and priority. Included is a description of each request and recommended follow-up action. The priority assigned to projects is based on the following criteria: . Urgency (i.e. significant cost or need) . Timing/political climate in Sacramento and Washington . Feasibility As an example, developing more flexible guidelines for the expenditure of COPS funding is a Priority I because of the amount of money involved and the fact that this program may become a tool to assist the City in funding Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) or other public safety capital projects. g-,-i Page 5, Item Meeting Date 1/7/97 Lower priority items range from those having a significant fiscal impact but lesser political viability (e.g. sales tax reallocation; Priority 2), to projects with low fiscal impact (e.g. locating additional freeway signage for the ARCO Training Center; Priority 3), to proposals which are currently dormant (e.g. siting a regional permit assistance office in Chula Vista) and are no longer recommended as part of the active work program. Amendments to this year's work program include: . Higher priority for UCCV site selection . Deletion of the Work Program elements for obtaining supplemental subvention payments (this project has been completed as a result of the passage of SB 229 coupled with bond refinancing) . New priorities to reflect the new items in the Legislative Program. Updates of the work program will accompany staffs Legislative Program Quarterly Status Reports to keep Council informed of progress toward these goals. FISCAL IMP ACT: Amendment of the Legislative Program and Work Program for 1997 does not result in any cost to the City. There are fiscal impacts, however, associated with this program; specifically the City's contract with a legislative advocate in Sacramento (The Law Office of Bob Wilson), which is capped at $66,000 per year. In addition, success in achieving the goals of this program can lead to significant fiscal impacts. Although these impacts can be difficult to estimate (e.g. issues of land use control, potential civil liability), the City's legislative efforts have yielded substantial, concrete cost results. In 1996, Chula Vista's major victories in Sacramento included: Issue Revenue Comments Veterans Home $34,000,000 For construction Supplemental Subventions $243,093 Owed to City since 1994/95 Public Safety Augmentation $40,000 beginning FY 1997-98, growing to Fund (Prop 172) $80,000/year by FY 2001-02 TOTAL REVENUE: $34,283,093 1996: POSITIVE FISCAL IMP ACTS 2"" .5 Page 6, Item Meeting Date 117/97 Fiscal items the City successfully opposed in 1996 include: Issue Potential Cost Comments Community Development Block $1.08 million/year Cuts proposed of as much as 50%. Grants Defeated for 1995-96 SB 160/SB 1505 $1-2 million/year Defeated in 1996 (Transportation erp $) SB 494/SB 1903 $460,OOO/year Defeated in 1996 Assessment Appeals Federal Telecommunications Up to $410, OOO/year Amended favorably to protect local reform franchise revenues SB 323, AB 142 (GIS/public $2.4 million system Defeated in 1996 records) AB 2084 $3 million/year Defeated in 1996 (TDA $) TOTAL LOSS $8+ million/year OPPOSED/AVERTED: 1996: POTENTIAL/AVERTED NEGATIVE IMPACTS Finally, as we look to Chula Vista's goals for 1997, the City will focus on the following key Issues: . Reauthorization of the State COPS program funding coupled with greater flexibility at the local government level for the use of these public safety funds . Developing an ability at the local level to set speed limits on residential streets at levels which may be lower than those indicated by the 85th percentile of a traffic study . Allocation of Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) funds to Chula Vista projects such as SmartCommunities . Obtaining a Clean Water Act equivalency status for this region's current water treatment practices . Clarification of Proposition 218 and its implementation . Reversal of the current State take-away of local property tax revenue into Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Exhibit A: Legislative Program, Proposed 1997 Amendments 3. Exhibit B: Work Program, Proposed 1997 Amendments c:\...\97Iegprg.113 If..." RESOLUTION NO. /1'.537 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE 1997 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM AND LEGISLATIVE WORK PROGRAM WHEREAS, Council Policy 300-01, dated January 1987, provides for the adoption of a City Legislative Program; and WHEREAS, the Legislative Program represents the City Council's position on items likely to be acted upon by the State Legislative, Congress, or administrative agencies; and, WHEREAS, by adopting a Legislative Program at the beginning of each two-year legislative session and amending it at mid-term, Chula Vista can take a proactive role in sponsoring, supporting, or opposing bills related to the City's various legislative priorities; and WHEREAS, an updated 1997 Legislative Program and Work Program to guide staff and our legislative consultant throughout the 1997/98 session are recommended for adoption by the Legislative Committee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the 1997 Legislative Program in the form set forth in Exhibit "A". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the 1997 Legislative Work Program in the form set forth in Exhibit "B".. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff and the Legislative Committee are hereby authorized to implement these programs. Presented by Approved as to form by Sid W. Morris Assistant City Manager c: \rs\logprog e-~? PROPOSED 1997 CHULA VISTA LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM EXHmIT 'N I. LEGISLATION WHICH CAN BE ACTED UPON DIRECfLY BY SfAFF WITH CONCURRENCE OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE. A. Bayfront - RedeveloJUUent. 1. Support efforts to: a. Provide funding for urban waterfront restoration projects and the enhancement of the waterfront within the southern San Diego Bay. b. Provide additional funding for the Chula Vista Nature Center from the Environmental License Plate (ELP) Fund or otherstate/federal/regionalsources. c. Amend the State Community Development law so as to allow a jurisdiction to combine tax increment from all projects for use in a specific project. d. Adjust Redevelopment Agency members pay (more than $30 per meeting, up to 4 times per month). e. Seek Port District-State Lands Commission reorganization of tidelands boundaries in cooperation with Rohr and bayfront developers in an effort to make better use of land available for development. 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Discontinue State supplemental subvention for redevelopment agencies. b. Further control tax increments in redevelopment projects. B. Fiscal Snpport - Home Rule. 1. Support efforts to: a. Permit retention and control by local governments of a greater portion of revenue generated by Federal, State, and local taxes, fees and fines (e.\!. vehicle code fines). b. Require the Federal government and State to reimburse local governments for all mandated cost or regulatory actions or which allow cities to cease performance of unfunded mandates. c. Retain maximum flexibility in the administration of Article XIIIB, XIIIC and xmD of the state constitution (XIIIB:the Gann Initiative--local expenditures are limited by population growth and CPI factors; XIIIC & D: Proposition 218) and to clarify/facilitate the application of Proposition 218 without placin\! an undue fiscal or administrative burden on local swvemment. 1 3"~ d. Expand local autonomy or the home rule authority to govern municipal affairs. e. Enhance the quality of urban life by funding the creation, improvement, or expansion of parks, libraries, community services and infrastructure, such as roads, flood control, etc.. f. Provide state/federal funding for construction or renovation of public buildings such as community centers, libraries, civic center, etc. g. Expand the sales tax base to include mail order sales/home shopping sources. h. Provide that cities and school districts can issue general obligation debt with a majority vote instead of the current 2/3 vote requirement. i. Adjust the unitary tax roll procedures so that the jurisdiction in which major utility projects are constructed receives substantially more fiscal benefit than is currently provided for. j. Provide for fiscal reform in the form of greater reliability, certainty, and equitability of state funding for local governments. k. Reallocate sales and property taxes to the benefit of local governments, specifically via actions of the California Constitutional Review Commission, League of California Cities Resolution #23 (1995), and potential reform of Proposition 172 (public safety V2 cent sales tax) formulas (e.g. SB 8 (1996)) or Educational Revenue AU2:mentation Fund propertY tax takeaways. 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Restrict or allocate the use of Transient Occupancy Tax revenues. b. Exempt residential users from the Utility Users' Tax. c. Reallocate fines and forfeitures to the detriment of cities. d. Repeal Gas Tax exemption for local agencies. e. Reallocate sales and property tax revenue to the detriment of lecal ge"o""lRo"t, cities. f. Limit cities' authority to enact or impose mobilohome or residential rent control. g. Limit cities' authority to enact and assoss fees to recover tho full cost of providing user-specific services or to recover the full costs of assessment district maintenance. h. Infringe on home rule authority to act on local budget and fiscal matters or other municipal affairs. 1. Overhaul the California Public Records Act in a way that would: restrict cities' control of the means of access to information assets (e.g. computer databases, proprietary software), limit cost recovery for providing such access, or violate the privacy of the parties from whom the data was collected. 2 3",1 C. General Government. 1. Support efforts to: a. Subject tbe State Legislature to tbe same requirements for public meetings, advance agenda, etc. as currently imposed on cities through the Brown Act. b. Eliminate the State's requirement which mandates Project Committee and/or Boards & Commissions members to complete a financial disclosure statement. c. Free tbe sample ballot of campaign rhetoric and distortion. d. Limit to 1% the amount of administrative costs tbe Board of Equalization may charge to administer local sales taxes such as San Diego's 112 cent sales taxes for transportation and justice facility construction. e. ^lIsTK gambling ea iRtematisHal ~rnises, regardless efthe Rymeer sED.S ~t9p~. (enacted in 1996) f. Facilitate increases in Open Space District assessments by an amount not to exceed tbe Consumer Price Index (CPI) or higher if increased costs are beyond the control of local governments (e.g. imposed by water districts). g. Select Chula Vista as tbe site of a new University of California campus. h. Locate freeway signage for tbe ARCO Training Center along Interstate 5. i. Provide funding for Chula Vista SMARTCommunity program, alternative fuels programs, telecenter programs, and otber technology-based projects. (NOTE: Although most outside funding will likely continue to be from grant or city funding sources, some "demonstration project" hardware purchases may be possible through special legislation. State Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) fundi"}! remains a possibility. but no funds were distributed in 1996, thus allowinR": 1) increased accumulation of funds. estimated at $20-30 million: and 2) increased levera~e for the Governor and state bud~et neS?:otiations in dividin~ funds amonS?: local districts.) 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Mandate district elections in all cities and/or school districts. b. Limit: imposition of franchise fees, taxes, or otber compensation for use of public right-of-way; local rate regulation; operational oversight; or right-of-way controls on cable television operators and other telecommunications providers and utilities. c. Bail out Orange County's investment crisis with taxpayer funds. d. Impose border crossing fees on tbe U.S./Mexico international border. 3 8'''/ /) D. Housing & Community Development. 1. Support efforts to: a. Exclude redevelopment agencies from competitive bidding statutes and fair market value restrictions for resale of public properties to permit joint development of public facilities by private developers upon findings of public benefit. b. Extend the following three Federal Low-Income Housing Programs: i. Mortgage Credit Certificate Program for low/moderate income home buyers; ii. Tax Credits for low income housing programs; and, iii. Continue funding for HUD HOME and HOPE Programs. c. Change Federal banking regulations to exempt banks from having to count financing or Letters of Credit for low income housing in their risk capital limit calculations. d. Finance and develop additional state Veterans homeCs) and site such a home in Chula Vista. e. Provide additional or enhanced state/federal or other assistance to first-time homebuyers. f. Support principles for housing element reform legislation as recommended by the SANDAG Housing Element Advisory Committee and approved by the SANDAG Board. &. Prevent the loss of affordable housinl! units through federal funding for acquisition of at-risk units bv non-profita2:encies: and special section 8 subsidies for affected low-income tenants. NOTE: City has worked with South Bay Community Services and with this region's Congressional delegation to support this effort in 1996. Federal funding was appropriated in 1996 but continued support is needed to maintain funding in future years. 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Grant the State or Federal government approval or veto authority in the implementation of local redevelopment and rehabilitation projects. b. Prohibit any state agency from making subventions, financing, insurance or any other kind of assistance, available to any city or county which has in effect any rent control measure. E. Economic Development. Support efforts to: a. Enhance California's overall business climate. 4 8" / / b. Provide funding, programmatic support or other assistance to the Border Environmental Commerce Alliance, Border Environmental Technology Resource Center, and Border Environmental Business Cluster, and to the Chula Vista High Tech/Biotech Zone Westem Re2:ional BioorocessinS! Center, proposed contract biotech pharmaceutical pilot manufacturing facility, and other Chula Vista economic development initiatives. e. Establish a Calif-emia Trade ana Cemmerse.^..geaey sp8Bserea QHieeefPermiL^ ssistaRee Sf ether liai(9a sHies ia CR1:l1a Vh:ta, p9ssi'Bl:.'.at: the Renier En"ireameBtal TSI2RBelegy ReS91:lree CeRter. (NOTE: The Dept of Trade and Commerce toured the Chula Vista site in September of 1996. They have since located their Regional Permit Assistance Office in the City of San Diego to service all 18 cities as well as the unincorporated areas of the county.) d. Continue or enhance funding of: 1. California Trade and Commerce Agency 2. California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant program 3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) 4. U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Economic Development Initiative and other business assistance programs 5. Export assistance, defense conversion, technology transfer, business incubators, job training and other economic development programs for which Chula Vista businesses would qualify and secure such funding for Chula Vista projects and! or businesses. e. Create or enhance targeted business assistance programs (such as state Enterprise Zones or federal Empowerment Zones) with eligibility criteria that would include Chula Vista. f. Create or enhance programs which support international cross-border commerce. g. Increase the flexibility of the use of HUD Community Development Block Grant funds as they relate to general economic development projects and programs. h. Increase flexibility of the California redevelopment laws as they relate to general economic development programs. i. Continue authorization for the Community Reinvestment Act and additional legislation to maintain accountability for lenders as relates to their small businesses development programs. (NOTE: Congress is likely to reintroduce the notion of eliminating many of the CRA local investment criteria in 1997.) F. Land Use Planning. 1. Support efforts to: a. Strengthen local government's powers and capacity to prepare, adopt and implement fiscal plans and programs for orderly growth, development, beautification, and conservation of their planning areas. b. Are consistent with the doctrine of "home rule" and the local exercise of police powers, through the planning and zoning processes, over local land use. 5 8'" / .).. c. Expand the land use, conservation, and growth management policies of municipalities to the unincorporated territories within their spheres ofinfluence. d. Broaden local government's power to require developers and subdividers to provide the on-site and off-site facilities and infrastructure needed by their projects. e. Maximize the authority of the City to exercise local control over general plan decisions. f. Require special districts to adopt facility master plans which are consistent with City and County general plans and growth management programs, and to adopt five year capital improvement programs and financing plans which are consistent with their facility master plans. g. Permit processing/provide funding for a Master EIR for biomedicailbiotech industrial development in Chula Vista. 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Abridge local government's ability to effectively plan, or regulate local land use including: amendments to the laws governing the local agency formation (LAFCO); legislation which would financially overburden local governments in their efforts to amend planning policy, regulate land use through removal of incompatible developments, redevelop blighted areas, or annex territories which are within the spheres of influence. b. Site a regional or bi-national airport in the Otay Mesa area. G. Environmental Protection. 1. Support efforts to a. Require an environmental impact report (EIR) for large projects/utility mergers. b. Obtain funding for werlands and riparian habitat acquisition and restoration, and funding for acquisition ofland needed for multi-species habitat conservation planning. c. Fund planning and land acquisition for Natural Community Conservation plans created by AB 2172 (Kelley) (1991). d. Obtain funding for a comprehensive environmental management planning effort for San Diego Bay. e. Prohibiting the granting of new leases for oil and gas development in state- owned coastal waters off of San Diego County. f. Encourage the installation of water conserving fixtures in existing residences and businesses. 6 ?'/;j g. Obtain funding for water conservation to include the construction of reclaimed water distribution systems, and fixture and irrigation system renovation and retrofit. h. Develop an ongoing, reliable statewide funding source to acquire, develop and/or maintain open space, greenbelts, rivers, streams and trails. i. Expand and utilize existing landfills in the county. j. Encourage post-consumer recycled products use in manufacturing, residential and business applications through incentives, educations, promotions, etc. k. Enact truth in labeling rules which identify a product's regional recyclability, and its post-consumer recycled content. 1. Require "disposal warning" labeling on household hazardous materials, which reduce the use of toxic materials, and which promote nontoxic alternatives to present materials. m. Require mInImum content standards for use of recycled materials In manufacturing processes. n. Provide funding for environmental enterprise incentives, specifically Recycling Market Development Zones (RMDZ). (NOTE: with this year's reauthorization (58 1535, city supported), the RMDZ program has been extended through 2006. Staff is currently working with the City of San Diego on a potential RMDZ partnership. o. Continue authorization for bottle bill legislation, such as AB 1467, Ch. 1259, Statutes of 1993 and SB 1178, Ch. 624, Statutes of 1995, providing state payments to agencies which operate curbside recycling programs. (NOTE: State support under this law helps subsidize the City's curbside recycling program. SB 1178 extends various provisions through 1/1199, but the form of the bottle bill program and its support for local curbside recycling programs is a continuing issue.) p. Expand the bottle bill or other advance disposal fees to provide recycling incentives and funding for other materials, such as liquor and fruit juice bottles and used motor oil. (NOTE: Additional bottle bill designations and deposits would increase recovery of recyclables and assist in cost recovery of curbside collection.) q. Eliminate plastic and glass processing or handling fees. (NOTE: These fees are assessed to manufacturers rather than consumers and thus do not provide an incentive for consumers to recycle. None of this funding supports local curbside programs.) 7 gr/'1 r. Enact a statewide landfill ban on designated recyclables. (NOTE: Such a ban would encourage development of new feedstock capacity and strengthen/stabilize long term markets.) s. Reauthorize the Federal Water Resources Act, including provisions to raise the reimbursement limit and provide reimbursement for construction expenditures. (NOTE: With a revised reimbursement limit, Chula Vista could be eligible for up to an additional $5 million for further improvements along the Telegraph Canyon Creek flood control channel.) t. Modify the Clean Water Act to give the City of San Diego an exemption rather than a waiver from the requirement of upgrading the Point Lorna treatment plant to a secondary- treatment facility or providing reclaimed water. (NOTE: Existing mandates carry a potential cost of $1.7+ billion to San Diego County--+ approximately $130 million to Chula Vista. Reclaimed water would add a cost of $10 per residence per month. An exemption from these requirements would provide greater/more lasting cost protection than a waiver. Congressman Bilbray plans to introduce an amendment to the Clean Water Act in 1997.) u. Limit environmental mitigation requirements for construction and maintenance of drainage facilities in urban areas especially in developed neighborhoods. (NOTE: At present, the City may be required to purchase mitigation land amounting to as much as four times the project size. With projects in developed neighborhoods, mitigation requirements can require more complex drainage improvements and the dedication of larger portions of the property owner's lot.) v. Repeal AB 3158, Ch. 1706, Statutes of 1990 (Fish and Game fees) (NOTE: This law requires all project applicants and public agencies subject to CEQA to pay the Department of Fish and Game a filing fee of $1,250 for projects requiring negative declarations and $850 for those requiring Environmental Impact Reports. Although the Department has ceased collection of the fees due to a recent court decision, the fees are still on the books.) w. Grant local agencies authority to file appeals with the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) concerning actions by a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). x. In any proposals for utility restructuring, 1) preserve local agency flexibility to be an active participant in aggregating or serving local energy needs, and 2) encourage the implementation of residential rate relief. (NOTE: The California Public Utilities Commission and Legislature have approved a significant restructuring of the electric utility industry effective 1/1/98. Cities such as Palm Springs and other groups such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have been exploring the concept of acting as a "utility aggregator" and playing a more active role in the wake of the deregulation to come. Although no such action is recommended for Chula Vista as yet, it is important that local interests be considered and home rule flexibility preserved as the new industry rules are written. City staff and SANDAG continue to evaluate aggregation opportunities and potential legislatiVe/regulatory actions.) 8 8"15 y. Provide information on "source of power generation" to allow consumer choice or incentives to purchase renewable energy. (NOTE: In furtherance of Chula Vista's commitment to development and commercialization of alternative fuels, it is recommended the public be given the opportunity to choose their power sources in a restructured utility industry based on environmental criteria, and that, if appropriate, incentives be created for such choices.) z. Advance the use of low and zero emission vehicles through market incentives. credits, rebates, public/private partnerships and other innovative solutions. H. Public Employer-Employee Relations. 1. Support efforts to: a. Protect the rights of cities to establish conditions of employment, including hours, wages, employee benefits, the meet and confer process, appeal procedures, and management rights. b. Reform California Workers' Compensation Program to reduce public costs and tighten restrictions. c. Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure that executive, administrative and professional employees still qualify as exempt. 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Impose restrictions on the scope and authority of charter cities to control their own health plans or retirement systems. b. Mandate the inclusion of local government employees in the Social Security System and/or Medicare. c. Increase workers' compensation benefits without also making needed reforms. d. Mandate changes, impose limitations, and/or other benefit plans, wages, hours, or working conditions which are properly determined through the meeting and confer process. e. Mandate mental health coverage in group health insurance plans. f. Reduce local control over public employee disputes and impose regulations of an outside agency (such as PERS). g. Prohibit an employer from testing an employee or applicant for employment for illegal substances. 9 '6'/~ I. Public Liability. 1. Support efforts to: a. Change the legal principal of "joint and several liability" to protect the City against "deep pocket" liability. b. Reinforce public entity design and discretionary act immunity. c. Prohibit recovery by a plaintiff for injury where those injuries were caused as a result of avoiding a police pursuit. d. Enact tort liability reform (NOTE: To minimize governmental financial exposure from frivolous lawsuits, both the state legislature and Congress have introduced various tort reform proposals. In particular, these proposals can provide protection to local law enforcement and dispatch personnel.) ~ Expand the existinS! list of !\hazardous activities" so that public entities and public emplovers are not liable for iniuries to anv individual(s) who participate in these activities (e.l(. skateboardinl(, rollerbladinl(). 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Further erode government immunity. b. Force the City to accept risks it would not normally accept in the ordinary course of business, such as in the case of mandating acceptance of below-grade or low-grade sureties on performance bonds or labor and materials bonds. (NOTE: Such mandates can result from special interest legislation from insurance or financial industries.) J. Public Safety. 1. Support efforts to: a. Strengthen present State and Federal laws which give local governments the power to further restrict or regulate prostitution. b. Increase penalties for the manufacture or sale for profit of dangerous drugs including but not limited to PCP, methamphetamine and narcotics. c. Prohibit the sale and brandishing of replica or facsimile firearms. d. Toughen drunk driving laws, penalties or enhancements. e. Require notification be given to local law enforcement prior to the release of a prisoner in that County ICity. f. Strengthen the City's ability to regulate the public display of material which is harmful to minors. 10 8"/ ? g. Permit forfeiture of all assets of drug dealers which would then be committed to drug enforcement programs. h. Allow tagging (i.e. serialized identification) of beer kegs in an effort to reduce under age consumption of alcoholic beverages. 1. Permit the staffing of Photo Radat posts by properly trained non-sworn personnel. j. Permit the issuance of a photo radar citation to trigger the arrest warrant process. k. Provide greater authority for police or other local agencies to control graffiti. curfews, juvenile crime and alcoholic beverage control. 1. Provide funding for local police staffing, programs or equipment. 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Preempt local ordinances concerning Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. b. Overturn or reduce the funding for items contained in the federal Crime Act of 1994. K. Public Works/Transportation. 1. Support efforts to: a. Enact clean-up legislation related to transportation funding. b. Provide funding which would complete missing freeway links; emphasis on SR- 125 and 1-905. In thifJ regard, e~tablisJ.:J. tae ~~"eeP:'~ater segment sf aR l~a as a prBjeet sf state'wide sigRifieanee. (NOTE: Private toll.road funding may provide a needed boost to complete this transit corridor and take additional traffic off Chula Vista surface streets. Construction of the Sweetwater segment of SR-125 has begun. It is in the City's interests to ensure that completion of the project remain a high priority for the State.) c. Fund local transportation projects. d. Reduce municipal costs associated with CalTrans projects. e. ^ uuma the TraRsit De~Telgflment.^_et (TO:\.) te al191&T 9U~ aa~!eFti!.iRg revenue t9 ge earmarke" fGr "isoe"ato" YGuth tr-all,it I',,",e, er ether BeB tradili9Ball'mgm...s. (NOTE: This item is recommended for deletion from the Legislation program based on recent Council direction during the 1996/97 budget workshops which was not supportive of external advertising on city buses.) f. Allow local agencies flexibility in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide the greatest benefit to the local disabled population, rather than committing scarce resources to achievement of 2% maximum sidewalk and driveway slopes. 11 8"'/1' & Revise speed limit laws to allow for radar enforcement of residential street speed limits (e.g. at levels below the 85th percentile as determined bv a traffic studv). h. Clarify certain provisions of Proposition 218. specifically: ill determine that Assessment Districts which have alreadv been formed bv resolution. and for which hearings to approve the construction of improvements were held prior to the passage of Proposition 218 and for which work had been ordered to be done orior to the passage of Proposition 218. are exempt from the "second hearin2:" requirement of Proposition 218: and ill determine that future Assessment Districts formed under the 1911 Act and other Assessment Acts. that call for two hearings bv law. require a vote at the first hearing onlv. Currentlv. the purpose of the first hearing is to form a district and order work to be done. the purpose of the second hearing is to confirm the assessment after work has been completed and final costs have been determined. L Require CalTrans to allow cities an exemption from CalTrans' public work prOTect requirements if CaITrans is not meeting those same requirements. (NOTE: Chula Vista was required to spend approximately $100,000 dollars on a recent signalization project in order to meet specific CalTrans' road-widening requirements when CalTrans itself has not met these same standards on their own public works projects. This recommendation is consistent with Council policy to oppose unfunded mandates.) i Amend pue regulations to prohibit utilities from locating cables directlv into concrete sidewalks and require said cables to be placed 24" -36" below sidewalk surfaces. (NOTE: Engineering staff reports a growing problem in finding telephone cables embedded in the concrete sidewalks. Sidewalk reconstruction becomes virtually impossible without damaging the cable lines.) k. Exempt all citv vehicles from the Biennial Inspection of Terminals program requirements for drivers hours of service during emergencies. similar to the exemotion S!:ranted to S!:as and electric comoanies. (NOTE: This program was intended to regulate the times which commercial truck drivers spend on the road, but has no exemptions for city vehicles other than those operated by the Fire Department. It unnecessarily restricts city public works vehicles and hampers local governments' ability to respond to emergency situations such as flooding or earthquake damages.) 2. Oppose Efforts to: a. Furtherrestrict development impact fees for roads. bridges. and public facilities levied against developers of propertv. b. Further restrict fees and assessments levied against individuals or entities receivinS!: a soecial benefit. 12 If'/~ L. Recreation. 1. Support efforts to: a. Provide state/federal funding for City programs in: the arts; child care; gang prevention and diversion, and drug prevention and intervention in a community- based recreation setting. M. library. Support efforts to: 1. Provide for continued funding of: the state Public Library Fund (PLF), California Library Services Act (CLSA), Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA), Library Services and Technology Act (LST A), literacy programs, and library construction and renovation, and access to new technologies. II. LEGISLATIVE ITEMS REQUIRING FORMAL COUNCIL ACTION. A. Bayfront - Redevelopment. 1. Support efforts to: a. Consolidate control and administration of environmental regulations and enforcement; presently in Department of Interior; Corps of Engineers; Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOaA); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). b. Coordinate Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and State Coastal Zone Act, in an effort to eliminate duplicate efforts. c. Enhance business attraction and retention (Governor's Program of Competitiveness). 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Reduce the number of San Diego Unified Port District Commissioners and/or require commissioners to be elected members of the City Council which they represent. B. Environmental Prorection. 1. Support efforts to: a. Approve the coordination of State, Federal and local agency responses to air quality control, energy, and environmental protection. b. Seek funds for facilities to capture and treat the flow of raw sewage entering San Diego from Tijuana. 13 %',,~ c. Encourage development of environmentally sound techniques for treating hazardous waste to reduce its volume and eliminate any toxicity. d. Provide funding to study the water quality/toxic pollution in San Diego Bay. e. Encourage development of water resources facilities and make improvements to the delta. f. Obtain financial assistance at the federal level to construct new and upgrade existing secondary treatment facilities in San Diego County. 2. Watch efforts to: a. Favor/require utilities to allow Ilwheeling" (delivery of electricity, gas or water purchased from other sources) to major users or cities. (NOTE: Wheeling could potentially allow for 1) greater water availability and fewer constraints on local development and 2) more competitive, lower cost utilities. Staff recommends a close watch be put on related proposals such as Imperial Valley water transfers, CPUC free-market restructuring, etc., with formal positions to be subject to further Council input. C. General Government. 1. Support efforts to: a. Fund school facility construction programs. b. Clarify the authority of school districts to impose facilities fees established by Ch 887, Statutes of 1986 CAB 2926). c. Authorize cities to establish special assessments for specified general local services, subject to approval by the local electorate. (NOTE: Special property assessment legislation is frequently introduced to provide additional options for funding such items as police services and equipment, library services, and business district improvements.) 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Impose greater restrictions on local government through amendment of the Brown Act. D. Housing and Community Development. 1. Support efforts to: a. Develop Federal and State partIcipation and financial support for creative programs to provide adequate housing for the elderly, handicapped, and low- income persons throughout the community. b. Maintain and create tax incentives for private revitalization of eXlstmg commercial, industrial and housing resources where such assistance benefits the City. 14 ?".2/ E. Public Safety. 1. Support efforts to increase municipal funding for the removal of abandoned vehicles. 2. Oppose efforts to: a. Change/remove date and/or shift, to the employer, the burden of proof related to firefighter cancer presumption. b. Shift to the employer, the burden of proof related to Public Safety AIDS presumption. c: \... \rnemos\971egprg.dft 15 3''';':;'' ~ '" <0 ,..~ '" .....~ ~~ <0 s~ =r"'I U~ ..... ~,.. 0< ~...l ,..;!l .....'" Ur"'I ...l ~ r"'I '" o ~ o ~ ~ . ~ ==~ ..... 1::'" ~5 r"'I .., J:). 't:l '" ~ ,~ ..... ,~ = ,~ ~ t-- "" "" .... ~ ~ J:). ~ e -= u :E ~ '" e '" ..... ,~ = '<;j ..... .. '" u '" 't:l ::l - u = ,~ ..... o = '" '" o 't:l ..::: c;; ~ ,~ ..... ,~ .. o 'C Q, i ~ -= ..... .., - ,~ .. '" o:l ~ e '0 .C = Q,~ '" o:l ..... u .. '" '" c-= ~..... .. 0 '5 s -= ~ u '" '" 6b :a = ..... 0 ",u u = or ,~ .. '" ::l ..... r"'I.!S ""Q, 0", Z...l o +-',..,... ~ '1:;:1" i.; ...... ~ "j +-> Q.I cO - ;1 U':l Q) .s Q.I 0 OJ 0 ~ v;'f;_~~f;~>-~ c::: ':>-c:l..c:l:-;::::l +-> ."..d t<~ Q.I ~ s::: ,..CI Vl >....... V,l" ell U a;:;'..2:s!(I)+->i:l~4::QC:: "" " s ;J 0 " "~.", > ~ .... 0.-,..4 0 ,.::,,:: Q) Lf) ::l r--. c: C:::Vlo..~~UO~\O "'gb::l QJ~<u",,~ 00 l:J"'o ..... 0 t13...... Q.I,..CI QJ........ ~ 0 u ~ "'Cf i:l '1:l 13 '-.. S ~ 0.5 0.. Cl '"t:I ::i Q) [,I..f <+-0 ~ '1:: U':l '0 ~ ~ U) ;:J..c S CI) "'C1 bO u ..c "QJ 0 Q) C:,.J:l 0:;"0] ~ ~ QJ CI:I - 0.. u.... bO ['-... Q.l ~ .... Q) 2:: 0.. ::l "'C ;.E O\.~ >. 00 N 19 :E ;1 0 13 a _'" t'-.. S Sol '" "- U':lUVl'-"~.......vuN;':::: V)...... ..... ~ c::: r:: r.n .5 ~...... 0 0 Q.I +-> ctl Vl ""C1..c:::",:J .n'a::l c::: "'dUQ.I::ll:l::lau5 Q)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~]'~] ~ ~ .g o 0 l::::l C'C "'~ "'3 l-< 0...... c::: .....~u::U)~"'CO"(I)caVl~Q) ~<l) ......eeoiBg"iaQ)i> .... '> :< 0 0.. 0......... IV "'O..c Oi>oQ)l-o~>.o..o(l)2;::1' ;s:ebOt:lO".......cO.....Vl......,~ .-< E:l go Q) 0 ...... ro l-o a ::l..... ..; t; 0.. >'0 c::: ~ .5 ." 0 tf 0 ~ ',:J 0 ~SA~"iil ';:;: <1- Q)o~~Vl~u.:l:><8+ g~bOc:::U~,,!9t1l;::: <11 0 0 Q) .... r--. >. 0 > .... S::c " ">> ol ;.:::: Q):5 0..'"0 ::l!9 ~t:: ~:-::: H o"C/j c::: 0.. Vl:::::' Q.I ro S,.-.., ~LJ')~ ~N~::O g.~NE:! Z r.4 u @ ~ ~ ~ l3.. -S t:; ~ o ~ <11.", " Oil .g ~ r3 Oil 0 ;:,'iiJ f:;' o f-o ~ '2 CI ><l ~ ~ u ~ <<: f-o i:1 >. <11 u ~ S ~~;J <1Itg. ~ 0.. !:: <r:a:: ~ ro 8 ;< ii: tV :> Ol ~. U cd Q) El (]) <Il <11 0 f-o 1: ".: CI ~ 7J i:l tV U U .~ 1:: ~ <11 !:j<1l <11 Ol S ""o~ ~ .~ ~] ~ g .... CZ ~ .~~"'2 8 O"><lf-ou>....><l ~ <11 0 "" b<) ro ~ a. ~ ".;3 "E'] ai"iij ~ o::tj,..1:lu....d>~..... NwU ~O_crl ~ .. "0 .... - <I c:Q .... .... :G...o P.. ~ 0 <: .~..8..... g. ctl '0 VJ bO'en ~ 0 u ""d "c:l H 0 0 ~ ;:::t <I b"~ <11"" ~ ~ tJ ,"_'1:l..c::<1I,""'~ ,.......0 c:l.~;;:: H c:l OJ p,. ';1 0,,::1 b.Q 0 0 ~ 0.. ~ 0 (Il .8 $: U (!) ~ 2:l ~ 2:l "'0 u Q) Q.. U') ctl ~ '-.. 1=1.... !3 '--" '--" ..... "'C "'0 ..E :c .~ "'?: a&~8 o ~ € '" ..s 0 't ''8 ~ >>5 "" ol ~ Oo..'Q) 8 .", u .-< ~ ~ ol ~ .", ..c::"~ Q) "'00 a.l ~ ..... = 0 ~~S..EM 8'-' v.J = 6 'e :3].g ~ OJ;'::::::: (lj U bl:I t:;:lOl" <11 CI <11 S o :r: <11 ~ ~ ;J "Vl .... ol ~ ~ <11 "~ >> <11..!:! ~ " l'!..c:: <IlU Y'~3 ::r:OroeJ o """'OQ 0 S (jl V;' 0 oq - ~ ~t;.~ e.: ~ 0 OS ., ~ ., ::to V') ~ -< ..." rtl 0 ..... '"0 '"1 g ~ ., " o ~ ~ '"0 ~. ~ o ~ n ." ..... D. a ~ 0 ~ n os ~"" r' " ;::. OQ ;:J.::r' <S'~ f'D~g rti"g &.. '"' os ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ p- >6' N -Ef}tI'tr.lS-Efl< tv ~ ,: ..... I--' ro ~ ~"c:I::::N (ti ..w (1) 'E.. o' S '"1 o os " os ~. ~ ~ 0. S' :::: tI' o (t) o' "'TI ~ g F t .., s c. c:" ~.. t552 N" CIlO"'();:t> ..... 0 0 en ~ g. g ~. " 0. ~ _'"I:l.......... (t) (tl l:j ~ < 0... ~ ..... l!. rtl ::t.!:!. tI') >-t 0 ;::r . a os ~ 0 0. os S';l>"'~~.,n""'-<o ..... n (1) g.. ~ )::l rtl ~ ~ )::l tl')8~<nO")::lC,/)(tl0Q '< r:: g. rtl [!; ::> (jj rti ; s. re os " os ~ o..~ '1 os os :<M"<=t.2'-<.,"~oq )::lgS@=g::l:=tl::rn (1)<< ,<~p..(l)OO ~ t1i o' -g ~ g. 0 S' ~ g '< C: ora ~ os S' os. e: rtl '::t>::t. (D ~ 0' ~ &..)::l ~ ~ 5 g )::l "c C'" t:)' OJ ~ o. s.... M"'C C'" en ..... l=' 0 0.. trJ' ........... r:: 0 ,., ::s o VI Vl Z /'tl (I) ro "'C (l) '"1 m (")0 So..V1 '"1n 0 (I) 0;:... '"1 CD ",. 0 (D l:l :=:0"9 n::s Vl@ g ~ n <; :> ..... r-t U) rD I'D ~ a. ~~. >-t - (I) ;:;:: =" ':-::0.. OQ :ti';>l Bl.gj . " a en tJ;j N <n <n " tJ;j o o ". S' ~ '" ~ o '" " ~ M ~ ~ f? os ~ r:: rt a", -<".j>. <n o o o o .... 0.. "t:l """''"0 "'0 ,--..., (tl ..... >- e;;' ::2. ~ ~. g ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~~~~'"O(tl~OO ro= =....'"O=~N r:t.rtl()(I)a.oo.~ o '"1 0 ""t a ..... (l) r-.. )::lVlr::tn ~.2V1cn o~O'O'..~~~sa Sn'"1~...,.,~o'"'O " " n p- Ill. ,,0 o~~'~[ii;~~ """'::s ..c, OQ '-" n-.....:. g.t:!.P)rp'"Ow~~ t;;;''< .... C'" '"1 N 0..0<:1 n 0.. PJ 0 I--' ..... ::s iFi ::r () n '"0 ....... lit rtl Pl J:l) 0 >:;-' 0 ...,., 0.. ..... I-t r:: r-t ~ 0 '-" ::;:~ )::l 0 0.. '"1:=: <;r.I (I) ~ 13. S '" [;1' ;- "..2. 'I ';;'ClCl 00" g ~ ~ . 9 ~ .e:sa " g , o...c::(tino~n::ro ~B-~:$PlsOPl::g "" ..... (!) ....... :.:: '< )::l..... ". O. n (D ~ ... "'0 n 0 OQ rD 0 ...... ....... ro =:r (I) e.. (I) s (ti CICI 0 ~ ..... ro .,. S - t:::r" f':I (I) (I) o. ..-.. ~ u<; e. Dl ro ~ o S' S t:;. 0 '"1 D. (ti' g. ~ d'.......... '"1 Dl 15 ro ,....,. '-' t:l @ 15 ::I. (ti ~ ,,(I) ~ )::I D. 0 ~ '"1 0 EJ P. Dl O'"t:l ,....,. ro '"1 ::< <=t. os" ' o.g " " '"'- o (I) '"1 0 .... (I) (I) ;::r ~'"t:IDl7'P)"ro" ro ~ 0'"1 0 ~ D. 0 g s~' ~ "'1 Dl 0 ~ '"t:I ;S. (I) 0...::: ~ '"t:I 8 '\:I ~ 0.. i>> f':I ". ~ _ 0 ~ ~ ::s 0 0 g: ro ::2. J:;. (I) 0.. ~ '\:I ..... f':I ,....,. CICI r:t ro f':I ..... P-~:;'oOl:;g'g ~ o..;::r ~ D.CICI'::S 0 ~ ~o8=:ro~ ::s .... ";"" ~ a 0 0 7'e- " ~ :n ~ ~O":;, ::s ro 0.. g ~ ro g.~og.g.,~ 5' g. ~ t:;. ~ 0.. CICI _ ro..p..'"t:I .....0'"1 ~ 0 f':I"""ro 0..... (I) f':I <:::" ro q 0 ro 0 ~ m ~ g g D. ,....,. 0 ro ..... e. - os .... ~ ., M n P- n 0" ~ " -<" ..... Dl '" 0 Z t'""" () S " " S';l> " 0 '"t:Ie;.gro~~o ~ ro _ '"1 0 ~ a.. !it 0 ~ Q.;J> ro S' ~..... D." 0 Dl _VI ro i>>"""""", o p)"(I)::S ()ro f':I ,....,. ,....,. 0.. ..... ~ e. 0 0 o. ;:::I. ~ " M (I) u(l) =:r Dl f':I Dl ~ ;- C/') hi 0'\:1 ~ ,.-., C/') 9- E.~ 0.. C1 ~ a= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0.. (ti; p)" ~ t:;. (I) 0 N ::I. ro ::r- f':I 0"' g: "'1 '"1- o' ..... C/')"-" ~ 8 0 P"'.z::::...,. g ::s ~ tTJ C/') "0.. S ::s. C/') 0 f':I (I) ro C :ti'" M g. "'" tJ;j :!i g:oq 0. C:z :g ro ""'h '"1 0 <; '" (I) ro..... 0 (I) '"1 Dl CICI .... ~ '"1 ro ~ ::s t'""" ~. ., 0. '< '"'- co N' "M '" ;>;l ~ ::s..... ;::r \0 0 >-t '"1 0 C/') <---.l f':I D.Q.."rj O'\::s ......e:._C/')o ::s t:r' 0.... _ .....CICI _ Dl " tn. os ~ "2! os go '< "' ;l> ., ~ " aoq n s oq , ..." <; ::::: os n " 2 " ., g.,., .. '" 0. 2' .,.~ ro g." ~ <3 ;>. Z :I: 2 g:"s"S'.,OlS'O;>;l ~ "s~o..oo...:::O"' tTJ~ !'D ~ ::1." - t:l U1 ~::s' s:r g ~ '-' U1 roOQ 0..0 U1 ~ ; ...~ '" , ~ 'lJ g., .... I ~ ~ ~ r t 'e ~ >< g r ~T ~ ( ~ ~ :J "'" ~Q) Q) w.... ",;.a en ro Q) N ~ ~ ~~ ~ o Q) OJ o:::t '--'::a....:l<t:~ N ro S ....M ..q- 5J 0 a3 ,..-l '"O..t 'P ffl "1';;; " <r: ;:: 8 :J a.i O",::J 0 Q) -c:l u...... U t:: :iJ 0 C5"",'- M::: ~:iJ s . U - S"'" N OJ 0 en 0 Q) M .;:::->...... QJ C) 0 ...... '-' '::l .... ffl ~ ~'O.S ~ ~ w:B .... bO l:l "'C ~ ;:: 0 ~..c "'C1 .......a:::;l Q) ~..:s '"0 8 ~ El tJ:I 0..... QJ ca '50 1::1 ~ '-I-< Q ~ .S ~ ~ N ~..... C5 0 U <il S (I).p ~ '<. d..... N tJ:I :~ &U'7 ~ " ~.~ '-' "'" Q).S's "'3~U:.=l OUQ):-::= ;:: ~.s S ~ " . .... :s OJ .... "'en :@ ~ ~;; ~ oS ~ .~ i-< - tI)"..t 0 ~ ~ U '0 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ e, ~ ~ Q) .... t:5 0.. ~ ~ 'P..o d::a ~'.5 Q) S" 1iJ Q) ~ '" . :::;l en ~ o~ gfo..t"'?;>~'C6 ro Q) ro U 0 .... Q) Q)..... 0 ~ -e i-<t: bOfiVl~-S::a ~ u~ Q) 0 rn a.i ~....... U....d ;:i'l-< :> ..... r:: '-' l-I 0 tJ:I ":+:l 'a Q) Otro(f.l~o..~~tns" o <r:: QJ t:.~ I-< ro ... ro 0.. ~ cn S Vl 0..,,8 :> ro...c:.g 8 t:: -c:l Q) ~ 8 >. 'C ~ ~ u 0 o E; oS t:l 0.. ~- 0.. "'t:l Vl..... u ::t:u.....o<:n"'~Q)Q) ":CQJ Q) 2:i 0'" Q) o.s..c ~ ".s OJ........_ ro v.I u -+oJ Vl 0.. ~ .~ 0 El 15 ~ ~ 8 15 Q) 'C: 0..:0 ~ E> ro .... ~ 0 ro oS .... 0.. :::;l 0 <-+a ~ (3 .9 ~ ~ c:: C5 00.. u..... -c:I u ;:> ... "'0.... u ~ " Q) <ilS~ .... 8:::' Q) Q) ~ " ,. " Q) 0 0 0c..?~ TJ gi:; uu -~ ""'" Q) Q) U..c: Q) ~ 0::._ :0 a.i .s ~ ~ CLi ~ , Q) .- ~ jj 's S o u ~ '': 8 .g '€ 0. '" ~ :;: " o 0 - .., u U .... Q) 0- ~ Q) .- ~ " Q) o ~ ~ .~ >. ..0 ..0 o ..., " o .., ;".'" Q) ro a3.~ d u <J:I .~ 8 t) ~ 0...... "'" rl ~ " U 0. ~ ~ 1:: U o " 0.Q) 0." "..... CJ) 0 " S .g 'B U Q) Q)- - Q) Q) ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ .~ l:l . en ~s VI OJ .~ [0:: > ~'C:-3 u""'..c: ui<lu ::> ~.s ~ ' ,,'J.5' , "'" .... Q) ]..8.8~ C5 roB .+;:: b.o Q).... ~ a.l ~-c:lQ) r:: S l:l ~ Vl -..... ~ "'....-I ..... ..... Q) = 0 ro u :> ~ :.:::::..s Vl ~..... "'0 ~ CI:l 00:: ci. Vl Q) Q) VI "0 ctl4-0..n El 00 . t8-So~...c:o>'\-I0..\-Ib v 0 (3:: '8 v >. v ~ 0.. 0.. c:: ti:: _Vl S,.....l <+-t ::I ,.;:' c::: r;S ~ Vl ::I ~ - 0 Vl r-. bO:-;:l 0 - {/) ~ 8 NV..tf---~m:-9S='-"~Vl _g~~~~~~..noo..9"" ~ ,,:.E r-l 0.. oj 8. oS v"' ffi (i3 ~ ~ <+-t _Vl ~ 0.. (!) '" ~ ~ ,;;:;j >. ~ -bO en ~ tj s ~"'CJ t:: r-. bO ,'tr () c::: ,,-,, 's"'CJ..... (!) o"'CJ c::: od:..d~..t:S(!):-1.:l~o..~:.a .c ro ~ '0 ..... ~ ...cl ..... 0.. bO c:: 0... -5 1=1 '0 {l 8..n ","'..E ~ 'Ui ..E " t< Q) Q) " " .... ~ <2<il ] [~ '" 0 '" ;:: ~~ N (!) Vl 00:< ~ (!) 0 ...cl ~ ~ ~ ~ :s:! ;:R ~ g. \-I Q'\ g 1=1 ~ ~ (!) ~;:::r () ttI.....-oj U"l (!)"'CJ >.......... "'" '" . >."i> '-. "- ['-...(!)dN.........OObO ['-..."'CJ 0 r-l d \-10 c:: Q'\ ..... '.0 e 0 0.. 0 .~ rl~:.a ::3::::0"' '" ...."'" t,j.-.- '<!" ~ {/) 0.. ttI..... S ~ ~ Vl M o ~ t,j ~ E- Q) ~ 0." o Q) .... S 0.8 "'" Q) :iJ ,. o ~ eo Q)<il ~ U ..... 0 0- ..... " 0 o ~ 'O~ '" Q) u " o Q) -..0 <il Q) Q)..c: 0:: ~ (ti ~ () '"0 (1 " 0 '"1 t:r"~ S ~ = ~ s s.: g.~:::(t) o " ::s 2:j '" ~. 2' , ~~::s 0- '" 0. ~ (D'''g .... "" no=' rtl (t) Cl'Cl OQ j:l..::t'"1':"1'> ~ g S g ..g.'; '" go (t) l-1 e. (t) ~ 0 ...,. _ ." OQ (l) l J . '1 3 ::s- a 0> g. VI O. ~ " ., < gj '" 0;' 0.2"; o!E..cn S" S i!; !!i ... o ~ 0' "'C ::t ~ '"1 a ~ ~o ~'8 o 000(11 ~8,.o~ 0" 0 """"c..O I;/) "t:l (t) 0 s::: >-t "t:l ...,. g- o (l) 0 P ~ E.. E'f a s' ~ OQ = "t:l ,0.. rD ...... trJ (!) '"1 (t) tn Jg >< (!) ..9.13 "g t;;.'E,. 0.. III 0 n ...... 0 :n n = ..... ~ 1-1 ,.,. VI a o. III (t) f:t ..... 0 "t:l ..c ,Q:I <...c:: ::s 0 S. a. d''' ...,. "t:l 0 '"1 (!) S ::s ::s '" <=I. ::s e!- ~ ~ g~ [~~ -0...... ..""0 'Om =:r ~ "'0 '"1 ~ S'!O g: tii ~ e!- ,Q:I ...,. >- In '< Z ~ en VI O"o..!( 13~ '" ." '" I'! S ~ <: S ;:\~. ~ I'! (");:l el. ~;:\ 0 '" "e!-(") so. gsg 13 0- '.. n P s::: '"1 ~. 0> S ::s 0- ::s <=1'0 ~'o ~ g '-' So "'~ :" ...."'''' 00'" .... <;)"" W g;'l5 ~ V1'"~ AleJO " ::S-" ~ E.~. 0> 0 <::s ~: g, 0> 0. ~. ~ <tie!- r-.. 5' S'O> S g. '" ::s ::;."" '< - g;g !'\ N 'g is: o 0 "" ::s o ::1.' ~ 0 e!-'1 !" gj '< ::s '" " "'is..t:;;g.~"I:I = .... (t) tI) ,Q:I 0........0'1:1 (l) ~ ~ n' Q q f;i ~ ...,. O"'~~re=S~ s::: o'~ ~ ~ ~ (t) a = <J ,0.. S ~ 5' rt! 0 (t) (') (D n ="""ac>-t~~ o .4" 13 ~ '"tl,Q:I ~ :.. ~ g: ~ ~'::S m o 0 ...,. ~ (!) ~ ..... n CI) tn III - S ::I I!l.s:(-,o-s..o '!' 0 ~.~ I'D = ~ o::S 0;<::; ('D <: N '::s"-" rot =: 8 :;;:::;.,;g~.g' s ~ ~ (l) '-' ...,. ~ (t) ;::l...... 0 0 (!) l:' go:=: n >-t (\) !"'" 0 S' 0 l:T' >< t:l r:: ...,. ::s ..... n .... ...,. rtI q 0Cl (t) s~ o ::s- '" ...... ~ o.~' " ~. ~ o ::s "" ~q'"O ~ '" '1 0> 0 ~ >< '" . ~. " ::s ;oR " 0 0> gj <ti ::s '1'" I!l. W I.... .., rO>I'!...,,-O>< (!) = l:3 ,Q:I (D tn <; t;;.1e.. (t) ~~. ~ ~ - '0-' ::I 1-1 ..... VI n ,Q:I 1-1 0...Q:I ,Q:I V,I ::::r <=I. So-<=I.S~ o c.. (t) ::r 0 (I) '"C ::s ~ ~ ::s::s '" .... ....,.,. n l==h &f ;t &.: rs. (l) ~ ",. ::E !'\ " ::s- S' '!O g4'~~gj::E o oS~' 0 " g v ~ ~ ,Q:IO:: ~ ~ N g 5' ~ ~ ~ !--'POQ (t),< ~..... co l'tl en ('0 g.;-,ag'srt ;: D.' en ('0 en p:l=:-:_ogl-l n ..... ~ ~ p:l ~~('OP;@' ?'J ('0 h5 ('0 ~ en ~ ("') OQ s:: ~ 9- :s ""'_ ].. en..... - p:l m ~p:l 9-@' ~ '" " S '"1 en n ('0 0 -. ::s ., ~ ~ '" Q.. Z" ,. ,;J..v :;>0 "''''' ~'O o ~ '" '" ~ ;:\ ~ ~ o 8' "" o ~ '" 0- o '1 0. '" '1 " '1 o ~ ~ S' OQ _. ('0 '"tl S " 0 "" 0 ~ 0> ::s '" " 0 " ~ S ~. .Q.:e. ~ e!- '" ~ ~ ~ "" 0 ,. 8"" "" "" ""0 g o en ::to ~ '" 0 e!- ...,,'1 en ~ ~ i!; 0. I!l. ~ '" ~ ~~O('),l,...(ti'('Oen ('01--''1:l0~('O~'.J ~""t>'1:lS""':v.I~U1 ..... ('0 O'd ('0 ""t>..... -+:>- ""t> ('0 en I-l p.. 0 ('0 O' t'I1 0 _. I-l p....-.... ':lz~S::s.,,,,o <!:; ('0 <' -. n ('0 I--' '1:l tll _. <; en 0 ::r. '1:l >; ~. 0 '" " ~. V1 0 p..;::r~_pno . ('0 >=... ('0 S - en I-l p..o,g. _. ~ ~ ~ ~g-~frtgp..~ "'0 <: ~.!'D p,.~ 0 I-l ('0 0 "'0 9 E. oe.~ ('O'.Jp.. '8 0"-"" ~Vl::r en~en enn~ e. p,. ~ S. ~ ~ C')9 g~. '1 ~ ::s 'OQ ~<;)<;) " 0 '" o ., ::s ::s '" '" .-c 3 '1 COle!- '" " ~ ~(")o ~ 0 "" """''''' 0> ::s 0 ~ ~~~ '1 ~ '" ""t> _. ==+: '" ::s 0 " ;:; ~ g.en~ . S 5' '" 0- ;; el. " - ::1. 0 ~. c ~ ~ ~. S( S"gj ~~ 0> ~ '" .... .g S' S ~ ro ~ .....<:~",oOQo ..... ('0 <..0:::: ('0 t;:;. ~ o en _ n __. t;; g s. E ~. g g ~'-.< g ..... 0 ~" " e. ::to ..." ~ -. S 0> ~ is: ~ ;:r ~ ~ E.. ('0 0 o v.I ('0 ~ n t:I I-l ('0 en p,. en _. _. ~ ~. 8 ;:;. t:C e. g q- S" '" '" -l'::r~. ('0 ::s n I--' ('0 ::s a '1 ~ 0 " ~. ~ ('0 ""t>~ S..-.... ~ ('0 ::s el. 0 "" 0 OQ OQ p..roh5 g..::g,,~ ~ ~p..p..~.oen~ . 0 s:: <: en t:C ~. I-l ~ ('0 t'I1 -+:>- g ~ en 0"""-" ~ ~~g:~"v,gj ~ _. s:: tJ::l p.. ,,::s _ ::r OQ p,. I--' ~gj ~ p. ~ ~ ~ ;:j ~ ~- ,.,,is: ,()'O c::>- 1iJ8 >-l", ~ o "'1i N ~ 8 ~ ~ g ~ ) ~ ~ ,~ ! ~ ;~ 5 =< ! g ~ I) :a g .~ >.'~ ~~:a " :> ~ g;'~ ~ r--: ~.....-O\ g;~c:'~ '" ~ co "~ " ea] [i..... ,J:::li:l:f"'O"O ~ lJ) "'0 ~ " ' " '" Cod - ;> 0.. )-0 bO 0 ..... ~ ~ a'~ LJ~ iH 5 t:~ "0 co ~ .S ~ @ ~ " " " " " ;;:. 0 0'-' Cd 'lJ;:::::';j ~ )-0 ct:l 0 l;fl a.l ~ 'f.i).....::l'"7'~ "6b~~ ::::; u QJ!::;x:5";;:- ~ 0 Q) l;fl j:> M o u ~ " "" ~ .. ..8~ " coco '" " " 0 "~OJ ~ .. >>" '" ~ " " " " "u .t:co Q) .S ~ " rl 'ca o .. ....If-< ~ " " _s~ ~E:::' ~ ~ d " 0 0 0CJ~ ",,,,,-" '13 OJ .....:B ~.t:! e ~ 't) ~s~--gg(J) OJ ~ ~ ~"O id Uuuoe-5Jcrj Q.i ..... +-' ~ 0 )-0 W .. M 'i3 ~ -"<<1 id v.l .g ll) .p <<l..... " '" u~ c:: Cd OJ'~ o U (l) ~,J:::l ';j 0 QJ U P ;::l ...... U-bOQJOl'lll-< "':;;: '" <>:"~ "..2 bO bO <l.J Q) c::.::: ~ . ~ 0 t3 'C S 0 ,.-..~ l-r ..... ..... 0..... "=::< ..E...,"'2 ..........:l,.::::; rJl l-r ..... ........... l-I {J) QJ u p.,c,,-,bOuU o " " 0 ~ 0 " ::E 0 ~ ~Cii is;g .", id.", " " 0.", :;: Iii ~ 8 ~ ij ,.::.:: (13 Q) l-r 1-; ~ ~ bO o ..... j:> 0 ". co " .. >..:!:l ;::: 0.. '" " o "0 0. o N ., " 6-5 0 ~ .s~c>:;;u c:: "'C::r:: p ~.s o Q) 0 0 0 ~ ;.::::: rtj .....;.::::: l-r 0 :-;::::l'J:: ~:-;:: '?--- !Xl S 0.. ~ S c:: ~ Cl o 8 bO 0 g 'S .~ L.f) 0.. Cl a l-r O"'::l ~r;-8~..8~-8 ~ ~ .. to o ~ .", " " u u Iii Iii t; ~ .~ " '" .. .. o " OJ';; t:l 0 ~ o .. " 'a 0 >. ..... Cl) ::l "O~..c .", ~ " '" ~ S QJ'::;;' 0 .",,,,",, .~ ~ Q) 0.", S ~ ~',:j ~ j:;>iii b:o"S s " " 0. ..... s..s ;g s ~ o 0 " :r:uo ~ " - ~ :-::l ell ..c.;; ~ t) 0.... "0 ~ '" " ""''i3 5 " ~ ~ ~ ctlO~ .. " .s 0 .5 'i:l'~ ~ 0_ 1il ..::"S ~ :-;::::l l-r 0 :?:..2 is ..s.", " " -""" '" 0 " t:l ..... 'z;j -s.8 g g "i< ~"1iJ ~ ~ ,.::.:: ~ ::, 1-<..... "<1"""" ,;2001~3 ;>U"'Clw<+:, NI ~ .. .~ 'B..8 VJ 9 ID ::l ""' ;:::=-8 o 0 0..... ..c:.......c::rn ~.s~ ~ ei ct:l ""C1 VI 00 C ~ c::.:::;:: i:I:f 0..E " 0 " :t.-. ::l ',:J 3 ro e ~ ~ Q) i3 ~ .~ v.l ~ ~ ~ ~] "5, o .......... u _ -;;! 0 ill " ...!:! ::l c:: ~ 0 +:I 0 0 _ ..... ~:E ~"'O m ... .~ '0 S :> ~ ::l s:: U ~"S Eo !O ~ 0.. ::l ro a Cij 8".2? .", " "<<1 -< S' ~ 0 Cl "'0 ro ...... (..lJ ~Q.lOO S::ca s:: ~ "'0 M ~ ~'o .9 0 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S is:: I-; en 0 .~ b ca ~ s:>o..'o~"o..s::Q.l CI) CI.l ~ ~... 0;:: N "-' :> l-; ca :.:a =.... Ii) ~ ro ro Q.l CtI bOU "'0 0\,J:::l Q.l "'O~ I-; U Q.l Q.l .q- "'0 ~ ro u <c: p::: bO .~ ~;3 ~ E ~'8 E.9 ~ ~ 0 E> ~ ...... .~ S ~ CI.l <:c: ~ <+-t....,J:::l ~ ~ ~ I-; "-"'~"'OUbOQ.lO <t:: +-i "'O.~ Q.l a s:: ~ I-; u " ".", ~ " "': 0. (..lJ ro ~ Q.l ~ ~ ro Q.l 0 ~bb<+-tto..~..c:..s;:Q co " ....0 . ~ I-; :.:a co " " 8 .9 -5 ~ "0"2 0 OJ CI.lCl:l::1J:>'P~ 0.9 <+-t'a !:l ~ o..s-<s::S'~ 0..:.::: Q ~ 0 0 o Q.l ~.... 0.. ~ rl "" co "N 8'" """ ~ " ~ " 0 Iii 0 ~ I-;'p 0.."-.,, bO ro CI:l !:l <t:: .~ "-' 0 u 0..-< = '" 0.0 "- OQ '" '" s Q.l,J:::l ro ~ ..s bIJ... ;3 ~ o:E ~ (3 .~ ~ 1S ~ I-; 'p o ~ 0 Q.l .... 0..$ U ..s.S o..ro"'t:l...o... ::1_ ~..9 "'0 ~ ::;.E 0 "a Iii s ~ u goca ~ 0.. ... ~ l-o U .e-..9 o u O".p.... CI.l l-o ~ ~::l:-;::::l i> o (..lJ Q.l Q.l U Q.l bO,::Q s:: U ~ "'t:l "u. ~ ~CI:l bIJ.~ "~ " S .", <>:"" "" ~ ~ ~..c: ::1 g 0+:. - b 0.. tJ 0 Q.l ~'''',J:::l CI:l U "'t:l ~ ~ U <+-t Q.l .~ <t:: ........ Q.l ::l CI:l 0...... u..c: ... !:l ... (..lJ U 0 ro ~ ~lXIS:ES> ~ " " u S 's go 001 " :> o " oijo '" l-o ~ ;:::l""':" .S bO g Q.l t ] ~ .~ ~ ~ t= ;:::l e:: bO ::1 "..E 0. " ..c ~ ~ 'C>.~] Ci 0 o,J:::l.... ,::Q ~ ~ l-o.bO o .. U"l 1! " U Q.l ['-.. Cij 0 l-oS~,,-,s:: ..EEl"'t:lqj~ ... ;:::I Q.l :> Q.l ;:::Ien.~ ~ ~ u . 0 ~ s:: # ~ -5 11 "s OO\::1(1);.::::::l 1"""'lrlro>.Q.l ~ co ro ~.;:::l ~ .(;' t:: * 8 El t 'E ~ ID E ;:::I 0 U ~ su.f~ S.~ 0...... .e-:::> ~ 8'0:r: 8 rl ..., " OQ o u o ;:J :r: .... o " ~ " "5 g :E "" " ..: " ~ '" ~ ".", ]~ "'s;: W ~. "''' @ e3" -" ~ 13 " "-n _0 " " 00 ~ ~. " ~a '" . p. n o 0 " 13 '" o ~ .~ '" " '" e;..s;:'" ::s ~~orJ8~ 13 " '" n "0 Q. C' ~ 0 ::r ro OQ tIl .... !:t. en a ro E..:::S ::lr+tIll3t1lOQ OCI 0 .... (D I-t >- g.6;Jga~txl ~. 0 t:tI S \0 \Ol:SOr-tW ,"Worl!;"'" ~\OoQ.~ro ::G. ~ S:' ~ ()Q (II ~ .... en ro ::;;. Vl::s):l;:pP-.- ~ ,,-00 '" " l!; '" z::s g. e?.c..p..~~t:I B VI ro f""'\ .-t ~ . '"'1.. ~ (D ::s g E.. Vi' p.. f "- ~ ~ 13 ~ t:: :r s.t ~. " ~ " '" " " " ... " 13 " re ~ " ;5. ~ ~ g (3 ~ " a. 8'13 ,,-"" " n " el. g e. " ~ 13 ~ 2' ~. ro n &. ~ p. ~ Q. g r:;t. ~ g g. !!l ~ "- S' 1<0 6; W W s;: o s. ~ o " ~ g E: C' S. g :l " ~. " 0 ~ _::s g " 13 ~ 00 " ~ [g~ ~.aS o " " "- ::s '" ~ n or S' 00 '"Om (3 ~ (ti ::to n 0 p. " o 13 " " "" ():::-:"O "Tj nt-j g 13 8 ro ::r (D tIl :=to < ~ ~ ro 10' -'" 00 " ~ 5' e;.. ~ OJ ~ "-" <,""'" ..... In <; ::r o '"C ,..,. ~ Cf.) () ::s 8 0 (ti s:: ~ (I) < '"1 '"1 "t:I :::s ~ E.:E. ~"g a (!) (D ~ (I) ~ ::s "" ~ "-" ~. 0 " n .........;:::rs::: (D '""l 8" 13 (!) M ~ ro '""I C'" '"1 ro r:: (D (I) r:: (l) r.n 9- ~ ~~Er::>o~ (1) 0'" ~ ::L 0 13 ". N 0 (ll I-t .... ~ c.. ::s~~g.() ::;, 13 8'"::S 0 OroQ.o= I-t :::s .......,.,r:::t ~" 0 OQ - ~ .... -ft7 I"'t {;A tl)l:SOlO..- ~'''C:I "0 a .....00 0 "'~o 0 :::s ro" " n :::s 0 0 (t) p. 0 0 e;..o 0 N ~ ....... (') .......... t-j tIl~o\O=l-t .... .... ::s \0 t-t P) ~~srUlO;~ p) ~ n;::!l"O _ ::s 0 0 0 (t) n.....~o::sOQ (t) Vl ".. o..tIl .... """~tIl(t)~ o \~ ". .-t ,tl) I-t e.. 0 g. " '" ::s ~ '" g (i 0. e: e;.." _00 g ro e;..":;!. ::0- o '" o p. ,,-0 -. " ~ ~ "- ? --.2,?, ~ ~ 0;", go' ~~ ~o 5" ~ &0 o 0 0:;; "!~ o 3 ......;:j: ~i!;> " . 9.~. J.,.. ~ ~ g '" o 0 ~ "" ~ "" o o " 'J ~ ~ ~ !fH: fi t ~ ~ ,.. , . ~' E ,. )"l ~c; . ~om n " n o ." 0 " " " "'--0 e.g 13 13 n' " " ~ ~ ~ s- o "- n " " " o ;g re ~. 0"::3 n", ::0 "- 13 " ~ g es. ~.-tg o ........... "'~-<! 13 ~ 0 " '" ..." " ~ n ~g.~ " b' ':; 8 " ~. ;;;'" ~ " ~ o ~ II..> ~~ ~ @ s:: ::> 0; 0' f;- g ;::!l ~ s ~ 8" ~ rtl rtl 0 >-t ...... ~'"O 0""013 sg.:4ro -<! ~ ."! g n " ~ r-., ....... :> p.. -" '"t:l ONb:lO~>-t '"0 '" 13 ~ 0 '"t:l 0\ N 0 "'tj O '" el. "- 0 r-.,O\~~tr.I E~\O~~~ '"d r-., ... p.. n ,"oog.~o ro en '"t:l 0 0 ::s @~~::L~g. ~ '" C/)~ ~." .....::s trl ..... rtl op..'--':>ro..... roen ""'t)b::Q30 p.. tIl el..j:. ~. 0" .......roO\;ro 0\p..0\::s N '" ~ '" c/)" tIl"- 3 ~ 1 ~ ...~ 2 ~. ; i~ :g N . ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ". ; t~ ~ 1 g ~ 2 :; ~ Q) ~ d ::s .S "" ~ a ~ -" ~ 0\ ~ ::::l O\'a "Orl", o Q) ""Vl l:J -B 'bb .S c:: ~ ~ .;: ca u " :;::~ ~ 0 "-< .~ Q) ::i ~.~ ~ .E-S~ :-;::::l 0 0 '" ~ u "-< o C"'C ~ o a .5 -s 0 '" .""" bO ~ ~ .~ Ol Q) ~ D I-< ID ~ a ~ ~ ~ CF.l ~ ~ rl +-i ~ ~ 0 ,S; S ~ ~ ffio~:9 I-. 0 Q) Q) a:.= 0::: ;g "'C:-;::::: . ~ 0 -S ".0 O..c:: " 8t'-;EdO Q)...... 0...... El CI:l-V7UiA-, ~ " Iii '" g -S '" ~ I-< co = Q) ... Q) -S ';; S '" "" Q) bCl3l-< ~ .- s Q) 6- '& ~ ~ S iiI :3 Q)"'C '+=I " " '" ~ ~ ~ <C;l.neJ ... El Q) Q) 0 ... ~ J:: ~ ~---~ d ~ ~ '" ,. Q) .OJ "0 o ~ a ";::l " s :3 8 'B ~ ... Q)..... ';> ..... c:: " 0 0 ~~~ o ~ "0 Q) '" @ ~ <II .Ec::>a: b 0 ~ 'i:: g .c t.1.2.s.", 0..... u ;::I ~ -s ~ . <<: Ol ::l ca '0 <II I-< <e: v..-...... Q) r~Ol-Sll ctl !::..c s::: ~ ~~li)obO ..... ::-;!:..o ..... d ....:l.., El ffi:.El ta Q) W <Il U U ~ ~ fJ) ~ 3o..zl!::: .,; Q) ... o ~ " o "- ~ 6 u N ... "" Q) " ,. .~ o " c:: .S o "" .~ Q) ::::.0 's tI) ~iil" rl ~O\ , ~ <lJQ)rl ~<Ei .S "0 "0 a"Oa@ d a ~..9 o tf.l U 0 -+=I (l)..... c:: '" u 1:..c:: N ..... Q) U .c 1: '" Q) Q) ~ 0", r ~ -s ~ iiI Q) " ..." '" .0 bO.E ~ "'C ".~ ." ..........:l... i'd ::l <Ll U ..... "-" <<: u ."'''' <<: " ... :3 >> o 0 '::l bo . U'+-t U 0 tn 1:: "" g"O S ~~ ~.B ~ ::::l a 0 Q) 8 CI:l4- :> (l) ..... ~ ~ ~ i>." 0 0 u 0..... .........- ,-......= U 1-i.S::' ~::s _0 E-1~o::1b ,---.,..o~'"dbO ~Cl3""'~~ "'0 o..."Lrl"'3.g .,,0:;; "'C l-< - ~o....-toub<l8:;::~Q)d '@ ~ ~ ~ Q).S ~ .... ..... ..0 .g '+-t.,.....:l CJ),-....~"'2 CI:l ~ ~ c ro ~"',,"O ~Q),'"1:: CI:l"'Co..2~..2C'lb..!:.::;? 9 ~ '0;.s 0 c:: ~ :> ;g iJ:: :;, -"'Q) -so >>OOa 5 .s ,. :;f.~ .g :3.0 .r;: ~ I:l "--' El "'C ~ t'+=I "'C ~ l-< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8..'~ ~ E .~ j ...... d::> Q) <Il 0 0 <II S ":i:J rl~Q)WC::do..l-<"'CfI)O '" ~ "z ctI 0 c.. d..... CI:l~ @,-,.g b~ g...a ~ s oi:lOl "- .", "- " E-< <11 .0 ~ '" 0 ..c::"- u ... ~ Q) '" -s . :::O~ N <IJ s~ " "" . .g Po. ~ Ol ",.8- <<: . g 1:: ..c:: .. t:.. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~"SE-<:'::= Cl:l~!a.....:l== U)E--Po.~.2; .~ !:l I ~ d T~~ -&'0 ~ !:l ~ '"'c:l d !:l Q) 'Cd u;; ~.g.o S Eo... u ~ I t3 ~ JJ E ..c:: U'l 0 iJ .S fI) ~ N u..... -:::: !:l Q) rlo..c::~OEl ~~~~u~ (/)...:!:! bO Q) . Q) fI).o !:l Q) U'l fI) a "':;3<1:l!?iJ $-I ~ !:l bO I ~ E--....... ::l !:l- '" ";j o........~ "'C ~ U ~ Q) fI) a Q) ,<'j:;qJ ~ "'C 0;'> U'l i> (Ij'a 8 ~ N V) o 0.. 0.. Q) rl U'l et::o o...et::N ::::::oLriScn~ 0..... N 0 !:l et:: E--UrluOCl) ~ "'" ... o ::: .~ :a " "- 8'''.2.' d o .", u '" Ol ... <11 "0 Q) '" "" " :;3 " <11 "- - 'B '" ~ ... Ol .. 0 I-< <:r:: ~ ~~3Q)~ Q) .... bO_ !:l ~ .... QJ.o QJ $-I 0 -.~ S o fI) t fI) "'C .,!:: !:l (Ij 0 !:l !:l 0 ~ 0.. Q) 0.'" " .. 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ (ij C'l "'" . ~ Ol ~ !:l ~ ~ ...d ~..8 $-I QJ +:I~ro::l"'C !:l .~ ~;; ~'1jj ..... fI) bO 0.. ~ S o a Q) 8.. <11 " := .~ -S"O ~.~ ~ ~ Q)...:!:! u Cd ~8:g~~s l+:: < g;.~ !:l:::R fI) QJ I-< '"O'S N ~ .~ -S 0.. ca ..... to-; 8- ~...d8uSoo QJ +:i ~..9 S ~ ~ bO'~ U QJ 0 ~ ~ ~Q)~-S~S~ U U Q) 0 t'd QJ Q) o ".", ~ -" ,. ,. -.S;:.:: +-> +:I'~'I:: ~o...:.E~~fj"'C ..9 S ~ !:l oS (lj '"0 :<8a~~8a ... .s ~ "''' E'~ ~~ ~.sg Qj ~ '1jj ~ .~ ~ "0 0 ~ ::::::''8 ~ ." ".'" "'"0 '" ~E~ c1J.S ...:!:! ::S " d ;;; ~ 0 '"'c:l 5 'a a ~ ~ :s g .;;j ~ U al OJ "',.- ,.::.:;E--QJQJ t;Z'"'c:l'"'c:l '> <<: .~ ;>V)8~ rll t"- iil iil"O ... Q) ... 11 u ~tn~~ ~ Q) 00 ,tj o QJ Q) ro ~t1-S~ o Ol ~ .0 ~'o 0 "'C fI) ~ Qj ;g ~ QJ .0 ..... -:g~" ~ fI) Qj Ci .... QJ ;> Q) S I-< Q) ~ ;'=:'O::;""d '"'c:l +-> ro crl <11 " .: '" 11 Q) " Q) ~ ~'." ~ j crl 1-<1:; QJ ..... o.~ u...... ;> to-; .... I-< .... ~liill~~ C"lZ ~ e '" ... ... '" ;lO '" 0.. '" "" '" o '0 S '"' ~'O n " o 0- " - ~ -. " " &:;;: o ;i- ~ . o " "" o S' "" 2' iL S' "" C"l""'>-J ::ro;::::::l:J"' E.. ~ ~ t;;' S?l C'" ro "0 <ro;:S>-t ..... 5' ~..g. ~ ()Q 0 rD ~ "C ~ ~ cr e. "0- g- t::::::Q..rotll o '" '< :j. :: III 0 0- .....1; l:S ro l:I (t) ,c.. ro """ " 0-0 g." o _ (\) 0 " 0 '0 S Q..)::3~"t:l "'1 OQ tIl (b ro (t) ,....,. ,.., ::;n1-1 Q.. (t) l:l Q.. ~ p.. ~ ~ '" . S' 8 a ~ g " ~ ~g"8J::> :+'" " g, 8 ~ Dr ~ a. fg ~R~~C. 0.."'1:1'"' N~' 0 C -I>o..sC"l '" ro I-l w:: o-'l! ~~ge.. 0" tIl !:t. ~ ~ ~ ~ g. o 0.. n ::l :: III ~ ~. ~ g: S 0.." '" _ ~ ..... tIl ~ <; ::J. Q.. 0 a.;:s H'::r ""~~& ~~ ~. ro !:r ~ ~ o s g ~ ~ '" 0 '" '" ~ 16' s '" ~. e g.;i' g.g@C"l ~ S.::r ~ ro "1 0 '"1 S S ~ e: (I) nVl ~sa.s ~ >-J nl .....>-1 a ~ ;::; ~ 0 H' e:.. tIl~ ~ S :;J g o. '" III 0- a. ;:s c; :=: ~ ~ " !" t;;. :: ~ " 0 ~~ ...-", ~ " " '" ~ '" =.1(6 S ... n '" S a.l;; '" g e:. " - ~ 0 " tIl '""h:=;.' 0'''""'3<: ... '" "" 0.. i3 '" .., ..... t::r' .....:::s ..... ~a~ ~ tfl tIl .,-s:::- o ... 0 E; ~ 8 ~ '" ~ o 8 .,- '"' '" ~ tp '" _. ~. g '" -. . e:. 00 "' 0 :?g. '" '" " ... a.2' e:." " 0.. " _. tr~ o :: " rn ~ ~ ~ 1;:"0.. p.. III n " non SrD tIl p. ~ 0 '" 0 " ;:s +-T:l..... ~ ~ " lEi ;:;: a. 8. '" S ~ i '" ~~ ....." '" '" ~- ;lO III ;:.. _~ 0 I;: '" ?:;'" Q.. Ol'::t ~ 0"' Q.. (l) rtl 0 ro <: ~ c::: tIl::s =:s 0 n n :;:tI..... 0 0....... (l) o Ii;; 0::;' 0..:: n ~ r'" a,t:;; ro 0 0 p..o8~~*~ ;:s t.:I en rtl Ul Q Po. ~ ~ Q g., I~ n 8. 2' ,..., ::r rn-"'" III ,," ~ ~... ~ '" , ~ o o ~ I ~ f;1- Q~ ~q VJ."", ~.:Ef} '" o ~ N .... IW Iw IW ... 2"'~tT1 '.TI"'. r" 11"0'0 < " III " ro >-t ~r..... ~ (l) S 0 ..... g: 0.. g S ~ ~. ~ [ g Q..~--e.. n ~ _. s;g nO"... o..roro:::-;- ') ....., 0 ,..,.,.,. - < -.....0::0." "'i!i.."" " '"'... ~. '" I!l '" E 0 e:. g. ~ '" " ~ III III ;;-: ro ~ a ..... I"'t n "" '" '" 0.. I"'t ::r' a. VI " -- . tIl 0 1""1- VI ~'t:l 8so[g S~g: ~~[8e: o ~ VI '"1 tIl . .~ o ... 0 l:S PJ tIl M " '" ~ s ~ ~ '" ~ tIl ,....,. ~ PJ ... "" '" 'EPJ5t1lQ> srn s " " o ~ ; '" '" c: ... '" n ..... l:I g tIl tIl >-t ,..,. ~ ~ 0.. f'!) 0 !:t. .f> ~ I<<' '" ~ '" " " :: C"l !" I:l e:. ~ ... e:. '" 0 :E ~ S ~ I~ ~ ~ z -:;;: '0 III \Q ~ ro ~ _. "' ~ ~ - "'0.. :: ;g == 0 _. - n o 0 :: :--'0"'J1,. ~ ~ 2=r. " '"' 0 g.~- " " . g.... '" '" III ~. ~ -."" ~ j: '" "'" >-t p.. ~ !:t. d' ~ Ol ~ S I:l ~ ~ t; ~o 0 Il- "'0 roP..~ ~ _. III "'0- "''' 0.. "" ~ ~ "'r:; 0.. ""~ '" " ~ _lll g C"',: :--'0 0: '" -. 0.. 0 ~. ~ o S 5.: " " EB -. '" n ~ ~ -" n' ~ :::-: '" e:. " '" a. S .... p..;:S '" 2' ;g g E....,~ " " ~ ~ ~ 0 '" 0.. o C o' S' "' ~. ~ S' .P' " c:== a. "" " C"lo- "" ~ '" '" Ir'JO ~ ~ = <U '" '".... .S <+-,' El...... '-2 \0 Q) OJ .S ]...... Q)V e:::::I"'O l=l 0 u CO bO ~ '" bO:-::l 4!.. N Q) ctl '" .... ..... Po...... ~ t:a .... ~ ~ Vl., c..'J ~ <r::,J:::l 0": ...... !2 <<: 0 ." "O"~ . lJ1 0........ ""0 <1J ;j e::- rl""" ...... '^' ..... 0 ..c r--..:;: U.S 0.. S u ~ El rl OJ Vl 0.. ;'::::...c: !:: a.l ~ '-"0' :::I :=> .""" ...... 0 Ul L.f) I-< 0 U) ~ ...... p. VI 9' o....c:'-'...... ~ fIl<t: .... o ~ "S o ::E N <U :g ~ .,,"-< b-S@~ = ~ _ S OO~~ '.0 l;:h ro..c ro ~ g 8 ...... t'O_ 0., ~ s:: bO~ U 0 !:l tlJ .s: .So..... u '" e- ~ .... ;:l 0::: ..... 0 en bO s::.... :::I ;::l S fIl ......+:J Q) 8 g ~ ~';:l -5 b a.E..... I-< "o~o ,.,,:;o:nVlC -s <il El ".: ~ S ~ 0 vi 0"- ..0 -s > = "0 ..c ;::l S vi bO 0 ..... r.n ;::l ~ u OJ ..... Q) ~ u ~ ""." 8 ~ E ~ 0.. "~ ~ ~ ~ tt.l c::,..!:l Cij "" 0 "" ~ ,......,s::t;+-i G"'C OJ ~ I ~ U ~ i;l"<iJ @ iij ." l:l ;:l :'" <;:: 0 l-r t'd Q) U ~] ~ * :::: '" S El " ..... VI 0.. 0 bO ~<lo""= i::l::::! '0 Qj o.,:.a iiJ IE :>." = cl)O~~..2 0"; ~"1 .;::l 0 ~ l-l o"@' ctl l-< "'C <:r:: r:::..8 ~ ~ S..8 d U '.l:l ..... Vl QJ Cd OJ ;::lsS;::C"'C"'C,tj-B 8 '&j "'C ::s s'~ Ul bO "" = """-< 0 0 = i:J rn ~ o..s~~l-<Q.j~~>. :t ...... 0 '3 .2 .......... >. tr.I Cll 0 U bO tr.I 0 5'0~] t::bO'--"CllCllZ,t'ObO r:: ::,.......... tr.I '--" r::',::I El 8."~ .."..0 0 "0 = 0.. "'C Cll'X fr] "'C l!:l 0 "s""'""~=oo CI:l 4... CI:l r+:: 0.. ::s cd 0.. 00 Y-J/ " '" '" d '" <u ...., ~ = 1:: "0 '~~~:J~ 1"0 ='0 -t ~"8 J:j..9. o a ~ ~ <' f6 :. " ::l ~ o rl '"' >-T>(')~ " 0 0 ~ ~ s " ::l S ::I ~ ro e. p.. ::l ~ 1=;' g. ~~o.. ro ~. 0' a 0 '"' C/').::s (::l.. ..... :;:; ro ::s_~ C'1Q ::: l:t g ~ o' ~. ::l ~ ~ o o ;;- o 3 .- ~ "' " "- 3'''' 3)J.. rl >-l ll> '"' g. ~ ::l ~ '1:l o ';' tl .., COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM MEETING DATE 01/07/1997 9 I ~f;J8" ITEM TITLE: Resolution accepting California State Library matching funds awarded to the Chula Vista Literacy Team, appropriating funds, and amending FY 1996-97 budget. SUBMITTED BY: Library Directo(,~ t (\1\ REVIEWED BY: City ManageUC:\~W~\e: YES -X... NO-'> In 1987 the library received a five-year ~alUornia State Library grant to establish the Chula Vista Literacy Team. The fifth and final year of this funding was FY '91-92. The California State Library has announced another one-year extension of California Library Services Act funding for programs which were awarded the original five-year grants. The FY '96-97 awards are based on a match of $1 for every $4.56 raised and spent locally during FY '96-97. This will provide $32,528 to the Chula Vista Literacy Team. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution accepting the grant, appropriating the funds, and amending the FY 1996-97 budget. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board of Trustees has traditionally supported the Literacy Team's acceptance of matching funds, which are a continuation of the original CLSA literacy grant. DISCUSSION: As an extension of the original CLSA literacy grant, this $32,528 grant is intended to supplement monies raised locally to support the library's adult literacy program. Funds will be used to continue the professional services contract established last year with our computer lab coordinator, who provides key support to the adult literacy learning lab at the Literacy Center, located in the South Chula Vista Library. Funds will also be used to hire an instructor to lead the popular, weekly, small group writing classes. This instructor will also provide inservice support to tutors, and will aid in the learner assessment process. Additional funds will be used to offset costs for staff development training. This plan has been approved by the California State Library. FISCAL IMP ACT: Accepting this grant will provide $32,528 in FY '96-97 to the Chula Vista Literacy Team. These funds cannot supplant existing funds. (For matching fund budget, see Attachment A.) 9"'/ RESOLUTION NO. /15.s3lr RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY MATCHING FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND AMENDING FY 1996-97 BUDGET WHEREAS, in 1987 the library received a five-year California State Library grant to establish the Chula Vista Literacy Team; and WHEREAS, the fifth and final year of this funding was FY '91-92; and WHEREAS, the California State Library has announced another one-year extension of California Library Services Act funding for programs which were awarded the original five-year grants; and WHEREAS, the FY '96-97 awards are based on a match of $1 for every $4.56 raised and spent locally during FY '96-97 which will provide $32,528 to the Chula Vista Literacy Team. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby accept the California State Library matching funds awarded to the Chula Vista Literacy Team. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 1996-97 budget is hereby amended by appropriating $32,528 to Budget Account 216-2164 as set forth in Attachment A. Presented by Approved as to form by David Palmer, Library Director torney C:\rs\literacy.grt 9"'';;'' CLSA MATCHING FUNDS BUDGET FY 1996-97 December, 1996 BUDGET ACCOUNT: 216-2164 5201 Professional Services $32,400. 5224 Training $128. TOTAL: $32,528. 9"3 ATTACHMENT A COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT I a' 5J' Resolution approving Encroachment Permit No. PE-393 for installing an earthen ramp acr;7SS and losing of EastLake Parkway south of Fenton Street SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~~ REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ 'o.x~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X) EastLake Development Company has reque~~ permission to install an earthen ramp across EastLake Parkway, just south of Fenton Street in the EastLake area (see Exhibit "A"). The ramp will be used to provide a crossing for earth scrapers transporting earth from the east side of EastLake Parkway to the parcel on the west side which needs fill material in order to develop. This Temporary Encroachment Permit will require the closure of the portion of EastLake Parkway between Fenton Street and Otay Lakes Road. Although temporary in nature, Council must authorize the issuance of the permit since it involves closure of the street. Item / ~ Meeting Date 1/7/97 ITEM TITLE: RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution authorizing the City Engineer to issue the subject encroachment permit, with conditions, and authorizing closure of EastLake Parkway. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: No Boards or Commissions action is required for this matter. DISCUSSION: By letter dated December 2, 1996, EastLake Development Company applied for an encroachment permit to close EastLake Parkway between Fenton Street and Otay Lakes Road temporarily in order to move approximately 102,000 cubic yards of earth from the Village Center East on the east side of Eastlake Parkway to the west side of Eastlake Parkway (See Exhibit "B"). EastLake will be grading the site to allow for the construction of EastLake Community Church and a daycare facility on Village Center East Property (See Exhibit "C"). Eastlake is requesting approval of the temporary closure because they believe it is the least disruptive process to the traffic in the area, will cause the least inconvenience to local residents and businesses, is the quickest and safest way to accomplish the work and is the least expensive way of accomplishing the work. There are three methods by which this earthwork can be accomplished. They are: 1. Use large scraperslloaders with street closure to complete work quickly. 2. Use street legal trucks, i.e., load, haul and unload, via city streets. 3. Use small scrapers/loaders crossing the city street with flaggers. Each of these methods will have impacts to the traffic circulation in the immediate area during the earth moving operation. These are outlined in Exhibit "D" which depicts the work area, equipment route, conflict points (if any), location of flaggers (if any), and detour route. A summary of major factors with each method follows. Method 1 consists of using very large self contained scraper/loaders to move the dirt from one site to the other in one quick, continuous operation. However, this method requires the complete closure of EastLake Parkway during the entire operation, anticipated to be period of ten days to two weeks. This time frame assumes 12 hour work days resulting in the movement of approximately 10,000 cubic yards It?.; / Page 2, Item Meeting Date 1/7/97 of earth per day. Direct conflict with moving traffic is eliminated by closure of the road. Closing of EastLake Parkway is required in order to construct a temporary crossing designed to prevent damage to the existing street improvements which would result from the extremely heavy loads carried by the scrapers. The temporary crossing consists, basically, of an earth cushion with steel plates to spread the load out and reduce its impact on the street improvements. Method 2 is based on using trucks carrying street legal loads over the City streets to haul the dirt. This method is much less efficient in that it requires equipment to pick up the dirt to load it in the trucks, the trucks using surface streets to haul the dirt to its destination, then unloading at the fill site. Besides being less efficient and more costly, there would most likely be traffic conflicts as the trucks exit both the excavation and fill sites. An estimate of 84 potential traffic conflicts per hour has been estimated by Urban Systems Associates, traffic consultants for EastLake. Flaggers would probably be used which, if not done properly, can result in confusion and possibly accidents. Dirt spilled on the City streets along the route would have to be cleaned up numerous times during each day of operations. In addition, the operation could take up to three times longer than Method I (up to six weeks). Although the trucks are street legal there would be extensive wear and tear on our streets from the load and these slow moving vehicles are mixed with normal traffic. Method 3 is similar to method I but is based on using smaller scrappers and loads to avoid destructive impacts to the roadway. As a result full street closure would not be necessary, but flaggers would have to stop traffic to allow the equipment to cross Eastlake Parkway. This method will result in a potential for up to 50 street crossing conflicts per hour and some delays and inconvenience to the public will occur. Due to the smaller size of the loads carried by this equipment the disruption to traffic would be twice as long as method I, up to four weeks. In staff's opinion neither methods 2 or 3 are desirable for several reasons: a) either the trucks or the small scrapers are heavy enough to damage the street improvements with the number of repetitive trips being made; b) traffic would be detained while the trucks or scrapers are crossing, causing frustrations for the drivers; and c) there is a greater potential for accidents, even though there may be flaggers employed to guide traffic. On the other hand method I creates less confusion to the driver caused by flaggers stopping and starting traffic to let the heavy equipment pass, takes less overall time and is less costly. EFFECT ON CITY STREETS Eastlake Parkway has an average daily trip (ADT) count for the section between Fenton Street and Otay Lakes Road of 6496. Closure of this segment of EastLake Parkway will result in the need for those trips to be detoured. A detour is proposed to be established which will direct southbound traffic on EastLake Parkway to eastbound Fenton Street, then southerly on Lane Avenue to Otay Lakes Road. Northbound traffic on EastLake Parkway from south of Otay Lakes Road will be directed easterly on Otay Lakes Road to Lane Avenue, then northerly on Lane Avenue to Fenton Street, and easterly on Fenton Street to EastLake Parkway (See Exhibit "D-I"). The total additional travel distance for this detour is about 3000 feet. Assuming travel at 25 miles per hour, this translates into less than two minutes when including a 30 second delay for turning movements at the intersection of Lane A venue and Otay Lakes Road. Traffic counts were taken on Otay Lakes Road between EastLake Parkway and Lane A venue and east of Lane Avenue as well as counts on Lane Avenue between Fenton Street and Otay Lakes Road. Table I indicates the counts taken for each impacted roadway segment, LOS for those segments, and estimated ADT and LOS for those segments assuming all trips will utilize the detour. It is anticipated that approximately 90 percent of the traffic will use the detour. Assuming all trips will use the detour will give a worse case scenario. /,,-~ Page 3, Item Meeting Date 1/7/97 Lane Avenue TABLE 1 TOTAL ADT LOS WITH SEGMENT 12/3/96 ADT W/ DETOUR DETOUR EasrLake Pkwy to Lane Ave. 4,965 11,914 A Oray Lakes Rd to Fenton St 1,150 8,099 A Lane Ave to EastLake Pkwy ADT low no 6949 plus count taken existing A STREET NAME Otay Lakes Road Fenton Street No segment LOS will be adversely impacted by any diversion of traffic as a result of detouring traffic for this closure. Intersection turning movements were counted for the AM and PM peak period at the intersections of EastLake Parkway/Otay Lakes Road and Otay Lakes Road/Lane Avenue to analyze the impact of the detour to the individual turning movements and LOS of the intersections. The impacts associated with the detoured traffic on the turning movements at the two intersections are not considered to be significant except for the AM and PM left turn movement from eastbound EastLake Parkway to nortbbound Lane Avenue. The study indicates that approximately 400 vehicles would be making the left turn from east bound Otay Lakes Road to north bound Lane Avenue during the peak hours. This volume of left turning movements is too great for a single left turn lane and will create tbe potential for conflicts and/or significant delays. The left turns may need to be controlled by either a temporary signal or use of an officer for two hours during both the AM and PM peak periods. If a temporary signal is installed to create breaks in the Otay Lakes Road tbrough traffic to accommodate the left turns, the peak periods will still require the use of a traffic control officer approved by the Police Department. This will be part of the detour plan which will be required as a condition of the encroachment permit approval. As indicated above, the recommended method requires building a ramp of earth and steel plates across Eastlake Parkway in order to spread the load out carried by the scrappers so that it will not damage the street. Geotechnics Incorporated has submitted a design of that ramp crossing. Staff has reviewed tbe design and agrees that it would be adequate to protect the existing street improvements from damage. Should damage occur either as a result of the ramp construction or its use, the applicant will be required through a condition of encroachment permit approval to restore the area to its original condition. Staff recommends approval of the Encroachment Permit No. PE-393 utilizing Method 1, closure of Eastlake Parkway, subject to the following conditions: 1. The closure of Eastlake Parkway shall be limited to a maximum of 14 calendar days. 2. The encroachment shall be installed in accordance with recommendations contained in that certain letter to EastLake Development Company (Document No. 6-0769) dated 12/2/96, signed and stamped by Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333, of Geotechnics Incorporated, including Figure 1 of said Doc. # 6-0769 (copy of document attached) for design of the ramp crossing. ItJ- ;J Page 4, Item Meeting Date 1/7/97 3. Maintenance, removal or relocation of the above-mentioned installation of the private facilities shall be the sole responsibility of Permittee, at no expense to the City. 4. All street surface improvements shall be restored to their original condition upon removal of the temporary encroachment. 5. A detour plan shall be submitted to this department for review and subsequent approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of this permit. Said plan shall provide a satisfactory resolution, as determined by the City Engineer, to accommodate left turns from eastbound Otay Lakes Road to northbound Lane Avenue. 6. Permittee shall post surety in the amount of $20,000 to guarantee the removal of the encroach- ment and repair of any damage to existing public improvements. Staff has notified the owners and occupants of all properties shown on Exhibit "E" FISCAL IMPACT: All staff costs, including possible public safety costs for traffic control officers, will be paid for by Eastlake under either the encroachment permit application or the deposit for the grading permit. Since Eastlake will restore the street to its original condition there will be no other City costs. The costs associated with development of the property will be reduced by being able to close the street and complete the work quicker, thus assisting in efforts to keep development costs reasonable. Attachments: Exhibit" A" Location and cross-section of ramp Exhibit "B" Location of earthwork and deposit site for material Exhibit "C" Location of church/daycare project Exhibit "D" Operations plan for alternate methods Exhibit "E" Notification area M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\ELCLOSE.W AU JtJ., 'I RESOLUTION NO. ,1~~~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PE-393 FOR INSTALLING AN EARTHEN RAMP ACROSS AND CLOSING OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY SOUTH OF FENTON STREET WHEREAS, EastLake Development Company has requested permission to install an earthen ramp across EastLake Parkway, just south of Fenton Street in the EastLake area; and WHEREAS, the ramp will be used to provide a crossing for earth scrapers transporting earth from the east side of EastLake Parkway to the parcel on the west side which needs fill material in order to develop; and WHEREAS, this Temporary Encroachment Permit will require the closure of the portion of EastLake Parkway between Fenton Street and otay Lakes Road; and WHEREAS, although temporary in nature, Council must authorize the issuance of the permit since it involves closure of the street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby approve Encroachment Permit PE-393 for installing an earthen ramp across and closing of EastLake Parkway south of Fenton Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The closure of Eastlake Parkway shall be limited to a maximum of 14 calendar days. 2. The encroachment shall be installed in accordance with recommendations contained in that certain letter to EastLake Development Company (Document No. 6-0769) dated 12/2/96, signed and stamped by Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333, of Geotechnics Incorporated, including Figure 1 of said Doc. # 6- 0769 (copy of document attached) for design of the ramp crossing. 3. Maintenance, removal or relocation of the above-mentioned installation of the private facilities shall be the sole responsibility of Permittee, at no expense to the City. 4. All street surface improvements shall be restored to their original condition upon removal of the temporary encroachment. 5. A detour plan shall be submitted to this department for review and subsequent approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of this permit. Said plan shall provide a satisfactory /tJ,S resolution, as determined by the accommodate left turns from eastbound northbound Lane Avenue. City Engineer, to otay Lakes Road to 6. Permittee guarantee damage to shall post surety in the amount of $20,000 to the removal of the encroachment and repair of any existing public improvements. Presented by Approved as to form by City orney John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works c: \ rs\PE-393 If) ,,~ .... Qi ;e ~ .... as ~ (.) ~ ~ ~ Sl I~ I I- I ;:)'" I ~.... I "" l t;;:~ I~~~ 10 1 i:: " I U '. -: I.U CI,j ~ 0 ~ ~.g: ~ ""C>>.... N ....J s: CI) :g or ~ ~ ClJ r.q ~ ;;; ~'t! ,l;= u a 3:iG~ ~ >t7)M <:"" ~. '" ~.5 :a~g .~ t::.. I "j...)t3 a :1~~ s:: o~ I lD '" ~ :;::1;;; ':.. 1-_ ~ '<: a:: ~ If! '" .... e'! ~ <.> ~ ~ ~ .::,.- -"" \ \ <;; ~ i! 0; i, .... < ~ " \ " ......" \,. , , l- - 41 - ::r . )( \/'-~ W \, "- *. "'~ \ "', \ ..?'. "" ~ e; ~ 11Y-7 ]. OJ m >< J: - OJ - -I < ,., :Ii o ~ X '( Ilillllilli)llllll~ .. fl>!-J ~ ;-& :ii 3:" '" ;:= m 0 ~ ,.. > ,... -< o c C lZl' :E. 0 IJJ .:l' D:I :E :::tI 0 :::tJ c:l 00 o :0 0 " o 0 ^ ." ~ n :-< .... ;; " .... .. o '" "' '" ~ ItVE. ~..",E '" .... ,. o /~...rr 12/15/19% 17:22 5108453102 CORNERSTONE CHURCH PAGE 02 .' f IPI ~.~. ! ! I . :1 :i;. w . . i ~ .1' (I ... ! '!~i; Iii iil ~ j ; . t ~ ~ ~ ~ . i j; ~ ~ . " . !h ~~~ i~~ . . '" ~ ." ~ ~ j ~ ~ ... > ~~~ ~!~ B~O ~ ii :; ~ I i ~ !!l . . . 8 . ~. ~ ;~~ ;~i '" 8 : ~ . ~ "'jig ....~~ ;~ '. ~ ~ j t ~ ~ . . . ~ 3 ~ . B I. . ~ ~ .. , ..r-'J ../i}.'7,.. _~.J_n~___....,~ C'" '') t:~? i L').,f ! ~'>: ? I: 1,"'01 I ~ s--- r I,\., H -' Ii !~~3 ii i>11 11111 /- .1:;3, ".. , atv-> .i ').f 'g~ - '!I ,---'" I;: I I' @ ,~~~ I - :~~~J~. : -----.:, ,,[~Ji..') I "'01. .',' , ...,s .t. .,,,",: .S :;J Jin ~ ~'n ~I !i!! ~Ii! ' 1:1' -,', Illi iil! ! ' . I -1, ~ .'.m'.' , .~ I .UJ ~ , OTAY LAKEs ROft.D I~ !' j~ i' i ;~ f" ~ 'I ' t-I" f ;; " I! . [[[[ill CORNERSTONE ....__.....w",., CHURCl". OJ:'CVII[LO"'lVl~NT u..c- EASTLAKE COMMUNITY CHU~Ca. "",,~1loC'::"-=r.' ....._~C&f S!l.","ue~ ,100 "'EB< 1W\"C'1' $1'. 0""'''.''''0. <;A_'''~ nU"u;I""").)OI_~ I V),? CHULA VISTA. CAL.J:lrOlUllA - - v , , \- - dJ - :r ~ W (J) IZ om -0- ~"U(;) _I ZI:ll ;(;)0 oJJ mI zO -10 mo JJ FUTURE STATE ROUTE 125 . \ I I ., 'it ~ \, \~ ~.)\ '::; ~\<l 1, " ('\ . ~ b' '\ ~ \; t> ' \ \ ('\ "1'J (\'\ ~ ~ ~ S' ~ 0 {\ \^ ~ ." tl- - ~ ~ <z;/ Ji ('G\~ % - 11 ,:a.. fJ ~ p~)> , ~ ~ i i A ~ \1\ ..., , I \ , .\ \ \\ ~ R \ ;; in' (/lEB~ . ,<:rei mO:o ~m . ~. _Xi~c c:o:o~ ~~~rri m~" m >< OJ: .... - OJ - -I , \ " Z "-nO mm" ~:;::i! C:IlCii 8~~ -l z 0 g .J ~ '" 1 m m ~ F r;;g.: \ ::0 .(J}r.n I o de'" ~' ?;~ . -4 ",m j Q) m I r { ~I r<:c i: ~-4 ~1 . z~ L . - - L _ p-~ ~ 30N3AV 3NV1 1 =ii=~~l r-1 ~f i -n _, ' c~~ ...... ~' Z-f: Ul"- ~Q . _.....;.~-r--rT:: . \. -4 [__~'- .e.-..l ~ ~, ~ " y;-- "'-.../ /~~ / tJ . lAi ~~ ~ ~. .~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ · ~ I ^,~1~~~~ I lr>'U ~ i1 S J ___~ :..ar I '\"-- ,~~~\ - I- - !f!N :I:C >< W o-,W wl.UO~ !:::05cn za:a:c- ~~w2. '" .-' ;;; w"- cr;~w ~:I:O: , 0:"' W en ~ \ !t\, '" \ qL ~ \ 0.)_ \ :. \ ~~ \ J>>l CC' Olll 01- OZ :r:lll! ccO O('J a:lZ~ :r:- ('Jo.. _0.. wO Z:r: ,(/) ~:;lo: mccw :I:I-I- , 1 I \ JtJ"/1 r--\ '--- -.... SU 31.nOtl 31. \f 1.8 3t1n..Ln.::l m >< C:I: CN- OJ - -I FUTURE STATE ROUTE 125 I \ 1 1 .. _~'"Oc c:o>z ""D<:D=J en-Om -~~o ~ en (I)~~ . :'1":2 me", 'flm ~. (U f . *-HO .j:.. \' " It l\ II 'y/ ~ ~ "TJ ft1 ~ ~ .) ~ 0 p ~ ~ Q' - G\ "1> - CO ~ 'fd t\ P ~ ""f 0 S ~ ~. ii - //)../~ ~ ~. ..., .w...J ./ - AUTHORIZATION FOR TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT NO. PE-393 Application Fee: Receipt No: Inspection Fee: Receipt No.: $250.00 159978 $1.000* *Deposit under City's Full Cost Recovery System Pursuant to Chapter 12.28 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, permission is hereby granted to: EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (hereinafter "Permittee") to do work within a portion of right of way belonging to the City of Chula Vista (hereinafter "City"). Whereas, the Permittee has requested the permission of the City to encroach on the City's right of way adjacent to and for the direct benefit of the properties at the NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND EASTLAKE PARKWAY to do the following work: Construct a temporary earthen ramp across EastLake Parkway right -of-way to transport excavated material (approximately 102,000 cubic yards) from the east side to the west in accordance with the attached sketch. (hereinafter "Encroachment") Now, therefore, in consideration of their mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows: Permission is hereby granted to install the above-mentioned encroachment for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of approval of this permit in accordance with the following conditions: 1. The encroachment shall be installed in accordance with recommendations contained in that certain letter to EastLake Development Company (Document No. 6-0769) dated 12/2/96, signed and stamped by Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333, of Geotechnics Incorporated, including Figure 1 of said Doc. # 6-0769 (copy of document attached). 2. Maintenance, removal or relocation of the above-mentioned installation of the private facilities shall be the sole responsibility of Permittee, at no expense to the City. 3. All street surface improvements shall be restored to their original condition upon removal of the temporary encroachment. Page 1 of 2 //J-/f 4. A detour plan shall be submitted to this department for review and subsequent approval prior to issuance of this permit. Said plan shall provide a satisfactory resolution, as determined by the City Engineer, to accommodate left turns from eastbound Otay Lakes Road to northbound Lane Avenue. 5. Permittee shall post surety in the amount of $20,000 to guarantee the removal of encroachment and repair any damages to existing public improvements. This permit is revocable upon written notice from the City to Permittee, and upon such notice, the installation must be removed, or relocated, as may be specified by the City at Permittee's expense at the said time. If Permittee fails to remove or relocate the encroachment within the period allotted, the City may cause such work to be done and the cost thereof shall be imposed as a lien upon Permittee's property . Permittee shall defend, indemnifY, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Permittee, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Permittee's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Permittee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Permittee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Permittee. The undersigned Permittee hereby accepts the foregoing encroachment permit upon the terms above set forth and agrees to all of the conditions and covenants on its part to be performed. It is understood and agreed that, in addition to the above conditions, all applicable conditions of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code are incorporated herein by reference as if set out in full. APPLICANT: (Please print) Name Address CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA: By Date Signature !WH[e:1 WP511PEITMP _RAMP. 393J Page 2 of 2 /~;// COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item / I Meeting Date 1/7/97 ITEM TITLE: 4, Resolution /ffYPAccepting Open Space Lot A of Map 12691, Lot B of Map 12692 and lots C and D of Map 12693. lJ, Resolution / Y5"~1 Quitclaiming a portion of Lot A, Map 12691 and a portion of Lot B, Map 12692 to Montillo Limited and authorizing the Mayor to execute the deeds on behalf of the City. Director of Public Works~ rf' Director of park~ and~Recr~~^ REVIEWED BY: CitYManage~ 2);fl) (4/5thsVote:Yes_ NoX) On August 14, 1990, by Resolutions 15779, 157 0 and ~82, the City Council approved the Final Maps for Montillo Phase 1,2 and 4 and rejected the acceptance of open space lots A, B, C and D. Lots A and B are on Hidden Vista Drive and Lots C and D are on Tierra Nova Drive. The City is now ready to accept these open space lots. Execution of two quitclaim deeds is required to complete a boundary adjustment requested by the developer to accommodate landscaping and walls constructed by adjacent property owners, which encroach into open space lots A and B. SUBMITTED BY: RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept open space Lot A of Map 12691, Lot B of Map 12692 and Lots C and D of Map 12693 and authorize the Mayor to execute the quit claim deed. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On August 16, 1990, by Resolutions 15779, 15780 and 15782, the City Council approved the Final Maps for Montillo Phase 1, 2 and 4. The open space lots shown on these maps were rejected on behalf of the City for open space, public utilities and other public uses. Rejection of the open space lots provided for a maintenance period and included time for the City to inspect the developer's landscaping work, within these open space lots. The Parks and Recreation Department performed inspection of the plant material and irrigation systems to assure that they were in accordance with City requirements. In this case, the developer took several years to provide the landscaping acceptable to the City. The City is now ready to accept these open space lots. This open space area, which is a small part of the larger Open Space District No. 11, has been maintained continuously by the developer since the grading work was completed. The homeowners within the Montillo subdivision (as well as the rest of the district) have only been paying to maintain the areas of Open Space District No. 11 which have previously been accepted. Section 66477.2 of the Subdivision Map Act provides that an offer of dedication shall remain open and subject to future acceptance by the City. After City acceptance, these open space lots will be included in Open Space Maintenance District # 11. A portion of Lot A, of Map 12691, and portion of Lot B, of Map 12692, are being adjusted to accommodate improvements, constructed by adjacent property owners, which encroach into the open space lots (See Exhibit "A"). 1/;/ Page 2, Item Meeting Date: 1/7/96 The slope along the northerly property line of Lot 1 at the southwest corner of Hidden Vista Drive and Krista Court, facing Hidden Vista Drive, was graded by the developers, such that the flat pad area extended over the property line and into the open space area of lot A. This type of change in the grading is common to many subdivisions where the actual as-graded conditions differ slightly from the grading plans and the developer comes into the City and gets a lot line adjustment so that the lot line corresponds to the top of slope before they sell any of the homes. In this case the developer failed to take that action. Because of the appearance of the as-graded condition, the property owner believed that this area was his property and constructed a masonry free standing stucco wall at the top of the slope that was tied into the existing wall constructed by the developer. This wall is within the area of Lot A to be accepted by the City. The property owner of Lot 31 extended his lawn to the back of the sidewalk at the corner of Krista Court and Kiley Road. The slope facing Krista Court is just a few inches in height at Kiley Road at the front of Lot 31 and increases to about three feet high about forty feet back from the corner. This area has been planted and irrigated by the property owner. The property owner was unaware that he had encroached into open space area Lot B to be accepted by the City. Since the area in question is not along a major street, has a minor slope, and has the appearance of being an extension of the front yard, it is common to not include this type of area within an open space lot. The developer met with City staff and property owners to discuss both of these encroachments and it was decided to process lot line adjustments so that the improvements constructed by the property owners would not be within the City open space lots. The City is not requiring payment for this decrease in open space area since it is of minimal area and both encroachments are of the type that, had the developer followed normal procedures in adjusting lot lines before sales of the lots, would not have been encroachments. The developer has provided the engineering, deed preparation, and surveying for both of these adjustments. Execution of two quit claim deeds will complete the boundary adjustment process needed for these adjustments to occur (See Exhibit "B"). The City will quitclaim its interest in the open space lots to Montillo Limited, who will in turn, convey the property by separate grant deeds to the two property owners. These adjustments involve a decrease of 470 square feet of City open space lot area. FISCAL IMPACT: All fees and cost for the quitclaim and subdivision are paid by the developer. The costs of the open space maintenance will be paid by the property owners in open space maintenance district #11. Accepting the four lots should have no effect on the amount of the assessment, however, the amount collected on the assessment will have a minor increase to pay for the additional maintenance since the additional area is limited in size and there are over 1300 equivalent dwelling units within this district. The exact amount of the increase will not be known until the 1997/98 Open Space District 11 Budget is formulated. By decreasing the open space area by a minimal amount, there will be a very minor and incalculable decrease in maintenance costs. Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Copy of Adjustment Plat No. 96-04 Exhibit "B" - Copy of Quick Claim Deeds Exhibit "c" - Plat of Open Space District No. 11 Exhibit "D" - Open Space Lots to be Accepted. SA:/ER-255 M: IHOMElENGlNEERIAGENDA IMONTILLO. GV I /~;2. ~ $" ~ 6/ G 0 ,," PUBl ( Ei C I-a ADJUST .- I LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOTS 31 AND "8- OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-14 MONTILLO PHASE 2, MAP NO. 12692. -' ROAO ~~. ". ." ~~Q:....o \ 1'" ,,' alP pEN -~ VlS'fA " "13 ~c\l.\:. < 92-~ ^p~ 5 m >< :I: - m - -I V.SA MEXIco VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ~~ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~~ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~&: I: )> ~ ~\ .~\ ci$\ "''<g,\ ~\ ':1,. N 36-14'OO.W 0.63' OLD LOT LINE A ~~/ '.s. "" '" ",,0/ \ \~~ <>;'9 /' /' -.."G \:0' ~ . ~.... 2~ ~...~ .:' ",v...q, ~7 /' 9f:> -~ ~\..l' '2-y{f) . V. .. '", . /' '3'2-' .00 ~~ _\c.~ \. -9", "'Yo "'6' ~ -i- J1 . b.b. ....'?-'V~~~\"'" +~~ ...~ ~ 00' 2 1 ~~?; ..I'"s.....~~'"~,~ ~~~ .' . vo~"-" " <00. .. '1'10' >"",,,Vi ~ '-' . 4<'1396' ,,> 0 ~ V oc....-:" '80'00'00' ~ j:> ~ ..p.;- vf,i - . ~ HUNSAKER.t ASSOCIATES SAN D EGO, INC. ~\ 1/- J rr#:'fft::~N~~:frrFJ::N_C s-...l~~Y~~C92J21 A 1..."....-.-'7 (619) 558-,*500 - FAX (61S) 558-1414 o-t L ~ ~ - IJ) ,..::>, 2~' ~ "'iI\~i~ ~~~ ~~ i~~~i ~~ ~@. OWNERS: APN 592-210-01 ENRIQUE & FRANCISCA H. DEANDA 400 KRISTA COURT CHU VISTA. CA 91910-7526 APN 592-2.10-89 MONTILLO LTD 2835 CAMINO DEL AID S 1220 SAN DIEGO. CA 92108 '})r '. ~"'fW. 1-.J\lI;~i'M5MT'\, .'" Co , ~f.A~~,...~ "(..~ ~ Ie. ..., LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 1 AND "A- OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-14 MONTIlLO PHASE 1, MAP NO. 12691. ff ~ ..., "- o ..., \~~ "it ~ ~ / APN 592-210-89 LOT "A" 0.032 ACRE ~~ \1\"" / ~ / 'i .",~ ~\~ \?';. ~. ~'\.~~ '" ~,,\~ '1-"''''",>0; . '",,,-'" d). 1~"''''''' ~ \.s'\+":~ ...."r;:j ~ "''',,<:> +~ dJ. \",'1- -ii@ .P; ~ @ @ '0 ;. '\ '\ '\ N I ill INDICATES LOT FDA OPEN SPACE. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND REJECTED PER MAP NO. 12691 MAP PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER &< ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO. INC 10179 HUENNEKENS STREET SAN DIEGO. CA 92121 ~ '^' 1/1-.-~ /I-n." JOHN w.- HILL. JR. L~. 5669 [~J ""'~~. · .,,""""~. """. ", PLANNINC - ENCINEERINe SURVEYlNe 101'19 HUENNEKENS STREET - SAN DJECO. CA 9212'. DA"IE: (619) 558-4500 - FAX (6'9) 558- 1-1'4 r\ _ ~-: <.::'~/ .2_ SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET PUBLIC /YORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADJUSTMENT PLAT NO. 96-04 ZONING EXISTING: PC-FI14 PROPOSED: PC-R14 / / o v <0 V '" .'" . 0 g .0 '" '" '" '" a, ~ ~ , ",i ~~@@~ ~ o N :.. ~ ~ < J: - aJ - -f ~ > :: ,.. uraer NO. Escrow No. Loan No. WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: MONTILLO, LTD. CIO BREHM COMMUNITIES 2835 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH, S.220 SAN DIEGO, CA. 92108 EXHIBIT "B" DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $...:::Q".....TQ...CLEAR...TITLE.. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER.S USE .... Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed: OR ...... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at tim of sale. APN:!;'il-LI/. oil. SIgnature 01 Declarant or Agent determining tax Firm Name QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION do(es) hereby REMISE, RELEASE AND FOREVER QUITCLAIM to MONTILLO LIMITED, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP the real property in the City of County of CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO , State of California. described as SET FORTH ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A". ALSO SEE RECITAL ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B". Dated DECEMBER II, 1995 THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ) }ss. } STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On BY: before me. personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s} is/are subscribed lathe within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shelthey executed the same in hislherltheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/herltheir signa. ture(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted. executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: (This area for official notarial seal) 1/~5' 108S (1:94) 13-{ ~. > --, I (/' '-~. --- f EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF LOT "B" OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-14 MONTILLO PHASE 2, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 12692, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER ON AUGUST 17, 1990, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 31 OF SAID MAP NO. 12692, SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT COURSE AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED ON SAID MAP NO. 12692 AS NORTH 43025'00' WEST, 39.04 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 31, SOUTH 43025'00' EAST, 39.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MAP NO. 12692, SAID POINT BEING ON THE ARC OF A 10.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 15023'07" EAST; THENCE WESTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THOROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 58007'07" A DISTANCE OF 10.14 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE. NORTH 47"16'00. WEST, 17.32 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 172.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04047'00' A DISTANCE OF 14.36 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE. NORTH 47"31'00' EAST, 6.89 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 31; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 36014'00' EAST, 0.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 0.0052 ACRE MORE OR LESS. II"'? \3 ~L <~. G" j EXHIBIT nBn THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA HEREBY RELEASES SAID LAND FROM THE EFFECT OF THE GRANT OR DEDICATION ON MAP NO. 12692, IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OF SAID LAND, FOR OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC UTIITY AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES. THE CITY ALSO RELEASES AND TERMINATES ALL RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 66477.2 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE AS TO SAID LAND. THIS RELEASE SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THIS DEED. ))-7 B- ~ "n-- (.;.. Order No. Escrov. No. Loan No. WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: MaNTILLa, LTD. c/o BREHM COMMUNITIES 2835 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH, S.220 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 DDCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ .....:::Q:::...:!:O....CLEAA...IITLE SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ...... Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR ...... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at time sale. APN: q1..1.lo"f;I? po.:) Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax Firm Name QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION do(es) hereby REMISE, RELEASE AND FOREVER QUITCLAIM to MONTILLO LIMITED, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP the real property in the City of County of CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO , State of California, described as SET FORTH ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A". ALSO SEE RECITAL ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B". THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Dated DECEMBER 11, 1995 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On } }ss. } BY: before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shelthey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies). and that by his/her/their signa- ture(s) on the instrument the person{s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature MAil TAX STATEMENTS TO: (This area for official notarial seal) //-~ \:.2. _ Ll 'O( (-C" L-) \ -.,..,: 1085 (1/94) EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF LOT "A" OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-14 MONTILLO PHASE 1, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.12691, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER ON AUGUST 17.1990. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID MAP NO. 12691; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 50000'00" EAST, 37.98 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, NORTH 50000'00" EAST, 13.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 50054'00" EAST, 25.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54007'00" EAST, 5.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78039'00" EAST, 6.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84022'00" EAST, 4.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53016'00" EAST, 359 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 61022'00" WEST, 5479 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTATNS 0 0056 ACRE MORE OR LESS. - . y -,-k I....> _~' (.J I/-j (., EXHIBIT "B" THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA HEREBY RELEASES SAID LAND FROM THE EFFECT OF THE GRANT OR DEDICATION ON MAP NO. 12691, IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OF SAID LAND, FOR OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC UTIITY AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES. THE CITY ALSO RELEASES AND TERMINATES ALL RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 66477.2 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE AS TO SAID LAND. THIS RELEASE SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THIS DEED. J/;JP ~ (. ~ \~- -/.? (j.. ~ YJ~~g ~~~~~ YJ..... V'l z.....~>-> ~1.....5 !:3~ . 0~ \ i--- 1/ '<..:) \-' -..f2. - r - \ -, ~ ~I~I/ ~R#~'\ ~lmJILr,trm\ 'Xr( ~ y\\\J II ~":YA ~ ~~ O'OVI\ . ~ fdti ON~3J. >~~ JA~- -J 'I \ ~ ~ ~ . Y, -----' _ ':;'4O,v ~ " d. ), '" . ~ \. r _ ~.--- \3 ~". ;lYII ;: , J' \ ~ '" """" ~ I .;. \ \ \ _ QT ~ ~r:/ ~ ~ ~.,;.",-'~~\ ~, :y; ~ >> /1_ ~,\\ >,; 'IIi ~~ t y..;"1. ~\ IN/' ~r v t::.j ,n~e>.. 6- \'" \ . '\ \: "E <~....' ^ t ,\ \: R~ '0 ~- \' llll-<<I\\ · ~ tv-- \ 0> ,"' \q-" \ ~ ~ ; riD ql51"""~ ~ - A" ~ ~ J --\ E(~U--- ~ \ J! UJj1 ~. //--/7' \ . i ./\\ I~ ~v vy rl"-<~ v \ \...- ~ r > ~() .... - co- - ':27 - ( J: X UJ 1 I ~ .... i= CD .... co .'" o . -:- m :II (/l -I " II CJl -I ;;u m m -i L.OT "A" LoT "D" -'n:~~p.. ~ ___n~\'. -i~ rrlO :;OZ :;O-i )>~ r zr 00 1-01 "C'< )> NOVA ORNE //-/.2- RESOLUTION NO. /'t'.5''Io RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING OPEN SPACE LOT A OF MAP 12691, LOT B OF MAP 12692 AND LOTS C AND D OF MAP 12693 WHEREAS, on August 14, 1990, by Resolutions 15779, 15780 and 15782, the City Council approved the Final Maps for Montillo Phase 1, 2 and 4 and rejected the acceptance of open space lots A, B, C and D; and WHEREAS, Lots A and B are on Hidden vista Drive and Lots C and D are on Terra Nova Drive; and lots. WHEREAS, the city is now ready to accept these open space NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby accept Open Space Lot A of Map 12691, Lot B of Map 12692 and Lots C and D of Map 12693. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works orney / //1 ' / RESOLUTION NO. /grf'/J RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA QUITCLAIMING A PORTION OF LOT A, MAP 12691 AND A PORTION OF LOT B, MAP 12692 TO MONTILLO LIMITED AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE DEEDS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, on August 14, 1990, by Resolutions 15779, 15780 and 15782, the City Council approved the Final Maps for Montillo Phase I, 2 and 4 and rejected the acceptance of open space lots A, B, C and D; and WHEREAS, Lots A and B are on Hidden vista Drive and Lots C and D are on Terra Nova Drive; and WHEREAS, execution of two quitclaim deeds is required to complete a boundary adjustment requested by the developer to accommodate landscaping and walls constructed by adjacent property owners, which encroach into open space lots A and B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby quitclaim a portion of Lot A, Map 12691 and a portion of Lot B, Map 12692 to Montillo Limited. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the authorized to execute the quitclaim deeds. Mayor is hereby Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works /i vt~-_ . Kaheny, City Attor c:\RS\MONTILLO.Qc /1/3 -' / COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: /.J.. 01/07/97 ITEM TITLE: /K'5''' Resolution Waiving inunaterial defects, accepting bids and awarding contract for "Loma Verde Park Improvements (PR-183B), Eucalyptus Park Play Equipment (PR-146C) and Gayle L McCandliss Memorial/Halecrest Park Improvement (PR-178B) in the City of Chula Vista, CA"; and Re- appropriating $53,250.00 from Park Acquisition (PR-185) to Playground Renovation (PR-183) to fund the con act Director of Public Works ~ Director of Parks, Recreatton (4/5ths Vote: Yes ~ No~ SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: City ManageJbi ~ ..---r At 2:00 p.m. on October 2, 1996, in Conference Room 2 & 3, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "Loma Verde Park Improvements (PR-183B), Eucalyptus Park Play Equipment (PR- 146C), and Gayle L. McCandliss Memorial/Halecrest Park Improvement (PR-178B) in the City of Chula Vista, CA." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Waive minor irregularity in low bid (lack of adequate bid bond amount ($25,000 vs. $26,256.50 required); and 2. Accept bids and award contract to Star Paving Corporation - San Diego in the amount of $266,565.00; and 3. Re-appropriate $53,250.00 from Park Acquisition (PR-185) to Playground Renovation (PR-183) to fund the contract. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Included in the CIP program over the last few years are funds for upgrading various parks. These parks included several throughout the City, but the parks included in this project were Eucalyptus Park, Lorna Verde Park, and Gayle L. McCandliss Memorial/Halecrest Park. The work in each of the parks is summarized below: 1. Gavle L. McCandliss Memorial Grove/Halecrest Park The work to be done consists of constructing a decomposed granite access way; Memorial Plaza; revised sand play area and associated concrete paving at Halecrest Park - 415 East J Street. The work includes removal of existing improvements, protection and restoration of existing improvements, excavation and grading, placement of decomposed granite paving, construction I;l.-/ Page 2, Item Meeting Date 01107/97 The Engineer's estimate on this portion of the bid was $44,410; the low bidder was $74,580, or a difference of 68 %. PAD funds available for this project are $39,968. 2. T .llm::l Vprl'1p. P:u\c- Tmprovp:mp.nt~ The work to be done consists of constructing a sand play area and associated concrete paving at Loma Verde Park - 1420 Loma Lane. The work includes removal of existing improvements, protection and restoration of existing improvements, construction of asphalt concrete paved emergency access road and handicapped parking, cast in place concrete retaining wall, irrigation and planting and other miscellaneous work as shown on the drawings. As discussed above in the McCandliss project, a similar issue of cost estimates being high for park renovation occurs on this project. The irrigation, planting, and electrical line items are where the difference in the Engineer's Estimate and the bid amount occur. The amounts bid for these items are high; however, staff does not consider them to be extreme to the point that the bids be rejected. 3. Fnp.::Ilyphl~ P::IrK PI::IY Ftplipmp.nt The work to be done consists of providing and installing children's play equipment at Eucalyptus Park. The work includes: construction of resilient surfacing under a portion of the proposed play structure and other miscellaneous work shown on the drawings. The Engineer's estimate on this portion of the bid was $33,575; the low bidder was $40,000, or a difference of 19 % . PAD funds available for the play equipment at Loma Verde and Eucalyptus Park are $215,065. Staff is concerned about the wide disparity on these projects between the bid amounts and the Engineer's estimates and making sure we minimize this occurring in the future. One of the factors which affected the large difference between the cost estimate and the bid was the difficulty and uncertainty associated with the existing conditions at a park renovation site; I.e., demolition work, excavation, grading, irrigation/landscaping, etc. The lack of an extensive data base for park renovation projects, especially in the case of the Gayle McCandliss Memorial Grove/Halecrest Park, contributed to the difference between the cost estimate and the higher bids. Another factor is the need to have more review of the estimates as they are being developed. Park and Recreation staff will work with Engineering staff more closely in estimating projects. Park and Recreation will also work to develop a more extensive data base for cost estimates for all aspects of park renovation, and will utilize this information more efficiently in the future to estimate projects more realistically. Bids were received from seven contractors to perform the work as follows: /.2-.2.. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 01107/97 Contractor Bid Amount Star Paving Corporation - San Diego Valley Crest Landscaping, Inc. - San Diego Marquez Constructors Inc. - Spring Valley Builders Staff Corporation - Cardiff by the Sea Excavating Engineers Inc. - Escondido A&B Landscaping - San Diego The Wright Company - La Jolla $266,565.00 $267,563.00 $287,526.60 $300,600.85 $321,779.00 $328,450.00 $404,688.00 ,The low bid by Star Paving Corporation is above the engineer's estimate of $204,570.00 by $61,995.00, or 30%. Although the low bid is above the engineer's estimate, seven bids were received for construction of this project and it is believed that the bid amount does reflect the actual cost to perform the work. The low bid by Star Paving had a minor irregularity in that the bid bond amount was slightly less than the 10% of the bid ($25,000 vs. $26,656.50). The specifications state that "Cause for rejection of insufficient amount of bid guarantee shall be left to the discretion of the City". Staff recommends that this minor irregularity be waived. How Bid Was Packaged: Staff assembled this bid package with the three smaller projects together to increase the quantities of material and volume of work. The intent of this packaging was to achieve an economy of scale, reducing dollar amounts per unit for the various aspects of work involved in the projects. This type of bid has been used successfully by the Parks and Recreation Department in recent years in bidding landscape maintenance contracts for the Open Space Assessment Districts. It has achieved lower bids. However, as compared to the traditional single project bidding, it appears this bid packaging was not successful with these three projects. To remedy this situation in the future, staff will package multiple- project bids so that the City has the option of either accepting the bid as a whole package, or accepting individual components separately at our option. Staff recommends to transfer $53,250 from Park Acquisition (PR 185) to Playground Renovation (PR- 183). . FISCAL IMPACT: There are three CIP projects occurring in this bid package. The total amount of funds available in the existing projects is $254,993 ($39,968 for McCandliss Memorial and $215,025 for Playground Renovation). With the bid at $266,565 and an additional $41,657 required to fund staff costs and contingencies; there remains a deficit of funds in the amount of $53,229. The Parks and Recreation Department's Capital Improvement Program has decreased over the last several years due to diminishing Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) funds. This project in the Parks and Recreation Department is being implemented under conditions of safety, immediate replacement and renovation requirements and community need. Staff believes that the most appropriate existing CIP from which to re-appropriate funds is the Park Acquisition project (PR-185), as all other projects are currently in-process and commencing in the very future and any re-appropriation of funds would jeopardize the projects. The PR-185 fund was intended to be used to acquire land in West Chula Vista to mitigate a I,). '3 Page 4, Item Meeting Date 01/07/97 deficiency of park land in western Chula Vista. Staff believes a full replacement of the $53,250 can be achieved next budget year from PAD funds. The remaining balance in PR-185 would be $975,118. Attachments: A - City of Chula Vista Disclosure Statement [N:\Shared\ENGINEER\RFJECfPI.SLH - 12-20-96] /:;-1 RESOLUTION NO. Ig"rt?t. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "LOMA VERDE PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PR-183B), EUCALYPTUS PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT (PR-146C) AND GAYLE L. McCANDLISS MEMORIAL/HALECREST PARK IMPROVEMENT (PR-178B) IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; AND REAPPROPRIATING $53,250.00 FROM PARK ACQUISITION (PR-185) TO PLAYGROUND RENOVATION (PR-183) TO FUND THE CONTRACT WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on October 2, 1996, in Conference Room 2 & 3, the Director of Public Works received the following sealed bids for "Loma Verde Park Improvements (PR-183B), Eucalyptus Park Play Equipment (PR-146C) , and Gayle L. McCandliss Memorial/Halecrest Park Improvement (PR-178B) in the City of Chula Vista, CA.": Contractor Bid Amount Star Paving Corporation - San Diego Valley Crest Landscaping, Inc. - San Diego Marquez Constructors Inc. - Spring Valley Builders Staff Corporation - Cardiff by the Sea Excavating Engineers Inc. - Escondido A&B Landscaping - San Diego The Wright Company - La Jolla $266,565.00 $267,563.00 $287,526.60 $300,600.85 $321,779.00 $328,450.00 $404,688.00 WHEREAS, the low bid by Star Paving Corporation is above the engineer's estimate of $204,570.00 by $61,995.00, or 30% and although the low bid is above the engineer's estimate, seven bids were received for construction of this project and it is believed that the bid amount does reflect the actual cost to perform the work; and WHEREAS, the low bid by Star Paving had a minor irregularity in that the bid bond amount was slightly less than the 10% of the bid ($25,000 vs. $26,656.50); and WHEREAS, the specifications state that "Cause for rejection of insufficient amount of bid guaranty shall be left to the discretion of the City" and staff recommends that this minor irregularity be waived; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby waive minor irregularity in low bid (lack of adequate bid bond amount ($25,000 vs. $26,256.50 required). 1 /~<5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the seven bids for "Loma Verde Park Improvements (PR- 183B), Eucalyptus Park Play Equipment (PR-146C) and Gayle L. McCandliss Memorial/Halecrest Park Improvement (PR-178B) in the City of Chula Vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $53,250.00 reappropriating from Park Acquisition (PR-185) to Renovation (PR-183) to fund the contract. is hereby Playground BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works ney C:\rs\reject.lvp 2 / .)., t THE CITY OF CHl:LA nSTA DISCLOSl:RE STATDIE:"T You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of cenain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the propeny which is the subject of the application or the Contract, e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. / / / / / / 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or pannership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10 % of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest in the pannership. / / / / /' / / 3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. / / /' / / / , , / 4. Have you had more than $250 wonh of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No -X.. If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. ROO/IE! I-iE"::N>lnliJEZ- Jf'~ w , {!Ihl';:"; JC5c fl. f/rrYII~Y7. WSr EsPI/o/k<:t}- 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than 51,000 to a Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ){ If yes, state which Council members(s): . . . (NOTE: Attached additional pag s ne;:ess ry) * * * , ;/ .f/ t9ignature of Contractor! Applicant ST1!1! IIIVIN~ I;>/e - Lkw..s (lINer; Print or type name of Contractor/ Applicant Date: . Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association. social club, fraternal organization. corporation, estate, tnlst, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city or coumry, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any OTher group or combinarion acting as a unit. 21 /.2 -7 Council Agenda Statement Item I '3 Meeting Date January 7.1997 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Consideration of the County of San Diego Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan /I. Resolution.1 3'.5'1). Adopting the Summary Plan, and 8. Resolution /y$'o/$Adopting the Siting Element of the County of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan SUBMITTED BY: Michael T. Meacham, Conservation co~nit~~'~~>' REVIEWED BY: John D. Goss, City Mana~~t1~~thsvote: Yes_ No X) .~ BACKGROUND: Council received a copy of the Count of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan Final Draft and the County Board's letter, minutes and resolution adopting the Plan on October 24, 1996. The Plan consists of the County-wide Summary Plan and Siting Element Final Draft. The documents and comments made on the Preliminary Drafts are about 175 pages in length. A copy has been on file in the Clerk's Office since November 12, 1996 and no public comments have been received. Pursuant to Section 41750 of the Public Resources Code the City may take action to approve or disapprove the Plan by resolution and forward comments to the County of San Diego. If no action is taken by Council within 90 days of receipt of the documents Chula Vista will have been deemed to have approved the Plan (the documents were received 10/21/96). RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolutions adopting the County of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan consisting of the Countywide Summary Plan and Siting Element. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission reviewed and recommended Council approval of the Source Reduction and Recycling, and Household Hazardous Waste Elements at their January 9, 1995 meeting (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) required that every City and County develop and implement a solid waste management plan that would reduce and/or divert at least 25% of the jurisdiction's annual waste generation from landfills by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000 Cities were required to submit their plans to their respective Counties and the State. Counties are required to develop and submit a Summary Plan and Siting Element to the State to complete the initial planning process. .counties and cities are subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day for failure to develop solid waste management plans, and make a good faith effort to implement the plan for their respective jurisdiction. /3..../ Page 2, Item Meeting Date January 7.1997 The Countywide Summary Plan provides a synopsis of the combined Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWE) and Nondisposal Facility Elements (NDFE) from each jurisdiction within the County. The Plan also contains goals, objectives and policies that establish a framework for future cooperation among local jurisdictions. The plan is intended as an overview and does not commit the City to any programs that were not already approved by Council in 1990 as part of the Chula Vista SRRE, HHWE and NDFE in 1994. The Summary Plan should provide an important overview of how the different jurisdictional plans may interact. The Summary Plan should also provide insight as to whether the individual plans will work in a complementary fashion to provide a comprehensive regional solution or if their combination reveals competing objectives or outright omissions. The purpose of the Countywide Siting Element is to demonstrate a plan for the proper disposal of all waste generated within the County for at least the next fifteen years. The disposal plan is expected to account for changes in the disposal needs based on implementation of source reduction, reuse, recycling and compo sting programs described within the Summary Plan. The Siting Element is not required to demonstrate that the landfill capacity will be within San Diego County. However, it is required to demonstrate that the inventory of current and proposed solid waste facilities (landfill, waste-to-energy, transfer station, or material recovery facilities) will be sufficient to provide for appropriate disposal for all the waste generated within the County for a fifteen year term. Staff has reviewed the Summary Plan and Siting Element to determine if they are consistent with current Council policy and direction for the City. The following comments outline those issues within the Plan's components which may be inconsistent with current policy or direction: Summary Plan The Summary Plan states the jurisdictions will develop and implement a post-consumer content purchasing policy and support the efforts of those jurisdictions included in local Recycling Market Development Zones. The Chula Vista SRRE, approved by the Council in 1990, contain plans to develop and implement a post-consumer content or "buy-recycled" purchasing policy. However, that policy has not been established. Staff has worked together to purchase some post-consumer products while developing the policy The City has not been an active member or supporter of either of the county Recycling Market Development Zones (RMDZ) however, Chula Vista Staff has worked with the City and County of San Diego for the past two years to join a Zone. Staff is currently preparing a Memorandum / ;1 , ..l.. Page 3, Item Meeting Date January 7. 1997 of Understanding for Council's review that would annex Chula Vista to the South San Diego RMDZ. Siting Element The Siting Elements identifies Wolf Canyon and North Otay Valley as "tentative" solid waste landfill sites with 40 to 48 years of capacity respectively. Both sites are within the Otay Ranch project. These sites are not consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan or the Subregional Plan approved by the Council and the County Board of Supervisors. Page SE-41 of the Siting Element explains that "tentative" sites must be consistent with local general plans and that they must be removed from the list within five years of the adoption of the plan if the affected jurisdiction does not provide a resolution, notarized statement or affidavit regarding land use consistency. Staff has brought the issue to the County's attention and they have subsequently added a footnote to the Wolf Canyon and North Otay Valley sites stating that, "This site is subject to the influence of General Plan and General Development Plan amendments recently adopted for the Otay Ranch." The resolution before Council includes language that states the City's position that these sites are inconsistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the Subregional Plan and requests that they be removed from the tentative list following the five year review process. The Siting Element also identifies Otay Annex Landfill as having a daily permit capacity of up to 3,500 per day. The Element goes on to qualify that daily capacity by stating that it is "Per Notice and Order while permit revision is being processed." The 3,500 per day permit capacity being requested by the County for the Otay Annex is equivalent to the entire waste currently being accepted by the County at all its current landfill facilities. That Otay Annex Landfill's capacity could serve the South Bay Region and its projected growth for several decades. The life of that landfill could be substantially shortened if the landfill operator chose to import waste from outside the South Bay waste shed. CONCLUSION: Chula Vista has made more than its equitable contribution to the region's historical and future requirements for siting disposal facilities without, expanding to include additional sites. The Otay Annex Landfill will serve generators throughout the region for the next several decades and the Otay Landfill/Hazardous Waste Facility, medical waste facility (Reed Court), rendering plant (Otay Valley Road) and the solid waste disposal pits have all served regional generators over the past several decades While Chula Vista has historically contributed to the county's regional disposal needs by siting more than its fair share of regional disposal facilities, it may be time for other sub-regions of the county to step forward with similar commitments before Chula Vista or South Bay residents are expected to shoulder any additional impacts. Attached is a draft letter of transmittal for the proposed resolutions which expresses /3"; Page 4, Item Meeting Date January 7.1997 those concerns to the County (Attachment B). FISCAL IMP ACT: There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of approving the resolutions. The County of San Diego is subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day for failure to develop and implement a County Integrated Waste Management Plan. If a fine where to be imposed the County could seek to recover the cost through the tipping fee paid by users of the solid waste system. The City's integrated solid waste management programs are part of the Environmental Management Program and are reviewed as part of the budget process each year. mtm:cas-rcc cntypln2.cas cc: George Krempl, Deputy City Manager Robert Leiter, Director of Planning Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning Projects Manager Attachments /3-1( (Attachment A) MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Monday, JanullIY 9, 1995 Conference Room # 1 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDERlROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:32 P.M. by Chair BurrascanO. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present: Conunissioners Hall, Marquez, Fisher; absent: Ghougassian, Guerreiro. It was MSUC (Hal1/Fisher) to not excuse Conunissioners Ghougassian and Guerreiro from the meeting since they did not call in for excused absence. Guests present: Lance Becker, agent for applicant Church of Joy; Amy Wolfe, Planning Dept. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (Fisher/Hall) to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 7, 1994; 4-0, motion carried. It was MSUC (Hal1/Fisher) to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 21,1994; 4-0, motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Michael Meacham reported on the Used Oil Opportunity Grant for 1995/1996, which would provide curbside oil recycling services to the City. Hall opposed any kind of rate increase, and also preferred more available service centers rather than to allow used oil along with other recyclables at the curbside. She opposed the general concept of the grant but agreed to vote for approval for the second year of the program. It was MSUC (Burrascano/Hall) to approve recommendation of the grant; 4-0, motion carried. [Agenda items taken out of order to accommodate guests present]. 2. Review of Negative Declaration IS-95-12, Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element: Meacham explained this negative declaration was already accepted in 1992 and must be resubmitted to conform to CEQA Guidelines for formality only. It was MSUC (HalilBurrascano) to recommend approval; 4-0, motion carried. 3. Review of Church of Joy Negative Declaration for IS-94-28 and CS-95-02: The project area was described as containing unoccupied coastal sage scrub. Many other plant species were found on the property as indicated on the report. Although some were being replanted, its survivability was listed as very low. Lance Becker, agent for the applicant, answered questions. Marquez said she would like to encourage the applicant to maintain as much of the natural vegetation as possible. Fisher suggested that in the future, Pacific Southwest Biological Services conduct its surveys during the proper seasons when some of the habitat are more apt to be present, thus providing a more accurate report. It was MSUC (HalIIMarquez) to recommend approval of both 15-94-28 and CS-95-02; 4-0, motion carried. /3-.5" (Attachment B) DRAFT Joseph S. Minner, Director, Solid Waste Services County of San Diego, Department of Public Works 5555 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123-1295 Dear Mr. Minner: Enclosed are two resolutions approving the Summary Plan and Siting Element components of the County of San Diego, Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 41750, the City ofChula Vista is hereby transmitting its approval of the Plan within ninety days of receipt of the final draft. Please note that the enclosed Resolution approving the Siting Element also requests that the Wolf Canyon and North Otay Landfill sites be removed from the list of "tentative" sites. These sites are not consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the Subregional Plan approved by the Chula Vista City Council and the County Board of Supervisors. Chula Vista has made more than its equitable contribution to the region's historical and future requirements for siting disposal facilities without expanding to include additional sites. The Otay Annex Landfill has sufficient capacity to serve generators throughout the South Bay region for the next several decades. The Otay Landfill/Hazardous Waste Facility, a medical waste facility, rendering plant and the solid waste disposal pits in Chula Vista have served generators throughout the county over the past several decades. While Chula Vista has historically contributed to the county's regional disposal needs by siting more than its fair share of regional disposal facilities, it is time for other sub-regions of the county to step forward with similar commitments before Chula Vista or South Bay residents are expected to shoulder any additional impacts. We ask that you please forward these comments and concerns to the California Integrated Waste Management Board along with the City's approval of the Plan. Sincerely, Shirley Horton, Mayor City of Chula Vista mtm:cas cntypln2.1tr J]-0;l~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. / a--..5'Y,2. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE SUMMARY PLAN FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the city council received a copy of the county of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan Final Draft and the County Board's letter, minutes and resolution adopting the Summary Plan on October 24, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Countywide Summary Plan provides a synopsis of the combined Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Household Hazardous Waste Elements and Nondisposal Facility Elements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 41750 of Resources Code, the city may take action to approve the Plan by resolution and forward comments to the Diego. the Public or disapprove County of San NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby adopt the Summary Plan for the county of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan. Presented by Approved as to form by Attorney Michael T. Meacham, Conservation Coordinator /3/?~/ RESOLUTION NO. /rfi/J RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE SITING ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the County of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan Final Draft and the county Board's letter, minutes and resolution adopting the Summary Plan on October 24, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Plan consists of the County-wide Summary Plan and siting Element Final Draft; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Countywide siting Element is to demonstrate a plan for the proper disposal of all waste generated within the County for at least the next fifteen years; and WHEREAS, the siting Plan explains that "tentative" sites must be consistent with local general plans and they must be removed from the list within five years of the adoption of the plan if the affected jurisdiction does not provide a resolution, notarized statement or affidavit regarding land use consistency; and WHEREAS, staff has brought the issue to the County's attention and they have subsequently added a footnote to the Wolf Canyon and North otay Valley sites; and WHEREAS, these sites are inconsistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the Subregional Plan and staff recommends that they be removed from the tentative list following the five year review process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby adopt the siting Element of the County of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan with the comment that the Wolf canyon and North Otay valley sites be removed from the tentative list following the five year review process. Presented by Approved as to form by C:\rs\siting.pln orney Michael T. Meacham, Conservation Coordinator /30-1 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: It! Meeting Date: Janu3l)' 7.1997 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 96-04: Consideration of the remainder portion of Phase 2A and 5 of Village Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Tract 96-04, consisting of262 single-family lots and 265 multi-family units on 148.6 acres of land located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between future La Media Road and the future SR 125 alignment. SUBMITTED BY: Special Planning Projects ~e~ Otay RancaQ ~fi:S:S REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJ(4 tcJ ~\ 4/5thsVote: Yes_No..xJ On November 19, 1996, the City Council approved Village One and Phase lA and a portion of Phase 2A of Village Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 96-04. The remaining 148.6 acres in Phase 2A and 5 of Village Five were continued to January 7, 1997 because they are located adjacent to land owned by West Coast Land Fund (WCLF). The purpose of the continuance was to allow Village Development and WCLF the opportunity to meet together with City staff to resolve any issues that WCLF might have with this portion of the SPA One Plan. DISCUSSION: WCLF acquired, by foreclosure, 288 acres within SPA One on September 6, 1996. The majority of this acreage is located in Village Five. After this portion of SPA One was acquired by WCLF, Village Development revised their original tentative map submittal to delete the 288 acres in question. The revised tentative subdivision map, excluding the southerly portion of Phase 2A and 5 in Village Five, was approved by the City Council on November 19, 1996. Since WCLF acquired the land on September 6, 1996, Village Development, WCLF and Pointe Builders have met on two occasions. Staff believes it would be beneficial to allow additional time for the applicant and the affected property owners to meet further to try and resolve any land use issues. Staff is, therefore, recommending the continuance to February 4, 1997. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue the balance of Phase 2A of Village Five to the February 4, 1997 City Council meeting. /'1- / COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 1/7/97 /.5' ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of the 100 Block of Jefferson Avenue. Resolution /8"JY"dering the conditioned vacation of a portion of the 100 Block of Jefferson Avenue SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work';;~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager J{~ bl' hl\:l~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No..xJ The Chula Vista Elementary School District(Jas ap;lied to the City to vacate the portion of Jefferson A venue from Flower Street to approximately 300 feet south, along the frontage of Feaster Elementary School (see Exhibit "A"). In accordance with Part 3, Chapter 3, of the California Streets and Highways Code, Council must hold a public hearing in order to consider the vacation request. In order to vacate, Council must adopt a resolution ordering the vacation, and that resolution may contain conditions to be met by the applicant prior to its recordation. On 12/10/96, Council adopted Resolution No. 18516 RECOMMENDATION: That Council hold the subject public hearing and adopt the subject resolution ordering a conditioned vacation of a portion of Jefferson A venue in the 100 Block and not require payment for the vacated land. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: There are no actions required to be taken by any Boards or Commissions for this matter. DISCUSSION: Background: On September 10, 1996, application was made by the Chula Vista Elementary School District (District) to vacate a portion of Jefferson Avenue between "E" and Flower Streets (see Exhibit "A"). It is the District's intention to purchase a vacant piece of property on the east side of Jefferson A venue directly across the street from Feaster Elementary as a way to expand the school campus. Rather than building a bridge or underpass to connect the two properties, the most viable solution would be to vacate the street between the two parcels. The District held a public meeting, inviting residents of the Feaster School neighborhood. Approximately 30 people attended. (City staff inquired of the possibility of obtaining the minutes to the meeting and none were available.) According to staff at the District, a few senior citizens who attended had concerns regarding emergency personnel response time. If'! Page 2, Item Meeting Date 1/7/97 As Council was previously notified, the City began a 10-day trial closure of the street on Friday, November 8, 1996 and continued it through Monday, November 18. Approximately 930 notices of the trial closure were mailed out to residents and property owners of the neighborhood bounded by 1-5 east to Broadway and "D" Street south to "E" Street. Additionally, approximately 900 notices were given to the School District to pass out to the students at Feaster School. The notice included a City contact person and a phone number to call for comments or questions. During the closure, a total of 12 calls were received by the City's contact person. Ten of the twelve phone calls were people objecting to the closure. A majority of the respondents were retirees, not able to drive and were concerned with the closure to pedestrian traffic. Apparently many of the residents of the mobile home park at 701 "D" Street walk to a market on "E" Street, using Jefferson Avenue as the shortest route. By cutting off this portion of Jefferson Avenue, pedestrians would be forced to walk east to Broadway, then south to "E" Street, adding a quarter of a mile to their trip. One call was from a resident who, on her way to work in the morning, traveled east to Broadway on Flower Street and had to wait behind eight or nine cars attempting to exit onto Broadway at the stop sign. (There is no signal at this intersection.) Further discussion and mitigation measures for this issue is included below under the section headed Recommendations. All residents who were sent notices of the trial closure will be notified of the public hearing being set by the Resolution of Intention. (See description of area above.) The vacation of the street, if it takes place, will include reservation of easements for all City facilities and other agencies owning facilities that will remain within any of the vacated areas. Compensation for Right of Way When a street is vacated the vacated land reverts to the underlying fee owner. If the street was originally dedicated on a subdivision map, the land would normally revert to the adjoining owner from the centerline of the street. If the City has a grant deed to the property, the City owns the land in fee and could be paid for the land since it doesn't automatically revert to the adjoining property. If the City has an Easement for street purposes, the land would normally revert to the land that dedicated the property. In this case there is a total of 18,135 square ft. to be vacated. Of that amount the School District dedicated as an easement 12,090 SF and the owners of the easterly property dedicated about 6,045 sf as quit claim deeds or grant deeds. Normally, the 12,090 s.f. easement would revert to the School District and the remaining 6,045 sf would be city land since the City appears to own the underlying fee under the grant deeds. Previously for some projects the City Council has required the applicant to pay for the land that was vacated whether or not it was an easement. Staff believes that since this is a public agency, that the majority of the land that would ordinarily revert to the School, the City should do so at no cost. However, the 6,045 sf of grant deeded land could be sold to the School. The decision /y.;L Page 3, Item Meeting Date 1/7/97 of whether to sell or grant at no cost any or all of the vacated land needs to be made prior to any final action on the vacation. Because of the status of the District as a public agency it is staff's recommendation that no payment be required if the vacation is approved. Impacts of Closure In addressing the School District's request for vacation of this portion of Jefferson Avenue staff had concerns over the impacts to traffic in the area. These were most particularly over the intersection of Broadway and "E" Street since all traffic using Jefferson Street now would, most likely, have to go through this intersection. Traffic turning movement counts were conducted to determine the effects of the proposed closure of Jefferson A venue, between "E" Street and Flower Street, on traffic circulation. The counts were taken in the a.m. peak period (7 :00-9:00) and p.m. (4:00-6:00) peak periods. Two intersections, "E" Street/Jefferson Avenue and "E" Street/Broadway, were analyzed on Thursday, October 23, 1996, prior to a trial closure period. The "E" Street/Broadway and Broadway/Flower Street intersections were analyzed on Thursday, November 13, 1996 while Jefferson Street was temporarily closed. The results of the traffic counts are shown on Exhibit B. Following are the findings for the before and during closure analysis for each of the intersections. Jefferson Street/"E" Street This is a T-intersection with two through lanes and a left turn lane on "E" Street (east-west) and a travel lane in each direction (north-south) on Jefferson Street. The highest volume of turning movements at this intersection were observed in the a.m. peak period. These were the southbound to westbound right turn and the eastbound to northbound left turn movements which were 139 and 1 02 respectively. Based on the low volumes this intersection currently operates at LOS A. It was anticipated that during the temporary closure of Jefferson Street traffic from Jefferson Avenue would be diverted to Broadway and Flower Street. Flower Street/Broadway The Flower St./Broadway intersection is an unsignalized four legged intersection with a through lane, a shared through/right turn lane, and a left turn lane each way on Broadway (north-south) and a shared through/right turn/left turn lane in each direction (east -west) on Flower Street. Low volumes (approximately 12-16% of all eastbound traffic) of eastbound through and left turning traffic on Flower Avenue were observed. The turning movement expected to be impacted most by the proposed closure of Jefferson Avenue is eastbound to southbound right turn. There were 127 right turning vehicles during the a.m. peak hour. The a.m. peak is the worst case because the general commuting traffic and the school traffic peaks coincide for this period. Because there is only one shared lane for all the eastbound movements, it is expected that significant delays will be experienced by all eastbound traffic at this intersection. By prohibiting parking on the south curbline of Flower Street near the intersection and restriping/rnarking of the pavement a separate right turn lane could be provided to minimize the delays. There is also a palm tree in the west parkway of Broadway north of Flower Street that somewhat impairs the visibility and, with the 15'3 Page 4, Item Meeting Date 117/97 increase in traffic needs to be removed. The cost to do the striping work is estimated at $1,000 and to remove the palm tree is $500 to $1,000. Broadway/"E" Street This intersection is a four-legged signalized intersection with a through lane, a shared through/right turn lane, and a left turn lane in the westbound, eastbound, and northbound directions and two through lanes, a left turn lane, and a right turn lane in the southbound direction. Based on the JHK study conducted in the fall of 1990, the intersection was operating at a LOS A for the a.m. peak and LOS B for the p.m. peak. Based on the p.m. peak hour volumes (the higher peak) observed on October 23 and November 13, the intersection had a LOS B before the trial closure of Jefferson Avenue and a LOS C during the closure. The movements most impacted by the street closure are the south bound to west bound right turn, which increased from 200 to 301 vehicles, and the eastbound to northbound left turn, which increased from 161 to 298 vehicles for the p.m. peak hour. These increases will cause significant delays for vehicles making those movements. While the south bound to west bound right turn movements are a concern, right turns may be made on a red light so long as the traffic permits. The biggest concern is the volume of left turning movements from east bound "E" Street to north bound Broadway. The volume of this movement at 298 is within the range requiring dual left lanes. As a planning figure the capacity varies from 250 left turns per hour to 350 left turns per hour. The lower figure represents a planning figure where dual left turns should be provided for all new roadways. Within that range, at existing intersections, the higher volumes can sometimes be accommodated by giving additional green time to the left turn movements. However, that can only be done by reducing the through green time and is only effective when the through movement is light enough to allow the reduction. Above 350 vehicles per hour it is a generally accepted principle that dual left turns are always required. Caltrans' Traffic Manual, Section 9-03.3, indicates that "If the left turn volume is 300 vehicles per hour or more, consideration should be given to a two-lane left turn." As interim measures, the increases in these turning movements could be mitigated by: 1. Adding a permissive/protected left turn signal for "E" Street traffic which will allow both a protected left turn phase and left turns during the through movement which must yield to the through traffic. The intersection of Fourth and '''F'' has this type of installation. Adjusting the signal timing to extend the east-west left turn phase to clear more vehicles through the intersection will also be done. 2. Adding a right turn arrow overlap phase for southbound Broadway traffic to the east- west left turn phase on "E" Street would allow the southbound to westbound free right turn without a stop during that phase. This would require the installation of a five section /5,r Page 5, Item Meeting Date 1/7/97 head at the southwest corner similar to that installed for northbound Hilltop Drive at East "H" Street. The estimated cost for these interim improvements is $30,000. However, the volume of left turns indicate that dual left turn lanes should be considered as a more permanent solution. If the improvements suggested above prove not to be effective, the only solution would be to reconstruct "E" Street at the intersection to provide dual left turn lanes. Installation of eastbound dual left turn lanes would require an 8-foot widening of the west leg of the intersection. Since there is a major storm facility at the southwest corner, it may be more feasible to widen the north side of the street. Street striping would also require adjustment to direct traffic to the appropriate lanes on the east side of the intersection. The cost of this work has not been estimated, but would be very expensive and require condeming for right of way. RECOMMENDA nONS The following mitigation is recommended as a condition that the School District pay for should Council approve the permanent closure of Jefferson Avenue: I. Add eastbound to southbound right turn lane at Flower Street/Broadway intersection by restriping and prohibiting parking near the intersection. Cost: $1,000. 2. Adding a permissive/protected left turn signal for "E" Street traffic and adjusting traffic signal phasing at Broadway/"E" Street to extend eastbound to northbound left turn phase plus installing south bound to west bound free right turn phase to overlap with east- west left turn phase at Broadway/"E" Street. Cost: $30,000. 3. Removing at least one fan palm tree on the west side of Broadway north of Flower Street to improve sight distance to the north. Cost: $500 - $1,000. 4. Construct an appropriate cul-de-sac closure on Jefferson A venue at its terminus north of "E" Street. The cost of this work has not been estimated. 5. Dedicate and improve as necessary a walkway adjacent to and west of the School that will provide safe access for residents to be able to walk to the stores on "E" Street. No estimate of the cost to do this work has been completed. FISCAL IMPACT: The District is responsible for the costs of processing the vacation request, including the cost of staff time spent on the trial closure and its evaluation under the City's Full Cost Recovery System. The District has deposited $1,000.00 with the Finance Department and will be required to add to that when the account is depleted. The deficit is estimated to reach an excess of $5,000. Estimated costs for staff time and materials for the trial closure and processing 15'S Page 6, Item Meeting Date 1/7/97 the vacation request are approximately $5,500. The School District has been notified that their deposit is in a deficit and that they need to increase it to cover the staff costs. If the Council chooses to require payment for a portion of the vacated right of way the General Fund could receive as much as $45,000 for the portion which the City owns the underlying fee. This is not recommended. Under the staff recommendation the District would also be responsible for making all the necessary improvements to mitigate the impacts related to the closure of Jefferson A venue. An estimate of all the work has not been done, however there would be no cost to the City. Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" - Plat of area Exhibit "B" - Results of Traffic Counts [M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \PV -068 _ 2.JWH] 15,t RESOLUTION NO. / Y.51/~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ORDERING THE CONDITIONED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE 100 BLOCK OF JEFFERSON AVENUE WHEREAS, the Chula vista Elementary School District has applied to the city to vacate the portion of Jefferson Avenue from Flower Street to approximately 300 feet south, along the frontage of Feaster Elementary School; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Part 3, Chapter 3, of the California Streets and Highways Code, Council must hold a public hearing in order to consider the vacation request; and WHEREAS, in order to vacate, Council must adopt a resolution ordering the vacation, and that resolution may contain conditions to be met by the applicant prior to its recordation; and WHEREAS, on 12/10/96, council adopted Resolution No. 18516, setting the public hearing for 1/7/97. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City council of the City of Chula vista does hereby order the conditioned vacation of a portion of the 100 block of Jefferson Avenue with the following mitigation that the School District pay to: 1. Add eastbound to southbound right turn lane at Flower street/Broadway intersection by restriping and prohibi ting parking near the intersection. Cost: $1,000. 2. Adding a permissive/protected left turn signal for "E" Street traffic and adjusting traffic signal phasing at Broadway / "E" Street to extend eastbound to northbound left turn phase plus installing south bound to west bound free right turn phase to overlap with east-west left turn phase at Broadway/"E" Street. Cost: $30,000. 3. Removing at least one fan palm tree on the west side of Broadway north of Flower Street to improve sight distance to the north. Cost: $500 - $1,000. 4. Construct an appropriate cul-de-sac closure on Jefferson Avenue at its terminus north of "E" Street. The cost of this work has not been estimated. 5. Dedicate and improve as necessary a walkway adjacent to and west of the School that will provide safe access for residents to be able to walk to the stores on "E" Street. 1 /5--7 No estimate of the cost to do this work has been completed. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works C:\rs\jeferson.vac 2 /.5"~ I I j--- I I 1--- - a DWN BY: , , i '- __ , " ~-------- .- ------- --------- , r ~ - -- - -- I ---------~----- --Ih - ---- ---1 I - ------~ ~------l w - -------~ ,-------:..3 I LL _______: Il-__I__~-::"'~_ .... -,- --- ~~I ~__L__'_,__ _ I ". I t :::: I , , , I I111I111 Illv!E~UJ III " ............... L__hh_: , - - - - - - - -1 ;.------------ L.._____ ____~_'__._- , , I ' '.. , - -'- - - - -~ - - - - , , _::... - - - - -1- - - "- -. I I - - .,.... - 'r - - -- L - - _ 1- .... "_ _ I' : 1 " BROADWAY : i ----- f-- W ~----bJ PA2.CEl. "TO &~ ACQul~~D By'SC.HOOL - - . " C --f-- , en I , AVE. ~ FEAS iE IZ EL.eMeNTARY SC.HOOL. ll'<J "'" ~ -Ji- I:) <! DATE: 11(1&7(%-- - w --- -"-- -_______ __ __l..__ : ' I ASH! ----, ---- , I , , , -~ --- - . -,--- - - - .~ . , , I -, PORT ,,,,^, CONSIOERl!iO paR VACATION , ' , , -------j--- ------ - - - - - -~ , : I , WOODLAWN _ l.- _ _ _ _ .J .:.:..::-------- -- -----j . . ---., FILE NO. f".o~8 EXHIBIT "~I/5'-? o III - II> o ~ III ~ " III '< 0 r m ~ :I: ... m Q ~ 0 !" ::c z "'- Q r-' ... > <0 Z c------ <0 C () C Z. (l) m [) !> N -- , l... ~ ~ j r- m o (}Ie -) " a/He. --- 3/t/e. - - , ~.: "- l-,) '...": ...... :.z"co ""~ "'l.Gl~ 'I <;) 0 '-l N .J~ , L 1:59 / tJc. __ Z- / Ale.. f kilNC-. , JEFFERSON STREET ~ C/l -i ::c m m -i ~I ~ I VI ~ .!>- '- -.J ').. \0 ......... -.... '- ~ 0.~ 0D j "-"/26( _Z5"8//95 r 1/8 1<t2 , BROADWAY I -- /j , / ~ ~ >< r >< m ..... Gl Z < m () < z CJ 1 I I 1 ~ Z IJl ::c 0 m > -i "T1 "T1 (') 0 "T1 ::c (') 0 m c ..... (f) Z 0 -i Gl m C z c ::c > Z r C> '- m "T1 "T1 m ::c (f) 0 z (f) -i ::c m m - -i () 5 (f) c ::c m z ~ ~ ~ ",'-I) ,Vi,,- N D ~ 'l _ ~t'--. j Nc-Inr: ..J /t!Cj4/ ~ -- ;/e//'6 T "T1 r o ~ m ::c (f) -i ::c m m -i 1 "- NC /9 -Nt 130c. ! JJC / / / , I '-- 0 o 3D/IDe. j LOr) ~ 35C./Z<i2-..- ~ ~ 40/31 ~ ::::. ~ -;; , -t."-D N \).l '- \J'\ '-'l \'.\ ~ ~+r ~~~ ,,'-, \N l>l ~" () C> t- 1>0 q- ~ "t!) " "- '- ~ ~ ~ .J,~ j lfi: / -;;wJ LOBI ?/V_ I/! ;?(V ~ , UJ a: ::l C/l 0 ..J () - f- UJ UJ a: f- C/l z 0 C/l a: UJ u. u. UJ .., <.:l ..J Z ..: a: c z ::l UJ <.:l C f- C/l z , ::l UJ 0 () a: () lJ.. 0 lJ.. U. f- ..: .UJ 0 a: Cl z l- I I I I I I Cl >- () z w >- z ~ c.? , w X ..J X 1 '---- 1.. _<; /-;;(V I "t"'}!.7N so Ijvrv -- --- r f' ~t( f- UJ UJ a: f- C/l a: UJ 3 o ..J U. bQ t--O\.\) ~,,~ ~~~ z ti'> \9 ~-!( " ,.... ,.... 00 ~ l<\ I I , \ --, l'- () "- " I(l "- "- ~. 10 AVMavo !:I 8 j 0.1- / j.l> .J "tx9/ SbS- lQ~/QO"t ~ , ~ ~ (;) ~ '- "< 106''- "^ ~ t-- "l J-;; !() 1 1 I -.J , .~ .L33!:1l.S NOSl::I3.:1.:13r A '?(V IL .J ?(V If' -- ?/V /00/ -, If;,// 1 '- ILI76 _- LO/;;/,~l- ( 661/10'& o o )~r ~G.... V\ 0\ ~ ,~ ~ .... ,,,-, ,~ I'( ~ "t" \)0 ~ , f- UJ UJ a: f- C/l iLl 1 - -;)(11/+-17 - ?(II/8 I /)('I/I , ---, L-- . <:.l '-J I;J <~~ '- ,. "- '" t::::. II) !::: l'- " W ..J l- I- N UJ Cl Z < z a: UJ :I: .J >- en c J '" ~ o en ~ Z ::) O~ () " UJ :E ::)-:. ...J O~ > a: ::) o :c ~~ < UJ a. :E a. <0 Cl Cl ... c-i ... <.5 UJ Cl ., '" o / ::trJ/ PUBlJC J-lEARJNG CHECK lJST LOCATION: .,7 ' 1/7/77 I I SUBJECT: ~ SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- ~Y FAX%~Y HAND_; BY MAIL PUBLICATION DATE /~/..z! 9'? / MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS ----- NO. MAILED PER GC 854992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122 / ;;..J; (, 19 t,. / / LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK COPIES TO: Administration (4) /' Planning Originating Department Engineering / Others City Clerk's Office (2) ",/ /.;1-) ;j/j t,. , " POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 7/93 -55- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing to consider the following: A request by the Chula Vista Elementary School District for vacation of the portion of Jefferson Avenue from Flower Street to 300 feet south. For further information call the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, at 691-5021. If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, January 7, 1997, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. DATED: December 18, 1996 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering a request for vacation of THE PORTION OF JEFFERSON A VENUE FROM FLOWER STREET TO 300 FEET SOUTH. In accordance with !l 8333 of the California Streets and Highways Code, a public street may be vacated by the City Council after a public hearing is held to consider the matter. The vacation request was filed by THE CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Details are available in the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue. Staff is recommending that the vacation be granted by Council after fmding that all facts exist warranting the vacation. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to the public hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL, in accordance with Council Resolution of Intention No. 18516, on Tuesday, JANUARY 7, 1997, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. DATED: December 13, 1996 ENGINEERING DIVISION FILE NO. 0740-70-PV-068 COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requires individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/or panicipate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. For specific informationm please contact the Engineering Division at (619) 691-5021 or Telecommunications Devicesfor the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. JWH[C:\ WP51 \PV\PH _ NOTIC.068] COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: l~f'l.5" Resolution Approving a contract for $69,000 with Marty Chase for updating the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program and the related Fire Facilities Master Plan (PS- 147) and appropriating additional funds therefor. Deputy city Manager Krempl 6~ Meeting Date Item .lL 1/07/97 SUBMITED BY: REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes-X- No___) This item will be delivered to Council on Thursday, January 2, 1997. /J, -() COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 16 1/07/97 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving a contract for $69,000 with Marty Chase for updating the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program and the related Fire Facilities Master Plan (PS- 147) and appropriating additional funds therefor. SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager /IV City Manager (p(r~\Q Krempl REVIEWED BY: (4/Sths Vote: Yes--1L No_ The report for item 16 was not complete in time for distribution. It is recommended that this item to be continued to the meeting of 1/14/97. II:> - / COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item l.7 Meeting Date 1/7/97 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Draft Conceptual Management Plan, Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the Proposed San Diego National Wildlife Refuge SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ h< '-4 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ~SFWS) has requested comments regarding the Draft Conceptual Management Plan, Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the proposed San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed Wildlife Refuge will consist of three units administered by the federal government: 1) the Otay-Sweetwater Unit, 2) the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project, and 3) the South San Diego Bay Unit. An environmental assessment and draft plan will be issued for comment on the South San Diego Bay Unit in the Spring of 1997. Only the Draft Conceptual Management Plan, Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project have been distributed for comments at this time. Staff has prepared a draft letter for transmittal to USFWS which contains comments and concerns. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to forward the attached draft letter and any additional Council comments regarding the draft Conceptual Management Plan, Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Plan to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Draft Conceptual Management Plan, Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the Proposed San Diego National Wildlife Refuge will be presented to the Resource Conservation Commission on January 6, 1997. Staff will present any comments or recommendations received from the Commission to Council at the meeting. DISCUSSION: Background The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is proposing the formation of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in South San Diego County. The proposed Refuge would consist of three units: 1) the Otay-Sweetwater Unit (covering approximately 41,000 acres overlapping the eastern portion of the Chula Vista general planning area), 2) the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project (covering approximately 8,200 acres, a portion of which is on the Otay Mesa, the eastern tip of the Otay Valley, north and south of Lower Otay Reservoir and on the I?-/ Page 2, Item _ Meeting Date 1/7/97 southern edge of the Sweetwater Reservoir, and 3) the South San Diego Bay Unit (this area is not being covered at this time but will be assessed in the Spring of 1997). Please see Attaclnnents A and B to this report. The draft documents distributed for public review and comment include the following: 1) Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, 2) Draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit, and 3) Draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan for the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. Purpose of Wildlife Refuge The expressed purpose for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is to protect, manage, and restore wildlife habitats for Federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds, to maintain and enhance the biological diversity of native plants and animals, and to provide opportunities for environmental education. As Council is already aware, the City of Chula Vista has been coordinating with other cities, the County of San Diego and the Wildlife Agencies in the formation of a preserve plan for the entire South San Diego County, namely the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). The MSCP effort is expected to result in a preserve plan that protects up to 85 sensitive plants and animal species. In order to acquire privately-owned land areas that would not be dedicated through the land development process, a funding program is being proposed for the MSCP which calls for a significant commitment from the state and federal governments. The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is envisioned as a contribution by the USFWS to the MSCP. An interagency umbrella cooperative agreement may be developed that provides for sharing resources and staff among agencies, funding joint and mutually beneficial projects, and coordinating monitoring and restoration projects within the Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pool units and the MSCP preserve. However, absent any such interagency agreement, USFWS has indicated that they will assume monitoring and restoration projects on properties that they acquire for the Wildlife Refuge. In order for the federal government to utilize certain funding sources to acquire land from willing sellers for inclusion into the preserve, and to meet their commitment to the MSCP effort, the property subject to acquisition must be located within a Wildlife Refuge study area. The management and land protection provisions contained in the attached draft documents are intended to only apply to those properties acquired for inclusion in the Wildlife Refuge. I?.J.. Page 3, Item _ Meeting Date 1/7/97 Draft Conceptual Management Plan This document provides a general description of the management approaches being considered for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, including a broad overview of the USFWS's proposed management approaches to wildlife and habitats, public uses and wildlife-dependent recreational activities, wildfire suppression and prescribed burning, rights-of-way, law enforcement, facilities, interagency coordination with the MSCP preserve, and public outreach within the Refuge. The USFWS will be preparing a Comprehensive Management Plan and step- down (more detailed) Refuge management plans as lands are acquired. The Comprehensive Management Plan would detail Refuge operations and would specify the types and locations of public use activities, monitoring and recovery of endangered, threatened, and rare species, fire management, and other operational needs. Step-down Refuge management plans would address such programs as fire management, hunting, and other public uses. Otav-Sweetwater Unit The Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the proposed San Diego National Wildlife Refuge covers approximately 41,000 acres of land in the east County extending from EI Cajon down to Otay Mesa. Recently, USFWS acquired approximately 1,840 acres of Rancho San Diego which serves as the cornerstone for the proposed San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The expanded Wildlife Refuge study area boundary now includes portions of San Miguel Ranch, Salt Creek Ranch and the Otay Ranch (see Attachment A). A Draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan is provided which analyzes alternatives and environmental effects of establishing an approved Refuge boundary and acquiring lands for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego Refuge. Vernal Pools Stewardship Proiect The Vernal Pools Stewardship Project identifies a number of properties in locations ranging from Del Mar down to the border with Mexico, which contain sensitive vernal pools targeted for conservation. Vernal pools are defined as shallow, ephemeral wetlands with very specific hydrologic characteristics and have been described as an "endangered ecosystem." Those properties within the Chula Vista planning area identified for conservation are also located within the boundaries of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the proposed Wildlife Refuge (see Attachment B). A Draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan is also provided which evaluates alternatives and the environmental effects of conserving vernal pool habitats. Comments Regarding Draft Documents The schedule and process for establishment of the Wildlife Refuge includes the receipt of comments on the attached documents prior to January 10, 1997. A final decision on the establishment of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project is expected in 17, ;J Page 4, Item _ Meeting Date 1/7/97 February of 1997. Staff has identified the following key areas of concern with the proposed Wildlife Refuge. I) There is no assurance that public access to future multi-use trail systems, envisioned as part of the City's long-term continuous Greenbelt system, will be provided where Wildlife Refuge land acquisition would occur. 2) The formation of the proposed Wildlife Refuge boundary conflicts with housing goals identified on the City's General Plan Land Use Diagram. More specifically, the Refuge boundary eclipses the southerly parcel of San Miguel Ranch, the eastern portion of Salt Creek Ranch and a portion of the Otay Ranch on the western edge of Salt Creek. Acquisition of any of these areas for inclusion in the Refuge would cause significant effects to the planned balance of housing types in the Chula Vista planning area. 3) The draft documents do not focus on what restrictions may be imposed on developable properties that are located adjacent to the Refuge, that are a result of the creation of the Refuge. 4) There is no assurance or recognition of the City of Chula Vista's planning efforts for a future university. 5) The draft documents do not adequately address the issue of how preserve management will be coordinated if properties within the proposed Refuge boundary are acquired in an incremental and fragmented fashion. Attached is a draft letter to the USFWS containing both general and specific comments regarding the Draft Conceptual Management Plan and the Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Units (see Attachment C). Staff expects to meet further with the USFWS to discuss these comments in greater detail prior to finalization of documents and will report back to Council with the final resolve. Additionally, staff expects to return to Council with further information regarding the related Draft MSCP proposal in late January or February. FISCAL IMPACT: No costs are anticipated related to the implementation of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. However, there would be staff costs associated with continued review and inter -agency coordination on Refuge plans as they are refined that will be covered by the City General Fund as part of the Planning Department work program. /7-1 Page 5, Item _ Meeting Date 117/97 Attachments A. Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit Map. B. Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Map. C. Draft Letter to USFWS. D. Draft Conceptual Management Plan, Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. NO r seA A..l.NE.D M:HOME\PLANNING\MSCP\REFUGE.Al1 /?-5 :::..:... ' \ ~- ~~:,~- - - MEXICO Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 4' ~ ...--;;.-==-- .--" .... = , ,/ r_..= ~~ -\=,,= j- j' ~-\ r'_"....~ ~1tn./(~.:::::r'~~~ ,_,-~:'-....;_-K.J) ~. '''''r^'"--i~ '-, ~ ~ , ~ ". ~~ " Syoun .... - -" L~~:~ -~ y;~~ "'Y~"",=.....\, ~~ .~ ~ ~. ~' JAMUL '=:..'\, ~ \ ?'~ 1,\ ~~:: ~ :,=-_ ~ J - ~\ I ~ ;~ , 1 ? I, " ,~ ~" ,_;_::::::;_:f/ -"" -v ~" i_:/~ '\j~~+~ -., ~- ,'" ' '., r '>,', ' \\ "i (\L~ \,; .::::".......- ~"~"';:,-.~-:--. ( :::::0..) , CHULA VISTA "::',:,>:';;'::'..' " ' , " " ' ':"",'- - " . ,- , , "':"::~"~L1m " .r ,. . " . "', ' " ' -, " . " . . .. . - , , ", """':<'~/ . ',OtalNmouJ-Lmd..md,WddHteManqemIClllArea :'.' \ ' . ::::::<<,<:::<. ,..... :./' " " ' . /- ',i-.........'// - '.',',', " ;' , - ','. ' ,.,' ' .',', , ' /,,------' LJ o 2 3 4 5 / ----- ._---- pTT7l. I ' ([~ ,I\~E! '}.;:;:EYb--' " 'E-~ .. .""-'> ' ;.:.:,c..-'l \ ' \\~ --...\ i . --c..-'r------- M~es o Planning Area :l \ \ \ I N ! ';.1 \. -- r-l tJ Rancho San Diego ,:::::: Vernal Pools Unit ~ w:=. California San Diego County / 7~? -~ BLM's Kuchamaa Project Area I AHachmenl A I Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Area South Area. San Diego National Wildlife Refuge A Son Miguel Mountain SWEETWATER RESERVOIR CHULA VISTA Otoy SPRING CANYON United states - - Mexico b'.,..)i PRIVATE LAND f22Zl ~IUTARY lAND c:J PUBLIC LAND Figure 2-1 b Vernal Pools Stewardship Area alternatives: Alternative A includes public and private lands. Alternative B includes only private lands. usnrs ~ lVllill 17~ ? 2-5 r!\A fI\ J\ A Jamul / - \ Mountains OTAY RESERVOIR Son Ysidro A Mountains A AA ACREAGES PUBUC PRIVATE Sweetwater Reservoir 131 Otay Reservoir 247 Otay Mesa 265- Spring Canyon 0 . Includes 163 acres mllllory lend 30 262 1,195 1,078 ~ 0 2 1141L(S "--' "- "'-' ~ AHachmenl B I I AM.chlll.n' C I January 7, 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attention: Cathy Osugi (ARW-RE) 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 Subject: Draft Conceptual Management Plan, Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Dear Cathy: Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Conceptual Management Plan (CMP), Environmental Assessments and Land Protection Plans for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, specifically the Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. The Draft CMP also includes policies regarding the South San Diego Bay unit of the planned Refuge; however, comments contained herein are focused on the other two units of the proposed Refuge. Comments regarding the South San Diego Bay unit will be provided when that Draft Plan and Environmental Assessment are distributed for public review. The following are general and specific comments regarding the above noted documents. General Comments 1) It is unclear what input the local jurisdictions will have after final revisions are made, if any, on revisions to each of the current draft documents. It appears that decisions on the final Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pools Units of the Refuge Plans and the content the Conceptual Management Plan will be made by USFWS in February 1997 through a public notice of decision. The City would like an opportunity to discuss issues contained in this letter prior to finalization of the documents. What recourse will the City have if it does not agree with the content of the final documents? 2) The concept of the Wildlife Refuge is consistent with the intent of the Draft MSCP and the City of Chula Vista General Plan policies; however, there are a number of questions that relate to ultimate management of the Refuge that the Draft documents do not specifically address. The City of Chula Vista is concerned that allowable recreational uses within the Refuge are not well defined and that this could impact the success of the City's long-term goal of providing a continuous Greenbelt system, containing multi-use trails, as described in the City's General Plan. In addition, it is unclear what affect the /7~8' Cathy Osugi 2 January 7, 1997 establishment of the Refuge will have on properties targeted for development in areas adjacent to Refuge lands. 3) A statement should be included in the Conceptual Management Plan and in each Refuge Unit plan which assures that efforts by the City of Chula Vista to attract a university to the area be recognized and that these efforts not be jeopardized by the formation of the Refuge. Potential use of the open space preserve in Salt Creek and the Otay River Valley as a biological studies area linked to a university, with cooperation from the wildlife agencies, is envisioned and should not be prevented from occurring. 4) Efforts by the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the County of San Diego have been made to create the Otay Valley Regional Park. The goals, objectives and policies of the proposed Regional Park need to be recognized in the preparation of the subsequent Draft Comprehensive Management Plan. 5) All of the draft documents are unclear as to how management of the Refuge will address the strong possibility that incremental acquisition of parcels within the Refuge study area boundary will create fragmented management areas. There should be discussion included on how different preserve property ownerships (e.g., private, Preserve Owner/Manager and Wildlife Refuge, etc.) will address preserve management where a mosaic of land control could evolve. 6) The CMP does not appear to address any upland or off-site issues. Our understanding of the Refuge concept is that it is a management tool intended to protect and enhance habitats within its boundaries. However, it is reasonable to assume that if the Refuge is adopted, it will place burdens and or restrictions on development of adjacent upland areas. If this is the case, what are the restrictions proposed? Will there be additional factors placed on federal permits for projects adjacent to the Refuge, as a result of the Refuge location? The City of Chula Vista needs to know what requirements may be placed on adjacent development as a result of the inclusion of land in the proposed Wildlife Refuge. 7) The City of Chula Vista suggests that details relating to acceptable public uses in the Refuge and restrictions to development projects adjacent be further addressed in the future Draft Comprehensive Management Plan. The City will look forward to providing input into the preparation of that document. 8) There is concern that private property which has development potential through existing land use designations or zoning, may be a key for realizing other additional open space land dedication through development project exactions. By acquiring these properties with perceived development potential for inclusion into the Wildlife Refuge, an additional burden may be placed on the local jurisdictions to fund the acquisition of those open /7-' Cathy Osugi 3 January 7, 1997 space lands which otherwise would have been targeted for exaction through the development approval process. It is important that USFWS consult with the local jurisdictions before completion of any land transaction(s) resulting in the inclusion of property into the Wildlife Refuge. 9) The subsequent Comprehensive Management Plan, discussed in the Conceptual Management Plan, should include details regarding on-going monitoring and restoration activities for lands acquired for the Wildlife Refuge. Responsibilities for land conveyed to the Wildlife Refuge should be addressed in this document, including where overlapping preserve management and control may occur. Specific Comments Conceptual Management Plan Pg. 16, third para.: Suggest modifying the last sentence as follows: "The Service would coordinate with the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, local community planning groups, and landowners to avoid sensitive biological and cultural resources and to be consistent with regional and subregional trail corridors. " Otay-Sweetwater Unit Pg. 1-6, Public Use: This section indicates that local jurisdictions have ".. .expressed a desire for certain compatible public uses, such as hiking and birdwatching, to occur within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit." The City of Chula Vista would like to add "bicycling" to the desired examples of public uses, recognizing that this activity would be confined to dedicated trail systems. Other trail uses, such as equestrian, should be addressed in the Comprehensive Management Plan. Pg. 1-10, last para.: Modify as follows: "The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan approved by the Citv Gities of Chula Vista alld Sail Diego and the County of San Diego calls for the development of a 4,560- hectare (1 1 ,400-acre) open space preserve on lands owned by the Baldwin Company and other landowners. " Pg. 1-11, fifth para.: This paragraph places the decision of determining whether secondary land uses within the Refuge are acceptable solely in the Refuge Manager's hands, based on being "compatible" with the )), /~ Cathy Osugi 4 January 7, 1997 purpose of the preserve. Further refinement of criteria to be used by the Refuge Manager should occur within the subsequent Draft Comprehensive Management Plan. Pg. 3-10, fourth para.: Alta Road and Hunte Parkway should be added to the list of roadways to be considered within the action alternatives. Pg. 3-10, fifth para.: The Land Use Element of the City of Chula Vista General Plan also identifies Scenic Highways. Since Otay Ranch, from Lower Otay Reservoir to the west, is likely to be annexed into the City of Chula Vista it should be noted that Otay Lakes Road, Hunte Parkway and Proctor Valley Road are identified as Scenic Roadways. Pg. 4-5, fourth para.: The document indicates that the Refuge does not include urbanized areas of high population densities; however, the boundaries do include the south parcel of proposed San Miguel Ranch, the eastern portion of Salt Creek Ranch and the eastern edges of Villages 9 and 10 of the Otay Ranch, all of which are planned for housing. This section should be revised to account for this. Pg. 4-6, second para.: The City of Chula Vista should be identified as a beneficiary due to the loss of property tax revenue where City-annexed lands are included in the Refuge. Pg. 4-8, fifth para.: The City of Chula Vista does not agree with the assessment contained in this paragraph. If portions of Salt Creek Ranch, San Miguel Ranch or the Otay Ranch are acquired and included in the Refuge per the boundaries of the planned Refuge, then significant amounts of low density, estate-type housing could be lost from the overall housing stock planned for the City of Chula Vista. These areas where development is currently being planned should be excluded from the boundaries of the Refuge. It cannot be assumed that the unit count lost to the Refuge can be made up within other developable areas, when those units are large lot estates intended to balance other higher density products in the planning area. Pg. 4-9, last para.: Please see Pg. 1-11 comment above. 17"'/1 Cathy Osugi 5 January 7, 1997 Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Pg. 4-4, 4th para.: Please see Pg. 4-8 comment above. Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the above documents. I look forward to reviewing subsequent information relating to the proposed Refuge in the future. Please contact me at (619) 691-5101 or Duane Bazzel at (619) 691-5254 if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning cc: George Krempl Jerry J amriska Duane Bazzel Doug Reid Barbara Reid Joe Monaco Barbara Bamberger Kirk Ammerman Beverly Luttrell (M :\HOME\PLANNING\MSCP\ WLREFUG 1.L TR) 17'/;2... :#/7 SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA us. FJBII . WILDLIFE SERVICE PLANNING UPDATE Planning Update 3 November 1996 Greetings! The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is pleased to announce the completion of draft environmental assessments and plans for two proposed units of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, San Diego County, California. Planning Update 3 summarizes the preferred habitat protection alternatives for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. This update explains how to provide comments on the draft documents, describes upcoming public workshops, and includes an updated planning schedule. The South San Diego Bay draft environmental assessment and land protection plan is scheduled for release at a later date. Update 3 has been sent to all interested parties (landowners within and near the refuge unit boundaries, government agencies, and other parties). Many of the ---------- Coastal sage scrub habitat San Diego NWR recipients of this material (e.g. landowners within the current project boundaries) will also receive copies of some or all of the draft documents. If you have not received copies of any of the documents you wish to review, please contact us or visit one of the local libraries to review the documents. Information you will find in this Planning Update FWS Planning Documents .......... 2 Comment Period-When and Where to Submit Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Upcoming Public Workshops ........ 3 Summary of Draft Environmental Assessments ................... 5 Summary of Preferred Alternative Otay-Sweetwater Unit ............ 7 Vernal Pools Stewardship Project . . . .. 9 San Diego NWR Planning Schedule .... 10 Who to Contact ................. 11 "'" / .: .3' ~ @Shari Erickson 1995 1 Planning Update 3 FWS Planning Documents Draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan Proposed Dtay-Sweetwater Unit, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Comment Period Ends January 10, 1997 Planning documents are on file at local libraries or can be obtained by calling U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 800-662-8933 (Portland. OR) or 619-930-0168 (Carlsbad. CA) FWS Planning Documents The draft environmental assessments provide a framework to analyze alternative proposals for protection of wildlife and habitat in the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project and the potential effects of those alternatives on private and public lands. The draft land protection plans identify and prioritize lands for potential willing seller acquisition. The various methods that could be used to provide protection are also described. Landowners inside the proposed project boundary will find this document most useful. The draft conceptual management plan presents a broad overview of the Service's proposed management approaches to wildlife and habitats, public uses and wildlife-dependent recreational activities, San Diego NWR wildfire suppression and prescribed burning, rights-of-way, law enforcement, facilities, interagency coordination with the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve, and public outreach within the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed management actions would only apply to lands that are included within the National Wildlife Refuge System and would be finalized only after additional planning and public input. The environmental assessments, land protection plans, and the conceptual management plan will be finalized at the end of the comment period when all comments have been received, reviewed, and after appropriate revisions are incorporated. The Regional Director will select an alternative, and public notice of the decisions will be announced no earlier than February 1997. 2 Planning Update 3 Comment Period-Where and When to Send Comments The comment period for the draft documents is open through January 10, 1997. We appreciate the comments and suggestions you provided earlier in the planning process and look forward to continued contact with you. Your written comments and suggestions are encouraged. If you would like a copy of one or all of the draft documents, give us a call today (San Diego planning documents are also on file at locallibrariesl. Please submit written comments on the draft environmental assessments/land protection plans and the conceptual management plan by January 10 to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attention: Cathy Osugi (ARW-RE) 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 If you have any interest in selling your property, you may make your interest known during any of the public workshops or contact Georgia Shirilla on the Who to Contact page. Upcoming Public Workshops We will be available to receive your comments during public workshops scheduled for the week of December 10-12, 1996. The agenda for the first two meetings is identical. Meeting locations, dates, places, times, and directions follow. Places and Dates Place: Jamul, California Location: Jamul Primary School Multipurpose Room 14567 Lyons Valley Road Date: December 10, 1996 Time: 6:30 to 8:30 pm Directions: From West: Highway 94 to Lyons Valley Road, turn left (north). Proceed about 3 miles to the school. School telephone: 619-669-5327 **** San Diego NWR Place: San Diego, California Location: Mission Trails Visitor Center 1 Father Serra Trail Date: December 11, 1996 Time: 6:30 to 8:30 pm Directions: Father Serra Trail is located off Mission Gorge Road between Jackson Drive and Golfcrest. Look for the large wooden sign on Mission Gorge Road. From East. Jackson Drive to Mission Gorge Road, turn right (north). Proceed 1/4 mile to park entrance on left, or Interstate 8 to Mission Gorge Road North. Proceed about 7 miles to park entrance on left. From South, West, and North: Highway 52 east to end. Right (south) on Mission Gorge. Proceed 2 miles to park entrance on right. Visitor Center telephone: 619-668-3275 **** Place: EI Cajon, California Location: EI Cajon Library Community Room 201 East Douglas Avenue Date: December 12, 1996 Time: 1 :00 to 5:00 pm Directions: The library is located on East Douglas Avenue at Magnolia Avenue. Library telephone: 619-579-4454 Agenda. A brief presentation regarding the refuge program and planning process is scheduled for December 1 0 and 11 at 6:30 pm. An informal comment period will start about 7:00 pm. Staff from our offices in California and the Regional office in Oregon will be available to discuss and collect your written or verbal comments concerning the draft environmental assessments and other planning documents regarding the San Diego Refuge. On December 12 at the EI Cajon meeting, there will be no formal presentation. Staff will be available to answer questions and discuss your comments. If you are unable to attend the meetings, but would like to submit comments, please send them to the address shown under Comment Period-When and Where to Send Comments. In addition to the scheduled workshops, groups and/or individuals can arrange for meetings with staff members. 3 Planning Update 3 ~ dlI c? Son Vincente R"';O Proposed South Son Diego Boy Unit Lake Jennings 8 San Diego Nationol Pacific Ocean r orest _...L ___ ~-- Unaed states Mexico SUA'S Olay Notional Land and Wildlife Management Area .. PROPOSED VERNAL POOLS STEWARDSHIP PROJECT ~ o , 4 8 , 12 Kt.I , . I o 5 "I , Figure 1. Proposed Refuge Units and Vernal Pools Stewardship Proiect San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Location Map USFWS October 1995 San Diego NWR 4 Planning Update 3 Summary of Draft Environmental Assessments for Wildlife Habitat Protection, Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project The purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is to protect, manage, and restore habitats for Federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds, to maintain and enhance the biological diversity of native plants and animals, and to provide opportunities for environmental education. The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge would contribute to the conservation of the rich and varied natural heritage of the San Diego region. The draft environmental assessments and land protection plans evaluate private and public lands within San Diego County, California, for inclusion into the approved project boundary. The San Diego NWR was established in April 1996 when 1,840 acres located at Rancho San Diego was purchased. The proposed boundaries of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Least Bell's vireo @ShariErickson 1995 San Diego NWR Stewardship Project cover nearly 50,000 acres of geographically separated parcels of land with diverse natural resources and habitat types (see figure 1). For these reasons, the areas are analyzed in separate environmental assessments. Summaries of the preferred alternatives for habitat protection for the Otay-Sweetwater (40,950 acres) Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project (8,225 acres) are described below. The South San Diego Bay draft documents will be issued at a later date. Like Rancho San Diego lands, the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project have been identified as a high priority areas for habitat protection. These areas would help to: . Conserve the largest contiguous block of native plant communities and habitats in southwestern San Diego County . Conserve the remaining vernal pool habitat . Provide public opportunities for outdoor recreation and environmental education that are compatible with the purpose of the proposed refuge. Preservation of lands and waters within the San Diego Refuge and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project would also contribute to the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) preserve, as well as other state and local conservation plans. The San Diego Refuge would address current and long-term threats from present land uses and future development that could impact habitat supporting several rare, threatened, or endangered wildlife and plant species. If you have questions or would like to obtain copies of the Draft Environmental Assessments/Land Protection Plans or the Conceptual Management Plan, call 800- 662-8933 (Portland, OR) or 619-930-0168 (Carlsbad, CAI. Copies of these documents are also on file at local libraries. 5 Planning Update 3 Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge ~ EJ Alternative B (40,950 ac.) \, , EJ Rancho San Diego (1,840 ac.) EJ Vernal Pools Unit (2,130 ac.) Total of Area B (44,920 ac.) IZ2I Streams m Major Roads o n.. _ __ 2 3 4 ~ --,:F Miles ~~ ))- ~OW"'..~ ">>---/ . + Sycuan Peak '\ ~ ~\ \~ ~:., ....,~\ ~, Otay Mountain + I \ Figure 2 Alternative B Preferred Alternative San Diego NWR 6 Plannino Uodate 3 Summary of Preferred Alternative- Otay-Sweetwater Unit Five alternatives, including the no action alternative, are being considered for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. The four action alternatives differ only in the amount of acreage and distribution of land to be acquired and managed (Alternative A, 45,250 acres; Alternative B, 40,950 acres; Alternative C, 35,860 acres; and Alternative 0, 21,820 acres). Under the no action alternative, the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would not be established. Service lands within the study area would be at Rancho San Diego only. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would cover about 40,950 acres of land that could be included within the boundary of the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit (see figure 2). Alternative B would protect contiguous blocks of wildlife habitat stretching from Loveland Reservoir westward along the Sweetwater River, portions of San Miguel, Jamul, and Otay mountains, and southward to include a portion of the Otay River Valley. This alternative also overlaps a portion of the Bureau of Land Management's proposed Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa Cooperative Management Area south of Otay Lakes Road and Lower Otay Reservoir. Approval of this alternative would provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with authority to work cooperatively with interested agencies and to purchase lands and conservation easements for fish and wildlife habitat protection within the approved refuge unit boundary. If you have Questions or would like to obtain copies of the Dtay-Sweetwater Draft Environmental Assessment/Land Protection Plan or the Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego Refuge, call or write Andrew Yuen (see Who to Contact). Copies are also on file at local libraries. \\ The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would result in the acquisition and management of about 25,277 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub; 9,812 acres of chaparral; 3,611 acres of grassland; and 867 acres of riparian woodland habitat California gnalcalcher which would subsequently affect about 930 Kendal Morns. USFWS parcels representing 393 landowners. Land ownership is dominated by private lands (37,126 acres) but also includes ownership by Bureau of Land Management, City of San Diego, Otay Water District, and Sweetwater Authority. San Diego NWR 7 ~~ Planning Update 3 Pacific 1/1 Lopez Ridge c;::1 ,,------ Miramar l _,'- RssI1rvoir ;",1 , ____' Naval Air Station/ Marine Corps Air Station 8;;:;-- Miramar Del Mar Mesa~ Sweetwater _.R, Reservoir ~ Ocean Lower Ofay ~ Reservoir (?- otay 11 Mes~,." , ". !, " Tiiuona Slough NWR ------ united 2!.a_t~~ - - - - - - -- --- Mexico __ Vernal Pool Complexes ~ o 4 I 8 I 12 KM I o 5 MI Figure 3, Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Location Map USFWS October 199B San Diego NWR 8 Planning Update 3 Summary of Preferred Alternative-- Vernal Pools Stewardship Project The destruction of vernal pool habitat in the San Diego region is caused primarily through housing and commercial development and highway construction; additional impacts are by off-road vehicles, agricultural development, and illegal dumping. Urban growth is expected and San Diego County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The resulting habitat fragmentation further deteriorates the viability of the remaining vernal pools and their watersheds. Three alternatives, including the no action alternative, are being considered for the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. The two action alternatives differ only in the acreage of land to be acquired and protected. Under the no action alternative. the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project would not be established. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) for the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project covers approximately 8,225 acres of private and public lands that would be included within the approved boundary for the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project (see figure 3). This alternative includes vernal pools located on Del Mar Mesa, Lopez Ridge, on and adjacent to Naval Air Station/Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Montgomery Air Field, Sweetwater Reservoir, Otay Reservoir, and Otay Mesa. Some vernal pools located on eastern Otay Mesa and Sweetwater and Otay reservoirs could be included in the Otay-Sweetwater Unit for management purposes if contiguous blocks of habitat in that unit are acquired. Alternative A includes 2,282 acres of vernal pool habitat; 1,592 acres of coastal sage scrub; 1,224 ac;:res of chaparral; 1,161 acres of grassland, 47 acres freshwater' marsh, 43 acres open water, 42 acres San Diego NWR riparian scrub, 12 acres maritime succulent scrub, and 8 acres of riparian woodlands. Protection of these habitats would benefit bird, mammal, and plant species (including five endangered and several threatened or sensitive species). Approval of this alternative would provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with authority to work cooperatively with interested agencies and to purchase private lands and conservation easements for fish and wildlife habitat protection within the approved project boundary. If you have questions or would like to obtain copies of the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Draft Environmental Assessment/Land Protection Plan, or the Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego Refuge, write or call Cathy Osugi (see Who to Contact!. Copies are also on file at local libraries. Otay Mesa mint @ShariErickson 1995 9 Planning Update 3 San Diego NWR Planning Schedule Planning Step* Completion Dates* Concept Plan available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. September 1995 Rancho San Diego Environmental Assessment and Decision .............................. September 1995 Planning Update 1; open houses announced ........................................... October 1995 Issue identification period ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. November 1995 Planning Update 2; preliminary alternatives announced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. March 1996 Rancho San Diego lands acquired ...................................0................ . April 1996 .................. Planning Update 3; summarized preferred alternatives .................................. November 1996 Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pools environmental assessments and plans available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. November 1996 Public workshops" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. December 10-12, 1996 Comment period ends ........................................................ January 10, 1997 South San Diego Bay draft assessment and plan available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " late winter/early spring 1997 Final environmental assessments and plans for Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pools" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. February 1997 Public notice of decision for Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pools ............................ February 1997 Final environmental assessment and plan for South San Diego Bay ........................... Summer 1997 Public notice of decision for South San Diego Bay ....................................... Summer 1997 'San Diego NWR (Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pools) planning is scheduled to be completed by February 1997; however, unforeseen issues could cause changes in the schedule. We will keep you posted if any major planning dates change. "In addition to scheduled workshops, groups andlor individuals may arrange for meetings with staff members. "Completion of final documents could coincide or be completed on separate schedules. Riparian habitat Cl Shari Erickson 1995 San Diego NWR 10 Planning Update 3 Who to Contact If you have comments or questions, please write or call us at the following locations. Information on Otay-Sweetwater Unit Andrew Yuen, Habitat Protection Planner San Diego NWR Complex U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2736 Loker Avenue West, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 619-930-0168; fax 619-930-0256 Information on Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Cathy Osugi, Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue, 3rd Floor West Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 503-231-2231 or 800-662-8933 Fax 503-231-6161 Information on South San Diego Bay Unit Abbey Kucera, Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11 Avenue, 3rd Floor West Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 503-231-2231 or 800-662-8933 Fax 503-231-6161 Information on San Diego County Endangered Species' Issues or MSCP Sherry Barrett, Wildlife Biologist Nancy Gilbert, Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 619-431-9440; fax 619-431-961 8 Information on Land Acquisitions Georgia Shirilla, Senior Realty Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11 th Avenue, 3rd Floor West Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 503-231-2236 or 800-662-8933 Fax 503-231-6161 San Diego NWR Complex Dean Rundle, Refuge Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2736 Loker Avenue West, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 619-930-0168; fax 619-930-0256 San Diego NWR Information on BLM's Otay Mountainl Kuchamaa Cooperative Management Area Julia Dougan, Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 690 West Palm Springs; P.O. Box 2000 North Palm Springs, California 92258 619-251-0248; fax 619-251-0812 Information of NAS/MCAS Miramar Colonel D.P. Pender Community Plans and Liaison Officer Marine Corps Air Bases Western Area EI Toro P.O. Box 95001 Santa Ana, California 92709-5001 714-726-3702; fax 717-726-2420 Let us know if you have a change of address or would like to add or delete an address. Unless we hear from you, your name will remain on the mailing list for all future Planning Updates. Call 800-662-8933 for changes and additions. If you would like copies of any of the planning documents described in this update, request copies now and submit your written comments before the comment period ends January 10, 1997. Cactus wren 11 Planning Update 3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages fish hatcheries and national wildlife refuges throughout the country for the continued conservation, protection, and enhancement of our fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. November 1996 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish IInd Wildlife Service fAttn: ARWIRE/Planning) 917 NE 17th Avenue POrt/lind, Ot'flgon 97232-4181 Address correction requested COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT II" Item: / I/. Meeting Date' /17/96 r1' 7 REVIEWED BY: Report: Approving Enhancement of East "H" Street Landscape Director of Parks, Recreatio~d Open spac~ ~ h \ . City Manager~ 'ot -v (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No-X.) ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: 1M Development Company, the developers for Rancho La Cuesta (formerly Salt Creek Ranch), have proposed to enhance the landscaping of slopes, medians and parlcways along East "H", in the EastLake Maintenance District #1 "Zone D" Open Space assessment area (Letter from 1M Development is Attachment "A"). The enhancement would include the planting of 195 box schinus moUes (pepper trees) along the slopes, parlcways and medians. They also propose to plant additional 1288 one-gallon cistus purpureas (rock rose shrubs) throughout the medians (Proposed Enchancement Plan is Attachment "B"). The primary purpose of 1M's proposal is to beautify the main entry to their Development Phase I & II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve 1M Development's request to enhance the landscape along East "H" street in the EastLake Maintenance District-Zone "D," subject to staff conditions. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: One of the reasoru; for bringing this item to the Council is the 1994 public protest on the open space assessment amount. Therefore it is important to give Council a brief history concerning this particular assessment district. On June 14, 1994, several residents appeared before the City Council to express concerns regarding the proposed assessment levied for "Zone D." They objected to the cost, and questioned the utility of landscaping the SR-125 slopes and wondered why natural habitat needed maintenance. Council deferred setting the assessment levy for ELMD "Zone D" and directed staff to meet with the residents regarding possible cost control measures (Minutes of June 14, 1994 Council Meeting are Attachment "C-l"). The Engineering Department, Open Space Section in Parks and Recreation Department, and the Baldwin Company's representatives met with approximately 30 property owners to brainstorm options for reducing costs and improve the assessment notification process. There were four main issues: I. Why should the neighborhood pay to maintain City land? 2. Why should the residents pay for maintenance costs of SR-125 slopes, the biological preserve, or the SDG&E easement? 3. What is the appropriate budget amount for irrigation and contractual services? {NETWORK - me. AII3 - EASTH.A13 - December 10, 1996] 1 rr /8'''/ Item: Meeting Date: 12/17/96 4. What is the appropriate budget amount for trash collection, disposal and materials to maintain the structure, and why weren't these additional costs being paid from reserves? As the result of these meetings, staff proposed appropriate maintenance work which lowered the assessment costs from $355 per to $259 per homeowner per year. Although progress was made in reducing the annual assessment, the residents felt the cost was still too high. Staffs report to Council on August 2, 1994 presented the ideas from the residents and recommended an annual assessment of $259. After considerable dialogue, Council directed staff to evaluate the cost impacts of deleting the landscape maintenance of the SR-125 slopes, and establish a natural landscaping plan (no irrigation) designed to prevent slope erosion. It was Council's position that if the homeowners, Caltrans or the developer wanted a more extensive landscaping, they could do so at their own expense. Finally, Council added a third amendment to further reduce the assessment to the homeowner by an additional $100 to $159 per year (Minutes of August 2, 1994 Council Meeting are Attachment "C-2"). The following measures were incorporated to create a maintenance plan with a reduced landscape maintenance budget. 1. Limit the litter pick-up on a quarterly basis; 2. Reduce fertilization to once annually; 3. Modify the irrigation area from a highly irrigated installation to minimum irrigation; 4. Eliminate adjacent slopes; and 5. Modify portions of SDG&E easement from irrigated slopes to non-irrigated slopes. The amended plan was presented to Council on December 20, 1994 without any resident protest (Council Minutes are Attachment "C-3"). Since JM Development proposes to pay for enhanced landscaping, their proposal appears to be consistent with the city's efforts to keep assessment cost contained within Open Space Zone "D," complying with Council direction. JM estimates the cost of these improvements to be $72,434 (Attachment "D"). The Department recommends approval with the following conditions attached: . I. The new planting will require additional irrigation, and this should be the responsibility of JM Development to pay all costs during the establishment period of two years. The water requirements for the new plantings will be calculated by the project architect for reimbursement purposes. 2. The developer will be responsible to replace any plantings that fail to survive during the two year establishment period. [NETWORK - me - AI13 . EASTH.AI3 . December 10, 1996] 2 ~ /~';).. 3. The tree planting will meet the Public Work Department's standards for planting of trees on median, parkway, and slopes adjacent to sidewalk to minimize impact to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. JM Development held a forum for the residents in ELMD Zone "D" on September 21, 1996 to explain the enhancement plan. Notices were sent to approximately 500 residents. Fifteen homeowners attended the forum and were unanimously in support of the proposed enhancement along East "H" Street. The homeowners requested the developer and City staff inspect the site two years after installation to review the quality of the plant material. The developer will be obligated to replace trees and shrubs that are in unsatisfactory condition. It is anticipated that the two year establishment period will begin in February, 1997. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with enhancing and maintaining the landscape of the mediums, parkways and slopes along East "H" will be the responsibility of the developer during the two year maintenance establishment period. When the City takes over the enhanced landscaping, there may be a minor financial impact for the long term maintenance of the trees. Most of the trees are not situated in a landscaped area which is a hazard to public safety, or threatens public property, and thus, will not need extensive trimming. Staff believes any additional costs to the assessment district will be insignificant and, in all likelihood, absorbed in the maintenance contract. In addition, the new trees will be well-established after the two year maintenance period, and able to utilize existing irrigation, and the shrubs are drought- tolerant. "D" JM's Letter dated October 2 I, 1996 Enhancement Plan Council Minutes of June 14, 1994 Council Minutes of August 2, 1994 Council Minutes of December 20, 1994 Cost Estimate Attachments: "A" "B" "C-l" "C-2" - "C-3" - [NETWORK - me - AI13 - EASTH.A13 - December 11, 1996] 3 ~ /~':J !'j",'\, - ~o -::::tb ,,;:; .....;.; i',...j," ~,', ~,--",--__;'!'JL.~~ ._ Q:.:>b --t__"';b PA~E 2, ..J jm The JM Development . Company, Inc. ~~ ~ ,.~!_ ~r~__"""4"'~' 4 '1 :.~ v-~t~ ATTACHME.'NT "A" 2300 Boswell Road. Suite 209. Chula Vista. California 91914 . (619) 656'''300 . F.~ (619) 656....300 May 14, 1996 Mr. Jess Valenzuela Director of the Parks & Recreation Dept. City of Chula Vista 276 FomthAvenue Chula Vista., CA 91910 Dear Mr. Valenzuela: It is the desire of 1M Development Company to enhance the landscape of tile existing park-way and median landscape planting and irrigation along those portions of 'R' Street which are adjacent to our residential development projects. Specifically those portions of 'H' Street from station 88+00 to 108+DO. 10 addition it would be our iDtent to modify. at our expense, the existing landscape plantings. We would propose fundamental changes to the streetscape which will have three main positive effects. First. the Sycamores and Eucalyptus which have not perl"ozmed, or have died, will be replaced with Schinus moUe. Trees which will be added will also be Schinus molle. VIhile creating a stronger statement on the street, this approach will result i:a a streetscape of predominately one species of tree which will cause the maint= procedures to be less varied. Second, the shrub species which we would propose to add, such as the Myoporum and Acacia will mature into SPl"'<'';;Tlg groundcovers requiring less water and weeding than do the existing groundcovers which currently make up the streetscape. TIrird. JM Development is proposing to provide for incremental maintenance costs over and above the current LLMD assessment funds. 1M Development will provide any additional funds to maintain this area of 'H' Street during which this new material will become established. When established, the landscape will be a simpler palette of materials requiring more similar water requirements and a lesser variety of maint= procedures. Alternatively, 1M Development could assume the maintenance of the planting and irrigation systems for a period of two y= commencing at a mutually agreed time. At the completion of the period of time, we would have the option of continuing the maintenance or returning that responsibility to the City management of the Landscape Assessment District. It would be our intent that during this period the City would retain ownership of the water meters serving these landscape areas. The current fees paid into the Maintenance District for the care of this area would be credited to 1M Development during the period we are providing the maintenance. ~ J~"1 NOV-26-96 15:45 FROM:JM DEVELOPMENT ;u Dl::3 656 4306 PAGE :.3/ J Jess Valen:zuela H Street Landscape May 14, 1996 We have provided you, Marty and Joel with plans of the proposed plant materials additions for your review. This work has been prepared on 'D' sheets to become a part of the record set of documents when the work is completed. We look forward to meeting with you again to review our proposal and address any issues you might have. Please return this proposal and advise. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (619) 656-4300 ex. 101. Sincerdy, The 1M Development Company, Inc. U1slb ~ l6'r~ -, '" ~ ~ ~ " ~ " > 0 ~ "- - " "- " u < "' ." , " f ...J Ii ;; ;!. " 1 ~ CJl " fr.. \ ./ 0 /3'-1'_/5 ? - \~'. . ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT "f"l" Page 1 Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 9 Mayor Nader stated Council had been told there was some policy or agreement among the various transit agencies, including Chula Vista Transit, that would preclude the City from eannarking revenue from such a program for discounted bus passes for youth, a differential rate, or any such purpose. He questioned if that was something that was covered by or related to the item before Council. William Gustafson, Transit Director, responded that it was not. The item before Council was related to the sbaring of revenue from past sales and the setting of fares. The restriction on the use of revenue from advertising was more directly related to the Transportation Development Act itself. Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager, responded that he did not believe it was included in the legislative program, but could be added. Mayor Nader requested that the issue of State legislation restricting the utilization of revenues from bus advertisements be placed underbis comments on the next agenda. RESOLUTION 17585 OFFERED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 18. RESOLUTION 17586 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORATION (SDTC) - The amendmentiW the agreement for Fiscal Year (FY) 1994/95 continues Chula Vista Transit's participation in regional transit infonnation service at a cost of $21,541, a 5.6 % decrease from the FY 1993/94 cost of $22,766. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 7/26/94. RESOLUTION 17586 OFFERED BY COUNClLMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. *" 19. RESOLUTION 17600 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FAClLITIES .TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODlFlCA T10N TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR FlSCAL YEAR (FY) 1994/95 FOR EASfLAKE MAINTENANCE DlSfRlCT NUMBER ONE - ZONE D - On 6/14/94, Council directed staff to meet with the property owners of Salt Creek Ito discuss the open space (EastLake Maintenance District Number I - Zone D) budget and proposed assessments for FY 1994/95 before Council would consider levying the annual assessment. The item considers the issues raised at the meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) This item will not be considered orior to 6:00 O.m. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, reviewed actions taken by staff in working with the residents of the district. The original assessment was $355 and had been lowered to $259 for Zone D. The cost was near the mean for all the parcels in the eastern area and was lower than many of the other districts. . Ken MacTiernan, 2261 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposllton of the staff recommendation. He did not feel the neighborhood had been given time to attend the meeting due to the short notice given. Staff had not addressed the issue of removing the slopes adjacent to the SR 125 corridor. If the City, Baldwin, or Caltrans required the slopes they should have to pay for it, and if no one asked for the slopes to be graded Baldwin should pay. Residents did not feel SR 125 was a benefit to the neighborhood, but to the entire City. If the slopes could not be removed from the budget he requested that Council consider changing the landscaping to a less expensive coverage. Aesthetics would take a back seat in comparison to the potential of saving money. He questioned whether maintenance on the slopes could be deleted with nature taking over. If the area became a fire hazard, reserve funds could be used for fire clearance. County probation crews could also do the work. Mayor Nader questioned if there would be any adverse consequences if the slopes were allowed to be taken over by natural vegetation, i.e. I) it would not look pretty; or 2) no vegetation would take hold and erosion would then cause the public street right-of-way to become a hazard. ~ /~..? Minutes August 2. 1994 Page 10 ATTACHMENT "C-1" Page 2 Joel, Cbew. Open Space Coordinator, responded the landscape architect advocated that the City not abandon the project. The plant material was in need of maintenance in perpetuity. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated the two points raised were accurate. Another issue would be a policy'issue Council would bave to deal with, i.e. did the Council want the slopes to appear in a natural state or highly manK;ured and aesthetically pleasing. Mayor Nader questioned if the issue came down to tbe appearance of the plant material. Me. Valenzuela responded that was correct. Mayor Nader questioned .if there was an impediment to utilizing the probation Crews. Mr. Valenzuela responded the City did use probation crews for open space brusb clearances, trash removal, etc. It was in the proposed budget, but had been taken out to lower the assessment. Mayor Nader questioned if the City provided an estimate as part of a bid package. Mr. Lippitt responded that the staff estimate was not included in the bid package, but it was included within the City budget. F. · Robert Garvin, 2151 Lago Madero, Chula Vista, CA, President of the Chapala Homeowners Association, stated the slopes on the EastLake side of the SR 125 corridor (northwest and southwest side) had gone completely native. It did not appear to be detrimental from the fire code or aesthetic standpoints and the residents in the area seemed quite satisfied. He questioned why that was not possible for their area. He did not feel it was clear in the Baldwin documents presented to bim how the assessment would be handled. · Dara Woolley, 2284 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation as she felt there were many things unanswered. A large portion of the reduction in the fees was based on a mistake by Baldwin rather than the City. The only thing that had been done to reduce the fees was the deletion of the. clearing. An area had been dedicated to coastal sage and she questioned why natural vegetation could not be. allowed on tbe slopes. The slopes and on/off ramps were built at the City's request and would benefit the entire City. She felt the entire City should share in the costs. She had been told staff had twenty years of experience in preparing budgets, but a lot had changed in twenty years, i.e. drought conditions, poor economy, and people that could not afford to pay more on a continuing basis. She requested that Council walk through the neighborhood. Mayor Nader questioned if Ms. Woolley preferred native vegetation. Ms. Woolley responded that she did and felt it fit the name of the neighborbood. She stated the graph showing the total special taxes and assessments did not include their zone. An additional paragraph had been added at the bottom wbich stated Zone D would be included. · David Digiambattista, 2269 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, stated over thirty people had attended the budget hearings and if people bad more notice of the present meeting there would be a larger turn out. Mayor Nader questioned when the residents were notified. Mr. Digiambattista responded that he had talked to Ms. Snider on Friday and received a FAX on Saturday confirming the meeting. Their district was primarily slope maintenance and not street maintenance, 75 % of the budget was to take care of the slopes. There should be some type of provision that stated they did not have to treat sometbing that was not visible from the street the same way as a street was treated. There should also be a provision for unnecessary expenses such as performance bonds. It was not appropriate for the homeowners to be charged. The neigbborhood did not want SR 125 built as they felt it would be a blight on their area. SR 125 would benefit the entire City more than the neighborhood and recommended the cost to maintain the City land for SR 125 be paid for out of general funds. If the City did not want to pay for the land they could give it hack to the district to take care of or return it to Baldwin for development. ~fS~'~ /~,r h I I h\...IlI'iCI~ i '-' -... ,O'::.Jt:,,) Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 11 Mayor Nader questioned when the notice for the meeting was distributed. Donna Snider, Civil Engineer, responded the notice went out on July 18th and confirmed with Mr. Digiambattista on August 2nd. Two notices were sent, i.e. one that the meeting would be on August 2nd and the second that it would be heard at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Nader stated he was concerned about how nature was being taken out of City design. The water conservation changes he had proposed several years ago for corronon areas of new development were intended to promote natural landscaping. He was concerned that if they let it revert it was unknown as to what vegetation would take hold. The purpose of the grading and SR 125 was one that transcended the immediate neighborhood although he was uncertain the City would allow the new developments without assurance that some of those things would be paid for that new development necessitated. Residential development in California did not even pay its own way for services unless the special assessments, Mello Roos, etc. was added in to make it a break even project. He felt the homeowners preference should be honored. He preferred to take the slopes out of the assessment and if the homeowners association did not like that and wanted different landscaping, as long as it was legal, they could approve a different landscaping plan and pay for it. MS (Nader/Fox) to direct staff to bring back a revised amendment removing the cost of landscaping maintenance of tbe SR 125 slopes. Couocilmember Moore stated the SR 125 conidor did n\ll begin in Salt Creek and if it was done for one district it sbould be done for all districts. He questioned wbo would pay for and maintain tbe slopes and erosion damage if removed from the district. Mayor Nader stated the photographic evidence showed that EastLake already had a natural slope in the area. His motion did not remove the slope from the open space district, but removed the cost for maintenance of the current landscaping which would allow natural vegetation. If someone did not like the natural vegetation they could take it over along with the cost. Government would not be mandating that the homeowners pay for the landscaping plan. Staff bad informed bim tbat the only problem was aestbetics. Mr. Valenzuela stated erosion was also an issue. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader, agreed to by Second of Motion) to direct staff to return with a lower cost natural landscaping plan designed to prevent erosion witb tbe understanding that if tbe bomeowners, Callrans, or tbe developer wanted a more expensive plan tbey could do so at tbeir own expense. Councilmember Rindone questioned of the $259/year how much was related to the cost for the maintenance of the slopes in question. Mr. Lippitt responded tbe staff estimate was approximately $IOO/EDU. Councilmember Moore questioned if tbe Maker and Second of tbe Motion would agree to add "for route 125 rigbt-of-way and associated slopes wbile still deterring erosion of the area". Agreed to by tbe Maker and Second of tbe Motion. Mayor Nader stated any option would be open to the Council when the report was brought hack. He wanted staff to address the erosion aspect and what bad to be done. Mr. Lippitt stated he had been informed that what had originally been planted on the EastLake slopes was similar to what was being recommended. The Homeowners Association did have responsibility for the EastLake side and it was over a period of time that they stopped maintaining the slopes. It was a managed non-maintenance program. The City would have to get to the tax assessor by 8/10/94, which was a legal deadline. The assessment could be reduced during the year at a cost of $35 per parcel or tbe City could write a check to eacb property. Mr. Boogaard stated it was critical as it had to be on the tax rolls within a printers time frame. ~ Jtf'"'7 ATTACHMENT "C-1" Page 4 Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 12 Cou~cilmember Moore questioned if part of the fee was to build up a 50% reserve. Mr. Lippitt responded the developer was creating the reserve as the City did not plan to take Over the district until the first of the year. Staff reconunended a full years assessment as the law made it subject to a majority protest. A six month.reserve was included in the assessment. . Councilmember Moore questioned if tbere would be a problem in reducing the assessment by the amount of the reserves. Mr. Lippitt stated thai would be approximately half. He preferred to reduce the assessment by the estimated reduction for the slopes,J.e. approximately $100. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: (Nader, agreed to by the Second of the Motion) to reduce the proposed assessment by $100 and have staff return with the report as called for in the original motion. CounCilmember Moore felt it sbould be tied to tbe anticipated reduction by reducing the area and maintenance. Councilmember Rindone slaled tbe bomeowners should understand that in order to provide for natural vegetation and erosion control it would not be a full $100. 1Mt figure was unknown at the present time and the reserves would need to fill that out. There would also be an adjustment the year after next to cover that amount. r. VOTE ON MOTION, AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. Councilmember Moore stated there should be a review on an annual basis in the spring of the number of years needed to water for natural landscaping. Mr. Valenzuela stated staff would do that. RESOLUTION 17600, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Mayor Nader stated the assessment would be set at $159.00. Mr. MacTiernan questioned if Council would change the developers process of notifying homeowners of their obligations. Mayor Nader stated there was an existing ordinance wbich required that all assessments be on a separate form, witb red letters of a certain size, notifying bomeowners of their obligations. He felt it was a problem of monitoring and compliance witb the law whicb was staff's job. Councilmember Rindone felt a letter should be sent to all developers planning to pull permits within the coming year advising tbem of their legal obligations. - - - Councilmember Fox left the meeting at 7:53 p.m. - _ _ 20. REPORT JOINT MEETING WITH SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE BOARD TO DISCUSS TRANSIT FACILITY PROJECT - The background inforrnation is submitted to Council in preparation for tbe joint meeting on 8/10/94 with Southwestern College Board to discuss the transit facility project. Staff reconunends Council accept the report. (Director of Public Works) Mr. Goss stated the meeting bad been scheduled for 8/10/94 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 801 at Southwestern College. The item was on tbe Council's agenda to: 1) remind Council about the meeting; 2) have Council review the staff report summarizing the issues; and 3) receive Council input. He then reviewed the issues that would be addressed. Staff had developed alternatives which they felt the College would consider. Council member Rindone hoped that a middle ground could be found that would provide the needs for service of the students and conununity for the present time and in the future. He felt the staff report and oral report should .et5' It; /y../p ATTACHMENT "C-2' Page 1 Minutes June 14, 1994 Page 11 signifiClUlt increase, i.e. 4%. The majority of the change was due to the lack of reserves to reduce the assessment as had been done in the past. MOTION: (Rindone) to place the itml on the 6/21/94 agenda for reconsideration. Motion died for lack of second. Mayor Nader stated it had not been shown to his satisfaction that the need for the specific services provided justified that drastic of an increase in the assessment. Councilmember Moore stated the assessment had not been doubled. It had been reduced in the past due to the reserves. He questioned what the status would be of Open Space District 10 if no action was taken by Council. Mr. Boogaard stated ifno action was taken he would recommend that it be agendized for the 6/21/94 meeting. The costs of the district needed to be financed. Councilmember Rindone requested that Item 20 be agendized under his comments for the 6/21/94 meeting. }(f- 21. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, AND 26, AND BAY BOULEVARD, EASfLAKE AND TOWN CENTER MAINTENANCE DISfRICTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 - 10 accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.07, the City Engineer prepared reports on the spread of assessments for the open space districts. The reports were accepted and the required public hearings were set by Council at its meeting of 4/19/94. The agenda statement includes information related to the above districts and general information related to Open Space District 10. Specifics of Open Space District 10 are addressed in item 20 on the agenda. Staff recommends Council direct staff to tally all protests and approve the resolution. (Director of Parks & Recreation and Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 6/7/94. RESOLUTION 17532 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FAClLITIES TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODInCATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 FOR OPEN SPACE DlSTRICT NUMBERS 1-9,11,14,15,17,18,20,23,24, AND 26, AND BAY BOULEVARD, EASfLAKEANDTOWN CENTER MAINTENANCE DISTR:ICTS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE BUDGETS BY COUNClL Jobo Lippitt, Director of Public Works, informed Council that a coosiderable number of written protests were received 00 EastLake Maintenance District Zone D. The protests were tallied and staff met with several representatives of the area. The meeting with the property owners was scheduled for 6/22/94 to see if there was a way to reduce the assessments. The assessments for Zooe D were based on staff estimates because the District had not been taken over until January. An additional eleven written protests were received prior to the meeting. Staff estimated that to be about a 22 % protest by area. Staff was recommending Council close the hearing and allow staff to meet with the residents to see if there was a lower amount and bring back a resolution to Council in July to levy the assessment. - Councilmember Moore questioned if the initial $7.00 fee had been explained in writing to the property owners. He felt a written explanation should be handed out at the meeting, Donna Snider, Civil Engineer, responded the letter was not tailored to their specific district and in-!he future that would be done. . . This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. . David Digiambuttista, 2269 Rolling Ridge Road, Cbula Vista, CA, Open Space Zone D, stated they wbuld like consideratioo given to the fact that it was a first year budget and therefore, there was no cost base to compare it to. The largest land owner had voted for the people that had yet to move into the area. The disclosure that had beeo signed by the property owners omitted the fact that the ~ I~-/ / ATTACHMENT "C-2" Page 2 Minutes June 14. 1994 Page 12 SDG&E easement would be included in the lOne. the land set aside for SR 125 was in the lOne, and that the developer was paying a significant amount of money to provide maintenance. . Arthur Schaefer. 2203 Lago Madero, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, stated most of the zone was high chaparral or coastal chaparral open area, under high power lines, or erosion controls on the hill. He felt the increase was excessive and that the disclosures were vague. . Phil A. Gaugham, 455 Rivercreek Court, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, submitted a written protest petition with eleven names of property owners. He requested that the item be continued until after the meeting between the property owners and staff. The signatures presented were greater than 60 % of the people that lived in the area. The majority of the land ownership was the Baldwin Company and they had voted for people and homes that did not exist. Mr. Boogaard informed Council that a revised resolution was on the dais that deleted Zone D and would allow Council to take action on the other districts. A new resolution could be brought back at a later date dealing with Zone D. . Terry Lewis, 457 Rivercreek Court, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, stated her problem was with the disclosure statement. She had been unable to obtain information regarding the assessment districts and Mello Roos assessments for her area and what they covered. At a minimum. she felt the builders owed the people purchasing property a clear piece of paper that stated what the tax rate was. the Mello Roos tax, the assessment district number and the amount of the assessment. The property owners should be given an opportunity to discuss privatizing part of the area. Mayor Nader stated Council had passed an ordinance that required a specific disclosure form and he felt the City Attorney should look at the notice to see if it conformed to the legal requirements. . Bertha J. MacTiernan. 2261 Rolling Ridge Road. Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, staled they had lived in their home for two months. Baldwin would not sign the petition and it was up to the Council to help the voting public. She requested that Council not vote on the assessment. . Ken MacTieman, 2261 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, did not feel it was fair to pull Zone D out because representatives from the other districts were not in attendance. He requested that the. enrlte item be continued. He did not feel the property owners should be held hostage due to Baldwin's ownership. as they had a conflict of interest. He requested that Council be concerned regarding their taxes and postpone action until the property owners had an opportunity to meet with staff. . April Schaefer. 2203 Lagn Madero, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, stated the majority of the land they were being assessed on was land that could not be built on, i.e. native species that were protected by law and required no inaintenance. Chaparral was under the SDG&E right-of-way and the only areas being maintained were the ramps for SR 125 and erosion control on the hills. She requested that Council continue the item until the property owners had an opportunity to meet with staff. ' . Pbyllis Altomare, 1160 Sundown Lane, Chula Vista, CA, District 4 and District 18, stated the fesidents of the districts were disgusted and would not appear at tbe public meetings. She requested that Council postpone their decision and allow them to discuss it with staff. Most of the area in District 4 was chaparral. The assessments continued to go up when they should be going down because the vegetation was established. She felt part of the problem was the contractor. Councilmember Rindone questioned what procedures were in place to ensure the work was being performed as required. Joel Chew, Open Space Coordinator, stated the inspectors had weekly meetings with contractors of all districts. The work was also monitored on a daily basis in the field. The contractor had a set work schedule along with daily work orders issued by the City. ~ Ji"/~ ATTACHMENT "L-L' Page 3 Minutes June 14, 1994 Page 13 . Dara Wooley, 2284 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone 0, stated the staff recommendation to close the public bearing would not allow further protests and she did not feel that was fair to those property owners tbat could not attend the meeting. She stated she was still working on Baldwin to obtain their signature on the protest. Mayor Nader stated Council would technically close the public hearing, but any subsequent meeting at which Council voted on consideration of setting an assessment would be a public meeting and the public would be legally allowed to speak to Council. He requested clarification regarding the ability to receive protests after the closure of the public hearing. Mr. Lippitt responded the recommendation was that if the public hearing was closed, no further written protests would be received. Staff would be work.ing with the property owners to consider a lower assessment. Mayor Nader stated Council could consider further written assessments and were not bound by that. Due to the property ownership by Baldwin, it would be up to Council discretion regardless the number of signatures in protest. Mr. Lippitt stated that was correct. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilmembe; Rindone felt staff sbould have an overbead depicting the maintenance areas at the next meeting. Council was suggesting that there might be a resolution on mitigating the costs while still providing the protection, but not necessarily at the full scale being recommended. Staff should look at alternatives that were not cost prohibitive. MSC (NaderlRindone) to defer EastLake Maintenance Zone D to the July 12, 1994 meeting and direct staff to hold a meeting with residents rEgarding cost control measures and report back to Council. Approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent. Mayor Nader stated he continued tn have concerns regarding the costs of maintaining open space that had been there all along in most cases. He felt cost savings could be achieved on some of the open space maintenance districts. A motion had beeo unanimously passed directing staff to look at cost reduction measures and he did not see those recommendatinns before Council for consideration. His intent in voting for that motion was that it would be received before Council would be ask~ to vote on any of the proposed assessments. Council had an obligation to control costs as best they could. He felt that could be done by: I) maintaining native vegetation wberever possible; and 2) privatization or allowing non-natural open space to be administered through a local homeowners association. He felt the City was holding the line on most of the districts, but several had excessive increases. Therefore, he . was not prepared to vote on Districts 4, 24, EastLake I, and EastLake Greens as they had very large increases. Councilmember Moore stated Council made the policy and staff had to design something that would fit the polity. He questioned whether there should be a cap on all open space districts, except Zone 0, for the next two years. He felt that should be explored in the report back to Council. The districts were in place to enhance the individual properties, but the City could not allow the costs to automatically move up. RESOLUTION 17532, REVISED TO DELETE ZONE D, OFFERED BY COUNCll.MEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived. AMENDMENT: (Nader) to direct that all assessment increases be capped at a 10% annual increase and staff bring back a budget tbat would achieve that (Zone D not included in tbe motion). Mr. Boogaard recommended Council receive staff input regarding the amendment. If action was taken, he proposed that it be dnne by minute action rather than inclusion in the resolution. He felt the motion could have an impact on the City's ability to f\Dance some of the open space districts. Councilmember Moore questioned whether any contracts had been'let out. ~ )~-lj ATTACHMENT "C-2" Page 4 Minutes June 14, 1994 Page 14 Mr. Cbew responded that the contracts would be before Council at their 6/21/94 meeting. All contracts were for a period of one year with three additional one year renewals. SECOND TO AMENDMENT: (Mnnre) Mayor Nader stated be bad reacbed the 10% arbitrarily and he was not tied to that number. It was an issue that could be revisited prior to the letting of contracts in any given year. One of the protests bad been from a senior citizen wbo simply could not afford the increase in Zone A. Mr. Boogaard urged Council to direct staff to bring back a report that would study the impact of the proposal so Council would know what the consequences were in tenns the City's ability to finance open space districts. If the City bad to stop irrigating it could result in landscape damage they were currently unaware of and he wanted Council to be more fully advised in those regards. Councilmember Fox stated he agreed with the concerns expressed by the City Attorney and questioned whether Council would be advised at the time the contracts were brought to Council. Mayor Nader stated under the motion, the existing assessment would be the base level under whicb the irrigation bad been performed and the landscape had not withered or died, Staff should find a way to bring the costs down, AMENDMENT: (RindnnelNader) cap of no more than 10% of the prior year assessment unless the assessment of the prior year was abated by 50% or more of the reserves, staff to analyze prior to next weeks meeting and report the impacts. Maker of original amendment and Second agreed to incorporate into original amendment. Councilmember Rindone stated if the formula proposed was unrealistic he wanted staff to give Council other recommendations or a phase in recomm~ndation to accomplish it. VOTE ON AMENDMENTS: approved ~.1 with Horton absenL Mr. Boogaard questioned whether Council wanted the CAP to apply to the current year, Mayor Nader responded that was correct. "oj MSC (Nader/Fox) to continue the item for one week to allow staff time to recalculate the assessment in accordance with the motion passed. Approved 4-tl.l with Horton absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Carolyn F.J. Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, informed Council she had recently been restricted by an airline from traveling due to her handicaps. She requested that the transportation committee/commission be reinstated. . BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted, ACTION ITEMS 22. RESOLUTION 17533 ADOP,'ING THE AMERJCANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE PROGRAM AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE - This item has been previously presented at a Council Workshop on 1/28/94. At that time, Council directed staff to solicit additional public comments on the' City's ADA compliance efforts and incorporate such comments into the compliance program. Staff has held two ./..~ ;i( /~"'/f ATTACHMENT "C-3" Page 1 ~[inut~s December 20, 1994 Page 5 prohlem. Exposure was mainly limitc:t.I to suit hy honJholJc::rs for pnyment amJ then:: had hec:n no dent sc::rvice payments missed. RESOLUTIONS 17769 AND 17770 OffERED BY COUNCIL~IE~IBER PADILLA, ~euding of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 15. RESOLUTION 17771 REMOVING HISTORICAL PERMIT REQUIREMEl1iT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 644 SECOND AVENUE - The owoer of 644 SeconJ Avenoe has requested that hict0ri",,1 s:te permit control of any modification to the structur~ he: removed with the:: sile: uesignation rerr.aining. Th~ R~:..:r-,;..:r::;;: Conservation Conurussion has recommeOlh::u approval of the n:quest. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) '* 16.A. REPORT MIENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE EASTLAKE MAIJliTEI-iA:'iCE DISTRICT.. ZONE liD" - Annual assessments in EastLake Mainh::nance District Number One, Zone -D" Wt:f\; reduced to provide a naturallanuscapt: plan for tht: slnpt:s i.uJjacent to SR-125 and provide the necessary erosion control. EastLake Landscapt: Mainknanct: Dislril.'t NlImht:r Ont: is now rc::auy for acceptance from the developer and a contract for landscape maintc:nam::e is now required. St~lff rt:L'ommcnds Council accept the report and approve the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation and Director of Puhlic Works) r. B. RESOLUTION 17772 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTTOR.C. LANDSCAPE CO~IPANY TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO ZONE "D" OF THE EASTLAKE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE Council member Rimlone statc:d staff hml done itn exemplOlry joh on a very difficult and controversial proj~t. 17. REPORT "NOTICE Of A V AILABILITY Of DRAFT LOSS PERMIT" AND "DRAFT LOSS PERMIT" (CS-95-0~) FOR THE WIDENING Of WUESTE ROAD AT THE OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER - Last year the Federal D<partment of <he Interior adopteJ the Special ~(d) rule regulating the habitat "loss" of the California Gnatca<cher. The Special Rule links protection of the hird to the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) process. Prior to the preparation of an overall Neep plan~ the process allows the "loss. of up to live percent of <he Coastal Sage Scruh (CSS), which is the hahitat for the Gnatcatcher. In August 1994, Cooncil adopted an amendment to the Municipal Code which implements the Federal SpeciaI4(d) rule at a local level. The proposal for the loss of .20 acres of Diegan CSS as a result of the widening of Wueste Road at the entrance to the Olympic Training Cenkr is the third such permit hefore Council. Staff r~ommends Council accept the loss ~rmit as drafted. (Director of Pbnning) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 18. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING ABATE~IENTOFTlIETRANSIENTOCCUPANCYTAX RATE FROM TEN PERCENT TO A RATE NOT LESS TlIAN EIGlIT PERCENT DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1995 - On 10/25/90, Council adop'eJ Ordin;lIlce 2407 estahlishing a maximum Tr.nsient Occupancy Tax (fOT) rate of ten pen.:ent, and provided for .mnl1~11 OIn.ltement he::.arings "t whic.:h time the maximum tax could be lowered to not less than the currt:nt r;ltt: of dght p~n;~nt. Council h;'ls held pllhlil; hearings and ahated the tax to eight percent for calendar years 1991 throogh 1994, the same rate it has heen since 1978. On 11/22/94, Council directed staff to meet with the Chamher of Comme:rl;c, the Hotd/Motd AssociOltion and interested motel owners to discuss various options for ahating/inl;reasing lhe: TOT rate:s for calendar ye<.tr 1995. Preliminary discussions with representatives have rc:sult~ in their request to ahatc .my incre"tse for at Ie:ast ninety days. or until 4/1/94, in ordc:r to allow further dialoguo. Staff recommends Council: (I) Conduct the puhlic hearing and approve the resolution; (2) Direct staff to continue discussions with the Chamhcr of Commerco, the Hotd/Motel Association and interested motel owners regarding various options for ahating/im:r~;.tsing the: TOT nttc:S for the period of 4/1195 through 12/31/95. (Director of Finance) Lf',-f- /t?-/s ATTACHMENT "C-3" Page 2 Minutes December 20, 1994 Page 6 RESOLUTION 17773 APPROVING ABATHIENT Of TilE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX TO EIGHT PERCENT FOR THE PERIOD Of JANUARY I, 1995 THROUGH ~lARCH 31, 1995 This being ~he time and place as advertised, the public hc:aring was t1c:c1;.trcu or~n. There hl.:ing no puhiic testiplOny, the public hbaring was declared closed. RESOLUTION 17773 OFFERED BY COUNCILJ\1EMBER FOX, reading of the text \Va,; waived, pas,;ed and approved unanimously, 19. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-95-03: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS VENTANA, TRACT 95-03, INVOLVING 109 SINGLE-FAMILY D\VELLINGS ON 13.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE, SOUTH OF CLUBHOUSE DRIVE, AND SUBMITTED BY BREHM CO~lMUNITlES -Brehm Communi,ies has submitted a Tentative Subdivision Map known as Ventana, Tract 95-03, in order to suhdivide 13.7 acres into 109 single family lots and ihree open space lots. The properly is designated as Parcel R-20 within the EastLake Greens Planned Community, and is. located on the: west side of South Grec:ns,,'ic:w Drive. south of Cluhhollse Drive. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Dir~tor of Planning) RESOLUTION 17774 APPROVING AND I~IPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARCEL R-20, KNOWN AS VENT AN'A, TRACT 95.03, MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS AND READOPTING TilE MITIGATED ~IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR IS-94-I9 This being the time and place as advertised, the puhlic he.Iring was Jedan~J c1osc:d. · Scot Sandstrom. 2835 Camino D~I Rio South, San Diego, CA, representing Brehm Communiti~s, stated they were in support of the staff recomm~ndation. The pn~jecl Was their tifth in EastLak~. There being no funher public testimony, the puhlic hearing was declared closed. Council member Rindone stated a pattern had developed early in EastLake which promoted the development of cul- de~sacs and hindered a good flow of traffic. H~ questioneu whelh~r that was a position t.akl::n hy a pr~vious Council. Roben Leiter, Director of Planning, responded that part of the Iatlayout Il>r the project hd(lre Council Was hecause it was a golf course community. In looking at n~w prqjects staff W.iS promoting the: us~ of a grid pattern. Councilmember Rindone stated jf staff was concern~d with pressure from d~vdopers they should "ring th~ issue back to Council for a policy decision. RESOLUTION 17774 OFFERED BY COUNCILJ\IEMBER FOX. reading "fthe lext was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 20. PUBLIC HEARTNG ACQUISITION OF CERT AIN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR EAST "J" STREET On 7/18/91, Council approved lhe tentative suhdivision n"lp Ill[ R:meho del Rey SPA III. Tmet 90-02. In order to comply with the tentative map conditions. Rancho dd Rc:y Partnership is rel}uin:d to constntct an off-site portion of East "J" Street. It requires street right-of-way across property owned hy Susie Mary Bennett. The propeny is located between Pasen Ladera and River Ash Drive and consists of ahout 1.07 .eres. The efforts of Rancho del Rey Panner.;hip to obtain the propeny by negotiation have tailed. Due to time constraints, Rancho del Rey Partnership cannot wait any longer and eminent domain proceetJings must hegin. Staff n:commends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) RESOLUTION 17775 DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR EAST "J" STREET AND AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ~ /K--/? i\, TACHMt.N i u BURTON ASSOCIATES u...e"1 UCIIHClUfII II' 'U..'" EAST 'H' STREET.LANDSCAPE PLANTING IMPROVEMENTS. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST Prepared 19 April 1996 . #96.010 Quantity Unit Cost Total EXISTING TREE REMOVAL Tree and concrete root barrier removal 43 EACH $200.00 $8,600.00 PLANTING: Mulch: Median planting areas 6,300 S.F. $0.25 $1,575.00 Trees: 5 Gallon 32 EACH $25.00 $800.00 24' Box 96 EACH $200.00 $19,200.00 36' Box 67 EACH $525.00 $35,175.00 Shrubs: 1 Gallon @ 3' O.c. (6,300 S.F. X 0.11) 693 EACH $5.50 $3,811.50 1 Gallon @ 8' O.c. (3,285 S.F.X 0.016) 53 EACH $5.50 $291.50 1 Gallon @ 10' O.c. (54,165 S.F.X 0.01) 542 EACH $5.50 $2,981.00 GRAND TOTAL $72,434.00 Exclusions: mulch in parkway planting areas and on slope planting areas, grading and drainage, any irrigation modifications, governing agency permit fees, TEL: (61~)JH.7204 FAl: (61~)JH.Jnl 12160 HIGH BlUFf ORIIE SUITE 110 .. \. I U' I 0' · SIH 0 I E 6 O. C ILl fOR H II 91110 · 'I 2 I I \ ~r //- /8--'/7 Meeting Date 1/07/97 Item 19c TO: The Honorable Mayor and city council FROM: John D. Goss, city ManagerZ1 SUBJECT: Combination of City council and Redevelopment Agency Consent Calendars As a suggestion to further improve the City Council meeting process, and as a possible amendment to the City Council agenda, it is recommended that the citv Council and Redevelocment Aaencv. consent calendars. when they have a coterminous meetina. be considered at the same time. DISCUSSION: It was observed at the last city Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting, that the consent calendar for the Redevelopment Agency did not occur until nearly midnight. This means that members of the general public, in this case a representative of Cox Communications, as well as Redevelopment staff, had to stay to consider those items, even though they were routine. It is recommended that on those evenings when the Redevelopment Agency also meets at the same time as the city council, the consent calendars be combined. If items are pulled, the City Council consent items would be considered per the current City Council agenda, and those Redevelopment Agency consent items would be considered during the Redevelopment Agency meeting, normally following the City Council meeting. In this way, if the item is truly routine and does not require any discussion, members of the public as well as staff who are there just for RDA consent items can leave early in the meeting when the Consent Calendar is completed rather than waiting until the very end. It is recommended that both the city council and Redevelopment Agency agendas be amended to reflect this proposed change. FISCAL IMPACT: None )16--/ ...,,-..---" Jj/e/~ December 19, 1996 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Cou John D. Goss, City Manager 6 FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of J 7, 1997 This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, January 7, 1997. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: 5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that the City Council did not meet in Closed Session on December 17, 1996. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED. 5b. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT MARY SALAS' RESIGNATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIA TEL Y ACCORDING TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LffiRARY. JDG:mab vernal pools, estuarine system, eelgrass beds, mud flats, saltmarsh, salt ponds, coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, stipaand valley needlegrass freshwater southern forest, npanan woodlands, maritime succulent scrub vernal pools, estuarine system, eelgrass beds, mud flats, saltmarsh, .salt ponds, coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, stipa and valley needlegrass grasslands, freshwater chaparral, stipa and valley Draft Conceptual Management Plan San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California ~ ',- " r .~~ -= -~-~",:::-::_~,:,~;;~~~-~<,,~::- ~:.~..; --,,,,_,""'" ~ /..!,r;/ II ::-:::.,.....- --....:: :- ........-.::. ..... -,""",--~ -::....::~ ---...::;.::-.~_ ------:t-:::--,. _ /h.{f-P~ ".. . ..... -:;--:--......., -.:::: 2' ~-"" -- -""- -~~""'-.-:::"".....-:::~-.:::5--= ~-"-'" "" ' -......... ,.:;-::, ~....~- -..'..... -.: ....____._..... :::~ -==--.........::...:....._----- ~~_....- ',MA,,!;: 'AldlfL.,. -......~ ..... ___ -- -........::::- ,~..... --",,-::.. 0 ..:;---- - - ~ ~ -~~ .....:'~ --->;-~~_.....-- .....---~~~~::~~ _ ~ ~h ,.. .uP """ .,... -<V-,;Me ~. _ _ _.!/ "'''Y J<"I '~,c( L.AI .. 0...... ~ ..)wI 11-" -I!.h "^" ~*,,1 ~ ' '^'" . "'" ~ :< "At AAPv-.-1...- k -,Mf"'c~, v~; ~~ "'\ A .' .".v, ~.- -C .~""-"-'.~ ,~ ~ ~ . . - .....:.--.- ..;.~..".,...,~....~:~;X1~~i;=c<~~.. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Andrew Yuen, U.S.F.W.S. THE MISSION OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IS TO PRESER VE A NA TlONAL NETWORK OF LANDS AND WA TERS FOR THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STA TES FOR THE BENEFIT OF PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERA TlONS. , Verna! Pool- U.S.Fw.s. Draft Conceptual Management Plan San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California Light-footed clapper rail Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 503-231-2231 800-662..... ~:.3 November 1996 San Miguel Moulltain-Andrew Yuen, U.S.FW.S. Table of Contents Page Introduction.................................................................................. .2 National Wildlife Refuge System... ............. ........ ~..... ............. ....... .....7 Refuge Administration.....................................................................9 Key Areas of Management Focus......... ........... ... ............. ............... ..11 Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities................15 Rights-of-Way and Road Access.................................................... ..19 Law Enforcement.... ........ .......... .............. ............. ... ........... ........... 19 Facilities Development and Management .......................................20 Fire Management ...... ......... ............... ......... ................. ............... .20 Interagency and Public Coordination .............................................21 Figures Figure 1. Proposed Refuge Units. San Diego National Wildlife Refuge..3 Figure 2. Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit .......................................4 Figure 3. Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project.........................5 Figure 4. South San Diego Bay Planning Area...................................6 Figure 5. Conceptual Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Uses..............17 Introduction This draft Conceptual Management Plan provides a general description of the management approaches being considered for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The San Diego Refuge includes the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit, Vernal Pools Unit, and South San Diego Bay Unit (see figure I). The draft Conceptual Management Plan presents a broad overview of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) proposed management approaches to wildlife and habitats, public uses and wildlife-dependent recreational activities, wildfire suppression and prescribed burning, rights-of-way, law enforcement, facilities, interagency coordination with the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve, and public outreach within the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The Service developed the draft Conceptual Management Plan during the planning process to provide landowners, government agencies, and interested public with a general understanding of the anticipated management approaches for the San Diego Refuge. The proposed management actions would only apply to lands that are included within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Individual draft environmental assessments and land protection plans have been prepared by the Service that analyze the environmental effects of establishing the proposed Otay-Sweetwater and South San Diego Bay units and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project of the San Diego Refuge (see figures 2 through 4). The Conceptual Management Plan describes the general management needs for the preferred alternatives as described in the individual draft environmental assessments. The Service would prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan and step-down Refuge management plans as lands are acquired. The Comprehensive Management Plan would detail Refuge operations and would specifY the types and locations of public use activities, monitoring and recovery of endangered, threatened, and rare species, fire management, and other operational needs. Step-down Refuge management plans would address such programs as fire management, hunting, and other public uses. The Comprehensive Management Plan and step-down Refuge management plans would be developed with public input in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Figure 1 lEGEND .. PROPOSED VERNAL POOLS STEWARDSHIP PROJECT Locolion Mop ~ ~ San Vincente ReseN0- o 4 I ,I 8 12 Kt.l I I o , 5 ., , Lake Jennings \V-.--- CLEVELAND \V SAN DIEGO NA T10NAL Pacific Ocean FOREST PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT ~~ --- ~-- Uniled Slale. Mexico BLM'S OTAY NATIONAL LAND AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA U5f'WS OctoD.rl191 Figure 1. Proposed Refuge Units and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Figure 2 Il Proposed Otay Sweetwater Unit ~ Randto San Diego ~ VomaI Pools Unit EL j: t " f ~StreanuJ IillI MlI,/or Ro&ds o 2 3 4 Mies DULZURA ",=r~ _.~ "J-Springto "''\ I -~-- -<:~-~~~ -...........---~~ \i ~____ Ii ..~, O-,.8iNr I, \1 ~ ~ umi~~~~A-- r Omy Mountain + .u...y.MC5a~ '\ 'I I" Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Figure 3 Del Mar Mesa~ . Lopez Ridge "- ~ SAN VINCENTE V RESERVOIR I , Nav-;;l Al.=siation/ Marine Corps Air SIalion , ~ Miramar SWEaWAT~R p R[SERVOI~ PACIFIC OCEAN Tijuona Slough NWR ------ LOWER OTAY~ RESERVOIR (? Ola~ ~ 11 Mes..... Sp,ing UNITED ST ATE?- - - - - - - - -- Canyon ___-- - - - - - -MEXICO Figure 3. Proposed Vernal Pools SIewardship Proiecl San Diego National Wildlife Refuge o 4 I, I .. VERNAL POOL CO~PUEXES o USF'NS October 1996 ~ B 12 K~ I 5 ~I Localion Map Figure 4 City Boundary \ \ , , Un.s_ \ \ j' c....... '\ Sf.... - z,.. Location Ma p ~ s' ~ Z <t w (.) o o I 2000 I (.) ~ - (.) ~ Main St Palm Ave Vi Vi ;lj , I , I , , I D LEGEND South Son Diego Boy Planning Area ~ Imperial Beach Coronado Ave Figure 4. South San Diego Bay Planning Area San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge UlfWS 0I/tIa00r 1* 4000 Feet I National Wildlife Refuge System The National Wildlife Refuge System is a national network of protected lands and waters dedicated for wildlife. The first National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1903 and the System now numbers more than 508 refuges, with at least one refuge in every state. California has 37 National Wildlife Refuges covering more than 400,000 acres. Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations. Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System a. Habitat. Fish and wildlife will not prosper without high-quality habitat, and without fish and wildlife, traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will continue to conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges. b. Public Use. The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. c. Partnerships. America's sportsmen and women were the first partners who insisted on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other Federal agencies, State agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can make significant contributions to the growth and management of the Refuge System. d. Public Involvement. The public should be given a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of our National Wildlife Refuges. Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System a. To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practicable), all species of animals and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. b. To perpetuate the migratory bird resource. c. To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands. d. To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and human's role in the environment; and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these activities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. l' " ) 'I....-.'I ~- P'" ' 'J 1 ,'( ., I ~-. I' '," ,_,.",~"f / '''. '~,f \ 'I \,. ~' , , i . "'11" ~~I,/// _ '" I, i'\lv::rI!Yrli~~~J1!J!'!'/f, The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, including the Otay- Sweetwater, Vernal Pools. and South San Diego Bay units. would be managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and other relevant legislation, executive orders, regulations, and policies. Purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge The purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is to protect. manage, and restore wildlife habitats for Federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds. to maintain and enhance the biological diversity of native plants and animals, and to provide opportunities for environmental education. Goals of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge ~- -",LY:~f~: ~~- !,: '~ ".~~'.:'^:' ',~ {:,~~\\r '$1~"i' it[~.. _.~ .~ Ifr " /F ~,~'" ____, California ,i~~~" leasttem ,{ '_~ The goals of the San Diego Refuge reflect the core mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect wildlife resources of national importance while providing compatible opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural heritage of the region. a. Aid in the recovery of Federally listed endangered and threatened species and avoid the potential listing of additional species as endangered or threatened by providing a diverse base of protected and managed wildlife habitats. -::'f , b. Coordinate and promote partnerships with Federal. Tribal. State of California. County of San Diego. City of Chula Vista. and City of San Diego agencies; local universities and colleges; landowners; community groups; and non-governmental conservation agencies in support of the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve. c. ~i~'~ ,~ 'l'^ - i'~' P; I . ". ViI.,1 I ,'1'1 I"'" ~'I" \, 'I! I . . ,""'''-1:,"(1 '-I, #.1'ilie'u,:,,_.,,_L'.. ''i~ 1",'.1 I 1';,1",:;L; '"rl Provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities on Refuge lands that would foster public awareness and appreciation of the unique natural heritage of the San Diego region. Refuge Administration As lands are acquired by the Service from willing sellers, funding for the operations and maintenance of the new San Diego Refuge would be needed. Management funds would be needed for new staff. administrative support. program and facility development. and main- tenance. In addition, operational funding for the new Refuge may also include funding for detailed planning to ensure that programs and facilities foster the purpose for which the Refuge was established and to involve the public in the refuge management process. The development of San Diego Refuge staff. programs. and facilities would be phased in over time as the land base and management responsibilities expand. Refuge program and staff development is anticipated to take several years and would reflect the availability of funds appropriated by Congress to support the Refuge. Congressional funding for refuge operations and maintenance lags behind the establishment of a new refuge or addition of lands to existing refuges by several years. In the interim, the Service usually provides limited start-up funding from current appropriations by reducing the budgets of existing refuges elsewhere in the country. However, start-up funds are not adequate to immediately develop facilities and programs at the new refuge. During the 3- to 5-year start-up period, the Refuge may operate certain programs under an interim management plan. The goal of the interim management plan is to provide essential resource protection within the Refuge and to provide scaled-down opportunities for the public to enjoy their natural heritage. During this start-up phase, the Service would also involve the public in defining the long-term goals and objectives of the Refuge and in identifYing future programs and facilities through the development of a Comprehensive Management Plan. Because of the time lag between land acquisition and base funding for refuge operations and maintenance, there may be a perception that the Service is more interested in acquiring land than implementing programs for wildlife stewardship and public use. However, the interim start-up period provides both the Service and public with an opportunity to ensure that the Refuge is developed with sound planning to conserve wildlife and to meet a community's and the nation's long-term expectation for quality programs. The budget for the San Diego Refuge would include funds for salaries, facilities, capital improvements, equipment and infrastructure maintenance, biological surveys, habitat restoration, fire management, and supplies. The Refuge staff would include administrative, biological, law enforcement, public use, environmental education, and maintenance positions. Whenever possible, the talents and skills of volunteers would be used for specific Refuge management projects. Staff positions would be incrementally added as lands are acquired and funds are available. Initial staffing for the San Diego Refuge lands at Rancho San Diego would include personnel with biological, law enforcement, and fire management skills. Office, shop, and storage facilities would likely be needed for the proposed Vernal Pools and Otay-Sweetwater units. Existing buildings on acquired or leased properties may be used or new facilities may be constructed to meet this need. The South San Diego Bay Unit would be managed from additional office and work space at the existing Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge located at Imperial Beach. Refuge field offices would continue to be supervised from the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex office in Carlsbad, California. Key Areas of Management Focus Habitat and wildlife, public use, rights-of-way and access, facilities, fire, and interagency coordination are the key areas of initial focus for the San Diego Refuge, In general, the management approach for the Otay-Sweetwater, Vernal Pools, and South San Diego Bay units is to allow natural processes that benefit the conservation of wildlife to continue on Refuge lands to the extent that human life and private property are not jeopardized. Refuge management would also include active manipulation of habitats, such as conducting prescribed burns. controlling nonnative species, restoring wetlands, and providing wildlife- dependent visitor services. Habitat and Wildlife Management Native habitats and plant communities would generally be managed for the recovery of endangered, threatened, and rare species. Active modification and manipulation of intact native plant communities would be avoided as appropriate. In native plant communities that have suffered some form of limited disturbance, management actions may involve eradicating nonnative plant species, replanting native plants, restoring hydrological conditions. suppressing wildfires. and conducting prescribed burns. On severely degraded sites. intensive restoration projects involving heavy equipment, herbicide application, native plantings. and long-term monitoring may be required. Wildlife management would include monitoring the distribution and abundance patterns for selected endangered and threatened species, migratory birds, and other wildlife species; controlling nonnative animal species. such as the brown-headed cowbird; manipulating habitats to provide nesting and feeding areas; and continuing research on limiting factors for endangered and threatened species. Where native habitats abut urban areas. monitoring and controlling feral cats and dogs and fugitive ornamental plants on Refuge lands may be necessary. Livestock grazing on Refuge lands would Glay Mesa mint be phased out unless determined to be needed as a management tool. The Service would continue to work with the National Biological Survey, California Department of Fish and Game, and various universities on research on the biology of endangered, threatened, and rare species and their habitats, Native habitats would be managed for multiple wildlife species in an integrated fashion. For example, the endangered least Bell's vireo is characterized as a riparian woodlands species. However, adjoining chaparral habitats provide important foraging habitat for the least Bell's vireo. In this case, both riparian and upland habitats would be managed together to provide nesting and foraging habitats for the least Bell's vireo. Similar integrated habitat management strategies would be used for the complex of species using both coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Vireo Riparian Woodland and Riparian Scrub Habitats Riparian habitats would be primarily managed for the recovery and restoration of the endangered least Bell's vireo, endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, endangered southwestern arroyo toad, and threatened California red-legged frog. Nonnative plant species, such as tamarisk and arrundo cane, would be controlled in riparian woodlands and riparian scrub habitats. Integrated pest management, including mechanical and chemical methods, would be used to control nonnative plant species. To protect aquatic and riparian habitats, the Service would avoid diverting surface water or withdrawing groundwater within and adjacent to the riparian zone. The distribution and abundance of the least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and migratory songbirds would be monitored. The control of the brown-headed cowbird within the range of the least Bell's vireo on Refuge lands would be a critical ongoing management goal. California gnofc(/tchcr ,. . Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral Habitats Coastal sage scrub habitats would be managed for the recovery of the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and other rare species such as the San Diego horned lizard and orange-throated whiptaillizard. In general, coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats would not be actively manipulated. However. disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat and abandoned foot trails may be replanted with native species to accelerate the recovery of natural habitats. Monitoring threatened and rare species within coastal sage scrub would be an important management goal. In particular. the distribution and abundance of the coastal California gnatcatcher would be monitored. Wildfires in coastal sage scrub and chaparral would be suppressed by using existing fire roads and firebreaks wherever possible (see section on Proctm' Valley -And,'m Yue". U.sFW.S Fire Management). Grassland Habitats Native grasslands would be preserved and restored because of their relative scarcity. Depending on the site history. nonnative grasslands may be manipulated to restore native habitats. Site restoration may require mechanical and herbicide treatments prior to planting appropriate mixtures of native plant species. However. the need to maintain nonnative grasslands as raptor foraging habitat would be balanced with the goal to restore native plant communities. Wildfires and prescribed burns in grasslands would be managed by using existing fire roads. firebreaks. and wetlines. Wildfire suppression would use existing roads and fire breaks wherever possible (see section on Fire Management). Vernal Pool Habitats Management of vernal pool habitats would include fencing. boundary and interpretative signs. nonnative plant removal, and monitoring. Where feasible. vernal pools would be restored and the drainage basin revegetated with native plant cover to reduce sediment erosion. Certain vernal pools along Otay Mesa and Spring Canyon may be surrounded by concertina wire to act as a barrier to human traffic and off-road vehicles. Freshwater Wetland Habitats Open water habitats and much of the emergent wetlands are on lands that would be managed under cooperative agreements between the Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority, and the Service. Consistent with these cooperative agreements, emergent wetlands and open water would be managed as habitats for migratory waterfowl and other migratory birds. Tideland, salt marsh, salt pond, and coastal dune habitats are found within the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit. While still in the planning stages. several potential habitat management activities are being considered. Salt marsh and salt pond habitats on Refuge lands may be restored by removing dikes and fill and enlarging culverts to improve tidal exchange. Water levels in salt ponds may be managed to provide shallow mudflat habitats for migratory shorebirds. Predator control for nesting shorebirds, such as the California least tern, would continue on Service lands. Seasonal closures of important waterbird areas in south San Diego Bay to boat traffic may also be implemented in coordination with the San Diego Unified Port District and California State Lands Commission. Habitat restoration projects, such as replanting eelgrass beds. may be <.:;if>.'.c-............"...."... _~~.~.}.~..'. ....' ~~.. considered to improve the ~- '""'bG:>';'j:.~,,-:cc/;~'.~c. .. biological productivity of South ~",,!'~c'" California San Diego Bay. 'Mltem Tideland, Salt Marsh. Salt Pond, and Coastal Dune Habitats South Bay Salt Ponds. @PhillipRoul/ard Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities Most lands within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater, Vernal Pools, and South San Diego Bay units are in private ownership and are not open for general public use. Trespass on private lands is a source of concern for landowners because of increased liability, damage to property, and vandalism. Public use activities would be limited to Service lands only. All public entry and use of Refuge lands are discretionary. All uses must be compatible with the purposes of the affected refuge unit. If the proposed use is found to be compatible, the use may be authorized by the Refuge Manager if management funds are available and other laws and regulations are satisfied. The Service is required to identify, prior to acquisition of new refuges or additions to existing refuges, those existing wildlife- dependent recreational activities that would be allowed to continue. These wildlife-dependent recreational activities include hunting, fishing, wildlife photography, wildlife observation, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. The proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit supports a range of wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as upland game bird and deer hunting, freshwater fishing on public reservoirs and streams, wildlife photography and observation, and environmental education and interpretation. Wildlife-dependent recreational activities that occur within the proposed South San Diego Unit include fishing, wildlife photography and observation, and environmental education and interpretation. Within the proposed Vernal Pools Unit, the inventory of wildlife- dependent recreational activities is limited to upland game bird hunting and wildlife photography and observation. Upon completion of the San Diego Refuge planning process and prior to acquiring any lands from willing sellers, the Service would prepare interim preacquisition compatibility determinations for wildlife- dependent recreational activities that would be allowed to continue until comprehensive Refuge planning was completed. The interim compatibility determinations for wildlife-dependent recreational activities are meant to temporarily brtdge the time period between the acquisition of land for a new wildlife refuge and official opening of Refuge lands to public use. The continuation of wildlife-dependent recreational activities would also require the determination of the Service's authority to regulate the use, availability of funds and staff to oversee the activity, and an analysis of any environmental impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. A conceptual map depicting potential wildlife-dependent recreational activities within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit is provided for illustrative purposes (see figure 5). The conceptual map shows potential general areas for wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation along trails and wildlife vieWing areas/pullouts on existing County of San Diego roads and seasonal game bird hunting areas. However, hunting would be subject to the California hunting regulations and local ordinances regarding the discharge of firearms within city limits. Fishing within Otay Lakes would continue to be under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego and California fishing regulations. The close proximity of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit to the San Diego metropolis provides an excellent opportunity for the public to enjoy wildlife- dependent recreational, educational, and interpretative activities. Public use opportunities may include walking and equestrian trails for the purpose of enjoying native habitats, nature education, wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife photography. The Service would coordinate with the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, local community planning groups, and landowners to avoid sensitive biological and cultural resources and to be consistent with regional trail corridors. The concept for public use in the South San Diego Bay Unit would be an expansion of the existing programs at the Sweetwater Marsh and Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuges. Public use activities may include fishing, wildlife photography, wildlife observation, environmental education and interpretation, and walking trails. The Service would continue to coordinate with the City of Chula Vista, City of Imperial Beach, and San Diego Association of Governments on the proposed Bayshore Bikeway. Figure 5 [j,J Potential Wildlife Viewing Sites ~ Potential Upland Game Bird Hunting (Sea.on81) E1 Potential Regional Trail Linkages ~ Rancho San Diego (1,840 ac.l ~ Vernal Pools Unit ; II " '-~<~' <" " \~, ,'" I"i\\~'''''''',= ;,'~ - II ''> , ,\ / "'-' / )!~j/~-'\ ~V' ./'-'~ ~ JI r?o I '! ~7--~<< !I' /r-----r~y- ~~-'" ,[ , LA~ ,ij.'~~ ?' IZ2J Streams ,~" ~~" ''\ , o ["I 2 3 4 + SYCU8Il PW ~ " I ""Y Mountain ,I Conceptual Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Uses Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Public use in the Vernal Pools Unit may be limited because of the sensitive nature of the resource, small size, and their general inaccessibility. However, certain vernal pools that have access may provide interpretive opportunities. However, certain public uses on lands acquired by the Service would not be allowed. In order to protect sensitive Wildlife areas, certain core areas Within each refuge unit would not be open to the public. Activities that would result in significant adverse environmental impacts, conflict With the primary purposes of the Refuge, or conflict With other uses of Refuge lands would not be allowed. While the stewardship of the ecological resources of the Otay-Sweetwater, Vernal Pools, and South San Diego Bay units is the Service's paramount goal, environmental education and interpretive programs would likely be an important element of the public use program. The location and size of the Otay- Sweetwater Unit would offer excellent opportunities for self-guided interpretive walking trails, "outdoor classrooms" for area schools, colleges, and teacher workshops. Certain areas of the South San Diego Bay Unit would be suitable for Wildlife observation, bird observation blinds, and self-guided walking trails. Environmental educational opportunities for vernal pools may include interpretive signs and leaflets. Environmental education programs would enhance the appreciation of the San Diego Refuge by the public. Public use regulations ensure public safety, maintain the quality of the outdoor experience, and protect natural resources. General public use regulations are found in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Subchapter C. Public and other uses that are not generally authorized on the Refuge may be permitted on a case-by-case basis through a Special Use Permit, provided these uses are compatible With the Refuge purposes. Specific regulations for public use Within the Otay- Sweetwater, Vernal Pools, and South San Diego Bay units may include, but would not be limited to, the folloWing provisions: · Public entry is permitted in those areas marked by appropriate Refuge signs and maps. · Vehicles are allowed only on designated Refuge roads or trails. · Parking is prohibited in front of closed gates. . Public use is allowed between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No camping or overnight parking is permitted. . Possessing or discharging firearms is prohibited except during established hunting seasons in areas open to hunting by the Service. . Disturbing or collecting any plant or animal is prohibited except under a special permit. . No person may search for. disturb. or remove any Native American artifact or other historical object. . Directing the rays of any artificial light for the purposes of spotting, locating. or taking any animal is prohibited, except for approved management and research projects. . Entering or remaining on the Refuge while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs is prohibited. . Dogs and other pets must be kept under physical control at all times. Rights-of-Way and Road Access Right-of-way uses for roads, power lines. or pipelines must be compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established and be in compliance with a variety of Federal laws and regulations. The Service has an application process for granting right-of-ways and easements. Access along private roads traversing the Refuge would be subject to the terms of any existing recorded easement or right-of-way agreement that were reserved at the time of acquisition between the Service and landowners. Law Enforcement Enforcement of Federal laws (and State of California and County of San Diego laws as appropriate) on the Refuge is important to safe- guard visitors, protect public and private property. and to conserve natural resources. Refuge staff would include law enforcement personnel. Refuge officers would work with the local police and sheriff. California Department of Fish and Game. and Border Patrol to control trespass. illegal immigration. violation of wildlife laws, and other violations. Boundaries of any lands acquired by the Service would be posted with Refuge signs at regular intervals. Boundary signs and fencing would be important tools to control illegal trespass. Facilities Development and Management Facilities for field offices, maintenance and storage, and visitors may be needed for the San Diego Refuge. Depending on availability of buildings, new facilities may need to be constructed. The planning and design of visitor facilities would be subject to a public involvement process. The costs for acquiring or constructing a headquarters, visitor contact facility, parking, interpretive trails, maintenance buildings, offices, and other facilities are not known at this time. Fire Management Wildfires are a great concern within the planning areas for the Otay- Sweetwater and Vernal Pools units. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Tecate cypress, and grassland habitats are subject to periodic natural and man-induced wildfires within the Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pools units. Unfortunately, the frequency of wildfires within the southwestern region of San Diego County, particularly in the vicinity of Otay Mountain, has increased dramatically in the last year. Wildfires are a lesser concern for the South San Diego Bay Unit because of the predominance of wetland and aquatic habitats. As lands are acquired, the Service would prepare and update a fire management plan to address initial response, fire crew dispatch, wildfire suppression, cooperative agreements for firefighting support, and prescribed burning. Fire management planning would also include agreements with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Cleveland National Forest, and local fire departments and districts for fire suppression support. The Service would maintain certain existing roads and trails as fire breaks and fire roads and would evaluate needs for additional fire management facilities. Along the interface with urbanized lands, the Service would work with local fire districts and homeowners on wildfire prevention and weed abatement. Fire plays a major role in the succession and maintenance of native plant communities, such as Tecate cypress forest, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral habitats. The Service may use prescribed burning as a tool to restore wildlife habitats, reduce fuel loads, and minimize wildfire hazards. The role and implementation of prescribed burns in resource management and fuel reduction would also be addressed in detail in the Refuge step-down fire management plan. Interagency and Public Coordination The Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pool units encompass and abut lands of various Ownerships and jurisdictions. These two planning areas include more than 400 private landowners and contain lands owned by The EnVironmental Trust, The Nature Conservancy, and The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Vernal Pools and OtaY-Sweetwater units overlap lands under the jUrisdiction of the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority, State of California, and Bureau of Land Management, Given the large numbers of landowners and multiple jUrisdictions, interagency coordination and public outreach would be important tools in effectively managing Refuge lands Within the Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pools units, The San Diego Refuge is a contribution by the SerVice to the Multiple Species Conservation Program. As enVisioned, a preserve netWork would be established Within southWestern San Diego under the Multiple Species Conservation Program. An interagency umbrella cooperative agreement may be developed that proVides for sharing reSOurces and staff among agencies, funding joint and mutually beneficial projects, and coordinating monitoring and restoration projects Within the OtaY-Sweetwater and Vernal Pool units and the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve. For example, the cooperative agreement would proVide the framework for natural resource agencies to maintain trails, fire roads, and fences that cross multiple land ownerships. The SerVice Would seek partnerships With neighbOring landowners to meet mutual goals and objectives whenever Possible. Public outreach may include continuation of planning updates for the San Diego Refuge. For the South San Diego Bay Unit, cooperative agreements With the U.S. Navy, California State Lands Commission, San Diego Unified Port District, Western Salt Works, and other landowners to Coordinate resource management may be developed. The cooperative agreements would address Refuge funding, sharing staffs. monitoring Wildlife populations, and law enforcement. For example, cOoperative agreements With the Port District and State Lands Commission may address enforCing boat speed limits and seasonal closures of portions of the south San Diego Bay. u.s. FISH &WIWLIFE SERVICE The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages fish hatcheries and national wildlife refuges throughout the country for the continued conservation, protection, and enhancement of our fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for the continuing benefit of people. 0'," U.S. Department of the Interior w.- 01 ' , '! Fish and Wildlife SelVlce . _' RF11720 November 1996 ~"..;,.", ~ The u.s. Department of the Interior strictly prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin. age. or handicap in any of its federally assisted programs and activities. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of sex is strictly prohibited in any federally assisted education program or activity of the Department. For further information regarding the Department of Interior's nondiscrimination policies or if you believe you have been discriminated against in this program or activity please contact: Director, Office for Equal Opportunity. Department of the In/en'or, Washington, o.e. 20240 . I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and LAND PROTECTION PLAN Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California .~\~ United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 503-231-2231 800-662-8933 November 1996 lWzat a country chooses to save is what a country chooses to say about itself. Mollie H. Beattie, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993-1996 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-2 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-2 1.3 Project Area ............................................ 1-3 1.4 Decisions to be Made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-3 1.5 Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis ......................... 1-3 1.6 San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Planning Efforts .................. 1-8 1. 7 Other Related Agency Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-9 1. 8 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11 Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2.1 Land Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1 2.2 Land Acquisition Tools ..................................... 2-2 2.3 Land Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-2 2.4 Alternatives for the Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge .................................... 2-3 2.5 Alternatives Considered But Not Studied in Detail .................... 2-10 2.6 Comparative Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative. . . . . . .2-13 Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Physical Environment ...................................... 3-1 3.2 Biological Environment ..................................... 3-1 3.3 Social and Economic Environment .............................. 3-7 3.4 Archaeological and Historical Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment (Alternatives A through E) ........... 4-1 4.2 Effects on the Biological Environment (Alternatives A through E) .......... 4-2 4.3 Effects on the Social and Economic Environment (Alternatives A through E) ... 4-4 4.4 Effects on Archaeological and Historical Resources (Alternatives A through E) . . 4-10 4.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................4-11 4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 4.7 Short-term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity .....................4-11 4.8 Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 Otay-Sweelwaler Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Draft Environmental Assessment Table of Contents , Chapter S. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, AND COMPLIANCE 5.1 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ....................... 5-1 5.2 Environmental Review and Coordination .......................... 5-1 Chapter 6. LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS. . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-1 References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. R-l Figures Figure 1-1 Project Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-4 Figure 2-1 Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-4 Figure 2-2 Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-7 Figure 2-3 Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-9 Figure 2-4 Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 Figure 2-5 Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 Figure 3-1 Vegetation/LandcoverMap ................................ 3-2 Tables Table 2-1 Plant Communities within the Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit . . . . . . .. 2-5 Table 2-2 Land Ownership by Project Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-6 Table 2-3 Comparative Summary of Environmental Consequences by Project Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 Table 3-1 Population Within Selected Subregional Areas .................... 3-8 Table 3-2 Housing Within Selected Subregional Areas ..................... 3-9 Appendices Appendix A Distribution List for Draft Environmental Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-I Appendix B Glossary .......................................... B-1 Otay-Sweelwaler Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge II Draft Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is a contribution by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to conserve the rich and varied natural heritage of the San Diego region. From the salt marshes of south San Diego Bay, vernal pools on Otay and Del Mar mesas, to coastal sage scrub in the San Miguel, Jamul, and Otay mountains, the diverse range of habitats contained within the San Diego Refuge would be protected and managed for the continuing benefit for the people of the San Diego region. The San Diego community would benefit from the protection and management of the diverse wildlife habitats and scenic open spaces that are the hallmark of this region. The San Diego Refuge was established on April 10, 1996, with the acquisition of private lands at Rancho San Diego. The San Diego Refuge is comprised of three proposed refuge units: South San Diego Bay, Vernal Pools, and Otay-Sweetwater. These three projects were initiated at different times: Vernal Pools project in 1989; South San Diego Bay Habitat Protection Program in 1990; and the Otay-Sweetwater project in 1995. These three projects include geographically separated parcels of land spread over a broad area within the San Diego region. A wide diversity of wildlife and their habitats occur within these three refuge projects. Because of the geographical and biological differences, the Service is preparing a separate environmental assessment and land protection plan for each proposed unit of the San Diego Refuge. This draft environmental assessment evaluates the alternatives and environmental effects of establishing an approved Refuge boundary and acquiring lands for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego Refuge. This assessment will be used by the Service to facilitate public involvement in the Refuge planning process and to determine whether the proposed establishment of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would have a significant effect on the 1.1 Proposed Action The u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to establish the Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern San Diego County. The proposed Otay- Sweetwater Unit would be delineated by an approved Refuge boundary and then negotiations with willing participants could begin. Lands acquired by the Service in the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would be managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see section 1.8). Through acquisition of large contiguous blocks of native habitats and biological communities for sensitive species, the Refuge lands would provide a long-needed counterbalance to the rapid urban growth of southwestern San Diego County. 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action The purpose of the proposed action is to 1) protect and manage key habitats for several endangered, threatened, and sensitive species; 2) maintain the high biological diversity of the southwestern San Diego region; 3) provide natural open space for certain compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses for the residents of and visitors to the San Diego region; and 4) provide a contribution by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service towards the implementation of the Multiple Species Conservation Program in the San Diego region. San Diego County is a hotspot of biological diversity in Southern California. However, the high biological diversity of San Diego County is threatened by urban and agricultural development. The human population of San Diego County is predicted to increase by 44 percent between 1990 and 2015, with a parallel pace being maintained in housing construction (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). At this rate of urban growth, the opportunities to set aside land areas of sufficient size in the San Diego region to recover endangered species, prevent listing of additional species, and to protect native communities are rapidly diminishing. Recognizing the need and benefits of a long-range plan to both direct urban growth and set aside key habitats, the City of San Diego, along with the County of San Diego, cities of Poway, Chula Vista, Santee, National City, Coronado, Lemon Grove, La Mesa, El Cajon, Del Mar, and Imperial Beach, and Otay Water District, San Diego County Water Authority, San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority, and Otay Valley Regional Park Joint Powers Authority, are developing a Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan (MSCP Plan) (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). An integral feature of the MSCP Plan is the conservation of a contiguous system of the most biologically important habitats remaining in the MSCP study area. Under the MSCP Plan, the Department of Interior has an important role to both conserve and manage certain Federal lands for conservation purposes and to acquire and manage privately owned lands containing high value habitats. Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter I 1.3 Project Area The project area for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit lies at the eastern edge of the San Diego metropolitan area and is located in southwestern San Diego County. The planning area is bounded by the City of Chula Vista to the west; City of E1 Cajon to the northwest and west; rural communities of Iamul and Dulzura to the east and Crest to the north; and rural lands along the San Ysidro mountains to the south. The proposed project adjoins the communities of Crest, Dehesa, Rancho San Diego, Steele Canyon, Iamacha, Indian Springs, Iamul, Dulzura, La Presa, and Eastlake. The planning area stretches from Loveland Reservoir along the Sweetwater River to the Sweetwater Reservoir; extends northward between the communities of El Cajon and Crest and includes the Crestridge Mitigation Bank; encompasses the San Miguel, Mother Miguel, and Jamul mountains; extends along the northern flanks of the San Ysidro mountains and portions of Otay Mesa and the Otay River valley; and runs west of State Route 94 between Jamul and Rancho San Diego (see figure 1-1). 1.4 Decisions To Be Made Based on the analysis documented in this environmental assessment, the following decisions will be made by the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 1. Determine whether or not the Service should establish an Otay-Sweetwater Unit. If so, 2. Select an approved refuge boundary which best fulfills the purposes for establishing the Otay-Sweetwater Unit based on the environmental assessment. 2. Determine whether the selected alternative would have a significant impact upon the quality of the human environment. 1.5 Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis 1.5.1 Issue Identification The Service received numerous comments from landowners, agencies, community organizations, and interested citizens following the release of the Concept Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Planning Updates (October 1995 and March 1996), and the environmental assessment for Rancho San Diego and open house meetings in Jamul, Imperial Beach, and San Diego in October :1995. Based on these comments, the Service identified many biological, social, and economic concerns. Landowners and developers expressed interest and concern in whether their lands fell within the planning area and whether the Service was purchasing residences; the effect of the proposed Refuge on property values and Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge . 1-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter I Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge ~/l \~,-- ,~~ / j\" ~=- /' f.'.d ;/ '\il---~---;/ " g / J.~ ,? '=R ~. -~ '\~ /~' ;~ \~ 1 (~~,-I '~",''''';c.... C1p:STI ~ ! \ ~ . 1".-( ~~~ \~\ )1 ,"\.~~f~M""" . ~~ \ ;" , \ -"': \ . .' . /';<: :;/:>/ . . <: ~ " / _ _STATES~ _ - - - MEXICO ~' \ j ~__J " ,', / ",',' '. . ',', / / / ',1/' " .......... ....~....... . . . ./.> . . '.'. . O<o):N..u:.....i..........;d.'Mt.~...Ah. ~/ / / / /, / / / ',', / / - " ............... ..../ >J~ / ,-';','; ....(k. - ~~s-. '/,';:;:;', .~5 o 2 3 4 5 I"L.____ I 1 Miles Planning Area D D ~ Rancho San Diego Vernal Pools Unit California San Diego County \.4 D BLM's Kuchamaa Project Area Figure 1-1 future sales; impact on zoning and development potential of lands both within and neighboring the Refuge; that landowners receive fair-market value for private property sold to the Service; Service's willing seller policy and condemnation; trespass by Refuge visitors; and illegal immigration over neighboring private lands. Citizens and community groups also expressed concerns related to protecting dwindling native habitats, providing public uses on the Refuge, controlling wildfires, limiting housing supply, and reducing property taxes. 1.5.2 Issues to be Addressed Major issues identified by the Service and in the planning and public involvement processes were selected for analysis for this environmental assessment. Of particular focus for this draft environmental assessment are the social and economic issues related to land ownership, property taxes, housing supply, and public use; wildlife conservation issues such as protecting wildlife habitats from future urban development; and physical environment concerns such as preserving open spaces and existing landforms. Physical Environment Issues o Community groups and residents were concerned that floodplains, streams, groundwater, and topography be preserved from future urban development. o Community groups and residents in rural areas expressed an interest in retaining the existing visual panoramas and open spaces. Biological Issues Habitat Protection o Conservation groups and citizens expressed a need for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit to consist of large contiguous blocks of habitat to protect endangered, threatened, and rare species and biological diversity. o Conservation groups also expressed a need for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit to aid in the recovery of endangered and threatened species and to protect areas threatened with development. Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter I Social and Economic Issues Land Ownership o Landowners were concerned that private lands located within the planning area or approved Refuge boundary of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would be subject to additional government regulation and wning. o Landowners were concerned that their lands would be more difficult to sell or be devalued by being within or adjacent to the planning area or approved Refuge boundary . o Property owners also indicated concerns about the use of condemnation and expressed interest in the Service's willing seller policy. Property Taxes o Citizens expressed concern that lands acquired by the Service would be removed from the property tax rolls. Housing Supply and Agriculture o Citizens were concerned that lands acquired by the Service for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit would not be available for future urban and agricultural development. Public Use o Community groups, local jurisdictions, and citizens expressed a desire for certain compatible public uses, such as hiking and birdwatching, to occur within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Archaeological and Historical Resources o Citizens expressed a concern that archaeological and historical resources on lands acquired by the Service would not receive protection. 1.5.3 Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis The following areas of concern have been noted by the Service. However, because the action proposed by the Service would have slight to no impact on these concerns, these topics are not evaluated further in this draft environmental assessment. Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-6 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 megal Immigration o megal immigration through eastern San Diego County has increased significantly since the start of Operation Gatekeeper. As a result, much of the illegal immigration across the Mexico-United States border is now funneled into rural eastern San Diego County. A network of trails and dirt roads are used by illegal immigrants to travel northward through the remote project area. Native wildlife habitats in these remote areas have been adversely affected by trampling of vegetation, soil erosion from trail and camping activities, litter, and wildfires. The Otay-Sweetwater Unit by itself does not create any new incentives or opportunities for illegal immigration. However, lands that are acquired by the Service in the vicinity of the international border would be impacted by illegal immigration and threats from unauthorized trail and camping activities and wildfires. As is the case at the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge, the Service would continue to work with the Border Patrol to control illegal immigration through the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Controlling illegal immigration through the Otay-Sweetwater Unit may require an increase in Service law enforcement personnel and increased coordination with the Border Patrol, Bureau of Land Management, and local jurisdictions. Traffic, Noise, and Air Quality o The Otay-Sweetwater Unit is not expected to generate any major additions to the existing levels and patterns of traffic within the project area. In addition, the Service does not anticipate any major increases in noise levels as a result of land acquisition for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. As was the case with the acquisition of Rancho San Diego, projected traffic loads and noise levels could decrease as lands identified for future urban development are purchased and placed within the Refuge. However, any new facilities constructed by the Service, such as a headquarters or visitor station, may require traffic studies to both identify traffic loads and mitigation measures. No changes to air quality are anticipated since the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would not generate any new point or mobile sources of air pollution. Geological Hazards, Soil Erosion, and Hydrological Resources o The acquisition of lands for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would not expose any major public infrastructure facilities to geological hazards or unstable geological features. The acquisition of lands would not result in a major increase in soil erosion or grading on hillsides or ridges. The acquisition of the lands for the Refuge would not increase demands for surface water or groundwater relative to existing and proposed urban and agricultural developments. Refuge construction projects would remain subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-7 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 Fire Management o Wildfires are a great concern to all landowners within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit planning area. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Tecate cypress, and grassland habitats are subject to periodic natural and man-induced wildfires. Unfortunately, the frequency of wildfires within the southwestern region of San Diego County, particularly in the vicinity of Otay Mountain, has increased dramatically in the last year. The Otay-Sweetwater Unit would not increase the likelihood of wildfires. Landowners and resource agencies express a concern that a coordinated fire management program be a priority within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. For the Rancho San Diego tract, the Service has hired a Fire Management Officer to specifically develop fire management plans that address initial response, fire crew dispatch, wildfire suppression, cooperative agreements for firefighting support, prescribed burning, and coordination with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Cleveland National Forest, and local fire departments and districts for fire suppression support. If the Otay-Sweetwater Unit was established, the Fire Management Officer would also prepare fire management plans for any new lands acquired by the Service. The Service would maintain certain existing roads and trails as fire breaks and fire roads and would evaluate the need for additional fire management facilities. Along the interface with urbanized lands, the Service would work with local fire districts and homeowners on wildfire prevention and weed abatement. 1.6 San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Planning Efforts 1.6.1 Public Involvement The Service has been working with the local jurisdictions, agencies, community groups, landowners, and interested citizens in planning the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. The Service has distributed the Concept Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and Planning Updates to provide background information on the proposed national wildlife refuge to landowners, agencies, community groups, and interested citizens. Public workshops were also held in Imperial Beach, Jamul, and San Diego to receive comments from the public on the proposed San Diego Refuge. 1.6.2 Conceptual Management and Land Protection Plans A draft Conceptual Management Plan and a draft Land Protection Plan are included as concurrent planning documents for public review. The Conceptual Management Plan gives a Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-8 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter I general overview of how the proposed refuge would be operated and managed. This plan does not provide extensive detail, pinpoint where facilities would be located, or specify where public use would be allowed. The Land Protection Plan identifies habitat protection priorities within the proposed Refuge. The Land Protection Plan is developed principally as a guide for landowners in the project area. 1.6.3 Comprehensive Management Plan As lands are acquired by the Service, a Comprehensive Management Plan and step-down Refuge management plans would be prepared. The Comprehensive Management Plan would provide details on the management of the San Diego Refuge and would specify the types and locations of public use activities, monitoring and recovery of endangered and threatened species, fire management, hunting, and other public uses. This plan would include a detailed environmental analysis, public involvement, and identification of compatible public uses that would be permitted within the San Diego Refuge. 1.6.4 Ongoing Rancho San Diego Actions Approximately 736 hectares (1,840 acres) of private undeveloped lands at Rancho San Diego have been acquired by the Service from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. These lands form the cornerstone of the San Diego Refuge. This area contains coastal sage scrub habitat for the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, riparian habitats for the endangered least Bell's vireo and endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, and habitats for other sensitive species. The environmental assessment for the acquisition of Rancho San Diego was released separately and in advance of this draft environmental assessment because of the immediate need to acquire these lands from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Service concluded that the acquisition of private lands at Rancho San Diego was not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The Rancho San Diego tract would be included within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit, if that proposed unit of the San Diego Refuge is approved. 1.7 Other Related Agency Actions 1.7.1 Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) The City of San Diego and the Fish and Wildlife Service released a second Draft Joint EIR/EIS Issuance of Take Authorizationsfor Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area in Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge , 1-9 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter I August 1996 (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). The MSCP Plan was revised due to project changes and in response to public comments received on the initial draft of March 1995. On August 30, 1996, the revised MSCP and Draft EIS/EIR were recirculated for a 45-day public review and comment period. The actions covered by the joint ElR/EIS include: 1) adoption of the MSCP Plan by the participating local jurisdictions; 2) approval of the MSCP by the Service; 3) issuance of a management authorization under section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act and section 2835 of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act by the State of California; 4) issuance of section lO(a)(1)(B) permits for the take of covered species within the MSCP planning area; and 5) execution of an implementation agreement. The joint EIR/EIS analyzes a preferred preserve design (Multiple Habitat Planning Area) and four alternative preserve designs. The biological goal of the preserve is the conservation of the core biological resource areas and linkages within the MSCP study area. 1.7.2 Bureau orLand Management Otay MountainlKuchamaa Cooperative Management Area The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to acquire approximately 4,000 hectares (10,000 acres) of private lands in the San Ysidro Mountains to connect with public lands at Otay Mountain and Cedar Canyon and with public lands at Little Tecate Peak and Tecate Peak (BLM 1994). Because of the large size and rich biological resources, the BLM's Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa Cooperative Management Area is a critical and integral foundation for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. The Service, County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and the California Department of Fish and Game have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to develop a proactive and coordinated planning and acquisition effort for the Otay Mountain area. 1.7.3 Otay Valley Regional Park The Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and County of San Diego are proposing an Otay Valley Regional Park that stretches along the Otay River from South San Diego Bay to the drainage basin for the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. The proposed Otay Valley Regional Park overlaps the portion of the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit that encompasses the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs and the eastern Otay River Valley. The proposed Regional Park is an important regional conservation initiative and would protect a significant riparian corridor that would connect the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit with the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. 1. 7.4 Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan approved by the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and County of San Diego calls for the development of a 4,560-hectare Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-10 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter I (ll,400-acre) open space preserve on lands owned by the Baldwin Company and other landowners. The proposed open space preserve would include a large block of contiguous habitats along Otay Valley, San Ysidro Mountains, and Proctor Valley. The Service would work with the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and County of San Diego to coordinate management, monitoring, law enforcement, and environmental education. The Service has submitted an application to function as the preserve owner/manager for the Otay Ranch open space preserve; however, the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego have jointly assumed the responsibility as the preserve owner/manager. 1.8 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities The mission of the Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation's fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing migratory birds, anadromous fishes, certain marine mammals, and endangered plants and animals and their habitats within the United States. This responsibility to conserve our Nation's wildlife resources is shared with other Federal, State, Tribal, local, and private ertities. As part of this responsibility, the Service manages a national network of protected lands and waters dedicated to the conservation of wildlife. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations. Unlike other Federal lands which are managed under a multiple-use mandate (e.g., national forests administered by the U.S. Forest Service and public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management), units of the National Wildlife Refuge System are managed as primary use areas. That is, they are managed primarily for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and their habitats; and secondarily for other uses. In addition, refuges are closed to other uses unless specifically and formally opened. Before secondary uses are allowed on national wildlife refuges, Federal law requires that they be formally determined to be "compatible" with the purpose for which the refuge was established. For recreational uses to be allowed, a Refuge Manager must further determine adequate funding is available for the development, operation, and maintenance of the activity. A refuge purpose may be specified in or derived from Federal law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum. In addition to providing a basis for making compatibility determinations, a refuge's purpose also serves as a vision or mission statement for refuge management and the public. It provides a broad, long-term statement of management direction and priorities. Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-11 Draft Enviromnental Assessment Chapter 1 Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System a. Habitat. Fish and wildlife will not prosper without high-quality habitat, and without fish and wildlife, traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will continue to conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges. b. Public Use. The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. c. Partnerships. America's sportsmen and women were the first partners who insisted on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other Federal agencies, State agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can make significant contributions to the growth and management of the Refuge System. d. Public Involvement. The public should be given a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of our National Wildlife Refuges. Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System a. To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practicable), all species of animals and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. b. To perpetuate the migratory bird resource. c. To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands. d. To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and human's role in the environment; and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these activities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, including the Otay-Sweetwater, Vernal Pools, and South San Diego Bay Units, would be managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and other relevant legislation, executive orders, regulations, and policies. Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-12 Draft Enviromnental Assessment Chapter 1 Purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge The purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is to protect, manage, and restore habitats for Federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds, to maintain and enhance the biological diversity of native plants and animals, and to provide opportunities for environmental education. Goals of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge The goals of the San Diego Refuge reflect the core mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect wildlife resources of national importance while providing compatible opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural heritage of the region. a. Aid in the recovery of Federally listed endangered and threatened species and avoid the potential listing of additional species as endangered or threatened by providing a diverse base of protected and managed wildlife habitats. b. Coordinate and promote partnerships with Federal, Tribal, State of California, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of San Diego agencies; local universities and colleges; landowners; community groups; and nongovernmental conservation agencies in support of the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve. c. Provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities on Refuge lands that would foster public awareness and appreciation of the unique natural heritage of the San Diego region. The authorities for the establishment of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge are the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742(a)-754), Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d) and Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 46Ok-46Ok-4). The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and Refuge Recreation Act of 1952 authorize the Service to use funds made available under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4601-11) to acquire lands, waters, or interests therein for fish and wildlife conservation purposes. Federal monies used to acquire private lands through the Land and Water Conservation Fund are derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf, excess motorboat fuel tax revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property. Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities and Compatible Refuge Uses A compatible use is a use on a refuge that will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes(s) for which the refuge was established. Some compatible uses may be supportive of refuge purposes, while others may be of a nonconflicting nature. All public uses, such as the Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-13 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 public use of trails for observing wildlife, must be compatible with the purposes of the national wildlife refuge. Compatibility use determinations require an analysis of the availability of Service funding and staff to oversee the activity pursuant to the Refuge Recreation Act. If the proposed use is found compatible, the use may be authorized by the Refuge Manager if management funds are available and other laws and regulations are satisfied. Compatibility determinations ensure that the wildlife resources are protected while providing for uses on the refuges that are consistent with wildlife management. Prior to acquiring lands for a national wildlife refuge, the Service is also required to identify those existing wildlife-dependent recreational activities on lands to be acquired that will be allowed to continue on an interim basis pending completion of comprehensive management planning. Wildlife-dependent recreational activities are defined as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Lands within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit support a range of wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as upland game bird and deer hunting, freshwater fishing on public reservoirs and streams, wildlife photography and observation, and environmental education and interpretation. Upon completion of the San Diego Refuge planning process and prior to acquiring any lands from willing sellers, the Service would prepare interim preacquisition compatibility determinations for wildlife-dependent recreational activities that would be allowed to continue until comprehensive Refuge planning was completed. The interim compatibility determinations for wildlife-dependent recreational activities are meant to temporarily bridge the time period between the acquisition of land for a new wildlife refuge and official opening of Refuge lands to public use. The continuation of wildlife-dependent recreational activities would also require the determination of the Service's authority to regulate the use, availability of funds and staff to oversee the activity, and an analysis of any environmental impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego Natiooal Wildlife Refuge 1-14 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED AL TERNA TIVE Chapter 2 describes five alternatives, including the no action alternative, being considered by the Service for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The four action alternatives differ in the acreage and distribution of land to be acquired and managed by the Service. Under the no action alternative, the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would not be established. Rancho San Diego would be the only Service lands in the project area to be managed as a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, the Vernal Pools and South San Diego Bay Units of the San Diego Refuge could be established under separate decisions. 2.1 Land Selection Several criteria were used to identify and select alternatives for the boundary of the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. The criteria included the presence and abundance of endangered and threatened species, proposed threatened and endangered species, and candidate species; species richness; biological importance and scarcity of native plant communities; potential development threats to rare species and native habitats; and linkages with areas identified for protection by the Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan, Bureau of Land Management, State of California, and nonprofit conservation organizations. Existing urbanized areas, homes, and residences are excluded from the alternatives considered for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. In general, lands identified for the four action alternatives for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit contained areas that were identified as having "very high" to "moderate" habitat values based on their potential to support priority coastal California gnatcatcher habitat, high biological diversity/species richness, priority target species, vernal pool habitats, and wildlife corridors (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). The four action alternatives for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit also included "areas generally supporting a high concentration of sensitive biological resources which, if lost or fragmented, could not be replaced or mitigated elsewhere." (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Our intention was to include the most important habitats in southwestern San Diego County that were identified through the regional planning process within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Lands with and without development potential could be acquired by the Service. Buffer lands and habitat corridors were also included in the four action alternatives considered by the Service. Wherever practicable, the Service attempted to include entire contiguous ownerships for each project alternative even though only a portion may contain habitat of interest to the Service. The Service and the landowners can then reach agreement as to what land is actually added to <>tay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 2-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 the Refuge. Access to Refuge lands may also need to be acquired. In some cases, access rights crossing lands outside of the Refuge boundary may also be purchased from willing sellers. 2.2 Land Acquisition Tools Lands would be acquired by the Service using several different mechanisms, including fee title, conservation easements, long-term leases, donations, transfers, cooperative agreements, and exchanges. The Service would use funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and/or the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to purchase the fee title or conservation easements for private lands at fair market value from willing sellers. Certain lands may be conveyed to the Service from landowners to meet mitigation requirements or to fulfill zoning and land-use permit requirements of the local jurisdictions. Certain lands managed by the public agencies, such as the City of San Diego, various water districts, and Bureau of Land Management, may be included within the proposed Refuge through cooperative management agreements. The Bureau of Land Management may also transfer or exchange certain properties to the Service to be included within the approved boundary for the proposed Otay- Sweetwater Unit. 2.3 Land Management The lands acquired by the Service would be managed as a part of the San Diego Refuge, a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Specific Refuge management activities may be subject to separate compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental regulations and will include opportunities for public input. Management activities would include monitoring the status and recovery of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species; controlling nonnative species; restoring native habitats; implementing a fire management plan and conducting, where appropriate, prescribed bums to control wildfire; developing and providing wildlife-oriented recreational, interpretive, and educational opportunities and visitor protection; and coordinating with Bureau of Land Management and Border Patrol on controlling illegal immigration through the Refuge. The Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge contains a general description of the proposed management program. Once established, a comprehensive management plan would be developed to provide detailed management guidance. Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego Nllliooal Wildlife Refuge 2-2 Draft EnvironmeotaJ Assessmeol Cbapter2 2.4 Alternatives for the Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 2.4.1 Alternative A: Establish the Otay-Sweetwater Unit with Approximately 18,100 Hectares (45,250 Acres) of Wildlife Habitats Under Alternative A, the Service has identified approximately 18,100 hectares (45,250 acres) of land to be included within the approved boundary of the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit (figure 2-1). This alternative would protect large contiguous blocks of habitat stretching from Loveland Reservoir westward along the Sweetwater River, portions of the San Miguel, Jamul, and Otay mountains, and southward to include Otay Mesa and a portion of the Otay River valley. Alternative A would also include a neighboring block of habitat comprising the 44o-hectare (1,I00-acre) Crestridge Conservation Bank near the community of Lakeside. This alternative also overlaps with a portion of the Bureau of Land Management's Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa Cooperative Management Area south of Otay Lakes Road and Lower Otay Reservoir. Over time, this alternative may result in the acquisition and management of approximately 10,667 hectares (26,668 acres) of coastal sage scrub, 4,514 hectares (11,286 acres) of chaparral, 1,598 hectares (3,996 acres) of grassland, and 365 hectares (912 acres) of riparian woodland habitats (table 2-1). Alternative A comprises approximately 1,087 parcels representing 419 landowners. Land ownership within Alternative A is dominated by private lands (16,476 hectares) (41,190 acres) (see table 2-2). Other landowners include Bureau of Land Management, City of San Diego, Otay Water District, and Sweetwater Authority (table 2-2). 2.4.2 Alternative B. Establish the Otay-Sweetwater Unit with Approximately 16,380 Hectares (40,950 Acres) of Wildlife Habitats (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative B (Preferred Alternative), the Service has identified approximately 16,380 hectares (40,950 acres) of land to be included within the approved boundary of the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit (figure 2-2). This alternative is similar to Alternative A except that the Crestridge Conservation Bank, a small peninsula of habitat at the Singing Hills Golf Course, open space between Proctor Valley Road and Eastlake, and the western and central portions of Sweetwater Reservoir would not be included within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. These areas were excluded from Alternative B because the Crestridge Mitigation Bank would be protected and managed regardless of its inclusion within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit and the other tracts functioned as buffers or were partially surrounded by urban development. Olay-Sweetwlller Unit San Diego NoIional Wildlife Refuge 2-3 Draft Enviroomeolal As.....ment Chapter 2 ~ Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildfife Refuge ill Alternative A (4S,2S0 ac.) CJ Rancho San Diego (1,840 ac.) III Vernal Pools Unit <2,130 ac.) Total 01 Area A (49,220 ac.) II ff IMstreams B1I ~or Roads ~~'i o 2 3 4 I"\. _ __ Miles + ~ Sycuan Peak ~ ~~~ =, ~, ' ~"- .,.:;:;')~ 'J- Spring~ l -~ ~ I , N , ,,' ~ ~-~~~ If ~.l 0.., H..... ,,I \ // 1 , ~ '] !: U1ay Me&! Koad \ Dray Mountain + Figure 2-1 Alternative A 2-4 Table 2-1. Plant communities within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. .Plant> . ,A A..~....i ,I). Alternative E i,-J;- '''i ..................................................;.............i..... .> .......~i. ..................................................................... ........................r1'( ............. ACI"elI > .....>>> Diegan Coastal 26,145 25,193 21,713 14,427 1,489 Sage Scrub Maritime Succulent 141 141 0 0 0 Scrub Chaparral 11,286 9,812 9,560 5,223 16 Coastal Sage! Clwparral 523 84 74 0 0 Scrub Grassland 3,996 3,611 2,383 2,121 81 Tecate Cypress 83 83 83 0 0 Oak Woodlands 481 383 381 225 0 Riparian 912 867 840 296 175 Woodland Riparian Scrub 434 280 89 31 4 Freshwater 288 284 261 219 0 Marsh Ag ricultural 1,341 1,312 657 642 21 Lands Disturbed 784 710 471 321 49 Habitat Otay-Sweetw8ler Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 2-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 Table 2-2. Land Ownership by Project Alternative. Private Lands 41,190 37,126 35,511 19,823 0 Cities 2,890 2,890 2,804 691 0 BLM 1,047 1,047 1,045 940 0 Special 961 728 641 641 0 District State 683 683 2 2 0 Indian 318 318 318 0 0 Reservation DepartmeTU of 165 165 0 0 0 Defense County 146 137 68 1 0 US Fish and 0 0 0 0 1,840 Wildlife Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 2~ Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 :Y / ~~ ~ I ) Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge E!2l Alternative B (40,950 aeo) ~ Rancho San Diego (1,840 aeo) ~ Vernal Pools Unit (2,130 ac.) Total of Area B (44,920 aeo) , ~ :,\ Streams Ii ~ .,' ; ~ I~!:;, ! Dehesa\l.. --=';~ c=/ --~ IZQI Iii 'v'; Major Roads o 2 3 4 - - --~-- Sycuan Peak .~ ':1 >\ , ~~=~~ 'l.: O"~"_>", :J- Spring" ~ ~ ~ , --'/j I "~ II ~~-, \\ -~--, ~ \\------------_-./ 1\ 0-, River \, II hr'- O"f"""""~'"~,\ Otay Mountain + Figure 2-2 Alternative B Preferred Alternative 2-7 This alternative would protect a contiguous block of wildlife habitat along the Sweetwater River, McGinty Mountain, and Sycuan Peak in the north region; San Miguel, Jamul, and Otay Mountains in the central region; and a portion of the Otay River valley. This alternative also overlaps with the Bureau of Land Management's Otay MountainlKuchamaa Cooperative Management Area south of Otay Lakes Road and Lower Otay Reservoir. This alternative may result in the acquisition and management of approximately 10,111 hectares (25,2n acres) of coastal sage scrub, 3,925 hectares (9,812 acres) of chaparral, 1,444 hectares (3,611 acres) of grassland, and 347 hectares (867 acres) of riparian woodland habitats (table 2-1). Alternative B comprises approximately 930 parcels representing 393 landowners. Land ownership within Alternative B is dominated by private lands (14,850 hectares) (37,126 acres) (table 2-2). Other landowners include Bureau of Land Management, City of San Diego, Otay Water District, and Sweetwater Authority (table 2-2). 2.4.3 Alternative C. Establish the Otay-Sweetwater Unit with Approximately 14,344 Hectares (35,860 Acres) of Wildlife Habitats Under Alternative C, the Service has identified approximately 14,344 hectares (35,860 acres) of land to be included within the approved boundary of the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit (figure 2-3). This alternative is similar to Alternative B except that the open space between El Cajon and Crest and lands along the Otay River Valley and Otay Mesa would not be included within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. These lands were excluded from Alternative C to reduce resource management conflicts on lands partially surrounded by existing urban development (El Cajon and Crest) and to consolidate the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit east of Otay Reservoir. This alternative would protect a contiguous block of wildlife habitat along the Sweetwater River, McGinty Mountain, and Sycuan Peak in the north region; San Miguel, Jamul, and Otay Mountains in the central region; and a portion of the Otay River valley. However, biologically important habitats in Salt Creek, Otay Mesa, and portions of the Otay River Valley would not be acquired by the Service. This alternative also overlaps with the Bureau of Land Management's Otay MountainlKuchamaa Cooperative Management Area south of Otay Lakes Road and Lower Otay Reservoir. This alternative may result in the acquisition and management of approximately 8,715 hectares (21,787 acres) of coastal sage scrub, 3,824 hectares (9,560 acres) of chaparral, 953 hectares (2,383 acres) of grassland, and 336 hectares (840 acres) of riparian woodland habitats (table 2-1). Alternative C comprises approximately 762 parcels representing 332 landowners. Land ownership within Alternative C is dominated by private lands (12,604 hectares) (35,511 acres) (table 2-2). Other landowners include Bureau of Land Management, City of San Diego, Otay Water District, and Sweetwater Authority (table 2-2). Otay-8_ Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 2-8 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge o Alternative C (35,860 ac.) D Rancho San Diego (1,840 ac.) [[) Vernal Pools Unit (510 ac.) Total of Area C (38,210 ac.) -I ,_"J;w=k.ta:i: r II jj~ ...j ,-,-<~ ,<ll__,_.__,-{~~-;~~\~,<~~~~.J> /f:1'<~R~Y/ Iii r/'" ~<\ .' II --"'<~d :, ,';? , Dch ~~~c~ c ~-,Ii~/~-:~- /<~ IZQI Streams I'" '\ Iiill Major Roads --'--;'._~"- ., I o 2 3 4 ~\. ~\ ~-:.._- I ~/ ~ ) ",' ~G'W'yJ~' ,~----./ ~o~~-> Miles ,~I~- 1'1 -"c."-., ~.~~. 'I;g~~-~,,~ \k ,f- 'II Me Ginl;' M<lUIIlain + SycUtm Peak /'s~TInel?~-:O - ';'y'~ ~\iY Road ;/of:."" vi ---.), --- /' / /;/ // 0" " i:T 'i .Yo. "0 _ 't...\\., Ora \~ j/ _/~ <:y <. ~,_ /~--' <>>. __::c/-' (JI.'l1.'j '-01+. "- "W.~ ./ // =- ~-~ ,c- -e -:'<~, ~/ ~~==- ;> OyQ' ')~ :~""/ ;'~E,_ ....\-.- J" 94~--::' '~:-\~, 4-dt> ,. __-c_'CP teTei{'.l.~\'- '"1 y (~.\\. ).1 (~ r .(~ r ~se~!_;--( ~,-~ 0 \~~S~.~:_~}~~::~~ 1" ~-' >~" ' ~ =- Q ,"/" I} \ N I' I I IL~ --------:----====;, -r---- ..._--~ -'-'-// .:i Olay Mountain Figure 2-3 Alternative C /i /1 , , utay Mesa Koad. 2-9 2.4.4 Alternative D. Establish the Otay-Sweetwater Unit with Approximately 8,728 Hectares (21,820 Acres) of Wildlife Habitats Under Alternative D, the Service has identified approximately 8,728 hectares (21,820 acres) of land to be included within the approved boundary of the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit (figure 2-4). Under this alternative, only a contiguous block of habitat encompassing San Miguel, Jamul, and Otay Mountains would be included within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Important wildlife habitats along Sweetwater River, McGinty Mountain, Sycuan Peak, Salt Creek, Otay Mesa, Otay River Valley, and Otay Mountain would not be included within this alternative. Wildlife habitat north and east of State Route 94 (Campo Road) would not be included within this alternative. This alternative does not overlap with the Bureau of Land Management's Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa Cooperative Management Area. This alternative would result in the acquisition and management of approximately 5,771 hectares (14,427 acres) of coastal sage scrub, 2,089 hectares (5,223 acres) of chaparral, 848 hectares (2,121 acres) of grassland, and 118 hectares (296 acres) of riparian woodland habitats (table 2-1). Alternative D comprises approximately 404 parcels representing 158 landowners. Land ownership within Alternative D is dominated by private lands (7,929 hectares) (19,823 acres) (table 2-2). Other landowners include Bureau of Land Management, City of San Diego, Otay Water District, and Sweetwater Authority (table 2-2). 2.4.5 Alternative E. No Action Under the no action alternative, the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would not be established. Service lands within this study area would be at Rancho San Diego only (figure 2-5). Wildlife habitats would be protected through the existing land-use and regulatory controls administered by local, County of San Diego, State of California, and Federal government agencies. 2.5 Alternatives Considered But Not Studied in Detail The Service considered alternatives that included rural lands west of State Route 94 (Campo Road), along Harbison Canyon, and western Otay Mesa and agricultural lands east of State Route 94. We did not include these additional lands in the project alternatives because of the quality of the habitats and the inability to connect these lands to other protected areas. Agricultura1lands south of Lone Star Road and west of Otay Lakes Reservoir were also excluded because of the low quality of the habitat. Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 2.10 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 Miles ..~ / ~ -""'~ ~~ ~: 'IllWaY!>l4 ;/ '1\ i I' .~ ~'" ~ p ,~ .4 , ~~~ \~, Tclegrll\l .\ \\ :'1 .I 'I i IL2I ~ o ~---- ......../'1.....--- i/ ;i i! :i rI , Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge D D ~ Alternative D (21,820 ac.) 'i \, 1,1\ JJ f ,;. , ",0 ~<> ~'w t ~~ , // t " L_h II Doho>' \l- .~~.. jJ ~/ \ !_/. I j Rancho San Diego (1,840 ac.) .-', /f'/-' Vernal Pools Unit (UO ac.) Total of Area D (23,920 ac.) Streams Major Roads \' ,--v~'\J, crr'~' ( 2 ~- -, ~ ~~~-,;~ 1ti~, 3 4 L Me Ginty Mountain + + Sycuan Peak ~ " I '\ \1 \\ 11 / <..1"'>:::. ')<" :-.sc' ,:~~- . ^.'\.x" .{" :~ Otay MOWltaID + Figure 2-4 Alternative D Ulay Mesa Koa1 2-11 Rancho San Die&o (1,840 ac.) Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge ~>'~~7"==~"",'~ '1"\ // .-/:-/ 1\ //_-c;;;- \ >, , !A?j!/- ", -_, d/--~ ',\ -~-'>::o -;0-;;--;/ ;,,,..:,\ ~ <\ .--/-c;:::// /rI;//" Jlf'\;, - \\;/ .:' ! " Ifl~/<i" ~._ /'=1) // / Jr}~W Ro.d\:, Jt \ U /'" ~ ~~ '-...../'/"7rr~~d". o~ rellla~ JI v'OV> If (( i c m r:yJ tiil IZiI IE7J Vernal Pools Unit Streams Mlqor Roads Ii " , Dehe~ r ,~ 0>' ') J -, ~ ~ f ~ ,~ :E ~ \~.. ~ , ~- ~ ~~ (~/_~; .n.-~Il';" pJ,.er o 2 3 4 --- Miles ,7 ~~~way l I McGinty Mountain + + Sycuan Peak r~~~ ~ Sprinz'~ ~ ~ "''') , &I /~\" ~ Y-'~~-~~~~ , '~'f"9\\ \\ \. ~ , \\ N Olay Mountain + , II 'i (, ,; Figure 2-5 Alternative E Ul;dy Meu Koaa 2-12 2.6 Comparative Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative Table 2-3 provides a comparative summary of the environmental consequences of the project alternatives. Environmental impacts are analyzed in more detail in chapter 4. Otay-Sweelwaler Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 2-13 Draft Environmental Assessment . ~ .. .... ell e .! S'OI Sl~ ,,~~'" :> Co co ~... "8-- 11:5: Q . N . ~ ~ c : : e - < ~ .!; ~ 8 .a !l , E. ~:l -8~c:t !'~~i . ~~"8.,.; ~ Q . tf"l .. S !l ',c .. 5 .as!l E.!!~:l -8~c:t il~i cl:~1~ I' S ~ c: < ...; 0 f ~ !l : &. ~.. ~ -8~c:~ 6 _._ ~.. - c: Cf.l 0 - ,,>. ""' < :>..c: '" " Co"O _ ......c""' ~ 0 .... . '@ '15 ~ .~ ';-0: ll.;'"l C..c: .. ~ '~2<2 ,g .~ ill] ~ "8'i ..."8~-"e o .. .'lI"O >! .!l e"8~e.~~" :~jJ~~t -t.l!,,~~l; li..c: .. ~ 'C2<2 .9 .I!. ill] liJ "8 1 c"8<>:l.. ~"~1illle :l "8 l!.. ~.!:: ~ ....-co> .c:: <>-l!C" .:l .. >! .- .lll :.. ..s B !3d:2 ~i ~~ ; ~ .. ::J: 'C2<2 .9 .~ill]~"8'i ..."8jl-"e ~~8~~.!l.. Ucc....._Cf.l0 t"-~:>~fi "-l'~.i~..s .. Cl\ ..c:l!-i!~ ~ .l!,,~1;IJ1; ~ "8- _ = ....lll.~ ~ "8'i ~l~~ii~.. ~c2]~.>~j! !;j:'~ ill.il C ~..s ~ -l!."Oo.lllJ3i!>. -"'C ~ 6.S~ ~= ~ 1; liJ"81 ~~:S..~.. :l~.l!<2~ll~.. .. ~..c: ";l .. .. .. " ~;2~~'S:~"5 ~'cill.ilc~..s- ~l!."Oo.lll_~[ .._c..i!!<J _ -...Q.,o~ _ ~ '1~ }~ .S! 0: 1Q'"l Otay-S_ Unit San Diego NaliooaJ Wildlife Refuge ll~ 'S e B .. Co:l .. "..c: !:l .. " t 2 ~'j!..c: .. ill !5.:l i~~~~ -'!J.Eu! .. ..c: 'f! 2"<2 ... -"'.- 0<>"'- .. .. .. ~ ~~ U .. ~!J]l~ ::::;'j<>.!l~ i ~ t~ ! .. 'f! ..c: 0 ... 2 'll:: oill~- il ~.E u .. ~!J]l~ ~~.il.!l~ N' ~ ~~ ! .. 'f! ..c: 0 ~2~~ ill .. .. ~ ~~u.. ~!J]l~ ~ 11J i .. 'f! ..c: 0 ... 2 'll:: o<>~- .. .. .. e ~<S U t ~!J]lfi esl'j<>.!lB ..s .. .!l :l - ~ ~ ~~ ! 2-14 ..c: ~ ~ ... - 'C c ~~ o 8 :z: iil ..c: ~ ~ ... - 'C c: !! " =8 o <> :z: iil ..c: ~ ~ ... - 'C c: ~] ~ ~ ~ ... 'C ~2 ~ ill :l S .. " <>-s .. <> - <> ~ iil ~ ... 'C ~2 ~ ill .. - e c <>..!! .. e ;; g - '" - .. i~ .. .- -Q !l c .~ ~ Jl.s g! ... . g :c ~; .. .- ....c: -:.l! zj ~ <> ... ~ 2 i:I:~ &~ .. ... ..!! 2 "'... zjozj ~Jll! .'lI g'_ ~:c:2 ~~ .. ... .lll 2 "'... zjozj ~Jll! .'lI <> ._ oo..c: i:I::c.l! ~~ .. ... .lll 2 .... zjozj ~Jll! .'lI <> ._ oo..c: ...-.. ......c:..c: Draft Enviroome<llal Assessment Chapter 2 1 = c .- .... c = U ~ .- J li l ;... .c ~ c ~ r c = u 1 E c e ! .... = t' = e e = ~ t e = u f"l . N .!! .c = Eo< c.:I rlt:8 ~ ~~-ac: 1 ],s~i~ ::l e ~'i_$~ '"'" 'tb'~EC~ <8.11~-8 ~ 'E'" .. ... ...-~ 0-0 ~g] ..eo!! .... 'C: IE $ ~:a ~ 'E'" .. ... ...-~ 0-0 j;!g] .., -.::; .. "0_ ..... 'c: IE :a ~:a ~ ~'.. ~J t) j;! - ~ 1;Ig] ....eo!! ;;:; 'C: IE -'" ~;a ~ 'E'" ~o!!~ ~]] -eo!! ~ 'tb.IE -..:a -lil I ~'Ii! .. .. i E 11 ~r:i Otay.s_ Uoil San Diego N.n.-l Wildlife Refuge - , ="8 ~o!! 8-- <l g > - '" -8'e:] ~5= .- ',c 0 8 g .., :c.s~ '" " .. E "8 ... ..... ... 0- SO! " u.l iU (:S ~ ~:O""1l .. ~... ~ ~] li oo"~"S:a '" " << E ... "8 '.. ~ -; SO! II ... - c:s ~ l;lt....] ~.S!~m "'!. ~ >.~ =-8'e::a !:l ~ ... "8 ... 0.. ... r~~ ~ .= ~... ] --11<< ..._~>.~ :!:-8'e::a !:l ~ ... "8 '.. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1;Il....] ~-5o!! "'-~>'IE !::-8~:a 2-1S '" " :1 ~~ ~~ 'iHii ... c: .... ,- - C ,g$" ~ c: E 8..g ~ .., ... i~.8 e-8j g ... .. -~~ ... = ~ o 0 ... . ,S'~ .ll s rl s e 5 ~ ... c:" Cl.'e '.. ll~'~ 1 ~E "'8.~E ...1;... ::! Cl. = - ::! ="'0 _o_~ _._ ~ 1.i .5 'en rl S 1:~ 6 ~ ~ e 'e'! ... 8. 8. ... g r:>. e! _ 0 0.. as 5 1.i ':::I 'f;! 11 s e = iU - 0 > -'e '.. 1 ~! ~ a c; .5.5 ~ ~ 5 1.i 1.i 'fl .~ .5";; B ~ rl s e 5 ~ '.. c:" Cl..e... il~'~ ~ ~~ e~&.~ ~...! g e-.11 ~ ~~ _ c..";i _._ 0 ~ 151.i M '.. 'r;; .S'", .ll s rl s P 5 ~ '.. 5" lS.'e '.. ll~:-j 1 ~j Q ~e-.11 Q Co" = - s::e=ct.o _ ;s.. _._0 1 .. i i i..E ~ .~ ~ ~.~'o: ~::Z::'"l 1i! .. ..~J! illl.... .. J... ~ ~ Ie ::;j ~.~ ~;a.t ...~.., .e:t~ Dreft Enviroo-.tal Alleo-...at Cbopter 2 Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter describes the physical, biological, social and economic, and archaeological and historical environments that would most likely be affected by the alternatives. 3.1 Physical Environment The Otay-Sweetwater Unit is characterized by a striking diversity of landforms. This mountainous region represents the southwestern end of the Peninsular Range. These mountains, Mother Miguel, San Miguel, McGinty, Jamul, and San Ysidro, form the rugged backdrop for urban San Diego. The rolling foothills and mesas are incised with narrow canyons and intermittently flowing creeks. The Sweetwater and Otay rivers drain broad valleys. The Sweetwater and Otay reservoirs anchor the western boundary of the project area. The elevations in the project area range from 85 meters (280 feet) along the Sweetwater and Otay rivers to approximately 782 meters (2,565 feet) at the summit of San Miguel Mountain. Floodplains are located along the Otay and Sweetwater rivers and their tributaries. The lOO-year floodplain for the Sweetwater River is approximately 305 meters (1,000 feet) wide within the central portion of the project area. The relatively undisturbed physical environment is translated into scenic panoramas and open spaces. The mountains, rolling hillsides, mesas, and river valleys contribute to the rural setting of the planning area. 3.2 Biological Environment 3.2.1 Plant Communities Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland are the dominant plant communities within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit (table 2-1) (figure 3-1). Other native plant communities include Tecate cypress forest, oak woodland, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, vernal pools, and freshwater marsh (table 2-1). The project area also includes agricultural and disturbed lands. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Diegan coastal sage scrub is the most common native habitat within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Characteristic species of this plant community include California sagebrush, black sage, white sage, purple sage, California encelia, San Diego sunflower, and flat-top buckwheat. Evergreen shrubs such as laurel sumac and lemonadeberry occur singly or in patches within stands of coastal sage scrub. A portion of the coastal sage scrub habitat has been disturbed by brushing and clearing for firebreaks and roads, Otay-Sweetwaler Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 24 Sap 1996 projaoteJotav/otlllyveg3.b1'2... Vegetation/Landcover Map . Maritime Succulent Scrub . Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub . Chaparral . Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub III Grassland w . Cypress , '" . Oak Woodlands . Riparian Woodlands . Riparian Scrub . Vernal Pools . Freshwater Marsh . Open Water [] Agricultural Lands . Disturbed Lands [] Urban 1\" , ... :>':~_'~!. {r,:" f' ':{",'-" off-road vehicle activity, introduction of nonnative species, and fragmentation by urban and agricultural development. A rare variety of coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, also occurs within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit (table 2-1). This variety shares many of the shrub species characteristic of Diegan coastal sage scrub, but differs by supporting an abundance of succulent plants such as San Diego barrel cactus, coast prickly pear, and cholla. Maritime succulent scrub occurs in the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit along the Salt Creek drainage and Otay River Valley. Diepn Coastal Sale Scrob/Chaparral: This habitat type is characterized by shrub cover consisting of roughly equal amounts of chaparral and sage scrub species. Dominant plant species characterizing Coastal scrub/chaparral include California sagebrush, wild lilacs, black sage, and poison oak. Chaparral: Chaparral differs from coastal sage scrub by having taller stature vegetation, dense and nearly impenetrable stands of woody shrubs, and a more closed canopy. The dominant chaparral plant species include chamise, manzanitas, wild lilacs, scrub oak, and toyon. Two chaparral associations, chamise chaparral and southern mixed chaparral, are found within the study area. Chaparral habitats have also been disturbed by land clearing, grazing, off-road vehicle use, and introduction of nonnative species. Grasslands: Annual and perennial grasslands are generally characterized by a mixture of native and introduced grass species. Prior to European settlement, southern California grasslands were dominated by native bunch grasses. Native grasslands have since been largely invaded by nonnative species and are now very rare (Holland 1986). Nearly 95 percent of San Diego County's historical native grassland acreage had been lost as of 1988 (Oberbauer and Vanderweir 1991). Within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit, patches of native grassland occur at Rancho San Diego and Otay Ranch. Most grasslands in the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit are dominated by nonnative species of bromes, oats, mustards, and filaree. Nonnative grassland is not considered a rare habitat type, but is considered an important habitat for raptor foraging and a refugia for rare plants. The largest expanses of nonnative grasslands within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit occur south of Otay River and in the Proctor Valley area. Southern Interior Cypress Forest: This plant community is composed almost entirely of Tecate cypress. Tecate cypress typically forms a dense and low-growing forest. Tecate cypress forests need periodic fires to maintain their health. Southern interior cypress forest occurs only on four peaks on the Peninsular Range of southern California (three in San Diego County and one in Orange County) and in isolated groves in Baja California. The bulk of the U.S. population ofTecate cypress is mostly on BLM land on Otay Mountain, although a substantial portion exists within Otay Ranch. Tecate cypress forest is considered a sensitive Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3-3 Draft Environmental Assr--ent Chapter 3 and declining habitat by California Department of Fish and Game and the County of San Diego. Oak Woodland: Coast live oak woodlands are present within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit, largely on slopes of moist drainages or among large rock outcrops within the chaparral. This habitat type is characterized by a predominance of coast live oak and often includes an understory of chamise and scrub oak. Several drainages support oak woodlands dominated by Engelmann oak. a rare species listed as sensitive by the California Native Plant Society. Southern coast live oak riparian forests grow within the floodplains of major drainages in canyons and valleys on fine-grained alluvial soils. Although this habitat type is dominated by coast live oak, scattered Engelmann oaks also occur. Other tree species which may occur in this habitat type include California sycamore and Mexican elderberry. The understory is often composed of annual grasses, forbs, and shrubs such as poison oak, wild honeysuckle, scrub oak, white flowering currant, and toyon. Riparian Forest: Riparian woodland is characterized by a canopy of mature willows, cottonwoods, and western sycamores with an understory of shrubs and herbaceous plants such as mulefat, poison oak, desert grape, California blackberry, and hemlock. Riparian forests are characterized by denser vegetation with a more closed canopy than riparian woodlands. Riparian woodlands typically have a predominance of western sycamore. Riparian forest and woodlands occur primarily along the major drainages, including Sweetwater River and Dulzura Creek. Riparian SCnlb: Riparian scrub is an early successional stage of riparian forest or riparian woodland. Seasonal flooding along rivers scours away mature riparian forest, leaving bare sand which is colonized by riparian scrub species. A healthy riverine system is composed of a mosaic of various stages of riparian scrub, riparian woodland, and riparian forest. Riparian scrub occurs along the Sweetwater and Otay rivers and smaller intermittent creeks within the study area. Riparian scrub within the project area has been disturbed by grazing, clearing, and invasion of nonnative species such as giant reed, tamarisk, pepper-tree, and eucalyptus. Freshwater marsh: Uniform stands of bulrushes and cattails characterize the freshwater marsh habitat. Freshwater marshes and open water habitats are found along the Sweetwater and Otay rivers and along the edges of the Upper and Lower Otay and Sweetwater reservoirs. Vema! Pools: Vernal pools are shallow ephemeral wetlands with very specific hydrologic characteristics. Vernal pools are covered by shallow water during the winter rainy season and into early spring. The pools are generally dry by summer. They hold water for a sufficient duration to exclude or inhibit the growth of surrounding upland plant species, but not long enough to allow development of a typical pond or marsh ecosystem. Associated vernal pool plant species include coyote thistle, water star-wort, quillwort, rush, spike rush, Orcutt's 0l.y-Sweetw8ler Unit s.. Diego NaIiooa1 Wildlife Refuge 3-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 brodiaea, San Diego mesa mint, San Diego golden star, mousetail, Navarretia, and Psilocarpus species. Vernal pools in San Diego County have been reduced by an estimated 97 percent. By virtue of their scarcity and uniqueness, vernal pools contain a high number of sensitive species including four endangered plant species (San Diego button celery, San Diego mesa mint, Otay mesa mint, and California Orcutt grass) and the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp. 3.2.2 Endangered and Threatened Species The proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit supports four plant, two invertebrate, one amphibian, and five bird species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered. California Orcutt grass is a federally and state listed endangered plant species that occurs in vernal pool habitat in Riverside, Ventura and San Diego counties and in northern Baja California, Mexico. This species is threatened by habitat loss due to urbanization. In the proposed Refuge study area, this species occurs on Otay Mesa. San Diego button celery is a federally and state listed endangered plant species that occurs in clay soils in or near vernal pools in Riverside and San Diego counties and northern Baja California, Mexico. Within the proposed refuge area, this species occurs on Otay Ranch in the Otay Mesa, Otay Reservoir, and Proctor Valley areas. San Diego mesa mint is a federally and state listed endangered plant species restricted to vernal pools. Otay mesa mint is a federally and state listed endangered plant species that occurs in vernal pool habitat on Otay Mesa in San Diego County and extreme northern Baja California, Mexico. Riverside fairy shrimp is a federally listed endangered invertebrate species that is restricted to vernal pool habitat in San Diego, Orange and Riverside counties and northern Baja California, Mexico. Within the proposed refuge area, this species occurs on Otay Mesa. The arroyo southwestern toad is a federally endangered species which occurs along sandy washes, arroyos and streambeds along the coastal slope from San Luis Obispo County south to northwestern Baja California, Mexico. This species is threatened by destruction and degradation of riparian habitat. Within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit, this species is known to occur along the Sweetwater River. The California red-legged frog is a federally threatened species and California Species of Special Concern. This species occurs primarily in wetlands of wooded lowlands and foothills. The historical range of the red-legged frog extended from Humboldt County south into the Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 Sierra Nevada mountains and along the coastal slope into northern Baja California, Mexico. However, this species has disappeared throughout much of its range. Once common and widespread throughout southern California, the California red-legged frog is now thought to be extinct in San Diego County. However, this species may be present within the proposed Otay- Sweetwater Unit, but undetected due to its secretive nocturnal habits. 1be red-legged frog's decline has been attributed to competition and predation by introduced species (bullfrogs and large fish), water pollution, and habitat loss and alteration. The bald eagle, a federally threatened species, breeds from Alaska and Canada south along the Rocky Mountains and throughout most of California and along much of the Atlantic Coast. In California, this species nests primarily in the northern inland areas around lakes, rivers and reservoirs. The species is a rare winter visitor in San Diego County and has been sighted around Sweetwater Reservoir. The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally threatened species that occurs in coastal sage scrub habitat of coastal southern California and northern Baja California, Mexico. This species is threatened primarily by habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban development. California gnatcatchers are present throughout the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit in seven major populations (Dehesa, McGinty Mesa, Sweetwater Reservoir, Jamul, Jamul Mountains, Hollenbeck Canyon, and East Otay Mesa/River). A population viability analysis conducted by Patrick Mock recognizes five major gnatcatcher population concentrations upon which the viability of this species in the MSCP planning area relies. Two of these concentrations, in the Otay and Sweetwater localities, fall within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. The least Ben's vireo is a federally endangered species that breeds in riparian habitat of coastal riverine systems in southern California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. A major population of this species is present along the Sweetwater River, where an average of 30 pairs have been known to nest between 1987 and 1991 (Ogden 1994). Approximately 25 pairs of least Bell's vireo are also known to nest along Dulzura Creek. Critical habitat for the vireo is designated in the Sweetwater River drainage, the upper end of Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs, and Dulzura Creek. The southwestern willow flycatcher is a state and federally endangered bird species which breeds in riparian woodland from southwest British Columbia south to north Baja California, Mexico, and east to Texas and northern Mexico. Sporadic populations of this species have been found within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit on Sweetwater River and Jamul Creek. Willow flycatchers have also been detected at Otay Reservoir and on Dulzura Creek. The peregrine falcon is a federal and California endangered species. Peregrine falcon populations suffered dramatic declines in the 1960-1970 due to reproductive failure as a result Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3-6 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 of pesticide pollution. Although this species seldom breeds in San Diego County (one pair successfully nested on Coronado Bridge in 1989), the peregrine falcon is most often seen as a rare fall and winter visitor and casual spring visitor in San Diego County. Within the proposed Olay-Sweetwater Unit, the. falcon has been sighted around Sweetwater Reservoir (Ogden 1992). San Diego fairy shrimp is federally proposed for listing as an endangered species. This invertebrate is known from only San Diego County and extreme northern Baja California, Mexico. Surveys for this species have not been conducted in vernal pools throughout the proposed Olay-Sweetwater Unit, but this species is known to occur on Olay Mesa. The quino checkerspot butterfly is a proposed endangered species. This species historically occurred in Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties and northern Baja California, Mexico. However, the distribution of the quino checkerspot has been greatly reduced due to habilat destruction. This species has been reported from the study area on Olay Mesa and in Proctor Valley, although this butterfly has not been sighted in these areas for over five years. The quino checkerspot butterfly was recently found on Olay Mountain. 3.2.3 Native Biological Diversity Within the proposed Olay-Sweetwater Unit is a high diversity of native species and habilat types. More than ten native plant communities occur in the proposed Olay-Sweetwater Unit, each supporting a unique assemblage of species. Numerous locally endemic species, such as the Olay mesa mint, Olay tarplant, Tecate cypress, and San Diego barrel cactus occur within the Sweetwater-Olay Unit. This high degree of endemism is the result of complex interplay of soils, slopes, elevation, drainage, and climate. Habitats that are within California's Mediterranean climate support the highest concentration of locally endemic species in the continental United Slates. More than seventy neotropical migrant bird species occur within the Olay-Sweetwater Unit. Many of these migrant species depend upon the riparian habilats along streams and creeks. At least 17 raptor species have been identified from Olay Ranch (San Ysidro and Jamul mountains). 3.2 Social and Economic Environment 3.3.1 Population For population census purposes, San Diego is delineated into Subregional Areas .and Major Slatistical Areas. The boundaries of the Olay-Sweetwater Unit include and/or abut portions of the Sweetwater, South Bay, Jamul, Spring Valley, El Cajon, Harbison-Crest, and Alpine Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3-7 . Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 Subregional Areas (table 3-1). The population estimate for these seven Subregional Areas was 409,857 people in 1994 and 417,100 people in 1995. These estimates include both civilian and military populations. The population estimate for these seven Subregional Areas represented approximately 15 percent of the total population of the San Diego region in 1995. The population increased by 1.8 percent within these seven Subregional Areas between 1994 and 1995. By comparison, the San Diego region experienced a population growth of 1.2 percent between 1994 and 1995. The Jamul Subregional Area, which is the largest Subregional Area within the Refuge planning area, supported a population of 10,997 people in 1995. Table 3-1. Population Within Selected Subregional Areas Between 1994 and 1995. SubrerioDa1 Area Pooulalion 1994 POllUlalion 1995 AmwaI % Cbanoe s--. 54.075.0 56757.0 5.0 South Bav 122,194.0 123.039.0 0.7 Iamul 10.780.0 . 10997.0 2.0 Smn. VaI1ev 79061.0 80 475.0 1.8 m Caion 116987.0 118.363.0 1.2 Hubilon-Creot 14 665.0 14 994.0 2.2 AlDiDe - 12 09S.0 12.475.0 3.1 Subtota1 409 857.0 417 100.0 1.8 SlID Die"" Retrion 2687.811.0 2 720 906.0 1.2 Pen:eot of Repon 15.2 15.3 3.3.2 Housing The boundaries of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit were identified to generally avoid existing homes and subdivisions. These developed and biologically disturbed areas are not targeted for acquisition by the Service. The housing inventory in the Sweetwater, South Bay, Jamul, Spring Valley, El Cajon, Harbison-Crest, and Alpine Subregional Areas was 134,049 units in 1994 and 135,217 units in 1995 (table 3-2). These seven Subregional Areas represented approximately 13.6 percent of the housing inventory for the San Diego region in 1995. There was a 0.9 percent increase in housing units between 1994 and 1995 for these Subregional Areas. By comparison; there was a 0.7 percent increase in housing units in the San Diego region between 1994 and 1995. Otay-Sweetwater Unit SlID Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3-8 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 The highly urbanized South Bay, E1 Cajon, Sweetwater, and Spring Valley Subregional Areas comprised over 90 percent of the housing units within these seven Subregional Areas. In comparison, the Jamul Subregional Area contained only 3,451 housing units (or 2.5 percent of the housing units within these seven Subregional Areas) in 1995. Table 3-2. Housing Within Selected Subregional Areas between 1994 and 1995. Subreorional Area Housin. 1994 . Housin. 1995 Annual 'IIi Cbantze Sweetwaler 17 332.0 18,014.0 3.9 South Bav . 33 774.0 33,810.0 0.1 Iamul 3,415.0 3,451.0 1.1 Snrin. Vallev 26,327.0 26,615.0 1.1 El Caion 43,508.0 43,483.0 (o.n Houbison-Creol 5 131.0 5,174.0 0.8 ""..;- 4 562.0 4 670.0 2.4 Subtotal 134,049.0 135217.0 0.9 . San Die.o Reorion 986 844.0 993 385.0 0.7 Perceat of Region 13.6 13.6 3.3.3 Agricultural Resources The proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit is composed primarily of undeveloped lands. The major economic uses of the lands within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit are grazing, dryland farming, and future urban and commercial developments. The project area excludes existing business and commercial properties. Ranching and grazing are the primary agricultural activities that occur within the planning area. Approximately 536 hectares (1,341 acres) of mapped agricultural land are found within the planning area. These agricultural lands are primarily located on Otay Mesa, eastern end of the Otay River valley, western border of Salt Creek, and on the San Miguel, Otay, and Daley ranches. For illustrative purposes, agricultural activities at Otay Ranch using the 1989-1990 annual Crop Report are used to describe farming and ranching operations within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit (Ogden 1992). For Otay Ranch, the average annual gross revenue from cattle ranching ranged from $43,800 to $131,400. This projection was based on the annual sale of 60 to 180 cattle out of a total herd size of 600 head. Barley cultivation at Otay Ranch, on agricultural Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3.9 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 lands outside of the proposed Olay-Sweetwater Unit, generated an average annual gross revenue of $230,000 to $288,000. Approximately two people were employed full-time and an unknown number of seasonal workers were intermittently employed in both the barley and cattle production at Otay Ranch. In the case of Otay Ranch, the cost of production and amount of property taxes paid on the property (including land which cannot be farmed) exceeded the average annual gross incomes for both cattle ranching and barley farming (Ogden 1992). 3.3.4 Property Taxes Property taxes are collected on private lands within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Private property is taxed at the rate of one percent of the assessed value. 3.3.5 Land Ownership Land ownership patterns for each alternative are listed in table 2-2. The majority of the lands within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit are privately owned. The remainder of the lands are owned by public agencies and special districts. 3.3.6 Roads and Traffic Major roads within the planning area include Jamacha BoUlevard, Jamacha Road, Campo Road, Willow Glen Drive, Dehesa Road, La Cresta Road, Proctor Valley Road, and Otay Lakes Road. Depending upon the alternative route selected, the proposed State RO\lte 125 project may pass through the extreme western boundary of the proposed action and alternatives in the vicinity of the Sweetwater Reservoir and Otay River valley. The future expansion of State Route 54 and La Media and future relocation of Otay Lakes Road may also fall. within the action alternatives. 3.3.7 DeSignated Scenic Illghways The County of San Diego established a Scenic Highway Element in the General Plan which is intended to enhance scenic, historic, and recreational1'CSOllJ'CCS within both rural and urban scenic highway corridors. The State Route 94 (Campo Road) has been designated as a tint priority scenic highway and the Jamacha RoadIWillow Glen Drive is identified as a second priority scenic route in the Valle do Oro Community Plan. 3.3.8 Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities Most of the lands identified in the planning area are in private ownership and are not open or available for public use. Public uses on Bureau of Land Management, City of San Diego, and OIay-Swcetwala" Unit SIll Dictlo National Wildlife Refuge 3-10 Draft Environmental Aasessment Chapter 3 other public agency lands within the planning area include hiking, horseback riding, bicycle riding, hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. There is a private campground located along the Otay Lakes Road, but is not included in the project alternative. Wildlife-dependent recreational activities, defmed as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation, occur within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit planning area. Upland game species, such as dove and quail, are hunted on private lands. A small number of deer are hunted on Bureau of Land Management lands. The Otay Reservoir is a popular public fishing area. Because of the rich biological resources, lands within the planning area are popular for wildlife observation and photography. Proposed regional corridor trails and pathways transect the planning area (Department of Public Works, draft map dated January 21, 1994). Proposed County of San Diego trail corridors that fall within the planning area follow Otay Lakes Road; Proctor Valley and Millar Ranch Road; Sweetwater River at Rancho San Diego; and Willow Glen Drive. 3.4 Archaeological and Historical Resources The planning area for the proposed Otay-SweetwaterUnit has a rich cultural history. Approximately 524 sites of archaeological and historical value have been recorded within the boundary of the Otay-Sweetwater planning area. Of the 524 sites recorded in the planning area, 433 are prehistoric, 65 are historic, and 26 have both prehistoric and historic components. Of these sites, 21 have been listed as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). For the bulk of the sites recorded, however, determination of eligibility for the National Register has not been conducted. An archaeological records search was conducted for the planning area through the South Coastal Information Center of the California State Historic Preservation Office. Results of this records search are on file in the Service's Regional Office in Portland, Oregon. The large number of sites recorded during limited field investigations in the planning area attests to the long-term resource utilization by humans. While most field investigation in the area has occurred primarily in response to private development projects, a variety of site types have been identified which illustrate extensive human utilization of the area's natural resources over many millennia. Cultural resources refer to artifacts, sites, and landscapes that contain information about past humans and their environment, as well as Native American sacred and traditional values that are embodied by specific places in the landscape. Archaeological, historical, and traditional Native American sites are subtle, fragile, and nonrenewable resources. This section outlines the cultural history of the region and presents a basic inventory of the kinds of cultural resources currently documented in the planning area. Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3-11 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 Prehistoric Resources. Lithlc scatters, quarries, and bedrock milling features comprise the characteristic prehistoric site types in the planning area. Some sites include a combination of these components. A number of sites have undergone archaeological testing in conjunction with planned development. The results of studies at three sites in particular (SDi-4757, SDi-4759, SDi-4765) document a strong continuity in occupation of the area between 3000 B.P. and 700 B.P. (Byrd and Serr 1993). SDi-4518 (W-616 A-C), known to locals as Pot Hunter's Paradise, was described as a large village which may have been used in historic times. Features include a cemetery, an encompassing stone defense wall 4 feet high by 2 feet thick, possible stone-walled houses, an historic house, and over two hundred milling features. Artifacts such as pottery, projectile points, and groundstone were also recorded. Several sites may be associated with the Kumeyaay Indian village of Matamo. Among these is SDi-4520, nearly obliterated by vandals, which included two cremations, rock walls, bedrock milling features, house foundations, and debitage. Nearby, much of SDi-4519 has likewise been destroyed by grading. These disturbed sites and others which still retain their integrity contain important research potential for increasing knowledge of the early inhabitants' utilization of the area and methods of plant resource preparation. Other sites provide information on the chronology of the cultures which inhabited the area. SDi-12809 was determined to be an extensive village site with San Dieguito, La Jollan, Late Prehistoric, and ethnohistoric components (McGowan 1977). Similarly, the record for site SDi-4530 states, "This site represents one of a very few undisturbed occupational areas known for the Late Prehistoric peoples in San Diego County and could supply invaluable information as to the nature of those Native Americans' life ways. Careful archaeological investigation could result in increased understanding not only of the material nature of a Late Prehistoric culture, but also the social systems involved in its deposition. " Recorded by Hanna and Kaldenberg in 1975 during Rancho Bonita Miguel survey, this .site included a midden and lithic scatter. Bonita-Mie,iel ATCh~P.nlQfic31 Di~trict. The Rancho Bonita Miguel survey resulted in a proposal to create an archaeological district for nomination to the National Register. An official nomination of the district to the National Register has never been submitted (Kaldenberg, personal communication). Historic Resources. Many of the 91 sites with historic components within the planning area consist of building or wall remains, trash scatters, or stone/earthworks associated with ranching. Several are historically-documented sites. These include the Lower Otay Lakes Filtration Plant (SDi-11335/H) built in 1913; Brown Field Bombing Range (SDi-11385H), a World War II era facility shown on 1943 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps; the Barn at The Oaks (SDi-7928H), built on land originally patented in 1891; Rancho del Otay Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3-12 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 (SDi-1l419H), shown on 1903 USGS maps; and Jamul Rancho (SDi-9475H), an historic homestead which was burned during an Indian uprising in 1837. Other archaeological or historic features which occur in the planning area include: cattle tanks, rock hunting blinds, mine prospects, wood bridge, World War II bombing range, military bunker, cistern/well, fire rings, benchmark, and dams. One prehistoric site was reported to have two cremations. It is conceivable that ancient and traditional Native American spiritual sites probably occur in the planning area, although there is no data to predict their appearance or location within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. '-.. Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3-13 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Chapter 4 discusses and analyzes the environmental impacts expected to occur from the implementation of Alternatives A through E as described in chapter 2. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are described where applicable for each alternative. Environmental impacts that would likely occur in the event the Service does not acquire any additional lands within the planning area are summarized under the no action alternative (Alternative E). 4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment Under Alternative A, the existing physical environment (topography, soils, streams, groundwater, and floodplains) and the existing visual panoramas and open spaces on the 18,100 hectares (45,250 acres) of lands acquired by the Service would generally not be disturbed or altered. Indirect benefits to water quality, though difficult to quantify, may accrue by maintaining a portion of the watersheds for the Otay and Sweetwater Reservoirs in their existing natural condition. However, some lands acquired by the Service may be subject to various existing easements, such as utility and road corridor easements. The owner(s) of the easement(s) would retain the right to develop within the reserved easement pursuant to the terms of the easement. The exercise of these easement rights may result in disturbances to the existing physical environment and would be subject to local, Slate, and Federal permit approval processes. Under Alternative B (Preferred Alternative), the existing physical environment and open spaces on the 16,380 hectares (40,950 acres) of lands acquired by the Service would generally not be disturbed or altered. The impacts upon the physical environment under Alternative B would be similar to those of Alternative A, but moderately smaller in magnitude. As in Alternative A, lands subject to existing easements may be affected by future developments and would be subject to local, Slate, and Federal permit approval processes. Under Alternative C, the existing physical environment and open spaces on the 14,344 hectares (35,860 acres) lands acquired by the Service would generally not be disturbed or altered. The impacts upon the physical environment under Alternative C would be similar to those of Alternative B, but moderately smaller in magnitude. As in Alternative A, lands subject to existing easements may be affected by future development and would be subject to local, State, and Federal permit approval processes. Under Alternative D, the impacts upon the physical environment and open spaces on the 8,728 hectares (21,820 acres) would be similar to those of Alternative C, but smaller in magnitude. A portion of the Sweetwater River watershed between Loveland Reservoir and Willow Glen Drive and the portion of the Olay River watershed downstream from the Lower Olay Reservoir would not be included within Alternative D. Indirect impacts to water quality would be Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego N8liooal Wildlife Refuge 4-1 Draft Enviroomeotal Assessment Chapter 4 , reduced relative to Alternative C. As in Alternative A, land subject to existing easements may be affected by future development and would be subject to local, State, and Federal permit approval processes. If the no action alternative was selected (Alternative E), no additional private lands would be acquired by the Service. Private lands may be subject to urban and agricultural development in accordance with local zoning and land-use approvals. The physical environment may be adversely impacted by the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from future urban and agricultural developments. These impacts would be addressed through the local, State, and Federal permit approval processes. 4.2 Effects on the Biological Environment Alternative A would result in the highest degree of protection and management of endangered and threatened species, native wildlife habitats, and biological diversity. Critical habitat for the endangered least Bell's vireo along Dulzura Creek and Sweetwater River would be conserved. Approximately 539 hectares (1,346 acres) of riparian woodland and scrub habitats for the endangered least Bell's vireo and endangered southwestern willow flycatcher would be protected. Large contiguous blocks of coastal sage scrub habitats supporting populations of the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher along the San Miguel, Jamul, and McGinty mountains would be acquired and protected in perpetuity. As well as providing habitat for the threatened California gnatcatcher, the 10,667 hectares (26,668 acres) of coastal sage scrub habitat conserved under Alternative A provides habitat for a large number of sensitive species of plants and animals. This alternative would protect 56 hectares (141 acres) of rare maritime succulent scrub habitat along the Otay River Valley drainage. Alternative B (preferred Alternative) would provide the second highest level of protection and management of endangered and threatened species, native wildlife habitats, and biological diversity. Under this alternative, approximately 459 hectares (1,147 acres) of riparian woodland and scrub habitats for the endangered least Bell's vireo and endangered southwestern willow flycatcher would be protected. Critical habitat for the least Bell's vireo along Sweetwater River and Dulzura Creek would still be conserved. Approximately 10,111 hectares (25,277 acres) of coastal sage scrub habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher would be included within Alternative B. Populations of California gnatcatchers within the Crestridge Conservation Bank would not be included within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit, but would still be protected under the terms of the mitigation bank. Exclusion of open water habitats at Sweetwater Reservoir from Alternative B would reduce opportunities to manage loafing habitat for migratory waterfowl. This alternative would protect 56 hectares (141 acres) of rare maritime succulent scrub habitat along the Otay River Valley drainage. Alternative C would result in the third highest level of protection and management of endangered and threatened species, native wildlife habitats, and biological diversity. Under Olay-Sw_lller Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 4-2 Draft Enviroomental Aas....meot Chapter 4 this alternative, approximately 372 hectares (929 acres) of riparian woodland and scrub habitat for the endangered least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher would be conserved. However, Alternative C does not include any riparian habitat, including habitat for the endangered least Bell's vireo, along the Otay River. However, critical habitat for the least Bell's vireo along Sweetwater River and Dulzura Creek would still be conserved. Approximately 8,715 hectares (21,787 acres) of coastal sage scrub habitat for the California gnatcatcher would be included under Alternative C. However, maritime succulent scrub and coastal sage scrub habitats along the Otay River drainage (including Salt Creek) and Otay Mesa would not be included within this alternative. Populations of the threatened California gnatcatcher and locally rare cactus wren along the Otay River drainage, Otay Mesa, and north of McGinty Mountain would not be acquired or managed by the Service. Alternative D would result in the fourth highest level of protection and management of endangered and threatened species, native wildlife habitats, and biological diversity. Under this alternative, approximately 131 hectares (327 acres) of riparian woodland and scrub habitat would be conserved. Critical habitat for the endangered least Bell's vireo along Sweetwater River and Dulzura Creek is included within this alternative. However, riparian habitats along the Sweetwater River upstream from the Service's lands at Rancho San Diego would not be included under Alternative D. In particular, the relatively undisturbed riparian woodlands along the Sloan Ranch Truck Trail would not be included under this alternative. Approximately 5,nl hectares (14,427 acres) of coastal sage scrub habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher would be included within Alternative D. Populations of the California gnatcatcher at San Miguel and Jamul mountains would be included within this alternative. California gnatcatcher populations on McGinty Mountain would not be conserved within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. In addition, the numerous rare plants found in the vicinity of McGinty Mountain would not be protected under this alternative. Under Alternative E, only wildlife habitats on Service fands at Rancho San Diego would be protected and managed under the National Wildlife Refuge System. Approximately 594 hectares (1,483 acres) of coastal sage scrub, 31 hectares (76 acres) of chaparral, and 73 hectares (179 acres) of riparian woodlands and scrub and a portion of critical habitat for the endangered least Bell's vireo along the Sweetwater River at the Rancho San Diego tract would be protected (table 2-1). However, other biologically valuable lands, including critical habitat for the endangered least Bell's vireo along Dulzura Creek and large contiguous blocks of coastal sage scrub on McGinty, Jamul, San Miguel, and Otay mountains, would not be acquired or managed by the Service. These sensitive habitats may be impacted by future development. As a general principle in planning wildlife refuges, the protection of large contiguous blocks of habitats would decrease the potential for localized extirpations of resident native species by Otay-Sweetwlller Unit San DielO National Wildlife Refuge 4-3 Draft Enviroomeolal As.....meol Chapter 4 reducing habitat fragmentation, by limiting the severity of impacts to species sensitive to the urban interface, and by allowing the free movement and migration of species within the refuge. In terms of protecting large contiguous blocks of habitat, Alternative A would protect four large blocks of habitat, Alternative B would conserve three large blocks of habitat, Alternative C protects two relatively large blocks of habitat linked by a narrow wildlife corridor, and Alternative D conserves only one large block of contiguous habitat. In protecting the greatest diversity of different habitat types, only Alternatives A and B protect maritime succulent scrub habitat. 4.3 Effects on the Social and Economic Environment 4.3.1 Social and Economic Factors Common to All Action Alternatives The social and economic impacts on land ownership, population, urban infrastructure, and rural community character share common effects for Alternatives A through D. The social and economic factors common to the action alternatives are discussed first. Effects on Land Ownership No new or additional zoning or land-use regulations would be created by the Service within the approved Refuge boundary of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Land-use designations and zoning would continue to be the responsibility of the local jurisdictions. In addition, development of private land would continue to remain subject to the land-use regulations of the local jurisdictions. As private lands are acquired from willing sellers by the Service, these lands would be managed pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and other Federal laws and regulations. Upon the completion of the refuge planning process and the identification of an approved refuge boundary, the Service has the authority to work with interested landowners to acquire their properties. By identifying an approved refuge boundary, the Service enlarges the pool of potential buyers that a private landowner may consider in the sale of their property. Based on availability of funding and habitat protection priorities, this pool would include the Service and a variety of nongovernmental agencies, such as The Environmental Trust, Trust for Public Lands, and The Nature Conservancy, that purchase land for conservation purposes. Thus, landowners may increase their opportunities to sell their lands by being within the approved refuge boundary. Otay-Sw__ Unit s... Die.o NaIiooal Wildlife RefuJe 4-4 Draft Environn-tal Aues.meot Chapter 4 Service policy is to acquire lands only from willing sellers. Landowners would not be required to sell their lands to the Service. As required by law, the Service would pay fair- market value for real property and interests therein. The fair-market value would be determined by appraisals conducted by professional appraisers meeting Federal standards. Since zoning and development would continue to be regulated by the local jurisdictions and vacant land sales and values are influenced by a variety of market and economic conditions, private lands within or adjacent to the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit are not expected to be devalued as a result of approving a Refuge boundary. In contrast, many landowners have stated that the proposed Refuge would ensure that their views of open space would be maintained and thereby enhance the value of their properties. The Service is not interested in purchasing anyone's home or residence. By focusing on the acquisition of vacant land, the Service would avoid major social and economic impacts resulting from the dislocation of homeowners and local businesses. Thus, there would be no displacement or reduction of existing residences within the project area. Effects on Population The proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit would not stimulate new population growth or include urbanized areas of high population densities. Most of the lands identified for acquisition by the Service within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit are located away from the urban core. The highly urbanized areas of South Bay, El Cajon, Sweetwater, and Spring Valley Subregional Areas are not a part of the Refuge planning area. Effects on Urban Infrastructure The rura1 and remote areas included within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit are generally not well-served by the existing sewer, water, and transportation infrastructure. Urban developments within these rural areas would require a major investment from both private developers and local jurisdictions to provide services such as schools, parks, water, sewer, and public roads. These urban developments would create sprawling new suburbs and alter the rura1landscape of the planning area. However, existing residents may enjoy increased levels of public service, such as improved roads, as a result of the proposed urban developments. Effects on Rural Community Character Lands acquired by the Service would remain as perpetual open space. Communities and neighborhoods that border lands acquired by the Service would retain their rural character. This would be a positive benefit to landowners who moved to the area to avoid the urbanized San Diego metropolis. Olay-Sweetw8ler Unit San DielO Nllliooal Wildlife Refuge 4-5 Draft EnvirontnAntJlI Assessment Chapter 4 Effects on Property Taxes Fee acquisition of private lands by the Service would reduce property tax revenues to the County of San Diego because Federal lands would not be subject to State or local taxes or assessments. However, the impact to the County of San Diego would be mitigated by 1) payments to the County of San Diego by the Service in lieu of property taxes under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, 2) lands acquired by the Service would place few demands for services and infrastructure by the County of San Diego, and 3) urban development would continue elsewhere in the San Diego region. Under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, the Service would make an annual payment to the County of San Diego to offset the loss of property tax revenues resulting from the acquisition of private lands. Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments for acquired lands are based upon the greatest of 1) three-fourths of 1 percent of the appraised value; 2) 25 percent of the net receipts produced from the lands; or 3) 0.75 dollars per acre. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act also requires that Service lands be reappraised every five years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. Funding for Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments are derived from all revenues received from Refuge products, such as timber fees, grazing fees, permit fees, oil and gas royalties, and leases. If these funds are not sufficient to make full payments to the counties, Congress is authorized under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act to appropriate funds to make up the shortfall. When Congress does not appropriate funds to enable full payments to be made, counties receive a pro-rata reduction in their Refuge Revenue Sharing Act disbursement. 4.3.2 Specific Social and Economic Effects on Alternatives Effects on Agricultural Resources Under Alternative A, ranching and grazing are the primary agricultura1 activities that would be impacted. Grazing (cattle, horses, sheep, goats, and other domestic ungulates) would be phased out on lands acquired by the Service unless needed as a wildlife management tool. About 536 hectares (1,341 acres) of mapped agricultural land that may support grazing would be affected by Alternative A. These agricultura1lands are primarily located on Otay Mesa, eastern end of the Otay River valley, western border of Salt Creek, and on the San Miguel, Otay, and Daley ranches. Buildings and structures related to agricultural uses may be acquired for Refuge management purposes. As pasture lands are retired, there would be a decrease in the employment of cowboys and ranch hands and reduced demand for ranching equipment and supplies over time. There would be a small decrease in beef production in San Diego County as these lands are taken out of cattle production. However, the impacts to agricultura1 resources under Alternative A also need to be considered in the context of Alternative E (no action alternative) in which Olay-S_ Unit . San Dieao National Wildlife Refuge 4-6 Draft Enviromnenlal Assessment Cbapter4 agricultural lands are converted into housing and commercial developments (such as Otay Ranch). However, some of this loss of employment may be made up by purchases and contracts by the Service for fence, firebreak, road, and trail construction and maintenance on Refuge lands. Under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Relocation Act), the Service would reimburse displaced business and farm operations for certain relocation related expenses such as moving costs, loss of tangible personal property, search expenses, and reestablishment expenses. Using the analysis of the ranching operation at Otay Ranch as an example, the cost of production (planting/harvesting) and the amount of property taxes paid on the property (including land which cannot be farmed) exceeded the average gross incomes for both cattle ranching and barley farming (Ogden 1992). There was no net income from farming operations at Otay Ranch (Ogden 1992). Agricultural production at Otay Ranch involved two full-time people in both barley and cattle production and an unknown number of seasonal workers for the dry farming operation (Ogden 1992). San Miguel Ranch lands are used as horse pasture on a month-to-month lease and Rancho Jamul is experiencing financial issues. Given the current financial constraints of cattle ranching, we anticipate that there would be a relatively small impact on the local economy, employment, and agricultural production from the loss of farming and ranching on lands acquired for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Moreover, the approved urban development plan for Otay Ranch and other large land holdings does not retain any ranching or farming operations on these lands. Under Alternative B (Preferred Alternative), impacts to agricultural resources, including employment of cowboys and ranch hands, demand for ranching equipment and supplies, and cattle production, would be similar to Alternative A, but modestly smaller in magnitude. As in Alternative A, these impacts may be mitigated by new purchases and contracts for fence, firebreak, road, and trail construction and maintenance on Refuge lands and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Approximately 525 hectares (1,312 acres) of mapped agricultural land that may support grazing would be affected by Alternative B. These agricultural lands are primarily located on eastern Otay River valley, western border of Salt Creek, and on the San Miguel, Otay, and Daley ranches. Under Alternative C, impacts to agricultural resources, including employment of cowboys and ranch hands, demand for ranching equipment and supplies, and cattle production, would be similar to Alternative B, but modestly smaller in magnitude. As in Alternative B, these impacts may be mitigated by new purchases and contracts for fence, firebreak, road, and trail construction and maintenance on Refuge lands and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Approximately 263 hectares (657 acres) of agricultural land that may support grazing would be affected by Alternative C. These agricultural lands are primarily located on San Miguel, Otay, and Daley ranches. Otay-SweetWlller Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 4-7 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 Under Alternative D, impacts to agricultural resources, including employment of cowboys and ranch hands, demand for ranching equipment and supplies, and cattle production, would be similar to Alternative C, but modestly smaller in magnitude. As in Alternative C, these impacts may be mitigated by new purchases and contracts for fence, firebreak, road, and trail construction and maintenance on Refuge lands and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Approximately 257 hectares (642 acres) of mapped agricultural land that may support grazing would be affected by Alternative D. These agricultural lands are primarily located on San Miguel, Otay, and Daley ranches. The impacts to agricultural resources under Alternatives A, B, C, and D need to be considered in the context of Alternative E (no action alternative) in which agricultural lands likely would be converted into housing and commercial developments. Under the no action alternative (Alternative E), agricultural lands would continue to be used for grazing and farming in the short term. However, agricultural uses would eventually be replaced by urban developments (such as the proposed Otay Ranch). This pattern of replacing agricultural lands with urban development would continue under the no-action alternative. Urban Development and Housing Supply Under Alternative A, lands that are acquired and managed by the Service would not be available for future urban development. Using 1990 as the base year, approximately 7,344 hectares (18,359 acres) of vacant developable land was available within the boundaries of Alternative A. By the year 2000, the Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast predicts that there would be 6,972 hectares (17,430 acres) of land potentially suitable for development and currently designated for urban uses within the boundaries of Alternative A. The impact of the acquisition of private lands by the Service would be to reduce urban sprawl into the rural communities within Alternative A. Dwelling units not constructed on lands acquired by the Service under Alternative A may potentially be accommodated by increased housing densities in other areas within the San Diego region. Increasing housing densities in other areas of the San Diego region would be subject to land-use planning and approvals by the County of San Diego and the local jurisdictions. The increase in the densities within existing land-use designations is envisioned under the MSCP Plan to accommodate project housing needs within the MSCP study area between 1990-2005 (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). However, the impacts of accommodating increased housing densities in other areas of the San Diego is beyond the scope of this environmental assessment. The short-term impact upon the housing supply by the Service acquiring lands with development potential would be attenuated by the current market conditions for large-scale housing projects in the planning area; the long lead time needed for the startup of residential Otay-S_ Unit San Diego NlIIional Wildlife Refuge 4-8 Draft Enviromneolal Assessment Chapter 4 de\...:.I..y..~,jJlu!F""- that lands planned for urban residential development currently ideurificdie 4ill:IimiIl_ c:ommunity plans may be accommodated within the greater San Diego AlC&a\, auU:I* ilmited availability ot Federal funds for nabitat acquisition. There woul.d be ~_ cwnulative impacts from the acquisition of lands for habitat protection by ~ kilD1llUlll 0( land available for urba'l development within the planning area. U1Idcr ..-...... ~ to urban development, housing supply, urban sprawl, and ;"f.....d'...a- ..wHIle ..mrilar to Alternative A, but moderately smaller in magnitude. By the yar 2001I. *1iaiiI:Ii']kgiooal Growth Forecast predicts that ther~ would be 5,764 hectares (14.411 ~1I1flIuuIP*Dtially suitable for development and currently designated for 'Jrban IlleS wiIIIiI_~ of Alternative B. Under ......H.-t'~<<:;, i...p...b to urban development, housing supply, u..i>an sprawl, and infraslrudIIle w.ouilil be similar to Alternative B, but moderately smaller in magnitude. By the year 2000. lie; SlnUs I Regional Growth Forecast predicts that there would be 4,732 hect:lres (11.329I13l1ll_nlllllll JIllIaItia1\y suitable for development and currently designated for urban mes wilIria dUrl;.."...L;"" of Alternative C. Under AIIaDaIiVe'\). impacts to urban development, housing supply, urban sprawl, and infI3struc:tum' 'IlIICIlillf be amilllr to Alternative C, but moderately smaller in magnitude. By the year 2000, lIie5aia I Regional Growth Forecast predicts that there would be 3,467 hec-.ares (1,668 aaa.) tli'1IuII pulmtia1\y suitable for development and currently designated for urban IlleS withia tIIe~ . ~ of Alternative D. Under the., __ _. ....rive (Alternative E), wildlife habitats suitable for urban developlllClt .-Ill . I wou1d not be acquired by the Service. Th~ lands would remain available far" fir.UI.B..... development subject to local, State, anu Federal permit approvai p'.""-"<e$ OIly Jll....;a, Jands at Rancho San Diego would not be available for future urban devdopment. Public Use ... ~e-Dependent Recreational Activities Most of the .... .' . .:r oed in Alternative A are in private ownership and are not available "or general puDIic me. A1ISemative A would increas.: the potential opportunities for public use md ~.,n .....A ....;.'llal activities on lands acquired by the Service. All uses must be compatible willi * JIl.lIPOSC of the affected refuge unit. Public uses and wildlife..dependent mcmuional a:tivi1iies 0lII1Inds acquired by the Service would be subject to a determination lhat t!1',: proposed use :tsoompatible with the purpose of tile San Diego Refuge. If the proposed use is found to re ~<mlplIti'ble, the secondc.ry use fCI..ay be Jutilorized by ;,.ie Refuge MaJUger jf mllnagement r.s:Is.life avai1able and othe~ Jaws a.lO regulations are ~Lisfied. o...y-Sweetwlll<< Pmt SIn DieJo Naliowo! Wildlife Refuge 4-9 Dr<tft EnvirooroootaJ AIses.JTh;ot CbalX"r 4 12IeSenice would work with the Co>untj of San Diego, Cit) of San Diego, Citj of Chula Vuta, and locaI commun:ty plannir.g groups on the location of hiking trail~ to i:>~ compatible wid'1 the Refuge, to avoid sensitive biologicl."l and archaeological resources, a:ld to be COJ.Ui:;tmt with regio;w trail corridors. H41t~.u, certain public uses .m lands acquin:d by the Service would not Oe allowed. In order lD JIR*ct sensitive wildlife areas, certain core areas within each Refuge un;t would ilOt be apaIlD the public. Activities that would result in significant adverse environmental impa..:ts, . ._fl;'ot with the primary purposes of the ~fuge, or conflict with other uses of Refuge li.'lds 1IIINId DOt be allowed. 1JDdcr Alternatives B, C, pnd D, the opportunities for public uses and wildlife-dependen~ HlW_tinn,,1 activities on Service lands would be similar to those of Alternative A, but -**Iy smaller in magnitude. As in Alternative A, public use activities must !Je c:.....'I""lih1e with the purpose of the San Dic~o Refuge. However, because or t!:e sm:::1I,~ .: x of the .Refuge, the ability to buffer human disturbances would be reduced and It'.ss la(j~ 1;v,,:j be available for public use activities such as hiking relative to Alternative A. UIIdec die no action alternative (Alternative E), with the exception of Service hauls at Ic;;li.:n" San Diego, there wo'lid be no additional opponunities for public uses and wildlife-deper.;.~rl recn:aIiona1 activities on Refuge lands. Access LO hiking and equestrian trails wouid b<: pnwided through the land-use approval process of the local jurisdictions and by the OO~~,1 of private landowners. 4.4 Effects on the Archaeological and Historical Resources ne Savice is required to comply with several Federal laws mandatIng the protection of _.1 -oIogical and historic resources, including, but not limited to, the A rchaoological JIaoun:es Protectbil Act (:6 U.S.C. 47Caa-47011, 93 Stat. 721); Native American Graves I'n*ctioo and Repa..Iiation Act (25 U.S.C. 3OO1-3CI:J, 104 Stat. Y.l48-31)58); and Natioc.ill BiIloric Preserv:Uion Act (16 U.S.C. 470-47Ob, 47Oc-47On, 80 Stat. 915). Future -TI7l\gt'f11C1lt actions and lanu clearing activities undertaken by the Service, such as for trail evoshdCtion and maintenance, that would affect arch3eological and historic resources are subject to consultations with State Historic Preservation Offcer and the Advisory Council on Jr~ Preservation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Service also has llll affirmative responsibility to both protect and manage archaeological and historical properties under section 110 of th~ National Historic Preservatio~ Act. trnder Alternatives A, B, C, and D, arc!u.co!ogical af\d histork..'1l resources on lands a:q":'~ ht)' the ScrvJce would receive a greater l~vel of ~i"Ote..."ti(\n uf\dt~ Fclerd owaerr...hip t..~cal'~ thf'llC lands would become subject to various Fec;"roillaws mandating the protection and ll'ii.'llIgement of cultural resot:rl:e:l. No adverse effects to archaeo!Ol!kal and historical Otait'~ Unit 'SaIl Dieto NoIiooaI WiUlife Refu,e 4-10 Dnft Envirooa>..maJ _meot CIlllF'....4 resources are expected from acquisition of these lands. Potential impacts to archaeological and historical resources from any land-clearing activities, such as trail construction and maintenance, would be evaluated in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. On Bureau of Land Management lands managed under cooperative agreement or transferred to the Service for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit, there would be no net gain in protection because the same Federal regulations governing the protection of archaeological and historical resources apply to both agencies. Under the no action alternative (Alternative E), archaeological and historical resources would not receive increased protection from various Federal regulations because no lands, with the exception of Rancho San Diego, would be acquired or managed by the Service. 4.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No direct or indirect unavoidable adverse impacts to the biological environment would result from the selection of Alternatives A, B, C, or D. The identification of an approved boundary for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would not result in unavoidable adverse impacts on the physical and biological environment. The selection of an approved Refuge boundary does not, by itself, affect any aspect of land ownership or values. Once land is acquired, the Service would prevent incremental adverse impacts, such as degradation and loss of habitat over time, to the lands and their associated native plants and animals. 4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources associated with the selection of an approved Refuge Boundary. Under the no action alternative, if habitats are not protected and continue to decline, some plant and animal species could become extirpated over time, causing an irreversible and irretrievable loss. 4.7 Short-term Uses Versus Long-term Productivity The proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit is proposed specifically to maintain the long-term biological productivity of the southwestern San Diego region. The local short-term uses of the environment following acquisition includes increased management of wildlife habitats and development of public use facilities. The resulting long-term productivity includes increased protection of endangered and threatened species and maintenance of biological diversity. The public would gain long-term opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 4-11 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 4.8 Cumulative Impacts The proposed acquisition would have long-term cumulative benefits on wildlife habitats within the San Diego region. the protection of wildlife habitats within the Otay-Sweetwater, Vema1 Pools, and South San Diego Bay units would represent a cumulative benefit to the long-term conservation of endangered and threatened species and biological diversity in the San Diego region. The three proposed national wildlife refuge units would protect a broad spectrum of native habitats and conserve important populations of endangered and threatened species and other native plants and animals. In addition, the establishment of preserves as envisioned under the Multiple Species Conservation Program represents a long-term cumulative benefit to the conservation of endangered and threatened species and biological diversity in the San Diego region. The regional preserves would protect large acreages of native wildlife habitats and a large variety of native species. The cumulative impact on the environment under the MSCP is described in the joint EIRlEIS for the MSCP (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). The Otay Valley Regional Park and Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve would also contribute cumulatively to the protection of wildlife habitats and open space within the southwestern San Diego region. The Otay Valley Regional Park is especially important because of the opportunity to link together the Otay-Sweetwater Unit with the South San Diego Bay Unit in a mountain-to-the-sea corridor. Finally, the Bureau of Land Management's Otay MountainlKuchamaa Cooperative Management Area is another important cumulative benefit to the conservation of the biological diversity in southwestern San Diego. Otay-8_ Unit San DiellO Notional Wildlife Refulle 4-12 Draft Environ""'l1l.1 As.....ment Chapter 4 Chapter 5. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, AND COMPLIANCE 5.1 Agency Coordination and Public.Involvement The u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service released the Concept Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in August 1995. The Concept Plan was distributed to government agencies, Tribes, interested citizens, and landowners within and adjacent to the proposed planning areas for the South San Diego Bay, Vernal Pools, and Otay-Sweetwater units. In October 1995, the Service distributed Planning Update No. 1 to provide landowners, agencies, and interested citizens with an update on the status of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. Public workshops were held in October 1995 at the Jamul Primary School, Imperial Beach City Hall, and Mission Trails Regional Park to describe the San Diego Refuge. These workshops provided the opportunity for landowners, residents, and other interested parties to meet directly with the Service on the refuge proposals and to receive background information, maps, concept plans, and planning updates. In March 1996, the Service released Planning Update No. 2 which summarized the results of the public workshops and provided preliminary draft alternatives for the South San Diego Bay, Vernal Pools, and Otay-Sweetwater projects. Over the past year, the Service has briefed members of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, San Diego City Council, San Diego County Departments of Planning and Land Use and Parks and Recreation, City of Chula Vista Departments of Planning and Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and Game, community and environmental groups, landowners, Expanded Multiple Species Conservation Program Policy Committee, landowners, and citizens regarding the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. 5.2 Environmental Review and Coordination 5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act As a Federal agency, the Service must comply with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. An environmental assessment is required under the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate reasonable alternatives that will meet stated objectives and to assess the possible environmental, social, and economic impacts to the human environment. The environmental assessment serves as the basis for determining whether implementation of the proposed action would constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The environmental assessment facilitates the involvement of government agencies and the public in the decisionmaking process. Otay-Sweetwaler Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 5-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 5 5.2.2 Other Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders In undertaking the proposed action, the Service would comply with a number of Federal laws, regulations, and executive orders including: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended; Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (Executive Order 12372); Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990); Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988); Hazardous Substances Determinations (Secretarial Order 3127), and Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Executive Order 12996). 5.2.3 Distribution and Availability This draft assessment was sent to many agencies, organizations, groups, and individuals for review and comment (see appendix A). Comments will be considered and addressed in the final environmental assessment. Otay-8__ Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 5-2 Draft Environmental Asael8IDent Chapter 5 Chapter 6. LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS Authors Andrew R. Yuen, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Carlsbad, California (B.A. Zoology; M.S. Zoology) Ellen M. Berryman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, California (B.A. Zoology; M.S. Zoology) Michael Mitchell, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Carlsbad, California (B.A. Zoology) Cathy T. Osugi, Wildlife Biologist, Planning Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon (B.A. Wildlife Conservation) virginia Parks, Archaeologist, Division of Refuge Operations Support, Refuges and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon (B.A. Archaeology, M.A.T. Museum Education) Reviewers Georgia Shirilla, Senior Realty Specialist, Acquisition Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon (B.S. Business Administration) Charles J. Houghten, Chief, Planning Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon (B.A. Public Administration,. M. Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning) William D. Rundle, Refuge Manager, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Carlsbad, California (B.S. Wildlife Science, M.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Biology) Ackoowled&ements Linda Wester, Cartographer, Division of Education, Publications, Interpretation, and Cartography, Refuges and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon Ron Beitel, Geographic Information System Specialist, Planning Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon 0Iay-S_ National Wildlife Refuge San Diego NatioaaI Wildlife Refuge 6-1 Draft Enviromnent Assessment Chapter 6 References Cited Byrd, Brian and C. Serr. 1993. Multi-Component Archaic and Late Prehistoric Residential Camps Along the Sweetwater River, Rancho San Diego, California. Brian F. Mooney Associates. Anthropological Technical Series 1, San Diego, California. City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Draft Joint EIRJEIS for Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area. City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Multiple Species Conservation Program. MSCP Plan. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Non-Game Heritage Program, Sacramento, California. 146 pp. McGowan, C. 1977. Archaeological Excavation F:5:l, a Preliminary Report on the Excavation of an Archaeological Site in South San Diego County, California; unpublished paper, Southwestern College, Chula Vista, California. Oberbauer, T. and J. Vandeweir. 1991. The Vegetation and Geologic Substrate Association and Its Effect on Development in Southern California. In: Environmental Perils, San Diego Region, San Diego Association of Geologists. P.C. Abbott and W.J. Elliot, editors. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc. 1992. Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Otay Ranch. Prepared for Otay Ranch Joint Planning Project. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc.; Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.; and Siemon, Larsen, and Marsh, Attorneys-at-Law. October 1994. Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for Rancho San Diego. Prepared for Home Capital Development Corporation. Otay-Sweetwlller Unit San Diego N8Iio1lll1 WiJdlife Refuge R-l Draft Environmental AssessmeDl References Cited APPENDIX A Distribution List for Draft Environmental Assessment Federal and State Congressional Offices U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer U.S. Congressman Ron Packard U.S. Congressman Brian P. Bilbray U.S. Congressman Bob FUner U.S. Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter State Senator Ray Haynes State Senator David G. Kelley State Senator William A. Craven State Senator Lucy Killea State Senator Steve Peace State Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian State Assemblyman Ian Goldsmith State Assemblyman Susan Davis State Assemblyman Steve Baldwin State Assemblywoman Dede Alpert State Assemblywoman Denise Moreno Ducheny Federal Agencies Department of Defense U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Navy U.S. Marine Corps Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Federal Highway Administration Immigration and Naturalization Service Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation OIay-Sweetwaler Unit SID Diego Notional Wildlife Refuge A-I Draft Environmeolal AssesSOleIll Appendix A State and Local Agencies State or CaliCornia California Coastal Commission California Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Transportation Department of Water Resources Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Office of Historic Preservation Office of Planning and Research Regional Water Quality Control Board State Lands Commission Wildlife Conservation Board San Dieao County Board of Supervisors Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Planning and Land Use Department of Public Works Environmental Health Service Valle de Ora Planning Group JamullDulzura Planning Group Spring Valley Planning Group Sweetwater Planning Group Lakeside Planning Group City or San Diego Airport Division City Council City Manager Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Water Utilities Office of the Mayor City or Chula Vista City or El Cajon City or La Mesa San Diego Association or Governments Otay.sweetwaler Unil San Diego NIliooaI Wildlife Refuge A-2 Droft Environn-v.J As.....meot Appendix A Grossmont Union High School District ClYon Valley School District Jamul-Dulzura Union School District San Miguel Fire District Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce Public Libraries San Diego County Branch Libraries Bonita-Sunnyside Casa de Oro El Cajon Fletcher Hills Del Mar Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove Poway Spring Valley City Libraries Chula Vista San Diego Central Mira Mesa North Clairemont Otay Mesa Rancho Penasquitos San Y sidro Serra Mesa Tierrasanta University Community Landowners Private Individuals and Groups Olay-Sweetwaler Unit San Diego NIIlioaal Wildlife Refuge A-3 Draft Environmental As.....ment Appendix A APPENDIX B Glossary Anadromous. Ascending rivers from the sea at certain seasons for breeding. Approved refuge boundary. A project boundary which the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance process. An approved refuge boundary only designates those lands for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to acquire and/or manage through various agreements. Approval of a refuge boundary does not grant the Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands do not become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under an agreement that provides for management as part of the refuge system. Biological diversity or biodiversity. The variety of life and its processes and includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Candidate species. A species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat( s) to support a proposal to list as threatened or endangered species. Conservation easement. A legal document that provides specific land-use rights to a secondary party. A perpetual conservation easement usually grants conservation and management rights to a party in perpetuity. Cooperative agreement. A simple habitat protection action and no property rights are acquired. An agreement is usually long-term and can be modified by either party. Lands under a cooperative agreement do not necessarily become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Endangered species. A species officially recognized by Federal and State agencies to be in immediate danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Endemic species. A species occurring naturally in a particular locality. Endemism. The extent to which the plants and animals of a region are unique to that region. Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego Notional Wildlife Refuge B-1 Draft Environmeo/a1 Assessment Appendix B Ephemeral wetlands. A wetland that exists only briefly during and following a period of seasonal rainfall. Habitat. The physical environment in which a plant or animal lives. Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). An area within which preserve planning is focused or defined and implementation provides for conservation of viable habitat and wildlife use and movement; designed cooperatively by the participating jurisdictions in the MSCP study area in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game staff, major property owners and environmental groups, based on biological, economic, ownership and land use criteria. Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCp). A comprehensive habitat preservation planning program which addresses multiple species habitat needs and the preservation of natural communities for a 900 square miles area in southwestern San Diego County. National Wildlife Refuge System. All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of fish, wildlife,. and plant resources. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program. A habitat conservation program instituted by the State of California in 1991 to encourage the preservation of natural communities before species within those communities are threatened with extinction. Overlay national wildlife refuge. Lands and waters that are under the primary jurisdiction of one Federal agency and the refuge purpose is superimposed as a secondary interest in the property. Primary administration is retained by the host agency. Wildlife management must be colIJpatible with those uses for which the primary agency acquired the land. Refuge Purposes. The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit, and any subsequent modification of the original establishing authority for additional conservation purposes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.4L, Refuge Planning). San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Joint Powers Agency which undertakes regional planning on behalf of the 19 members: 18 cities and the County of San Diego. Threatened species. A species officially recognized by Federal or State agencies to be in immediate danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Otay-S_r Unit San Diego Natiooa1 Wildlife Refuge B-2 Draft Environmenlal Assessment Appendix B DRAFT LAND PROTECTION PLAN Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Land Protection Plan Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California Prepared by U.S. FISh and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 503-231-2231 800-662-8933 November 1996 Table of Contents Page Introduction ................................................... 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I Purpose and Goals of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge ................... 2 ProjectArea................................................... 2 Threats to and Status of the Resource to be Protected ......................... 2 ProposedAction ............................................... 5 Identification and Selection of Lands to be Included Within the Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit ............................................ 5 Summary of Planning and Land Acquisition Processes ........................ 9 Willing Seller Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 HabitatProtectionMethods......................................... 11 Other Acquisition and Habitat Protection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Land Protection Priorities Within the Planning Area Boundary of the Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit ..................................... 13 FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit Planning Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit (preferred Alternative). .............. 4 Land Protection Priorities ..................................8 Land Protection Priority Zones. ............................. 14 'ParcelAreaIndexMap ...................................35 AreaOneParcelMap .....:..............................36 Area Two Parcel Map .................................... 37 Area Three Parcel Map ................................... 38 Area Four Parcel Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Area Five Parcel Map .................................... 40 Area Six Parcel Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Area Seven Parcel Map ................................... 42 TABLES Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for the Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge .......................... 16 Otay-SweelwaIer Unit San Diego Nllliooa1 Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan Draft Land Protection Plan Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County. California Introduction This draft Land Protection Plan provides a description of the biological values, protection and acquisition methods, and acquisition priority for individual tracts of land within the study area of the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). This draft Land Protection Plan describes the analyses used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to identify lands of high biological values that warrant inclusion within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Of particular interest to landowners, the draft Land Protection Plan also includes a listing of lands considered for acquisition after the selection of an approved boundary for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Concurrent with this Land Protection Plan, a draft environmental assessment that evaluates the environmental effects of acquiring lands for the proposed Otay- Sweetwater Unit and a Conceptual Management Plan that describes the general management approaches for the San Diego Refuge have been prepared by the Service. These documents are available for public review and comment. Project Description The Service proposes to protect and acquire key wildlife habitats within the approved boundary of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed acquisition would conserve important habitats for a variety of endangered, threatened, and rare species in the southwestern San Diego region. Wildlife habitats within the proposed Otay- Sweetwater Unit support one of the largest populations of the endangered least Bell's vireo and two core populations of the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher in southwestern San Diego. Because of the proximity of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit to metropolitan San Diego, the proposed acquisition would contribute to the Service's goal of providing compatible wildlife- dependent recreational activities to an urban population. Otay-Sweetwaler Unit San Diego National Wikllife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan 1 Purpose and Goals of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge The purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is to protect, manage, and restore habitats for Federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds, to maintain and enhance the biological diversity of native plants and animals, and to provide opportunities for environmental education. The goals of the San Diego Refuge reflect the core mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect wildlife resources of national importance while providing compatible opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural heritage of the region. These goals include the following: a. Aid in the recovery of Federally listed endangered and threatened species and avoid the potential listing of additional species as endangered or threatened by providing a diverse base of protected and managed wildlife habitats. b. Coordinate and promote partnerships with Federal, Tribal, State of California, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of San Diego agencies; local universities and colleges; landowners; community groups; and nongovernmental conservation agencies in support of the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) preserve. c. Provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities on Refuge lands that would foster public awareness and appreciation of the unique natural heritage of the San Diego region. Project Area The project area for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit lies at the eastern edge of the San Diego metropolitan area (see figure I). The proposed refuge unit is east of the City of Chula Vista and south of the City of E1 Cajon and adjoins the communities of Crest, Dehesa, Rancho San Diego, Steele Canyon, Jamacha, Indian Springs, Jamul, Dulzura, La Presa, and Eastlake (see figure 2). The planning area stretches from the Loveland Reservoir along the Sweetwater River to the Sweetwater Reservoir; northward to Interstate 8 between the communities of EI Cajon and Crest; encompasses the San Miguel, Mother Miguel, and Jamul mountains; extends along the northern flanks of the San Ysidro Mountains and portions of the Otay Mesa; andwruns west of State Route 94 between Jamul and Rancho San Diego. Threats to and Status of the Resources to be Protected San Diego County has the highest number of native plant and bird species of any county in the United States. In addition, San Diego County supports the largest number of plants and Otay.s_r Unit San Diego NlIliooal Wildlife Refuge Draft Laud Protection Plan 2 Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge ~. '~I-"~- \ h '..;-_.~ ! \;" Ii STATES..) _ _ ~-- 1\ - - MEXICO . . 1\ ~\ '/\~ ;/'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~/ \, i~'~=J '" ~/~~~:::;::)'<< j e'" ~~v"..-J )~,,> , ,~':"',~r-"'< " .( .' I / ~ ---'. ,";~ J~' .~_v ~ .tJ v " "'~~'V ,><:::: . ' /,:.-,.'c, ',/,; /',' '.,'.:, / ',; >>,',' (L-~ " -~,~~~ - ". >:"Oc_ . . ,;".,', / /'......... , ,/ ~ " /" / / . ;';"; .~....... . . . . . .' . . .' . /, '.' / / / ,/,',', ,/'/'. :. / :' / '<'.;, '.' ..; - '. - . . .' . OOa,:........."'..nW.ultd.............-. ' / - / -./ " / - - . / - / - ,.'- ~. /~ ) \ , ) '...-' o 2 3 4 5 // 1"1..-.....-... \cl ~' c.... . '\ \ \ . \ I 1~___v_J Miles Planning Area San Diego County D V/I,', / U ~ ~ E2J Rancho San Diego Vernal Pools Unit California BLM's Kucbamaa Project Area 3 Figure 1 Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge [] Alternative B (40,950 ac.) I [] Rancho San Diego (1,840 ac.) [] Vernal Pools Unit (2,130 ac.) ( Total of Area B (44,920 ac.) IZ2I Streams fill) MJVor Roads 0 2 3 4 1"1 --- ~--~ ..~\ .\"" \ -"::- '., '~ x\ ~~ " \\ / , ;I \\ ~ "== .-i~\ f~ '" # ~~ '-'1> ~. , ~ /-~l) ,::v'O....'!>o ..~~ II f! , << 'I " If !~.. ~'O I Oehella\l.- /) ! ;=>,:='~' .~ -=--- + 19 Way Sycuan Peak / / l~ ~ n ? ~ .~OO\ ~~ ~ ~(\~ '" J ~ ~ /~o~ ~$' ccgra\l \ I Olay MOWltain + .......-/. ~''-, # ~~ .~ 0..,- \ h-"-OiaiMO"R~.. 1\ Figure 2 Alternative B Preferred Alternative 4 animals that are listed as endangered, threatened, and candidate species by the State of California and the Federal Government of any county in the continental United States. The largest population in California of the endangered least Bell's vireo and threatened coastal California gnatcatcher are found in this region. This region supports 23 major vegetation types, 51 plant communities, and 12 major habitats considered sensitive by the State of California, County of San Diego, and the City of San Diego. This rich tapestry of native habitats and open spaces highlights the biological uniqueness of San Diego County. However, the high biological diversity of San Diego County continues to be threatened by growing urban and agricultural development. Urban and agricultural developments have encroached upon approximately 98 percent of the vernal pool habitats, 95 percent of the native perennial grasslands, 90 percent of maritime succulent scrub, 90 percent of freshwater marshes, 88 percent of the coastal mixed chaparral, 82 percent of southern maritime chaparral, and 72 percent of the coastal sage scrub communities in San Diego County (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Draft Joint EIR/EIS Issuance of Take AutJwrizaJions for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area). The destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of native habitats and communities from agricultural and urban developments in San Diego County are the primary threats to the continued existence of several species of endangered, threatened, and candidate species including the endangered least Bell's vireo, threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, endangered Otay mesa mint, endangered California Orcutt grass, proposed endangered San Diego fairy shrimp, and proposed endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly. Proposed Action The Service proposes to establish the Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern San Diego County. The proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit would be delineated by an approved Refuge boundary and then negotiations with willing participants cold begin. Lands acquired from willing participants within the approved boundary of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would be managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Through acquisition of large contiguous blocks of native habitats and biological communities for sensitive species, the Refuge lands would provide a long-needed counterbalance to the rapid urban growth of southwestern San Diego County. Identification and Selection of Lands to be Included Within the Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit The identification and selection of lands to be included within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit were based on an analysis of vegetation types that contain plant communities and species considered to be at-risk; results of the gap analysis for Southern California and Habitat Evaluation Map prepared for the MSCP; location of critical habitat for the endangered least Bell's vireo and Olay.s_ Unit San Diego N81iooal Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan s core populations of the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher; distribution and abundance of endangered, threatened, and rare species; opportunities to protect large contiguous blocks of relatively undisturbed habitat; proposed development threats; and linkages to other managed or protected areas. The report, Gap A1Ullysis o/the Southwestern California Region, underscores the selection of southwestern San Diego as a focal point for conservation efforts (Davis, Frank, I.E. Estes, B. Csuti, and I.M. Scott. 1994. Gap A1Ul/ysis o/the Southwestern California Region. University of California, Santa Barbara). As a coarse screen, this study identified areas that simultaneoU$ly contained a large extent of at-risk plant communities, large numbers of at-risk vertebrates, and a large extent of unprotected Significant Natural Areas. The Iamul Mountains, Olay Mountain, and Tecate quadrangles in southwestern San Diego met all of these three criteria. Correspondingly, the Iamul Mountains and Olay Mountain quadrangles encompass the central area of the proposed Olay-Sweetwater Unit. The gap analysis also identified a variety of natural communities that are predominantly found on private lands, such as coastal sage-chaparral scrub, coastal sage scrub, and native grassland, that are at-risk to loss from development. The gap analysis prepared for the MSCP defined "protected" to include 1) public or private lands that were permanently protected and managed and 2) public or private lands designated by the applicable general or community plan for passive park, preserve, or open space uses. Based on this analysis, approximately 45 percent of the total core and linkage habitat lands were dedicated open space or designated as planned open space in the 1994 community and general plans. However, until private lands that are designated as open space are formally dedicated for protection, these lands remain subject to changes in local land-use planning and zoning. To focus on identifying priorities, the MSCP Plan developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) model to rank the quality of habitat within the MSCP study area. The GIS model considered vegetation communities, species locations, elevation, slope, soils, drainages, and other physical parameters in developing the Habitat Evaluation Map. The Habitat Evaluation Map ranked each quarter-acre parcel within the MSCP study area as Very High, High, Moderate, or Low based on its potential to support priority coastal California gnatcatcher habitat, high biological diversity/species richness, priority target species, vernal pool habitat, and wildlife corridors. The Service, in turn, used the Habitat Evaluation Map as the framework to identify the planning area and alternatives for the proposed Olay-Sweetwater Unit. The envelope for the proposed Olay-Sweetwater planning area generally encompassed lands identified as having Very High and High habitat values. Moderate habitat value lands surrounded by lands with Very High and/or High habitat values, such as the upper slopes and peaks of San Miguel and Iamul Mountains, were retained within the planning area boundary. Where possible, Otay.s_ Unit 8m Die... NoIional WiId1ife Refuge Draft Land Protoction Plan 6 Moderate and less than Moderate habitat value lands were added as buffer areas to round out the boundaries of the atay-Sweetwater planning area. Within the Jamul Mountains, Sweetwater/San Miguel Mountains, and McGinty Mountain/Sycuan PeaklDehesa MSCP core areas, approximately 43 percent of the total core and linkage habitat lands were dedicated open space or designated as planned open space in the 1994 community and general plans. These MSCP core areas generally correspond to the alternatives analyzed in the draft environmental assessment for the proposed atay-Sweetwater Unit. However, only approximately 10 percent of the habitat lands within the Jamul Mountains, Sweetwater/San Miguel Mountains, and McGinty Mountain/Sycuan PeaklDehesa core areas are formally protected and dedicated as open space. Thus, only a relatively small proportion of the lands within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit are formally protected as dedicated open space. The Service also considered land ownership patterns in defining the boundaries of the planning area and alternatives for the proposed atay-Sweetwater Unit. Wherever possible, the planning area boundary followed parcel lines to minimize splitting of lots and to minimize uneconomic remnants, even though only a portion of the tract may contain wildlife habitat of interest to the Service. By including the entire parcel, this adds flexibility when working with landowners to determine which lands would actually become part of the San Diego Refuge. By using a combination of information sources, a range of project alternatives was developed by the Service. Preliminary draft alternatives for the proposed atay-Sweetwater Unit were distributed to landowners, agencies, and the public in March 1996 for review and comment. However, a finer screening was needed to identify habitat protection and land acquisition priorities within each project alternative and by individual parcel. The Service developed a computer GIS model to rank habitat protection and land acquisition priorities by parcels. The model to rank habitat protection and land acquisition priorities contained habitat, threat, and development constraints components. The habitat component of the model assessed wildlife habitat values and presence of wetlands as identified by the National Wetlands Inventory to determine the biological value of each tract. The threat component of the model considered existing land-use zoning (open space, agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial) and the proximity to existing urban development to express the development potential for each parcel. The constraints component evaluated slopes and presence of floodplains to determine the potential suitability of the parcel for future urban development. The combined score for the habitat, threat, and development constraints components of the GIS model determined the relative rank for each parcel for habitat protection and land acquisition. A map that depicts relative habitat protection values ranging from Very High, High, Moderate, and Low for the proposed atay-Sweetwater Unit was produced based on the GIS model (see figure 3). Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan 7 - - ".lM.,s/...!jO"""otoV,..b - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ~/ ~ Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge ~ Land Protection Priorities . VeryHigh . High 00 I(<~"I Moderate . Low D Very Low IlYl Study Area Boundary IZQI Watersheds IZQI Streams and Lakes IN! Major Roads , I)) o Figure 3 o 1 2 3 4 1""1- -....__ ^ t<l" .,."'... " MilA.<<: Summary of Planning and Land Acquisition Processes The Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves the designation of the Refuge boundary upon completion of the planning and environmental coordination process. This process includes compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and other federal regulations and executive orders. Based on NEPA and other compliance documents, the Regional Director selects an approved Refuge boundary and determines whether the selected alternative would have a significant impact upon the quality of the human environment. With an approved Refuge boundary, the selected project alternative can be implemented as described in the environmental assessment, and negotiations with willing participants can commence. Our planning process includes the following steps: . Preliminary agency planning . Concept plan issued . Public involvement activities (such as planning workshops) . Draft environmental assessment released . Public review period . Final environmental assessment released . Notice of decision (whether or not to establish refuge) The Service prepared and distributed to landowners, elected officials, agencies, and interested public the Concept Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in August 1995 and Planning Updates in October 1995 and March 1996. The Service also held open house meetings in Jamul, Imperial Beach, and San Diego in October 1995 to solicit comments from the public. The selection and approval of a Refuge boundary only allows the Service to acquire lands from willing sellers at fair-market value or to enter into management agreements with interested landowners. An approved Refuge boundary does not grant the Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the refuge boundary, and it does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands do not become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under an agreement that provides for management as part of the refuge system. No new or additional zoning laws would be imposed by the Service within the approved refuge boundary. Any landowner within an approved refuge boundary retains all existing rights, Otay-Sweelwaler Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan 9 privileges, and responsibilities of private-land ownership as determined by local, city, or county jurisdictions. Again, lands remain under the control of the owner until management rights or the property has been transferred to or has been purchased by the Service. The Service land protection policy is to acquire land only when other protective means are not appropriate, available, or effective. When lands are to be acquired, the minimum interest necessary to reach management objectives is to be acquired or retained. When the Service acquires land, it acquires fee title (control of all property rights) only if control of lesser property interests, such as easements or leases, will not achieve objectives or would create problems for the landowners. The Fish and Wildlife Service is looking at the long-term protection of this area. Acquisition of private lands would be phased in over time as funds become available and willing sellers come forward. The acquisition/protection program is expected to take several years. Initial acquisition efforts would focus primarily on protecting larger blocks of land having the highest biological values. Lands with and without development potential could be acquired by the Service. The Service anticipates that some of the lands identified within the approved Refuge boundary may never become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Some lands may be developed and no longer be suitable for inclusion within the Refuge. Other tracts may be acquired by public and nongovernmental agencies. Some landowners may choose not to sell or to enter into cooperative agreements with the Service. Willing Seller Policy Service policy is to acquire lands only from willing participants under general authorities such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and the Emergency Wetland Resources Act. Landowners within the refuge boundary who do not wish to sell their property or any interest in their property are under no obligation to enter into negotiations or to sell to the Service. The Service, like other federal agencies, has been given the power of eminent domain, which allows the use of condemnation to acquire lands and other interest in lands for the public good. This power, however, is seldom used and is not expected to be used in this project. The Service usually acquires land from willing participants and is not often compelled to buy specific habitats within a rigid time frame. In all cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of fair-market value for lands to be purchased as determined by an approved appraisal that meets professional standards and federal requirements. The fair-market value would be determined by appraisals conducted by a professional appraiser meeting Federal standards. Otay-Sweetwa/er Unit San Diego Natiooal Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan 10 Under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, landowners who sell their property to the Service are eligible for certain benefits and payments in the following areas: 1. Reimbursement of reasonable moving and related expenses or certain substitute payments. 2. Replacement housing payments under certain conditions. 3. Relocation assistance services to help locate replacement housing/farm/or business. 4. Reimbursement of certain necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in selling real property to the Federal Government. Habitat Protection Methods The Service identified the conservation of up to approximately 19,400 hectares (48,500 acres) of wildlife habitats within the planning area stretching from the Loveland Reservoir westward along the Sweetwater River; portions of the San Miguel, Jamul, and Otay mountains, and southward to the Otay River valley. A variety of mechanisms would be used to acquire land for the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit (see below). Federal funds to acquire these lands would become available primarily through annual appropriations by Congress from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The acquisition methods that could be used by the Service under this proposal are described as follows: Leases and Cooperative Agreements. Potentially, the Service could protect and manage wildlife habitat through leases and cooperative agreements. Management control on privately owned lands could be obtained by entering into long-term renewable leases or cooperative agreements with the landowners. Management of privately owned lands could also be secured through cooperative agreements. Cooperative agreements would be custom made to fit the needs of the landowner and the Service's refuge management program. Cooperative agreements may also include the transfer of funds for shared management activities. Property taxes would remain the responsibility of the landowner. Conservation Easements. Conservation easements provide the Service the opportunity to manage lands for their fish and wildlife habitat values. The easement would preclude uses inconsistent with the Service's management objectives. Only land uses having minimal or no conflicts with the Service's management objectives would be reserved by the landowner. In effect, the landowner transfers certain development and management rights to the Service for Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego Natiooal Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan 11 management purposes as specified in the easement. Property taxes would remain the responsibility of the landowner. Easements would likely be useful when (1) most, but not all, of a private landowner's uses are compatible with the Service's management objectives, and (2) the current owner desires to retain ownership of the land and continue compatible uses under the terms mutually agreed to in the easement. Land uses that are normally restricted under the terms of a conservation easement include, but are not limited to: · Development rights (agricultural, residential, and others) . Alteration of the area's natural topography · Uses adversely affecting the area's flora and fauna . Private hunting and fishing leases . Public access rights . Alteration of the natural water regime Fee-Title Acquisition. A fee-title interest is normally acquired when (1) the land's fish and wildlife resources require permanent protection not otherwise assured, (2) the land is needed for visitor use development, (3) a pending land use could adversely impact the area's resources, or (4) it is the most practical and economical way to assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. In some cases, fee-title acquisition with use reservations are negotiated. Fee-title acquisition normally conveys all ownership rights, including mineral and water rights, to the federal government and provides the best assurance of permanent resource protection. A fee-title interest may be acquired by purchase, donation, exchange, or transfer. It is the policy of the Service to acquire lands only from willing participants. Landowners within the project boundary who do not wish to sell their property or any interest in their property are under no obligation to enter into negotiations or sell to the Service. Other Acquisition and Habitat Protection Methods Other acquisition methods that could be used to add lands to the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit include donations, partial donations, transfers, or exchanges. Lands that were dedicated, acquired, managed, and/or restored by developers as mitigation for urban developments may be donated to the Service (including management funding) as additions to the San Diego Refuge. The combination of dedication, purchase, and management of private lands by developers to satisfy mitigation requirements and the independent acquisition by the Service of lands within the approved national wildlife refuge boundary would yield a larger and more coordinated preserve system. Otay-Sweetwaler Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan 12 Land Protection Priorities Within the Planning Area Boundary of the Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit The Service has prepared a table (see table I) that lists landowners (in alphabetical order), assessor parcel numbers, project alternatives, zones, area maps, priorities, and acreages. To focus land acquisition strategies to protect contiguous blocks of wildlife habitats, to further expand from the existing Service land base at Rancho San Diego, and to reflect the results of the GIS model of habitat protection values, the Otay-Sweetwater Unit planning area was divided into five geographic zones (see figure 4). The preferred alternative for the Otay- Sweetwater Unit is Alternative B (see figure 2). The five geographic zones are described below: Zone 1 Lands Zone I lands are a 1O,196-hectare (25,490-acre) block of contiguous habitats within the watershed of the Sweetwater and Otay rivers. These lands primarily drain the Mother Miguel, San Miguel, and Jamul mountains. Zone I lands would build upon Service lands at Rancho San Diego. Zone I includes S,422 hectares (21,056 acres) of private lands. In addition to the Service, the Bureau of Land Management, City of San Diego, and Sweetwater Authority are the major government agencies owning properties within Zone 1. The major private landowners are Otay Vista Associates (Otay Ranch), Daley Ranch, Emerald Properties (San Miguel Ranch), and Coscan (Hidden Valley Estates). Zone 2 Lands Zone 2 lands are a 4,103-hectare (IO,ODS-acre) block of contiguous habitats downstream from Otay Reservoir and south of Otay Lakes Road. Zone 2 also includes the Salt Creek area. Zone 2 lands include 2,797 hectares (6,S23 acres) of private lands. The bulk of these lands drain the northern slopes of Otay Mountain. Zone 2 lands abut Bureau of Land Management properties on Otay Mountain, City of San Diego keystone lands along Otay Lakes, and The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation property east of Otay Lakes. The major private landowners are the Baldwin Builders, Otay Vista Associates, Daley Ranch, and the Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation. Zone 3 Lands Zone 3 lands are a 3,312-hectare (8,078-acre) block of contiguous habitats within the upper Sweetwater River watershed and are located immediately downstream from Loveland Reservoir. This zone encompasses portions of McGinty Mountain and Sycuan Peak. Zone 3 lands include 3,166 hectares (7,721 acres) of private lands. Major private landowners include Security Trust, Ivanhoe Ranch, and Talley Realty Holding Company. Otay-Sweelwaler Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan 13 ~ Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge ~ RaDt~ho San Diego (1,840 ac.) ~ Planning Area IZQIStreams l&] ~or Roods I ) )\ " \\ , "'~'::>''-'-- '-~~\ "-.;:,-. -;/ \~ '\ -~; o 2 3 4 ----- MDes ~"'~line ~-~ ~"<=> _~ <, "P=::::J~', -" , '~,>>eY Road W" ViC.'~ :t Zone 4 ~ ;/~~. ~/ ~-'" ~~>------O/ ... ~, Spring'" ~. ~\~ \ ]1 ,I } I ----.----.----/ Figure 4 Land Protection Priority Zones / ',0", \qqf\ 1,,~rll"'ml""t..I"';lV'''t!WU'''''''.~' U1ay Mesa K&.a=-:~ \, 14 Zone 4 Lands Zone 4 lands are a 453-hectare (1, 105-acre) corridor of habitat linking Zone 1 and Zone 3. This zone is characterized by smaller parcels, rural development, and smaller amounts of intact native habitats. Zone 5 Lands Zone 5 lands are comprised of two adjacent blocks of habitats totaling 1,866 hectares (4,552 acres). Zone 5 includes the Crestridge Conservation Bank and native wildlife habitats between the communities of El Cajon and Crest. Zone 5 includes 1,866 hectares (4,552 acres) of private lands. Area Maps As shown on the index map (see figure 5), the planning area for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit has been divided into seven enlarged area maps (see figures 6 through 12). Each parcel on the area maps has a unique parcel identification number that corresponds to table 1 (Land Protection Priorities). By using the information in table 1 and figures 6 through 12, landowners can determine the location, alternative, zone, and priority of their property relative to the boundary of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit planning area.o Olay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan 15 TA8LE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 1 A 3 STATE INVESTMENT CO 5130111200 A,8 5 2 Moderate 161.2 1 8 " 5131300100 A,8 5 2 High 19.7 1 C " 5130103500 A,8 5 2 Very High 36.2 1 0 " 5131301100 A,8 5 2 High 43.1 1 E " 5130622600 A,8 5 3 Moderate 39.9 1F " 5160104700 A,8 5 2 Moderate 41.9 1 G " 5160103700 A,8 5 2 High 41.0 1 H " 5160200100 A,8 5 3 Moderate 36.4 11 " 5160105200 A,8 5 2 High 32.4 1 J " 5160104200 A,8 5 2 Moderate 4.4 1K " 5160104400 A,8 5 2 Very High 0.2 1 L " 5160104600 A,8 5 2 High 1.0 1 M " 5170800400 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 75.7 2A A+S PROPERTIES 5191701000 A,8,C 4 2 High 1.4 28 " 5191701100 A,8,C 4 2 Very High 6.8 2C " 5191701100 A,8,C 4 2 High 9.2 20 " 5960625000 A,8,C 4 5 Moderate 5.2 2E " 5960624000 A,8,C 4 5 Moderate 5.1 3 ACKERMAN 8RUCE C 5210100200 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 176.4 4A ADEMA DUAYNE E+INENE 5190503400 A,8,C 4 5 Moderate 2.0 48 " 5190503400 A,8,C 4 5 Very High 0.8 5 ALCARAZ HERK+CHRISTINE 5191406400 A,8,C 4 2 High 2.1 6 ALGERTJAMES+SUSAN 5851301800 A,8,C,D 1 4 Very High 5.0 7 AL TAVILLA 5180502200 A,8,C 3 2 High 8.9 8A AL TIG HAROLD E+ELLEN L 5180700800 A,8,C 3 3 Low 9.7 88 " 5180610200 A,8,C 3 3 Low 5.9 9 ALUMKAL WILLIAM T+CARMELlTA G 5960614200 A,8,C 4 2 Moderate 5.0 10 ANDERSON JAMES W 5851400600 A,8,C,D 1 4 High 2.2 11 ANDREWS RILEY TRUST 03-27-95 5191402500 A,8,C 4 2 Very High 5.1 12 ARGOUD GEORGES E 5960615200 A,8,C 4 2 Moderate 4.9 13 ASISTO LUIS 5850800600 A,8,C,D 1 4 High 43.4 14 ASKEW DONALD KENT+L1SA 8 5962120700 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 1.4 15A 8AKER JOFFRE P TRUST 5170710600 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 1.0 158 " 5180600100 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 19.2 16A 8ALDWIN 8UILDERS 6430700100 A,8 2 7 Moderate 226.3 168 " 6430700300 A,8 2 7 Low 587.5 16C " 6440800700 A,8 2 7 High 196.7 160 " 6440800600 A,8 2 7 High 166.4 16 E " 6440800700 A,8 2 7 High 12.1 16 F " 6460200400 A,8 2 7 High 83.8 16G " 6460200300 A,8 2 7 Very High 10.1 16 H " 6460200200 A,8 2 7 Very High 10.4 161 " 6460600200 A,8 2 7 Moderate 164.3 16 J " 6460703100 A,8 2 7 High 98.0 16K " 6460703200 A,8 2 7 High 58.3 17 8ALENTINE 8AR8ARA A 5131301800 A,8 5 2 High 5.9 18 8ANFIELD PETER M 5191001300 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 4.5 19A 8AR8A MANUEL+PATRICIA G 5851125000 A,8 1 4 Low 5.9 198 " 5851125200 A,8 1 4 Moderate 1.3 19C " 5851125300 A,8 1 4 Moderate 2.3 190 " 5851125100 A,8 1 4 Low 1.0 20 8AR8A80SA RAFAEL 5210901400 A,8,C 3 3 Low 8.8 21 8AR8A80SA RAFAEL J 5210901300 A,8,C 3 3 Low 9.9 22 8ECKETT FAMILY TRUST 5850910500 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 51.9 23 8EITMANN ILSE M 5851300600 A,8,C,D 1 4 High 4.8 24 8ENNETT JACK R TRUST 1990 5980101500 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 42.7 25 8ERGLUND LEROY D+PAULlNE 5960610200 A,8,C 4 5 Moderate 2.4 26A 81RCH STEPHEN+MARY FOUNDATION 5950900500 A,8,C,D 1 7 High 32.8 268 " 6471000400 A,8,C 2 6 High 245.8 26C " 6470800300 A,8,C 2 7 Moderate 12.8 16 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. IAlternativel Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 260 BIRCH STEPHEN+MARY FOUNDATION 6471300300 A,B,C 2 7 Moderate 205.1 26 E " 6471400100 A,B,C 2 6 High 332.6 27 BIXLER WILLIAM A 5842002900 A 1 4 High 0.3 28 BLACK EMILY H REVOCABLE TRUST N 6430700400 Excluded 0 7 Low 62.3 29 BLANE LOIS L 5191001900 A,B,C 3 3 Low 2.3 31 BOLES BETH L 1991 FAMILY TRUST 5210101700 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 41.5 32A BOWDEN JOHN T 5191001000 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 2.3 32 B " 5191001200 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 2.2 33 BRAUER PHILLIP C 5210900800 A,B,C 3 3 Low 39.6 34 BRETZ ELIZABETH S <LE> 5210901500 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 6.5 35 BROWN CLARA M 5160501700 A,B 5 2 Very High 0.8 36 BROWN MARJORIE 5842003200 A 1 4 Very Low 0.2 37 A BROWN SURVIVORS TRUST 5180601400 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 13.1 37 B " 5180601400 A,B,C 3 3 High 15.0 38 BROWN WALTER G+SHIRLEY M 5971500200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 9.9 39 BROWN WilLIAM J 5210100900 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 43.8 40 BRUNCK TERENCE K+LORI J 5191412800 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 10.6 41 BUIE-BONITA MEADOWS L P 5950101500 A 1 4 High 138.7 42 BUINEVICIUS ALGIMANTAS+ 5210801000 A,B,C 3 3 Low 88.0 43 BUSH MARK A+HITCHCOCK JULIE L 5960901400 A,B,C 4 2 Low 2.9 44 BUTCH CHARlES+EMMA 5170400500 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 0.8 45A CAHILL MARILYN J 5190503100 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 4.3 45 B " 5190503100 A,B,C 4 5 High 4.0 45C " 5190503200 A,B,C 4 5 High 6.4 46A CALIFORNIA MEMORIAL ESTATES INC 5121100300 A,B 5 2 High 32.7 46 B " 5121100600 A,B 5 2 High 64.9 47 CAMERINO WILFREDO D+TERESITA B 5962121700 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 2.7 49 CARRILLO GUADALUPE+PETRA 5962121300 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 8.0 50 CASAS R US DE BAJA S A DE C V 5960902600 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 4.3 51 CASTRO FERNANDO+MARIA 0 C 5850800800 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 5.7 52 CATHERALL WILLIAM J+JOYCE F 5180700900 A,B,C 3 3 Low 9.8 53 CAZARES ROY B+MARIA T 5962121000 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 6.9 54 CENDROWSKI ROY D+L1LLlAN J 5842002500 A 1 4 Very High 0.2 55 CHOW CATHERINE HOU 5960107900 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 19.1 56 CHRISTIANSEN ROBERT A+LEILANI G 5960106400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 3.8 57 CITY OF EL CAJON 5080804300 A,B 5 2 Moderate 45.7 58A CITY OF SAN DIEGO 5980100800 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 133.4 58 B " 5980700100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 122.5 58C " 5950501200 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 40.3 580 " 5950501300 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 1.0 58 E " 5950501300 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 117.6 58 F " 5950501300 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 0.7 58G " 5950900200 A,B,C,D 1 7 Moderate 160.3 58 H " 5950900400 A,B,C,D 1 7 Moderate 2.2 581 " 5981300200 A,B,C,D 1 7 High 6.8 58 J " 5950900200 A,B,C 2 7 High 86.9 58 K " 5981300200 A,B,C 2 7 High 23.5 58 l " 5950900200 A,B,C,D 1 7 Very High 1.9 58 M " 5981600500 A,B,C,D 1 6 High 4.8 58 N " 5981600500 A,B,C,D 1 6 Very High 0.5 580 " 5981300200 A,B,C,D 1 7 High 1.3 58 P " 6430400200 A,B,C 2 7 Moderate 192.0 58Q " 6470201100 A,B,C 2 7 High 709.5 58 R " 6470201100 A,B,C,D 1 7 Very High 0.2 58 S " 6470201100 A,B,C,D 1 7 Very High 4.3 58 T " 6470201100 A,B,C,D 1 7 High 4.1 58 U " 6470300200 A,B,C,D 1 6 High 0.4 58V " 6470201100 A,B,C,D 1 7 Very High 15.3 58W " 6470300200 A,B,C 2 6 Moderate 121.6 58X " 6470201100 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 3.2 17 TA8LE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 58 Y CITY OF SAN DIEGO 6470201100 A,8,C,D 1 6 Very High 2.2 58 Z " 6470201000 A,8,C 2 6 Moderate 63.8 58AA " 6430400300 A,8,C 2 7 Moderate 233.7 58A8 " 6470800100 A,8,C 2 7 Moderate 575.4 58AC " 6470800200 A,8,C 2 7 Moderate 25.7 58 AD " 6470900100 A,8,C 2 6 Moderate 43.0 58AE " 6441000600 A,8,C 2 7 High 22.6 58AF " 6441000600 A,8 2 7 Moderate 6.9 58AG " 6471300100 A,8,C 2 7 Moderate 20.4 58AH " 6471300200 A,8,C 2 7 Moderate 20.6 58AI " 6441000800 A,8,C 2 7 Moderate 16.7 58AJ " 6441001700 A,8 2 7 Moderate 77.3 58AK " 6441000900 A,8 2 7 Low 0.7 58AL " 6440800800 A,8 2 7 Moderate 6.4 58 AM " 6441001100 A,8 2 7 Low 9.4 58 AN " 6471301000 A,8,C 2 7 Moderate 31.9 58AO " 6440800300 A,8 2 7 Moderate 8.9 58AP " 6441001400 A,8 2 7 Low 0.7 58AQ " 6471300700 A,8 2 7 Moderate 41.6 59 CLAIN JAMES E+NANCY C 5962120500 A,8,C,D 1 5 Low 1.1 61 A CLARK TOMMY M+JACQUELlNE M 5960902500 A,8,C 4 2 High 4.3 618 " 5960902800 A,8,C 4 2 Moderate 3.6 62 CLARKE EVELYN L 5170710300 A,8,C 3 3 High 38.4 63A CLARKSON GRANT F 5950500500 A,8,C,D 1 5 Very High 3.6 638 " 5950500600 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 4.1 64 CLEAVER JILL R 5180303100 A,8,C 3 2 Moderate 8.2 65A COL8ERT HARRY L <LE> 5210201700 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 33.3 658 " 5210200600 A,8,C 3 3 Very Low 0.3 66A COLEMAN GENA 8 5191000800 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 4.8 668 " 5191001400 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 4.5 67 COLEMAN GENA M 5191002200 A,8,C 3 3 Low 2.2 68 COLWELL RU8EN H TRUST 06-30-89 5191700400 A,8,C 4 2 High 5.8 69 COMPTON AL8ERT +ADRIENNE A 5850902300 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 1.4 70 CONTI MARCELL P+PHYLLlS M 5191700600 A,8,C 4 2 High 4.8 71 A COSCAN CAL I NC 5960104500 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 86.7 718 5960101400 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 20.0 71 C 5960101500 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 147.1 710 5970100100 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 159.7 71 E 5970100200 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 165.3 71 F 5970200200 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 242.6 71 G 5970100600 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 67.2 71 H 5970100500 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 81.3 711 5970100800 A,8,C,D 1 5 Very High 117.8 71 J " 5970100300 A,8,C,D 1 5 Very High 39.5 71 K " 5970205400 A,8,C,D 1 5 Very High 35.5 71 L " 5970205300 Road 1 5 Very High 3.7 71 M " 5970100700 Road 1 5 Very High 4.2 71 N " 5971300300 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 83.4 710 " 5971300500 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 153.1 72A COUNTRY CLU8 VIEW ESTATES LTD 5130103600 A,8 5 2 Very High 38.6 728 " 5131301200 A,8 5 2 High 39.8 72C " 5160103600 A,8 5 2 Moderate 79.0 738 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 5191500600 A,8,C 4 2 Very High 22.0 73 C " 5960800800 A,8,C 4 2 Very Low 0.1 73A " 5900601600 A 1 4 Very Low 0.1 730 " 6471300800 A,8 2 7 Moderate 122.9 73 E " 6460401300 A,8 2 7 High 10.3 74 COX CA8LE SAN DIEGO INC 5800102900 A,8,C,D 1 4 Very High 0.4 75 CROCKER DRUG INC 5180502000 A,8,C 3 2 High 8.5 76 CUSENZA JOSEPH A 5191000900 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 2.3 18 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Pare Name Aeeessor's No. IAlternativel Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 77 CUSHMAN JO CHERYL 5210102100 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 21.5 78 CUSHMAN JO CHERYL 5210102000 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 21.5 79A DALEY 0 L TRUST 09-26-91 5980500700 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 521.6 79 B " 5980400200 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 541.4 79 C " 5980600300 A,B,C,D 1 6 High 38.5 790 " 5981201200 A,B,C,D 1 6 Low 189.2 79 E " 5981100300 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 614.5 79 F " 5981000500 A,B,C,D 1 6 High 588.4 79 G " 5981201200 A,B,C 2 6 Moderate 331.2 79 H " 5981100300 A,B,C 2 6 Moderate 19.2 791 " 5981700300 A,B,C 2 6 Moderate 22.9 79 J " 5981701200 A,B,C 2 6 Moderate 194.9 79 K " 5981701200 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 66.8 79 L " 5981600900 A.B,C,D 1 6 High 270.8 79M " 5981600900 A,B,C 2 6 High 257.2 79 N " 5981510100 A,8,C,D 1 6 Moderate 88.7 790 " 6470400300 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 73.1 79 P " 6470400300 A,B,C 2 6 Moderate 50.0 80 DALEY DONALD+MARIE TRUST 5980500300 A,B,C,D 1 6 Low 39.9 81 DALY MARY M 5962001900 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very Low 0.0 82 DARWIN TRANSPORTATION CO 5850902700 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 1.5 83 DAVIS WALTER B+DOLORES H 5130625000 A,B 5 3 Moderate 5.4 84 DEGUZMAN ROBERTO T+DELlA C 5850800900 A,8,C,D 1 4 High 35.7 85 DEGUZMAN PETER M+FLORA C TRS 5850800700 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 36.2 86 DEGUZMAN ROBERTO+DELlA C 5850800500 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 42.7 88 DEPHILlPPIS SALLY S 5080802600 A,B 5 2 Moderate 38.0 89 A DESERT PACIFIC COUNCIL 5971301100 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 48.4 89 B " 5971301000 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 39.6 90 DESKO CONSTANCE T 5980101700 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 42.6 91 DIMENSTEIN SAM+SANDRA 5160501600 A,B 5 2 Very High 0.9 92A DOENGES ROBERT S 5191700500 A,B,C 4 2 High 73.2 92 B " 5960801300 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 5.6 92 C " 5960801000 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 6.5 92 D " 5960801200 Road 4 2 Very Low 0.3 92 E " 5960801100 A,B,C 4 2 Very Low 0.2 92 F " 5960900200 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 0.2 92 G " 5960801200 A,B,C 4 2 Very Low 0.1 92 H " 5960800500 A,B,C 4 2 High 0.6 921 " 5960900300 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 0.6 93 DOMERATZKI LAURETTA A <LE> 5962102900 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 1.4 94 DUNN PAUL W TR 5960625100 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 4.0 95 DY BONI S+CONSOLACION M 5851400800 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 11.3 96A EAST COUNTY SQUARE ASSOCIATES 4010401100 A 5 1 High 9.9 96 B " 4010401200 A 5 1 High 3.7 97 EASTERLY JAMES R+GAIL 0 5960901100 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 0.8 98A EDWARDS EILEEN M 5180700200 A,B,C 3 3 Low 53.1 98 B " 5180610100 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 35.8 98 C " 5180610100 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 2.5 980 " 5180700200 A,B,C 3 3 Low 26.5 98 E " 5180700400 A,B,C 3 3 Low 78.5 99 ELLIOTT JOHN+MARY R 5842002600 A 1 4 Very Low 0.2 100 ELLIS KENNETH L+YVONNE 5950501500 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 7.7 101 A EMERALD PROPERTIES CORP 5850300300 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 219.8 101 B " 5851600600 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 88.4 101 C " 5851600700 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 2.3 1010 " 5850700100 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 571.3 101 E " 5850800100 A,8,C,O 1 4 Moderate 456.8 101 F " 5851402000 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 83.7 101 G " 5851300300 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 10.3 101 H " 5851110300 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 97.9 19 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES I Parcel II Name IIAccessor's No.IIAlternativel Zone Area Map I Priority IIAcreage I 1011 EMERALD PROPERTIES CORP 5950101300 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 69.5 101 J " 5950101400 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 8.0 101 K " 5851301700 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 5.1 101 L " 5950300500 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 152.0 101 M " 5950100500 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 47.2 102A EMERALD PROPERTIES CORP 5851310200 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 495.2 102 B " 5950100100 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 148.0 103A ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST INC 5170601900 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 14.6 103 B " 5170600600 A,B,C 3 2 Low 48.7 103 C " 5170600500 A,B,C 3 2 Low 84.3 1030 " 5170602000 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 22.6 103 E " 5180500800 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 21.5 103 F " 5180500400 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 84.5 103 G " 5180501000 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 21.2 104 EVANS F R+DOROTHY 5850904600 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 2.3 105 F N PROJECTS INC 5950400600 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 1.0 106 FARES ANTHONY J+ADELE E 5851120500 A,B 1 4 Moderate 1.1 107 FAVALE JOHN A+CAROL M 5960610600 A,B,C 4 2 Low 6.4 108A FAZIO LOUIS+DOROTHY 0 5980102000 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 10.7 108 B " 5980102100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 10.8 108 C " 5980102200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 10.2 1080 " 5980101800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 10.3 109A FE+M INC EMPLOYEES DEFINED 3990100100 A 5 1 Moderate 550.8 109 B " 3981700100 A 5 1 Very High 321.5 110 FERRIER STEPHEN W 5170700400 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 9.7 111 FINCH LEROY 5962112600 Road 1 5 Very Low 0.5 112 FINCH LEROY 5962110900 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 1.3 114 FLEMING W E 5960107000 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very Low 0.3 115A FN DEVELOPMENT CO BRAVO 5851400400 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 87.0 115 B " 5851500500 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 161.2 115C " 5950400700 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 200.3 1150 " 5950500100 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 263.6 115 E " 5950300700 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 27.8 115 F " 5950301100 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 39.9 115 G " 5950500100 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 12.5 115 H " 5950500100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very Low 0.2 116 FONSECA LOIS 5962102600 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 4.9 117 FOTI FRANK D+ELAINE J 5180502500 A,B,C 3 2 High 11.0 118 FRANCO L YNAE M 5180700600 A,B,C 3 3 Low 9.8 119A FRANKS ROBERT H TR+FRANKS 5170710700 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 48.0 119 B " 5170710700 A,B,C 3 3 Low 18.0 120A FRANKS ROBERT H TR+FRANKS 5180601200 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 32.2 120 B " 5180601200 A,B,C 3 3 Low 32.0 121 GARCIA RAMON G+GINA G 5190702200 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 2.1 122 GARDEZY ABDUL S+FARZANA 4011601800 A 5 1 Moderate 2.1 123 GAWF ARTHUR L 5800402600 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 3.1 124 GEMBALLA ERIC E+MARYLOU 5180502100 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 7.8 125 GERSHON RICHARD W 5191002000 A,B,C 3 3 Low 1.2 126 GILBERT GENE E+JUDITH T 5180500700 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 2.5 127 GILLMANN FREDRICK C+SHERYL J 5980100300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 10.0 128 GIRARD HENRI+MARITZA G 5800402300 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 2.9 129A GOMEZ JOSE+MARTHA 5960410700 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 37.8 129 B " 5960302200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 66.0 130 GOODWIN PAUL L+DARLENE F 5962120600 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 1.0 131 GORES PETER J(DVA) 5170400700 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 1.1 132A GRANT FAMILY TRUST 5960238700 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 10.9 132 B " 5960107800 A,B,C,D 1 ~ Moderate 3.3 133 GRAPE LEONARD E JR 5800401900 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 10.3 134 GROOM KENNETH L+FRANCES K 5130625100 A,B 5 3 Low 5.5 135 GROON ROGER E JR+PHYLLlS R 5960615400 A,B,C 4 2 Low 1.6 20 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 136 GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL 5800301100 Excluded 0 5 Very High 48.1 137 A HAMEL JOHN H 5850400800 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 14.8 137 B " 5850400900 A,a,C,D 1 4 Moderate 36.8 137 C " 5850900100 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 80.1 137 D " 5850902900 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 33.2 137 E " 5850900700 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 40.1 137 F " 5850910800 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 40.2 137G " 5850910900 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 42.2 138 HANSEN JAMES R 5960610700 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 5.6 139A HARDESTY DANN+DEBRA K 5180601500 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 14.4 139 B " 5180601500 A,B,C 3 3 High 8.5 140 HARDING WILLIAM C+MARETA J 5960612600 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 2.2 141 HARRISON RONALD W 5190502100 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 5.2 142 HATHERILL ADELA J 5961010100 A,B,C 4 2 Low 5.4 143A HAWKINS DEWEY E TR 5800403400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 5.3 143 B " 5800402200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 3.9 144 HEINEN DENNIS E+LUPITA U 5180502400 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 8.5 145A HELIX LAND CO L TD 6470900300 A,B,C 2 6 Moderate 203.8 145 B " 6471000200 A,B,C 2 6 Moderate 84.6 146 HELIX WATER DISTRICT 5121000300 A,B 5 2 Moderate 0.3 147 HELSPER MILDRED A 5160110800 A,B 5 2 Moderate 1.3 148A HERRICK A LEON+FRANCES C 5960614400 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 7.8 148 B " 5960614400 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 2.5 149 HEUSCHELE ROLAND K+ROSWITHA 5851401800 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 6.8 150 HICKS FAMILY TRUST 10-06-93 5851401200 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 1.1 151 A HIDDEN HILLS PARTNERS 5191500500 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 39.2 151 B " 5192210100 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 81.2 152 HILES ERNEST+NANCY 5960620600 A,B,C 4 2 Low 1.9 153 HILL JAMES T +DOLORES 5190706900 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 3.5 154 HIRANO GEORGE TR 6460401500 A,B 2 7 High 9.4 155A HOFFMAN JOAN B TR 5121100100 A,B 5 2 Moderate 7.8 155 B " 5121200600 A,B 5 2 Moderate 31.0 155 C " 5121000100 A,B 5 2 High 11.6 155 D " 5121100100 A,B 5 2 Moderate 32.8 155 E " 5121000200 A,B 5 2 Moderate 14.1 155 F " 5121100200 A,B 5 2 Moderate 5.2 155G " 5121000400 A,B 5 2 Very High 4.5 156A HOME CAPITAL CORP 5170403000 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 37.7 156 B " 5180301700 A,B,C 3 2 High 62.7 156 C " 5180302400 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 70.2 156 D " 5170401300 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 0.5 156 E " 5180301800 A,B,C 3 2 High 4.9 157 HOME IMPROVEMENT ASSN INC 5160500200 A,B 5 2 Very High 1.3 158 HOMEFED BANK 5800402700 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 2.6 159 HOMEFED BANK 5800402400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 3.0 160 HOMEFED BANK 5800202800 Excluded 0 4 Very High 0.6 161 HOODY LAWRENCE W 5210200800 A,B,C 3 3 High 2.3 162 HOODY LEONARD W 5210200900 A,B,C 3 3 High 3.2 163 HOSS WALTER B TR 5210800700 A,B,C 3 3 Low 83.3 164A IMMENSCHUH JEAN C TR 5170301400 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 41.2 164 B " 5180400300 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 157.9 164C " 5180400100 A,B,C 3 2 High 79.7 164D " 5180500200 A,B,C 3 2 High 171.5 164 E " 5180400600 A,B,C 3 2 High 113.2 164 F " 5180400400 A,B,C 3 2 High 78.1 164 G " 5180400800 A,B,C 3 2 High 78.2 164 H " 5180400800 A,B,C 3 2 High 17.1 165A INGALLS MELVYN V 6460400700 A,B 2 7 High 7.6 165 B " 6460400800 A,B 2 7 High 2.5 166A JABRO KHALlD S+THOURIA S 5800403300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 6.1 21 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 166 B JABRO KHALlO S+ THOURIA S 5800404000 A,B,C,O 1 5 High 4.9 167 JACKSON MARl LEE 5210800300 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 3.0 168 JADER GUST A 5160700500 A,B,C 3 3 Low 10.2 169A JEWELS OF CHARITY INC 6440601000 A,B 2 7 Moderate 255.4 169 B " 6440801000 A,B 2 7 High 71.7 169C " 6440900300 A,B 2 7 High 154.5 170 JOHNSON DARRELL JAMES+DIANE 5800403100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 10.1 171 JOHNSON JULIUS E+DONA M 5191000700 A,B,C 3 3 Low 4.8 172 JOHNSON ROBERT T+M ELLEN 5191000300 A,B,C 3 3 Low 30.1 173 JULlHN LAWRENCE S 5962121200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 7.3 174 KASED NAJIB+SHAKRIA 5800403900 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 28.0 175 KELLY ROBERT H+VIRGINIA P 5851501000 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 4.9 176 KENNERLY WILLIAM L 5850910400 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 9.2 177 KERN FRANCES L TRUST 05-01-95 5160201900 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 105.4 178 KESSLER PHILIP W+MARY A 5800403200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 5.7 179 KIMBALL GARY W+ELlZABETH A 6470800400 A,B,C 2 7 High 13.0 180 KING DENVER R+EMMA L 5980101300 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 5.1 181 KIRK JON A 5850800300 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 1.8 182 KNOBLAUCH HANS J+ANITA A 5960615100 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 4.4 183 KNSO BROADCASTING INC 5850904000 A,B,C,O 1 5 Low 10.6 184 KOLASZ THOMAS E 5130102100 A,B 5 2 Moderate 33.3 185 KUERBIS LAWRENCE JR 5191000400 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 2.3 186A L+W INVESTMENTS INC 5150503600 A 3 2 Very High 16.3 186 B " 5151621000 A 3 2 High 2.3 186 C " 5151621100 A 3 2 Moderate 2.6 1860 " 5151620900 A 3 2 Very High 1.4 186 E " 5151620800 A 3 2 Very High 1.3 186 F " 5151620700 A 3 2 High 2.8 186G " 5151621200 A 3 2 Moderate 1.9 186H " 5151621700 A 3 2 Very High 2.3 1861 " 5151621800 A 3 2 Very High 2.3 186 J " 5151621900 A 3 2 Very High 2.1 186 K " 5151622000 A 3 2 Very High 4.5 186 L " 5151620600 A 3 2 Moderate 1.1 186M " 5151621300 A 3 2 Moderate 1.1 186N " 5151621400 A 3 2 High 0.9 1860 " 5151622100 A 3 2 High 2.1 186 P " 5151621600 A 3 2 High 1.0 186Q " 5151621500 A 3 2 Moderate 0.8 186R " 5151622200 A 3 2 Moderate 1.3 186 S " 5151622600 A 3 2 Very High 1.2 186 T " 5151622300 A 3 2 Moderate 1.2 186U " 5151622500 A 3 2 Very High 1.3 186V " 5151622400 A 3 2 Very High 1.5 187 LA FORTUNE ROBERT W+ROXANA J 5170400400 A,B,C 3 2 High 0.8 188 LAFLAM THOMAS J+DIANE L 5800403500 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 1.4 189 LAGO VISTA INC 5950501100 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 20.5 190A LAKESIDE CREST ASSOCIATES L P 3961120100 A 5 1 Moderate 487.7 190 B " 3981110200 A 5 1 Very High 4.9 190C " 3981700600 A 5 1 High 179.4 1900 " 4010401000 A 5 1 Moderate 56.2 191 LAMBERT GENE W+JUANITA M 5851120400 A,B 1 4 Low 1.5 192 LANE E JACK+DOROTHY G TRS 5960101100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 22.7 193 LAPPLE ELIZABETH J A 5191001800 A,B,C 3 3 Low 2.3 194 LEE JACQUELINE 5851401900 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 6.5 195 LEEMAN MARK E+GLORIA L 5170401800 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 1.0 196 LEMIRE ROBERT B 5190706600 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 1.9 197 LEWIS BRION+GRETCHEN 5180501800 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 8.3 198A LEWIS HUBER D+CAROL R 5180601300 A,B,C 3 3 High 9.6 198 B " 5180601300 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 17.6 22 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone IArea Mapl Priority Acreage 199 L1KER ALAN M+CLAIRE B 5180501900 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 8.8 200 A LME INVESTORS 5190306600 A,B,C 4 5 High 40.3 200 B " 5190306500 A,B,C 4 5 High 32.7 200 C " 5190306400 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 34.7 200 D " 5190700900 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 10.0 200 E " 5190510200 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 42.8 200 F " 5190306200 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 43.9 200 G " 5190510100 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 45.9 200 H " 5190703100 A,B,C 4 2 High 19.0 200 I " 5190306300 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 8.4 200 J " 5960511400 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 10.6 200 K " 5960511100 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 13.9 200 L " 5960311600 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 70.4 200 M " 5960311500 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 9.1 200 N " 5960312701 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 156.5 2000 " 5960511400 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 17.5 200 P " 5960511500 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 12.4 200 Q " 5960614600 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 2.8 200 R " 5960410300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 10.6 200 S " 5962000300 A,B,C 4 5 High 17.3 200T " 5962000200 A,B,C 4 5 High 8.6 200 U " 5962000700 A,B,C 4 5 Moderate 7.3 200 V " 5960410400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 31.8 200W " 5960302000 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 10.1 200 X " 5960302100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 51.6 200Y " 5960300300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 38.3 200Z " 5962400100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 41.0 200 AA " 5960300400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 79.8 201 LOVEDAY JEANNETTE M 5962110800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 9.4 202 A LU LIVING TRUST 4-1-93 5080803800 A,B 5 2 High 9.2 202 B " 5080803900 A,B 5 2 High 9.9 202 C " 5080803700 A,B 5 2 High 9.4 202 D " 5080804000 A,B 5 2 Moderate 10.5 203 LUCERO EDWARD W+AMALlA C 5191700700 A,B,C 4 2 Low 0.2 204 LUNA RICHARD F 5800402100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 2.5 205 LUNN GEORGE W+EVEL YN J 5130111300 A,B 5 2 Moderate 1.1 206 D MALANFANT LAWRENCE+PHYLLlS 4010201600 A 5 1 High 626.7 206 A " 4010201900 A 5 1 Very High 2.2 206 B " 3984107000 A 5 1 Very High 0.4 206 C " 4001302900 A 5 1 Very High 0.7 206 E " 2000401900 A 5 1 Very High 51.4 206 F " 4010202000 A 5 1 Very High 8.6 206 G " 4010201500 A 5 1 Very High 46.6 206 H " 2000401900 A 5 1 Very High 0.6 2061 " 4010201900 A 5 1 Very High 0.6 206 J " 4010400900 A 5 1 Moderate 6.9 207 MANGHANI MADANDAS B+BEENA M 5191406700 A,B,C 4 2 High 4.3 208 MANGO FOUAD+MANGO AIDA 5962121400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 8.3 209 MANIBUSAN HERBERT F+JOSEPHINE 5960611000 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 14.3 210 B MANSOUR ADIL T+SHARON R 5210100500 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 130.5 210A " 5210800400 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 41.7 211 A MARCHAND ROBERT R+MELODY E 5192705000 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 4.1 211 B " 5192704900 A 0 5 Low 1.0 212 MARIN AMPARO C 5851300700 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 5.2 213A MARK BELA 5170400300 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 0.9 213 B " 5170401900 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 1.1 214 MARSHALL CONSTANCE M 5170702200 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 8.8 215 MARTIN BERNARD N+BEVERL Y A 5180501100 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 42.7 216 MATAMO INVESTORS LTD 5160501200 A,B 5 2 High 2.5 217 A MATAMO INVESTORS LTD 5160502000 A,B 5 2 Very High 2.8 23 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 217 B MATAMO INVESTORS L TD 5160501900 A,B 5 2 Very High 2.1 217C " 5160502100 A,B 5 2 Very High 2.1 217 D " 5160501800 A,B 5 2 Very High 2.2 217 E " 5160502200 A,B 5 2 Very High 2.1 218 MAYBERG STANLEY R+ANNABELLE S 5180303000 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 24.4 219 MCGINTY RANCH GENERAL 5170501800 Road 3 2 High 1.3 220 A MCGRAW-HILL BROADCASTING CO IN 5850904100 Road 1 5 Moderate 0.5 220 B " 5850904100 Road 1 5 Low 4.8 220 C " 5850904100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very Low 0.1 221 MCLEAN+MCLEAN DEFINED BENEFIT 5191410100 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 20.9 222 A MERABANK FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK 5121101500 A,B 5 2 High 2.7 222 B " 5150503800 A,B 5 2 Moderate 72.8 223 MERCURIO CHARLES A TR 5191000600 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 4.6 224 MICHELSON ROSEMARIE TR 5131301900 A,B 5 2 Very High 91.8 225 MILAR DONALD P+MUZEYEN P 5800403800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 4.9 226 A MILLER LARRY W TR 5191001500 A,B,C 3 3 Low 2.4 226 B " 5191001600 A,B,C 3 3 Low 4.7 227 MILLER MILLARD E 1993 5170702300 A,B,C 3 3 High 9.5 228 MILLS GEORGE T JR 5170710400 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 19.2 229 MISSION GORGE DEVELOPMENT CO 5960406100 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 16.8 230 MITCHELL WILLIAM F+IDA M 5191500700 A,B,C 4 2 High 3.4 231 MOHLAY JAMES I EST OF 5980101100 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 9.9 232 A MONTANA DE JAMUL INC 5191000100 A,B,C 3 3 Low 39.2 232 B " 5191000500 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 2.3 232C " 5191001700 A,B,C 3 3 Low 2.3 232 D " 5191002400 A,B,C 3 3 Low 4.4 232 E " 5191002300 A,B,C 3 3 Low 2.3 233 MOORE NATHAN J+VIRGINIA F 5121200202 A,B 5 2 Moderate 151.7 234 MOORE RUBY P 5842002400 A 1 4 Very High 0.2 235 MOORMAN COMMUNITY PROPERTY 5121200300 A,B 5 2 Moderate 132.3 236 MORENO IRENEA L 5962120400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 1.2 237 A MOZAFFARIAN AHMAD TR 5851300200 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 10.2 237 B " 5851300500 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 4.9 238 MT MIGUEL DEVELOPMENT CO INC 5850401000 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 42.9 239 MUNOZ SAMUEL+BETTY A 5980100600 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 10.1 240 A NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE 5981500300 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 178.9 240 B " 5981500500 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 82.8 240 C " 5981601100 A,B,C,D 1 6 High 7.3 241 A NATURE CONSERVANCY THE 5180602000 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 76.0 241 B " 5180501500 A,B,C 3 2 High 172.6 241 C " 5180610500 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 226.0 241 D " 5191500800 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 17.3 241 E " 5190912000 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 39.4 241 F " 5191500900 A,B,C 4 2 Very Low 0.2 241 G " 5191501000 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 0.6 241 H " 5191700800 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 42.2 242 NICHOLS DIANA 5160500400 A,B 5 2 Very High 1.1 243 NIELSEN KAJ+SHIRLEY J 5960800200 A,B,C 4 2 Very Low 0.0 244 NORRIS JOHN T+ANITA L 5191700200 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 5.3 245 NORTH FREDERICK T+SUSAN L 5960232800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 1.6 246 OAK RIDGE RANCH 2000401020 A 5 1 Very High 5.4 247 OCONNOR SHIRLEY M 5210801100 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 38.0 248 ODOM RUTH C TR 5160110700 A,B 5 2 High 0.8 249 OFFUTT DOUGLASS 5851500400 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 1.0 250 OLIVERI PASQUALE 5971300800 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 37.8 251 OLSON BERNICE D 5850900600 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 1.9 252 ORRIS GEORGIA T 5191001100 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 2.3 253 OSBORN LLOYD E+SANDRA L 5191402400 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 10.0 254 A OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES L P 5971902200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 35.4 254 B " 5972100100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 168.0 24 TA8LE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority I Acreage I 254 C OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES L P 5971300400 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 83.0 2540 " 5971400100 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 80.4 254 E " 5971500500 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 419.9 254 F " 5971600100 A,a,C,D 1 5 High 128.4 254 G " 5971400300 A,a,C,D 1 5 High 401.8 254 H " 5971300700 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 82.4 2541 " 5980400100 A,8,C,D 1 6 Moderate 189.3 254 J " 5980210200 A,8,C,D 1 6 High 80.8 254 K " 5980100100 A,a,C,D 1 5 Moderate 83.0 254 L " 5980210100 A,a,C,D 1 6 Moderate 73.6 254M " 5980110100 A,a,C,D 1 6 Low 2.2 254 N " 5980100200 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 195.7 2540 " 5980200600 A,8,C,D 1 6 High 74.6 254 P " 5980200400 A,8,C,D 1 6 High 64.2 254Q " 5980300100 A,S,C,D 1 6 High 151.6 254 R " 5980200500 A,S,C,D 1 6 Moderate 35.5 254 S " 5980700200 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 535.8 254 T " 5980800200 A,S,C,D 1 6 Moderate 119.2 254 U " 5980800100 A,S,C,D 1 6 High 202.0 254 V " 5980900100 A,S,C,D 1 6 High 647.8 254W " 5981000100 A,8,C,D 1 6 High 130.4 254 X " 5980800300 A,S,C,D 1 6 Moderate 40.9 254 Y " 5980800100 A,S,C,D 1 6 High 189.0 254Z " 5950501400 A,S,C,D 1 5 High 10.5 254 AA " 5981000400 A,S,C,D 1 6 High 4.5 254 AS " 5950900300 A,S,C,D 1 7 Moderate 56.6 254 AC " 5981300100 A,S,C,D 1 7 High 542.0 254 AD " 5981400100 A,8,C,D 1 6 Moderate 626.1 254 AE " 5981600200 A,S,C,D 1 6 High 10.3 254 AF " 5981500400 A,S,C,D 1 6 Moderate 278.7 254 AG " 5981300300 A,S,C,D 1 7 High 65.3 254 AH " 5981601000 A,S,C,D 1 6 High 47.8 254 AI " 6470200800 A,S,C,D 1 7 High 154.9 254 AJ " 6470200900 A,S,C,D 1 7 High 19.8 254 AK " 6470201000 A,S,C,D 1 6 High 293.6 254 AL " 6470300300 A,8,C,D 1 6 High 86.5 254 AM " 6470300300 A,S,C 2 6 High 37.8 254 AN " 6470900200 A,8,C 2 6 Moderate 415.8 254 AO " 6440700100 A,S 2 7 Low 267.1 254 AP " 6440800900 A,S 2 7 High 85.8 254 AQ " 6440800900 A,S 2 7 High 58.3 254 AR " 6440900200 A,S 2 7 High 273.4 254 AS " 6440700100 A,S 2 7 High 52.3 254 AT " 6460100300 A,S 2 7 High 162.3 254 AU " 6460300400 A,S 2 7 High 35.2 254 AV " 9460300.400 A,S 2 7 High 253.3 254 AW " 6460300200 A,S 2 7 High 39.8 254 AX " 6460300300 A,S 2 7 Very High 100.4 254 AY " 6460300100 A,S 2 7 High 34.8 255 A OTAY WATER DISTRICT 5180302500 A,S,C 3 2 High 1.4 255 S " 5060210500 A,S,C,D,E 0 5 Very High 0.6 255 C " 5060210600 A,S,C,D,E 0 5 Very High 3.8 2550 " 5190201600 A,S,C,D 1 5 Very High 0.3 255 E " 5800201900 Excluded 0 4 Moderate 6.3 255 F " 5960310200 A,S,C,D 1 5 Very High 0.2 255 G " 5052304700 A,S,C,D 1 4 Very High 4.0 255 H " 5052305100 A,S,C,D 1 4 Very High 2.5 2551 " 5962110700 A,S,C,D 1 5 Very Low 0.3 255 J " 5962110600 A,S,C,D 1 5 Low 0.4 255 K " 5960105100 A,S,C,D 1 5 Moderate 2.0 2S TAaLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 255 L OTAY WATER DISTRICT 5800102100 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 1.1 255M " 5851602000 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very Low 1.1 255 N " 5851402100 Excluded 1 4 Low 226.3 2550 " 5851401400 A,a,C,D 1 4 Moderate 160.5 255 P " 5950400100 Excluded 1 4 Low 40.9 255Q " 5950400800 Excluded 1 4 Low 41.6 255 R " 5950400300 Excluded 1 4 Low 21.1 255 S " 5950400400 A,a,C,D 1 4 Moderate 10.0 255 T " 5950400500 A,a,C,D 1 4 High 10.2 255 U " 6460401400 A,a 2 7 High 0.6 255 V " 6460401600 A,a 2 7 High 0.9 256A OTTONELLO MICHAEL A 5960300500 A,a,C,D 1 5 Moderate 86.8 256 a " 5970200100 A,a,C,D 1 5 High 38.5 257 PACIFIC RESEARCH LAaORATORIES 5170207900 A,a,C 3 2 High 11.3 258 A PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER 4011430800 A 5 1 High 1.3 258 a " 4010201300 A 5 1 High 1.3 259 A PAINE LLOYD D+LORNA J 5960403600 A,a,C,D 1 5 Moderate 12.8 259 a " 5960400700 A,a,C,D 1 5 High 9.5 260 PASATIEMPO HOMEOWNERS ASSN 5190210300 A,a,C,D 1 5 Very High 59.8 261 PATING ROGER+ISAaELLE 5160500900 A,a 5 2 Very High 1.0 262 PAUL FRANCES TR 5210900400 A,a,C 3 3 Moderate 20.0 263 PELT MALCOLM P 5960106800 A,a,C,D 1 5 Moderate 2.9 264 A PENINSULA PROPERTIES 5960625200 A,a,C 4 2 Moderate 4.3 264 a " 5960625300 A,a,C 4 2 Moderate 4.2 264C " 5960625400 A,a,C 4 2 Low 5.6 265 PENIX SHERRY a 5192702200 A 0 5 Low 1.2 266 PEPPARD HELEN D 5950501000 A,a,C,D 1 5 High 10.5 267 PERRY DAVID A 5180600700 A,a,C 3 3 High 5.1 268 PETERSEN HANS E 5190200500 A,a,C,D 1 5 Low 4.2 269 A POINTE aUILDERS INC 5800103100 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 1.3 269 a " 5800104300 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 9.4 269C " 5800104400 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 50.7 269 D " 5800104400 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very Low 0.3 269 E " 5800103300 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 7.1 270 A POINTE S D PROPERTIES L TD 5052312600 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 16.3 270 a " 5052312800 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 0.3 270C " 5800104800 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 8.6 270 D " 5800104200 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 0.6 270 E " 5800104500 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 112.9 270 F " 5800103200 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 0.3 270G " 5800103200 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 6.6 271 A POINTE SAN DIEGO RESIDENTIAL 5052312700 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 12.1 271 a " 5800104700 A,a,C,D 1 4 Very High 157.2 272 A POINTE SAN DIEGO RESIDENTIAL 5800404100 A,a,C,D 1 5 High 18.5 272 a " 5800404400 A,a,C,D 1 5 High 66.3 272C " 5800400100 A,a,C,D 1 4 High 55.8 272D " 5800202300 A,a,C,D 1 4 High 67.4 272 E " 5800404600 A,a,C,D 1 4 Moderate 8.5 272 F " 5850300700 A,a,C,D 1 4 High 32.8 272G " 5850401200 A,a,C,D 1 4 Moderate 13.4 272 H " 5850401400 A,a,C,D 1 4 Moderate 2.6 273 A POTTS alLLY J+aONNIE M 5960107600 A,a,C,D 1 5 Moderate 1.6 273 a " 5960107700 A,a,C,D 1 5 Moderate 1.4 274 PRIGG RUSSELL H III+DOROTHY L 5960233200 A,a,C,D 1 5 Low 1.5 275 PRINGLE WILLIAM D 5960107400 A,a,C,D 1 5 Low 1.3 276 RAM ALAN 5191412900 A,a,C 4 2 High 6.5 277 A RANCHO aEL AIR INC 5210801300 A,a,C 3 3 Low 107.1 277 a " 5210801200 A,a,C 3 3 Low 101.6 278 A RANCHO DE LA FUENTE 6480402800 A,a 2 7 Low 19.8 278 a " 6480402800 A,a 2 7 Very Low 0.0 26 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES I Parcel I Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 27.8 C RANCHO DE LA FUENTE 6480402800 A,B 2 7 Low 14.9 2780 " 6480402800 A,B 2 7 Low 54.3 278 E " 6480402700 A,B 2 7 Low 5.2 278 F " 6480402800 A,B 2 7 Low 10.1 278 G " 6460801700 A,B 2 7 Low 121.7 278 H " 6480402500 A,B 2 7 Low 8.4 279 RANCHO SAN DIEGO 5180301500 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 4.2 280A RANCHO VISTA DEL MAR 6480401500 A,B 2 7 Low 0.7 280 B " 6480401600 A,B 2 7 Low 0.7 280 C " 6480401600 A,B 2 7 High 77.1 2800 " 6480401600 A,B 2 7 Moderate 0.7 280 E " 6480401500 A,B 2 7 Low 1.3 280 F " 6480401600 A,B 2 7 High 1.3 280 G " 6480401500 A,B 2 7 Low 2.4 280 H " 6480401700 A,B 2 7 Low 4.8 280 I " 6480402300 A,B 2 7 Low 5.9 280 J " 6480402000 A,B 2 7 Low 41.0 280 K " 6480402200 A,B 2 7 Low 81.3 281 REFLEX CORP 6480401100 A,B 2 7 Low 40.1 282 A RENNICK LYLE V+LESLlE J TRS 5170800300 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 118.0 282 B " 5170800600 A,B,C 3 3 Low 77.8 282 C " 5180700100 A,B,C 3 3 Low 393.3 2820 " 5180700100 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 11.4 283 RENSINK BARBARA L 5960106900 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 2.4 284 RENZ ROBERT L+JUANITA A 5170400600 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 1.7 285 RHODES DWIGHT C+IRENE C 5962121100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 7.0 286 RICE MORGAN S CHARITABLE 5850904500 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 28.2 287 A RICE MORGAN S TRUST 5800401000 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very Low 0.5 287 B " 5850400300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 129.1 287 C " 5850904200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 0.9 2870 " 5850904200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 102.7 287 E " 5850904400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 10.0 287 F " 5971300200 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 42.6 288 A RICE/ALVAREZ FOUNDATION 5850400500 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 49.7 288 B " 5850902800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 1.5 288 C " 5850900500 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 1.8 2880 " 5971300100 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 42.0 289 RICHARDSON JOHN B+JAN L 5850903300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 1.0 290 RIEDMAN RICHARD M TR 5850401100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 41.5 291 RIEVE DORIS E FAMILY TRUST 5191000200 A,B,C 3 3 Low 9.6 292 A RINKS TOMMY F+LYNN M 5170700700 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 9.7 292 B " 5170700600 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 9.2 292 C " 5170700500 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 9.7 293 RITCHEY FAMILY TRUST 07-27-92 5191002100 A,B,C 3 3 Low 7.9 294 RIVERA MARY EST OF 5800402000 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 0.7 295 ROBERTS MELVIN A+NORMA L 5980101200 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 9.9 296 ROBINSON DONALD M 5850910200 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 9.9 297 A ROMAN CATHOLIC 5850910600 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 9.5 297 B " 5850910700 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 19.7 298 RULON 1989 5180501200 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 9.8 299 RUMMERY MERLE H FAMILY TRUST 5190912200 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 4.8 300 A S N M B LTD PARTNERSHIP 5971902300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 16.7 300 B " 5970200600 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 12.9 300 C " 5970201000 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 28.7 3000 " 5970201000 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 90.7 300 E " 5971400400 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 156.0 300 F " 5971500700 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 74.2 300 G " 5971500300 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 20.4 300 H " 5971500600 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 93.8 300 I " 5971500800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 21.7 27 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 300 J S N M B LTD PARTNERSHIP 5971500900 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 9.5 300 K " 6440700800 Excluded 0 7 Low 246.7 300 L " 6440700800 A,B 2 7 Very High 71.0 300M " 6460100200 A,B 2 7 High 325.7 301 SAINTJOHN DAVID L+DEBRA L 5130110200 A,B 5 2 Moderate 1.1 302 SALERNO LEONARD TR 5850910300 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 9.9 303 SALISBURY MARILLA A TR 5210800900 A,B,C 3 3 Low 44.0 304 A SAMPO PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP 5170710500 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 18.2 304 B " 5180601800 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 50.9 304 C " 5180601900 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 1.0 305 SAN DIEGO COUNTY 5950101800 A 1 4 High 1.5 306 A SAN DIEGO GAS+ELECTRIC CO 5800401100 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 6.6 306 B " 5052311500 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 2.7 306C " 5851601800 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 1.3 3060 " 5851300900 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 5.2 306 E " 5851302000 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 50.8 306 F " 5851110400 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 62.2 306G " 5851310300 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 21.0 306 H " 5851301300 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 4.9 3061 " 5851301500 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 10.0 306 J " 5851301400 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 5.2 306 K " 5851301900 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 5.2 306 L " 5851301900 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 147.7 306M " 5950100600 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 7.2 306 N " 6471300900 A,B 2 7 Very High 0.5 307 A SANDERA JIRI(AKA GEORGE)TR 5190300500 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 2.5 307 B " 5190305400 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 76.5 308 SANDERS EVELYN 5962113400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 11.8 309 SANDERS FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 5190601200 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 1.9 310 SA TTERLA ALBERT G 111 5981400200 A,B,C,D 1 6 High 20.2 311 SCHAFER RONALD G 5960107300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 0.8 312 SCHOOLER LOUIS V 5191500400 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 4.4 313 SCOTT BILLY R+ANGELlNE T 5851301600 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 5.0 314A SECURITY TRUST CO TR NO 1932-0 5160100400 A,B 5 2 High 35.0 314 B " 5160202000 A,B 5 3 High 29.8 314C " 5160202000 A,B,C 3 3 High 123.3 314 E " 5160100400 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 2.5 314 F " 5160110900 A,B 5 2 Moderate 1.5 314G " 5160111300 A,B 5 2 Moderate 3.3 314 H " 5160111500 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 58.0 3141 " 5160111400 A,B,C 3 2 High 58.3 314 J " 5160111100 A,B,C 3 2 High 40.5 314K " 5160210200 A,B,C 3 3 High 19.2 314 L " 5160210200 A,B,C 3 3 High 19.5 314M " 5160210300 A,B,C 3 3 High 125.5 314N " 5160111800 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 22.2 3140 " 5160210700 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 66.9 314 P " 5160210300 A,B,C 3 3 High 58.5 314Q " 5170800100 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 288.3 314 R " 5170800700 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 38.5 314 S " 5170702700 A,B,C 3 3 High 100.7 314 T " 5170702600 A,B,C 3 3 High 24.8 314 U " 5170800200 A,B,C 3 3 High 9.3 314V " 5170710800 A,B,C 3 3 High 68.6 314W " 5170800800 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 4.6 314X " 5170800500 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 1.1 314Y " 5170800500 A,B,C 3 3 High 3.1 315A SECURITY TRUST COMPANY 5850911300 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 112.9 315 B " 5851401700 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 23.5 315 C " 5851500900 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 34.7 28 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Z~ Area Map Priority Acreage 315D SECURITY TRUST COMPANY 5851401100 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 12.9 316 SECURITY TRUST COMPANY 5962111500 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 3.2 317 SEDONA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COR 5210900600 A,B,C 3 3 Low 115.6 318A SEEGER WILLI A+JUDY V 5800403700 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 4.4 318 B " 5800403700 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 0.8 319 SEVEL DAVID J+DOROTHY M 5851401300 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 1.0 320 SHAFER FAMILY TRUST 09-23-93 5960106600 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 3.0 321 SHANK WILLIAM C+SAYOKO 5960901200 A,B,C 4 2 Low 1.0 322 SHATTUCK RALPH TR 5851300400 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 9.7 323 SHELBY GENEVIEVE P 5130102000 A,B 5 2 Moderate 33.8 324 A SHINOHARA JIMMIE H+JUDI S TRS 5851700200 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 26.2 324 B " 5851700300 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 41.4 324 C " 5851700800 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 38.8 3240 " 5851700900 A,B 1 4 Moderate 15.9 324 E " 5851701000 A,B,C,D 1 4 Low 8.4 325 SHOEMAKER VICKIE K 5190601300 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 1.9 326 SlAW CALE8+E DYLENE 5971300900 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 32.4 327 SICKELS DAVID E+LOUISE V 5980100500 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 10.1 328 A SINDELAR JOHN A+MARCIA A 5210201900 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 41.0 328 B " 5210201800 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 41.0 329 SINGING HILLS ACRES LTD 5160501500 A,B 5 2 Very High 1.0 331 A SIX OTAY MESA L P 6460800500 A,B 2 7 High 40.9 3318 " 6460800400 A,8 2 7 Moderate 83.4 332 SKYLINE ESTATES LTD 5190910400 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 85.7 333A SMITH GREGORY T +GEORGIANA R 5851500100 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 262.2 3338 " 5950500300 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 52.9 333 C " 5981601100 A,8,C 2 6 High 17.0 333 D " 6470500500 A,B,C 2 6 High 168.5 333 E " 6470300400 A,B,C 2 6 High 305.1 333 F " 6470300400 A,8,C,D 1 6 High 0.7 333 G " 6460401100 A,8 2 7 High 36.4 333 H " 6460401700 A,B 2 7 High 130.7 3331 " 6460401800 A,8 2 7 High 22.0 334 A SMITH LAURA F TR 5210901200 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 10.0 3348 " 5210901100 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 9.7 335 SMITH RODNEY 0 TR 5962121500 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 8.3 336 SMOLKO ELKE G 5850910100 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 10.1 337 A SOUTHWEST DIVERSIFIED 5800404200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 1.0 3378 " 5800404500 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 37.8 337 C " 5800404700 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 35.0 337 D " 5850401500 A,8,C,D 1 5 High 73.8 337 E " 5850300800 A,8,C,D 1 4 Moderate 94.2 337 F " 5850401300 A,8,C,D 1 4 High 63.5 337 G " 5850400700 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 64.7 337 H " 5850400600 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 82.0 3371 " 5850400700 A,8,C,D 1 4 Very High 78.6 338 SPREIER TERRY L+JAN K 5190701600 A,8,C 4 2 Very Low 0.6 339 SPREIER TERRY L+JAN K 5960610800 A,8,C 4 2 Moderate 11.4 340 A SPRING VALLEY SANITATION 5800202900 Excluded 0 4 Very High 3.1 340 B " 5800100600 A 1 4 Moderate 0.5 340 C " 5800101400 A 1 4 Very Low 0.1 341 A STANFILL MONTE C+AL8A M 5131300200 A,8 5 2 Very Low 0.0 3418 " 5131300200 A,B 5 2 High 10.5 342 STARCEVIC SUSANNA P 5850901300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 1.4 343 H STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5151622800 Road 3 2 Moderate 1.1 343 A " 5210101800 A,8,C 3 3 Low 1.6 3438 " 5210201600 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 1.3 343 C " 5210900300 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 19.7 3430 " 5210900200 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 40.7 343 E " 5210901600 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 112.2 29 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 343 F STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5210800500 A,8,C 3 3 Moderate 170.6 343G " 5210901800 A,B,C 3 3 Low 158.8 3431 " 5180500300 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 85.1 343 J " 5800302000 A,B,C,D,E 0 4 High 2.1 343 K " 6460402000 A,B 2 7 Moderate 297.6 343 L " 6460402000 A,8 2 7 Low 98.8 343M " 6460801600 A,B 2 7 Moderate 128.1 343 N " 6460801600 A,B 2 7 Low 8.1 3430 " 6460801600 A,B 2 7 Low 24.5 343 P " 6480402600 A,B 2 7 Low 60.9 3430 " 6480402600 A,B 2 7 Moderate 51.5 344 A STEWART LEONARD A+DARLENE A 5180610300 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 23.4 344 B " 5190912100 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 76.3 345 STROM BRENT+CARRIE G 5960615300 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 1.6 346 STRUTHERS ALEXANDER TR 6460801500 A,B 2 7 High 40.9 347 STURGEON BEULA 5180610401 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 9.3 348 B SWEETWATER AUTHORITY 5800100800 A,8,C,D 1 4 High 17.6 348 C 5800100800 A,B,C,D 1 4 Low 6.7 3480 5851610200 A,8,C,D 1 4 High ,332.0 348 E 5851601300 A,B,C,D 1 4 Moderate 5.3 348F 5800101500 A 1 4 Low 6.1 348G 5800104000 Road 1 4 Low 2.0 348 H 5851601500 A,8,C,D 1 4 High 97.0 3481 5800100900 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 3.9 348 J 5851601400 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 5.3 348 K 5791402200 A 1 4 High 2.3 348 L " 5851600900 A,8,C,D 1 4 Very High 8.2 348M 5851600400 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 21.3 348 N 5842005600 A 1 4 High 1.4 3480 5842005700 A 1 4 High 1.8 348 A 5851610100 A 1 4 High 118.5 348 P 5851700100 A,B,C,D 1 4 Very High 91.7 3480 5851700500 A,8 1 4 Moderate 40.3 348 R 5851700400 A,B 1 4 Moderate 6.8 348 S 5851700600 A,8 1 4 Moderate 36.2 348 T 5851001500 A 1 4 Low 26.1 348 U 5851120700 A,B 1 4 Low 3.8 348 V 5851700700 A,8 1 4 Moderate 5.0 349 SWETZ MICHAEL III+DARLENE B 5191002500 A,B,C 3 3 Low 4.4 350 A TALLEY REALTY HOLDING CO INC 5160111600 A,B,C 3 2 High 51.0 350 B " 5160111700 A,8,C 3 2 Low 17.1 350 C " 5160210600 A,B,C 3 3 Low 48.3 3500 " 5170601400 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 42.2 350 E " 5170601600 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 41.4 350 F " 5170601000 A,B,C 3 2 High 32.4 350G " 5170601100 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 32.6 250 H " 5170501700 A,8,C 3 2 Very High 5.8 350 I " 5170600900 A,8,C 3 2 Moderate 41.8 350 J " 5170500800 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 12.0 350 K " 5170600200 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 168.9 350 L " 5170601300 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 41.3 350M " 5170601500 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 40.5 350 N " 5170501500 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 11.0 3500 " 5170501400 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 4.2 350 P " 5170501300 A,B,C 3 2 High 4.8 3500 " 5170501200 A,B,C 3 2 High 2.7 350 R " 5170411500 Road 3 2 High 1.6 350 S " 5170411400 A,8,C 3 2 Very High 10.4 350 T " 5170600300 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 41.9 350 U " 5170411200 A,B,C 3 2 High 0.7 30 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES I Parcel I Name Accessor' Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 350V TALLEY REALTY HOLDING CO INC 5170710100 A,B,C 3 3 High 39.6 350W " 5170411100 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 1.6 350 X " 5170410400 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 3.5 350 Y " 5170411000 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 4.3 350 Z " 5170410900 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 2.0 350 AA " 5170410800 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 2.3 350 AB " 5170410700 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 0.4 351 TAUSCHER HERMAN W 5210100700 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 1.0 352 TAYLOR JOHN A+PATRICIA A 5962120900 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 6.0 353A TAYLOR NELLIE J TRUST 9-25-90 5170402000 A,B,C 3 2 High 31.4 353 B " 5170401400 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 2.0 353 C " 5170402100 A,B,C 3 2 Very Low 0.1 354 TEYSSIER LEONARD E+MONICA E 5210900900 A,B,C 3 3 Low 77.5 355 THOMPSON DANNY J+RITA A 5190601100 A,B,C 4 5 Very High 1.8 356 THOMPSON ERIC W+SANDRA 5190702400 A,B,C 4 2 High 1.7 357 THOMPSON RICHARD M+CAROL J 5851401600 A,B,C,D 1 4 High 21.0 358A THORP CHARLES A+LAURA A 5190701700 A,B,C 4 2 High 2.2 358 B " 5190702500 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 0.7 358 C " 5190706400 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 0.3 360 A TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO 4011530500 A 5 1 High 4.2 360 B " 4011530600 A 5 1 High 3.1 360 C " 4011530700 A 5 1 High 3.0 3600 " 4011530800 A 5 1 High 4.1 360 E " 4011530900 A 5 1 Moderate 5.5 360 F " 4011531100 A 5 1 High 3.8 360 G " 4011531000 A 5 1 High 2.8 360 H " 4011600400 A 5 1 High 2.8 360 I " 4011600300 A 5 1 High 2.7 360 J " 4011601400 A 5 1 High 2.9 360 K " 4011601200 A 5 1 High 2.6 360 L " 4011600200 A 5 1 High 2.6 360 M " 4011601300 A 5 1 High 3.2 360 N " 4011600100 A 5 1 High 2.6 3600 " 4011600500 A 5 1 High 3.9 360 P " 4011601100 A 5 1 High 4.1 360 Q " 4011600600 A 5 1 High 2.6 360 R " 4011601000 A 5 1 High 4.6 360 S " 4011600700 A 5 1 High 2.5 360 T " 4011600900 A 5 1 High 6.7 360 U " 4011600800 A 5 1 High 4.0 361 A TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO 4011410200 A 5 1 Low 7.3 361 B " 4011410100 A 5 1 Low 3.1 361 C " 4011511400 A 5 1 Moderate 2.5 361 D " 4011511300 A 5 1 Moderate 6.6 361 E " 4011520100 A 5 1 High 5.3 361 F " 4011511200 A 5 1 Moderate 4.3 361 G " 4011511100 A 5 1 Moderate 5.9 361 H " 4011520200 A 5 1 High 4.9 3611 " 4011511000 A 5 1 High 4.3 361 J " 4011520300 A 5 1 Very High 4.3 361 K " 4011510100 A 5 1 Very High 6.3 361 L " 4011510900 A 5 1 High 3.4 361 M " 4011520400 A 5 1 Very High 4.0 361 N " 4011520500 A 5 1 High 9.4 3610 " 4011510800 A 5 1 High 4.2 361 P " 4011510700 A 5 1 High 5.6 361 Q " 4011520600 A 5 1 High 11.0 - 361 R " 4011510600 A 5 1 High 3.4 361 S " 4011510300 A 5 1 Very High 2.2 361 T " 4011510400 A 5 1 High 6.2 31 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative IZonel Area Map Priority Acreage 361 U TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO 4011510200 A 5 1 High 3.7 361 V " 4011521000 A 5 1 High 4.7 361 W " 4011531500 A 5 1 High 3.1 361 X " 4011510500 A 5 1 High 4.8 361 Y " 4011520900 A 5 1 Moderate 5.6 361 Z " 4011520700 A 5 1 Moderate 4.3 361 AA " 4011530100 A 5 1 High 3.5 361 AB " 4011531400 A 5 1 High 3.3 361 AC " 4011520800 A 5 1 Moderate 4.2 361 AD " 4011531300 A 5 1 High 3.2 361 AE " 4011530200 A 5 1 Moderate 7.4 361 AF " 4011530300 A 5 1 High 4.7 361 AG " 4011530400 A 5 1 High 9.1 361 AH " 4011531200 A 5 1 High 6.4 362 A TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO 4011410800 A 5 1 Low 10.9 362 B " 4011410900 A 5 1 Moderate 6.7 362 C " 4011410300 A 5 1 Moderate 3.9 362 D " 4011410700 A 5 1 Moderate 5.5 362 E " 4011411000 A 5 1 High 5.3 362 F " 4011411100 A 5 1 High 5.9 362 G " 4011410400 A 5 1 Low 3.5 362 H " 4011410600 A 5 1 Moderate 3.4 3621 " 4011411200 A 5 1 High 5.4 362 J " 4011410500 A 5 1 Moderate 2.8 362 K " 4011411300 A 5 1 High 5.7 362 L " 4011421400 A 5 1 Moderate 7.3 362M " 4011421900 A 5 1 Moderate 4.5 362 N " 4011421800 A 5 1 Moderate 4.7 3620 " 4011421500 A 5 1 Moderate 3.3 362 P " 4011421700 A 5 1 Moderate 4.2 362Q " 4011420400 A 5 1 High 2.8 362 R " 4011421600 A 5 1 Moderate 3.8 362 S " 4011420300 A 5 1 High 2.5 362 T " 4011421300 A 5 1 High 3.8 362 U " 4011420200 A 5 1 High 2.6 362 V " 4011420100 A 5 1 High 3.4 362W " 4011420500 A 5 1 High 2.2 362 X " 4011430700 A 5 1 High 5.9 362Y " 4011421200 A 5 1 High 3.1 362 Z " 4011430600 A 5 1 High 7.4 362 AA " 4011420600 A 5 1 Moderate 2.5 362 AB " 4011421100 A 5 1 Moderate 2.9 362 AC " 4011420700 A 5 1 Moderate 1.6 362 AD " 4011421000 A 5 1 High 3.1 362 AE " 4011420800 A 5 1 Moderate 3.3 362 AF " 4011430500 A 5 1 High 6.0 362 AG " 4011420900 A 5 1 Moderate 2.5 362 AH " 4011430400 A 5 1 Moderate 2.5 362 AI " 4011430300 A 5 1 Moderate 3.7 362 AJ " 4011430100 A 5 1 Moderate 3.3 362 AK " 4011430200 A 5 1 Moderate 5.1 363 TIPTON BARBARA E 5170301500 A,B,C 3 2 Moderate 40.3 364 A TITUS PAUL H+VIRGINIA C 5191410200 A,B,C 3 2 High 10.2 364 B " 5191410200 A,B,C 3 2 Very Low 0.0 365 TODD HOWARD BRIAN+LAUREL J B 5960902700 A,B,C 4 2 Low 2.3 366 TORABIIRAJ 5980101000 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 10.2 367 A TRACHTENBERG WILLlAM+MARIAN T 5800401400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 2.2 367 B " 5800401300 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 2.4 368 TURNER THOMAS J+OPAL M 5950500200 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 10.7 369 TWEEDY FAMILY TRUST 06-24-93 5160501400 A,B 5 2 Very High 1.0 32 TABLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 370 A UMBRELL LOUISE I LIVING TRUST 5950501900 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 10.6 370 B " 5950501800 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 10.5 371 A UNIFORT VALUES CORP 5962111600 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 6.2 371 B " 5962111700 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 3.7 372 UNION BANK TR+KENYON DOROTHY 6441000500 A,B 2 7 High 25.4 374 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6460600500 A,B 2 7 Moderate 156.3 375 A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5210202100 A,B,C 3 3 High 40.8 375 B " 5970205500 A,8,C,D 1 5 Moderate 79.8 375 C " 5980300200 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 530.9 375 D " 5980210300 A,B,C,D 1 6 Moderate 158.3 375 E " 5980200800 A,B,C,D 1 6 Low 108.3 375 F " 5980800400 A,B,C,D 1 6 High 80.7 375 G " 6471301200 A,B,C 2 7 Moderate 41.0 376 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5160400100 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 632.5 378 A US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE 5022130700 A,B,C,D,E 0 7 Low 25.9 378 B " 5060205100 A,B,C,D,E 1 5 High 110.7 378 C " 5060105400 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 High 14.8 378 D " 5060105300 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 High 16.1 378 E " 5190110400 A,B,C,D,E 1 5 Very High 175.8 378 F " 5060212000 A,B,C,D,E 1 5 Very High 222.9 378 G " 5060105900 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 148.0 378 H " 5800301200 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 High 65.7 3781 " 5800301900 A,B,C,D,E 0 4 High 2.3 378 J " 5800301800 A,B,C,D,E 1 5 Very High 43.7 378 K " 5800301500 A,B,C,D,E 1 5 Very High 16.7 378 L " 5800202800 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 466.0 378M " 5800301300 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 53.0 378 N " 5800301600 A,B,C,D,E 1 5 Very High 83.6 3780 " 5800301000 A,B,C,D,E 1 5 High 4.5 378 P " 5800301400 A,B,C,D,E 1 5 Very High 18.5 378 Q " 5800301700 A,B,C,D,E 1 5 Very High 36.5 378 R " 5800202400 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 191.8 378 S " 5850300600 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 60.8 378 T " 5851601900 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 93.7 378 U " 5851601200 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 30.6 378 V " 5851600500 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 1.9 378W " 5851601100 A,B,C,D,E 1 4 Very High 1.3 379 UNSICKER MICHAEL D+JANETTE W 5191701300 A,B,C 4 2 Moderate 12.9 380 VAIL GLENN E TRUST 09-07-93 5971500400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 9.9 381 VANDEVEER ROGER 5960106700 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 3.2 382A VANGUARDIA DANIEL M+ALEJANDRIN 5800400800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 1.1 382 B " 5800400800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 5.9 383A VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT 5980100400 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 10.2 383 B " 5950500400 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 10.5 383 C " 5950500700 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 2.7 383 D " 5950500800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Very High 2.7 383 E " 5950500900 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 2.7 384 VITKUS DAVID A+BARBARA H 5962121600 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 2.3 385 VON GOERLITZ ERIC+GEORGINA 5960107500 A,B,C,D 1 5 Low 0.8 386 WACHE FAMILY TRUST 09-22-93 5800401800 A,B,C,D 1 5 Moderate 3.6 387 WASHBURN MIKE+LUCIA 5180502300 A,B,C 3 2 High 10.5 388 WATSON MCCOY L TD 5851500200 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 160.8 389 WEBB TRUDY S 5980101400 A,B,C,D 1 5 High 5.1 390 WEIR PENELOPE V 5190702700 A,B,C 4 2 High 1.5 392 WESTERN SALT CO 6430400600 A,B 2 7 High . 43.2 394 WHITE MARSHALL M+KAROL M 5170400100 A,B,C 3 2 Very High 1.4 395 WILES DAVID P+RAE MARIE 5210101000 A,B,C 3 3 Moderate 59.3 396 WILHITE HOWARD K+JOANN TRS 5170301300 A,B,C 3 2 High 40.8 397 WILLIAMS CHARLES A+LEE L 5960800900 A,B,C 4 2 Very High 1.1 398 A WILLOW GLEN SINGING HILLS 5151622700 Road 3 2 Low 0.9 33 TASLE 1. LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES Parcel Name Accessor's No. Alternative Zone Area Map Priority Acreage 398 S WILLOW GLEN SINGING HILLS 5151615500 A 3 2 Moderate 28.1 399 WILSON MAURY 3961201900 A 5 1 High 10.4 400 WOOD VIRGINIA G TRUST 04-19-90 5960800700 A,S,C 4 2 High 0.4 401 A WORLDWIDE MORTGAGE CORP 5160500500 A,S 5 2 Very High 2.6 401 S " 5160500600 A,S 5 2 Very High 0.9 401 C " 5160500700 A,S 5 2 Very High 1.0 401 D " 5160500800 A,S 5 2 High 1.0 401 E " 5160500300 A,S 5 2 Very High 1.7 401 F " 5160501000 A,S 5 2 High 1.0 401 G " 5160501100 A,S 5 2 High 1.0 401 H " 5160501300 A,S 5 2 Moderate 2.1 402 A WRIGHT RICHARD D+PENNY L 5960614300 A,S,C 4 2 Moderate 2.5 402 S " 5960614000 A,S,C 4 2 Moderate 3.0 404 YOUNKER DEAN+DARLENE S TRS 5160202100 A,S 5 3 Very High 5.7 405 ZINSER-FURSY INC 6460801400 A,S 2 7 Moderate 40.0 Note: Acreage values are estimated from map scale, they do not reflect actual surveyed area. 34 24 Sap 11196 luer9/PI'ajactajatav/altlpp3.b p,;l . LiliI / . Land Protection Priorities . VeryHigh . High 00 ~ Moderate l Low o rM fZ2l rM IN] Very Low Study Area Boundary Watersheds Streams and Lakes Major Roads \ -. Clay ~Road , . f} --~ o Figure 3 o I 1 ~~.;. 2 4 Miles ,<--":C-=~~~..:_' OQ' , ~ ~o\\ 1 .~. '/>.v ""y~.~." ~. )~.t,"'. J >~c. /' ~,Y ", ~ :/ '\ ~ /~~,~~O~ '\ e egraV \ I +1 ~""- ~I ! "O"'R'~ II 'II, U P 'Il -l / =ih " ....il\ II :~ I \," !: ((; ,G~~f , //I/'~ c-;.>_0/J>x(f;d;< ' ;/ /,'. ,'.'b, \..., ' / \",/~~ if Ar€lROne / . ;,~t- ( ....;,J // ,~-r;---~ ,~~/ . ~':\'~" / ~''''W Ro~\ , V ~p.< --'I)} ~. ............~~~~ .c4io~ _ ~ ( ,/-:V'<:J\-'O ~;'/ ~ -,- -~~ " ,II I I " 'I // " ,'i I =+ I I ~ ~ =<~ ~4' ' i\,(~~,;p~~ ,Ii\\~' ,\ " \:{, ~ Area Two!;, ~;:// ;'i '" i{ , i!lrkh%;t~6 -< -0~0-1 '=~~~>/ Ii , ,;:/ 1/ ,.~.~ __~_--:( ~--c <;:/ "" I ] , ,;< j '" " , \\ ~c ~ /oi:::--- rF'~~ L---5 ~~~ lU~" Area Thee \ I I , Sycuan Peak y ""-:" , \y------- , /i=--~ ,I <$!:, O~~<-,> ". J- Spring'" /~/~' '",\ '1 \ Otay Mountain + I Ulay Mes.aJfooo-.'.\ !I 35 Figure 5 Parcel Area Index Map Proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1,;\ I, - duw Ig~lUd gUo Ug.IV 9 gln~t~ v :J,asul aas :lDe~ 980~ ....eOL V09~ SOgt U09t / /~"Oo..' / ---~ ~ dO..~ L~./10.110~. \ ~.t.. ro.y v-~ HO.. \ ~ 301it ;----- ~ '\, I 00.; . / '\ 90.. />~\ V :J,asul /)! ! ~O.tBO.~ \\:00.. \~'I / \:-l-- ! ~"'09t! II~----+:I '-'"''-''' / \ ~--- , ,,\J /' \ I --Jj / / "" 3Vun: \ \ /, H"t~9t / /1 /\ \\"",., //~ / ,A.~gt i (' . \ 9"t~9E // '>" / / / i " \ \ (;! _I ,/1 / / /,~gt \\ \ \_ I O\fl9y 1,"-. / '\ :1\f~~ / " '/ \\ )..-------===_~ \ /gql9~/ '; // \, ./ ' I W~9E: \y/~ \ 'v' 7 / /1 ;/ ".." ~ / / /,/ / / XI.. /'/"" ;M'../ /~;:.II. ~-----~0 m.. /r/~/ mt !~y // I Lt.~ /1 / ~>~I II ",.. \\ / SI.. / / /,\.""~gEI Ii J ~\ met / / /~II' \ ;:::t.s I .1__ 1 \ ~_~/' NI.. ; I dl.. \ / , I ".tQt IY /' I ' L- " A/3Y"n -->-J.----1--_1! k"Bg~/ \ Nlet I, -----\, -\' /\-----,.\~-~", ::f'tZ'9E:'-.~-..J \ / I \\ OleE: \ /~Z'~~ // \c:rtZ'ge\ XZ'9&~- ~---_/ \ /< />H9E \ \______~-- \, ./ ). -..-( I \/ -"',_ I " \\ ( WZ'9t.'" ~ BVnt \ ____~ \ ZZ'9E ~ --('" -'( \ II 1~9E i \, / \----, 'I '\ /Y' - \ \ --r~ ( "", rl9E -~ i j----------\, \ , MtOl:..\If'., ^'.~', At.. _ -\ \ ~T - /" -'-' '~I .... \ " \ ___/ oZ'iJ& \ I-- ---~--- _ -'1 I '''-,-H~9E: ' )jA,,- -~~ \ v--------"'<:,Bl:~t.. "-'V~)\\' U9E://),/OZ'9J krZ'9\ rZ'9J "'- "// ". "-"""', D~~~~ \-... \OZ'9a, "-,// \\ /// I '!' '-v / - \ rliJoZ' \ --//., ~ ' ;:~-iiz-~t \ ':-( \ _ ~Z'9t Z'94 I 3~9[ _ _ " ',,-, ;n~ II _____ '~~ \ '.1 1t.. , , I I 'J ,~-< 01.. -1/ '/, 1/// '( -1i9E /--\\ _\.~=--_--L_J__ ~// ',,- ___---~~ \ // \'\\ _/:>~ r----I'--\-------- \ ::nliJt/',-- \ / .-',\ /./ \ rZ'9E I I I \ \ \ /~~9t // \;f// \. I I I "O~9t ' \ / / \ \. HZ'9t \ I 9Z'9tl I I, '/ \------ _ /3Z'9C _____I \ _--,--_J i \,/ \ / - // 1, \ _-_ PZ'9~ \ / '.' .-/ I \:. '~I' "< /.--/ /~ -________._ OZ'iC \ 1 'fl9C Y '_/-. 8Z'1il[ _ / -------- \ I / ~ /--'------- ---------:,,1 '"', --- ~'------ \ --------------I " (/." "tot 'V -~--~ ~ / /-y' I { d~W F:)~.md OM..L ~~llV L gln~t~ ~ - fir- M i j ~t a :j.asul aas C !d~ 00 a :j.asul t _ ~ dOOt DOOt .ot 1-_ F= ~ ~ ;!{ os I. ~ '- 'E~ i >IDOl LO' roOt /o~.F1 a<~'" .EE t;;; t ~ vt:/co HODl i ~ 8 3DOl ! "t. ~ 0 D!I (/ lot ~~ ~ ,~" g~g~ H~tl OLt : /~t~ Ot~ ~ t, :ltO ~) V~g~ . I,~ " l~& 9 "to 33 ti .r OEL 1" ,Et "'-J Q~tl "" ""E ..t ~~ LB'~ iLL L etg~ ~~ 81tl BSL 9l. LBE TI< -; ( :1791 (~ 3tlU a.., - 1/ ~ BLl V t .EOI .... ...., 9EOI I Ot91 ~ ~ :lagL 9Lt I '899L 3EOI ~OE~ OEOI (Jeo~ ".9' ~ ;. O&OL VtDL EIlE I :J :j.asul aas "EOl ~ .1.09& .O~ PI ..E e ! ~ co ,. NOSE 'o~ 10ge "0 ..I r- H;.'. I 309& 90~ ='09& l~~ ! ao~ ::J09& oo~ "o~ ..... ~). ~ 8 I'm " It1& ~il\~ Ht~& 1" lOt 9 ~ < :JtU; , l / ~ 91< ,~ '9t EII~ ~ :j.asul aas '~m~ ..... - .CZ>l~E '0 <;'1 --' all - ~~ Llt "01 Ll H' \1 "m 0" 91 ., BUl 3L I m B" ...... "" .., J EO t-- 9'" l 9Et ;.Et ! 0' "E I ! 9 , 0 I ! I, ! "... Ogg~ 399 r- ! \.9Q, ...~ 9' LL ::>991 BBB~ .. 1/ " I- '<fI EEt ...- 99 ~ V )~ L9 0<0< sa BlOl "tot 8El .. LOl 8.. ltl HODt &9, Of;9& 098' >98' 8 98 :j.asul "98\ \ " .., dew I~X).md ggnu Ug.IV 8 glng!t! 3 lesul .g. 8" 81lll LD 3Z'El OK 3 lesul ees .... OL ., ... 0"" I I -rIg., \____:m I ... ..Illl ... .., \ n IT- ~. \ \ \ --j W EItEl 9B' ' .. \ 80.. ..... \ w ..... \ F 'f'lEl R 3~tl: \ ~. B' .. \ "L n.. BO .g '\ ::ut-z ~ 088 .- 888 ......r '" ~ n. 8.&<" "fBEL :ll8Z 8L. '\ 'tiE ~ } Y8BL 8''''' 'BaBL ~ 'fL1'Z 80" ( ..0.. 0 89' o. BBU( \~ .. tot Blat 8Kt m nn n"" B" ..B- Bl.Ll -=J ..... ..., "ILa " 0: .. YlBl ~. I " ^.. .0 A09E i j '\ 0'" ... .. '0' /... OvlE '" lL ;$ '" ~ ~ 3t.. ~ ~ 91>.. n .. .. ~... ... ~ L.. .0. ~tLE ata: 0... \fOll B 0... ..... :lOgE - ..~~ LL "- ..,SLE ~ .. BL ...... " .. OL' >lt~E I 801. n.. 8B.. g.. . 1tLE :Jtu: 00.. w = .--: .0> H' 31 gtEl J SB :Ill - duw Ig~.md JUOd Ug.IV 6 gJui5!d ~gll Il"" :J 1001: .. .. .. .. .. .. '~OL .. .. !ll 099Z: d99Z: -< .. g" -+ , I I '9'9LL B9U NSi9l D99l iSLL1-- !lll ill I :>9Lt OgLE B9LE l"" !lll Ol' <01: .. 0.z:U: '" ela YBLE HIOl 99Dt , i ~00l: ~ 3001: YZ:O~ lU: 09Dt el In: 8l.< HOto ::ILOL elOl YLEl l:: ~ .. \! " ~10''' ..... OLO~ nBit M /1 8101 ) / . SBLE ~---' BLa H ~ :t.esul L< Ollto Nato .0 '" CO> .. to< G /~ duw 19~.rnd gA!d UglV 0 I gln~!d I OIL ~~ts.o ~ 00l ~.~ ~'-"-: Y:::'its~ ., .... '1 .t. \o~, .L \..., ts OL.. /r- ~!B&f..t I.L v.~~ // I 9Sl) &9 l'9& ~ / ~" SLI I' 'L~Y t1.~~ ) V 'f/llZ I ,,~t::P.... LO' OS. ~ ~' ~ " .". Ii 0<< oot ~ OL ~ / I ;:.... k'~/ .{.eY..; c.~ so& lOt 1 SO .Ll I / ~ L!:cl~:/ "~~" \ '/ "?!ill ~IL - ; Vti ilL. '9'~LE: dO.. NBLt E> 19SUI I'OOl: 08& I 100& HOO& .. .00& I 900& T 9t9Z .... 3V9Z .00& 1 ~- .... voO& ODO& ~ ....t9Z V- I )HL / ~00& 1 "L ~ I , 99l& '----- . wooz yg9Z / I ADOt I ! ~ XDDt /1 ~4 Ft- .. ~Ni > I ^OOt T ~;~ .. ~ ... ~ .- NDO' ~ V.tl ~~ .--O:~ _ ~dDOt OOOt I ~DOt -B ~~ ' ~oo. i 1.;;- "0';1'" .Ot ~ li--i \~ ' .... ...\1 L ~...1. ~_ /J.l i I ~~ ~DO' I 0 \. .... 1 v... . ~. ... ;LD! -;;;j .. I roDt I L _". '----~;:~.. I .... is" vi', HDD' \ .. \ (";00. ,r... _ \~ 'OD' 900. I '-...- ~~i Ie :lOOt :JODl "" I 101 I~~ /~.. I ~~ VOOt I , i ZOOl IS BBlL T ~~' .. <-- .L. ~'\ 000' OLO& ~ ...t .. l"t ,... )IY9t OBO~ iii iii is n .. ~ D" HOOZ 00" :>...9Z r<L '" Sg9Z - - . . ., ~ ODJ. BOLt St9Z '''J ZO.t i VDL. I 8BL ~.. L ~' ..tii B&B& BE9 iiW BtEt ... I v.. ,.t ..t ... D., 1 ... 1 YEEE I a. ..t ~.S. ... W , L 08 Ot ... 0.. aiEL 'lfg~t OLSt VLSZ I t, OiBl r-? (.Ai. \\ 'e)) get )) · 7 V~ HL&t 9L&& BLez OLEE: alL s.t ~ ~IL Oti i ~_ OLI I ~L.. r 9~~ .. ~ \)1f \ OL..// i Itsl Vti n ~ .I I ~L Vt.~~ U ~ ~ ~~tL> ~ [\...i ./ ~ ~ \ .;:..- 7 ' l... ~ O.L. d.L. As,; reLt !~ ~ .'V{~, ~, ~La , -oJ 8 '.L. N3BL& 0'" BlLZ '- '" -- BBL. ~ duJ'\[ Ig~.rnd X!S uarv 11 gln~!.~ ... .... V9t~ NYt9Z av. "".. r'f'ty9Z H :J,BSUI :IEEE MS' a... Wt9Z Wy9Z I j de' ::tEEE Ne, V"". tJ ..e, ."". ~"". 10L """.. .. E :r llYt9Z ~9Lt A.... en m .. At9Z; m 30L ,jIl, f ~ - n.. ;:] nY.. (I) m .-+ J: lt9il Ot9Z \/'r" 3SLE OYSl dt9l' - ... ve, .., "'.. . ,--- j os :)!Ut Cilt ...... 1.,gZ roDE Oat 100. HOll!: II< 9v9Z ""OE !lOll!: "".. ...,.. gOl' Ie, .Lt eot ~e. I'll' A'lfT9l' ,w, Ht.. M't>9t duw Ig~.md UgAgs Ug.rv Z I glng!.!:l ~OSt 'Bt rost 98l.Z .. "Bt Msa ~ ,//lit Dtot OOSt CBLZ 3BLz: VBLl: dtot :)8Ll DOSt aOBl/OSt a~it >tot i n\f't9Z Dt.. gg >9, ^99Z V91H. nggz 3tL tLt Wt9Z DtL OYB9 09lt N'lB9 Det d~l}t oe, De, L< et B ....!H: .. .. E N .. ~ O't.gt ~, ~-- 89' \ /~ ( Bt - rJ . I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and LAND PROTECTION PLAN Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 503-231-2231 800-662-8933 November 1996 Mat a country chooses to save is what a country chooses to say about itself. Mollie H. Beattie, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993-1996 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Proposed Action ............................................... 1-3 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ........................ 1-3 1.2.1 Background ................................................... 1-4 1.3 Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 1.4 Decisions to be Made ........................................... 1-6 1.5 Issue Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 1.5.1 Issues to be Addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8 1.5.2 Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 1.6 San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Planning Efforts ................... 1-9 1.6.1 Conceptual Management Plan and Land Protection Plans .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 1.6.2 Comprehensive Management Plan... . ., . .., . ., . . .,. . . ... . . . .,. . . . 1-10 1.6.3 Ongoing Rancho San Diego Actions ...............................1-10 1.7 Other Related Actions .......................................... 1-10 1.7.1 Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement . 1-10 1.7.2 Naval Air Station/Marine Corps Air Station Miramar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11 1.7.3 Bureau of Land Management Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa Cooperative Management Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12 1.7.4 Otay Valley Regional Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12 1.7.5 Otay Ranch Wildlife Reserve. .. . ., . ., . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .., . . ., . . . . ., . 1-12 1.8 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities ..................... 1-13 1.8.1 Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities and Compatible Refuge Uses . . 1-16 Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2.1 Habitat Protection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2.3 Alternatives for the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project .......... 2-2 2.3.1 Alternative A. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Includes Approximately 3,327 Hectares (8,223 acres) of Private and Public Lands (Preferred Alternative) .......................................... 2-3 2.3.2 Alternative B. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Includes Approximately 1,225 Hectares (3,027 acres) of Private Lands ....................... 2-8 2.3.3 Alternative C. No Action ......................................... 2-8 2.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Studied in Detail ..................... 2-8 2.5 Summary of Alternatives ........................................2-10 2.6 Comparative Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative. . . .2-10 Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Biological Environment .......................................... 3-1 3.2 Social and Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 Page Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Effects on the Biological Environment .............................. 4-1 4.2 Effects on the Social and Economic Conditions ....................... 4-2 4.2.1 Effects Common to Altematives A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 4.2.2 Specific Social and Economic Effects on Altematives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 4.5 Short-term Uses versus Long-Term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 4.6 Cumulative Impacts .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 Chapter 5. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, and COMPLIANCE 5.1 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2 Environmental Review and Coordination ............................ 5-1 5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act ................................. 5-1 5.2.2 Other Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 5.2.3 Distribution and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Chapter 6. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................ 6-1 References ...................................................... . R-1 Figures Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Proposed Vemal Pools Stewardship Project and Refuge Units ...... 1-2 General Location Map of Proposed Vemal Pools Stewardship Project. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 Map of Altematives A and B-Northem Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 Map of Altematives A and B-Southem Area .................... 2-5 Figure 2-1a Figure 2-1b Tables Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Private and Public Lands Acreage of Vemal Pool Sites ............ 2-6 Plant Communities Within Altemative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 Plant Communities Within Altemative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 Summary of Altematives by Major Feature .....................2-10 Comparative Summary of Environmental Consequences by Altemative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR ii Draft Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Page Appendix A. Individual Vernal Pool Descriptions .......................... A-1 Appendix B. Endangered. Threatened, and Candidate Species within the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B-1 Appendix C. Plant Communities Maps .................................. C-1 Appendix D. Distribution List for Draft Environmental Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-1 Appendix E. Glossary ............................................... E-1 Appendices Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR iii Draft Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is a contribution by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to conserve the rich and varied natural heritage of the San Diego region. From the salt marshes of south San Diego Bay, vernal pools on Otay and Del Mar mesas, to coastal sage scrub in the San Miguel, Jamul, and Otay mountains, the diverse range of habitats contained within the San Diego Refuge would be protected and managed for the continuing benefit for the people of the San Diego region. The San Diego community would benefit from the protection and management of the diverse wildlife habitats and scenic open spaces that are the hallmark of this region. The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge was established on April 1 0, 1996, with the acquisition of private lands at Rancho San Diego (see section 1.6.3). Three proposed projects comprise the San Diego Refuge: Vernal Pools, South San Diego Bay, and Otay-Sweetwater (see figure 1-1). These three projects were initiated at different times (Vernal Pools in 1989; South San Diego Bay in 1990; and Otay-Sweetwater in 1995) and include geographically separated parcels of land spread over a broad area within the San Diego region. A wide diversity of wildlife and their habitats occur within the three refuge projects. Because of the geographical and biological differences, the Service is preparing a separate environmental assessment and land protection plan for each proposed refuge unit of the San Diego Refuge. This draft environmental assessment evaluates alternatives and the environmental effects of conserving vernal pool habitats and their associated flora and fauna in the San Diego region using a wide variety of habitat protection methods. Conservation of vernal pool habitats could include acquisition of lands for the proposed Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. This assessment will be used by the Service to facilitate public input in the planning for the conservation of vernal pool habitats and to determine whether the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 LEGEND .. PROPOSED VERNAL POOLS STEWARDSHIP PROJECT PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT Location Map 4lI Son 1A'ne.",te R""0 ~ o . I ,I a 12 Kill I I o , 5 "' , Lake Jennings Ib. \V SAN DIEGO NATIONAL Pacific Ocean FOREST ----L _ u ~-- Mexico BUI'S OTAY NATIONAL LAND AND WILDLIfE WANAGEWENT AREA USfWS Octobto. 1 tit Figure 1-1. Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project and Refuge Units San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 1-2 would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The environmental assessment will aid the Service's decision-making process in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 1.1 Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project to conserve outstanding vernal pool resources in the San Diego region by using a variety of habitat protection methods. These methods range from the acquisition of land by the Service for the Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego Refuge to protection under the Sikes Act through interagency cooperative agreements with the Department of Defense. The proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project, by coordinating with landowners, local jurisdictions, government agencies, and Department of Defense to protect native habitats for rare species, would provide a long-needed counterbalance to the rapid urban growth of San Diego. The term "conservation" is defined to include a wide variety of habitat protection methods. These methods include cooperative agreements, coordinated planning, and shared resources with local, State of California, and Federal agencies. "Conservation" also includes acquisition of land or interests therein by the Service for the proposed Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The Service could acquire fee title, conservation easements, long-term leases, and/or cooperative agreements with willing public agencies/willing landowners through purchase, donation, transfer, exchange, or written agreement. Conservation of vernal pool habitats, including endangered and threatened species, at Naval Air Station/Marine Corps Air Station (NAS/MCAS) Miramar would be a cooperative responsibility of the Department of the Navy and Service within the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area. The Department of the Navy is committed to the continuing conservation of vernal pool resources at NAS/MCAS Miramar under existing authorities and through the development of a cooperative agreement with the Service and California Department of Fish and Game under the Sikes Act. 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action The purpose of the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project is the long-term conservation of vernal pool habitats and their associated flora and fauna in the San Diego region. The goals of the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project are to 1) protect and manage key habitats for several endangered, threatened, and candidate species; 2) maintain the high biological diversity of San Diego; 3) provide natural open space for certain compatible wildlife-dependent uses for the residents of and visitors to the San Diego Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 region; and 4) provide a contribution by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service towards the implementation of the Multiple Species Conservation Program in the San Diego region. San Diego County is a focal point of biological diversity in southern California. However, the high biological diversity of San Diego County is threatened by urban and agricultural development. The human population of San Diego County is predicted to increase by 44 percent between 1990 and 2015, with a parallel pace being maintained in housing construction (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). At this rate of urban growth, the opportunities to preserve land areas of sufficient size in the San Diego region to recover endangered species, prevent listing of additional species, and to protect native plant communities are rapidly diminishing. Recognizing the need and benefits of a long-range plan to both direct urban growth and set aside key habitats, the City of San Diego, along with the County of San Diego and cities of Poway, Chula Vista, Santee, National City, Coronado, Lemon Grove, La Mesa, EI Cajon, Del Mar, and Imperial Beach, and the Otay Water District, San Diego County Water Authority, San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority, and Otay Valley Regional Park Joint Powers Authority are developing a Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan (MSCP Plan) (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). An integral feature of the MSCP Plan is the conservation of a contiguous system of the most biologically important habitats remaining in the MSCP study area. Under the MSCP Plan, the Department of the Interior has an important role to conserve and manage certain Federal lands for conservation purposes and to acquire and manage privately owned lands containing high value habitats. 1.2.1 Background Vernal pools are defined as shallow, ephemeral wetlands with very specific hydrologic characteristics. They occur in a Mediterranean climate region, but only within soil types where there is a seasonally perched water table. Vernal pools require a unique combination of climatic, topographic, geologic, and evolutionary factors for their formation and continued existence (Zedler 1987). In San Diego County, this combination of factors occurs mostly on the coastal terraces and some inland valleys. The coastal terraces have and continue to undergo substantial residential, commercial, industrial, military, and infrastructure development. Vernal pools are a unique and an extremely rare wetland habitat type and have been described as an "endangered ecosystem" (NBS 1995). San Diego vernal pools provide essential habitat for five Federally endangered species (San Diego mesa mint, San Diego button celery, California orcutt grass, Otay Mesa mint, and Riverside fairy shrimp) and three proposed endangered or threatened species (San Diego fairy shrimp, thread-leaved brodiaea, and spreading navarettia). In addition, the pools contain a high number of sensitive and endemic plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 species. Existing local, State, and Federal wetland and endangered species regulations have not provided adequate protection and management for either the species or the habitat. Adequate preserve size and configuration, active enforcement, and habitat management and restoration are needed to stop the continued degradation and destruction of vernal pools. In 1979, it was estimated approximately 11,572 hectares (28,595 acres) of vernal pool habitat originally occurred in San Diego County (Beauchamp and Cass 1979). At this time the loss of habitat was estimated to be 91 percent with only 1,009 hectares (2,494 acres) remaining (Bauder 1986). In 1990, Oberbauer estimated the amount of original vernal pool habitat occurring in San Diego County to be 23,841 hectares (58,910 acres) and concluded 97 percent of the vernal habitat lost. No current county-wide surveys of remaining vernal pools have been prepared to quantify losses since Bauder's 1986 report. However, the destruction and degradation of remaining vernal pools continues. Bauder (1986) found that along with destruction of vernal pool habitat, overall habitat quality has declined due in part to continuing disturbances but also from habitat fragmentation. A report prepared at the request of the California Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife found ''The severity of habitat loss and species endangerment makes the San Diego vernal pools one of the natural communities most urgently in need of site protection in California" (Jones and Stokes 1987). The destruction of vernal pool habitat in this region is caused primarily through housing and commercial development and highway construction; additional impacts are incurred by off-road vehicles, agricultural development, and illegal dumping. San Diego County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation with a population increase of 349 percent between 1950 and 1990 (California Department of Finance 1993). A 44 percent population growth rate predicted between 1990 and 2015 (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996) could further fragment and degrade the remaining vernal pool habitat. The importance of the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project is underscored not only by the scarcity of the remaining vernal pool resources, the number of sensitive and endangered species, and the level of threats and the degree of endangerment of those species; but also by the inadequacy of existing local, State, and Federal laws to provide complete protection, management, and restoration for this habitat type and the species it contains. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 1.3 Project Area The proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project is located within the city and county of San Diego, California. Primarily, the project area is located on Otay Mesa near the United States and Mexico border; near the Otay and Sweetwater reservoirs; and in central San Diego County on Del Mar Mesa, Lopez Ridge, Naval Air StationlMarine Corps Air Station Miramar (NAS/MCAS Miramar) and adjacent lands, and Montgomery Field Airport (see figure 1-2). The areas being considered comprise approximately 3,327 hectares (8,223 acres) and contain approximately 925 hectares (2,282 acres) of the remaining vernal pool habitat in San Diego County. 1.4 Decisions To Be Made Based on the analysis documented in this environmental assessment, the following decisions will be made by the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 1. Should the Service establish a Vernal Pools Stewardship Project (including the proposed Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego Refuge)? And if so, 2. Which alternative best fulfills the purposes of the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project? 3. Does the alternative selected have a significant impact upon the quality of the human environment? 1.5 Issue Identification Numerous comments from landowners, agencies, community organizations, and interested citizens were received following the release of the Concept Plan for San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and Planning Updates (October 1995 and March 1996) and after open-house meetings (see chapter 5 for a summary of public involvement activities). Based on these comments, biological, social, and economic concerns were identified. Landowners and developers expressed interest and concern about 1) whether their lands fell within the planning area and whether residences would be purchased; 2) the effect of the proposed Refuge on property values and future sales; 3) impacts on zoning and development potential of lands both within and neighboring the Refuge; 4) receipt of fair-market value for private property sold to the Service; and 5) Service's willing seller policy and use of condemnation. Citizens and community groups expressed concerns for protecting dwindling native plant and wildlife habitats, Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-6 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 Del Mar Mesa fJ1riJ, II Lopez Ridge ~ .rJS SAN VINCENTE ~ RESERVOIR - / , Nav;! AlrStationj Marine Corps Air Station , T Miramar LAKE JENNINGS SWEETWAT~R P RESERVOIR~ Tijuana Slough NWR ------ LOWER OTAY~ RESERVOIR (?" " Otay 11 Mes~ Sedng UNITED STATE.?.-___----- Canyon _----- ----- MEXICO PACIFIC OCEAN Figure 1-2. Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge o 4 8 12 K~ ~ .. VERNAL POOL COWPLEX[S o 5 MI Location Map USFWS October 1996 1-7 providing public uses on the Refuge, and reducing property tax revenue. After reviewing comments received during the planning workshops, the Service expanded the scope of the environmental assessment to include "conservation", rather than "acquisition", of vernal pool habitats. Issues identified during the planning process that are analyzed in this environmental assessment are described next. 1.5.1 Issues to be Addressed Major issues identified by the Service and in the scoping and public involvement process were selected for analysis. Of particular focus for this draft environmental assessment is the biological issue of protecting vernal pool habitats and endangered and threatened species; social and economic issues related to land ownership, property taxes, urban development, agricultural resources, and public use. Biological Issue o The Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area should be sufficiently large to protect and enhance vernal pool habitat for endangered, threatened, and rare species, conserve biological diversity, and aid in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Social and Economic Issues Land Ownership o Landowners are concerned that private lands located within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area or approved Refuge boundary of the Vernal Pools Unit would be subject to additional government regulation and zoning. o Landowners are concerned that their lands would be more difficult to sell or be devalued by being within or adjacent to the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area or approved Refuge boundary. o Landowners are also concerned about the use of condemnation and expressed interest in the Service's willing seller policy. Property Taxes o Lands acquired by the Service are removed from the property tax rolls. Urban Development and Agricultural Resources o Land acquired by the Service for the proposed Vernal Pools Unit would not be available for future urban and agricultural development. Public Use Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-8 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 Public Use o Various groups and citizens expressed a desire and need for certain public uses to occur within the Vernal Pools Unit. 1.5.2 Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis The following areas of concern have been noted but are not evaluated further because their impact would be slight or none. Effects on archaeological and historical resources from implementing either of the alternatives would not be expected to differ significantly compared to the no action alternative. These resources are currently protected under existing archaeological and historical authorities and regulations. Existing levels and patterns of traffic are not expected to increase within the project area nor are major increases expected in noise levels. Projected traffic loads and noise levels may decrease as lands identified for future urban development are purchased and placed within the Refuge. No changes to air quality are anticipated since the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project does not generate any new point or mobile sources of air pollution. The acquisition of lands for the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area would not expose any major public infrastructure to geological hazards or unstable geological features. The acquisition of lands would not result in a major increase in soil erosion, nor would demands for surface water or groundwater, relative to existing and proposed urban and agricultural developments, increase. 1.6 San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Planning Efforts 1.6.1 Conceptual Management and Land Protection Plans The Draft Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and Draft Land Protection Plan for the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project are included as concurrent planning documents for public review. The draft Conceptual Management Plan gives a general overview of how the proposed refuge would be operated and managed, but it does not provide extensive detail, pinpoint where facilities would be located, or show where public use would be allowed. The draft Land Protection Plan identifies habitat protection priorities for each privately owned parcel of land within the proposed refuge. The draft Land Protection Plan is developed principally as a guide for landowners in the project area. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-9 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 1.6.2 Comprehensive Management Plan As lands are acquired by the Service, a Comprehensive Management Plan and step- down Refuge management plans would be prepared. The Comprehensive Management Plan would provide details for the management of the San Diego Refuge and would specify the types and locations of public use activities and habitat management activities. This plan would include detailed environmental analysis, public involvement, and the identification of compatible public uses that would be permitted within the San Diego Refuge. 1.6.3 Ongoing Rancho San Diego Actions In April 1996, approximately 736 hectares (1,840 acres) of private undeveloped lands at Rancho San Diego were acquired by the Service from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). These lands form the comerstone of the San Diego Refuge. This area contains coastal sage scrub habitat for the threatened coastal Califomia gnatcatcher, riparian habitats for the endangered least Bell's vireo and endangered southwestem willow flycatcher, and habitats for other sensitive species. The environmental assessment for the acquisition of Rancho San Diego was released separately and in advance of this draft environmental assessment because of the immediate need to acquire these lands from the FDIC. The Service concluded that the acquisition of private lands at Rancho San Diego was not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The Rancho San Diego lands would be included within the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit, if that portion of the San Diego Refuge project is approved. 1.7 Other Related Actions 1.7.1 Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIRlEIS) The City of San Diego and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a second Draft Joint EIR/EIS Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area in August 1996 (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). The MSCP Plan was revised due to project changes and in response to public comments received on the initial draft of March 1995. On August 30, 1996, the revised MSCP and draft EIRlEIS were recirculated for a 45-day public review and comment period. Actions covered by the joint EIRlEIS include: 1) adoption of the MSCP Plan by participating local jurisdictions; 2) approval of the MSCP Plan by the Service; Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-10 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 3) issuance of management authorizations under section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act and section 2835 of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act by the State of California; 4) issuance of section 10(a)(1 )(B) permits for the take of covered species within the MSCP planning area; and 5) execution of Implementing Agreements with the appropriate jurisdictions. The joint EIRlEIS analyzes Ii preferred preserve design, the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA), and four alternative preserve designs. The biological goal of the preserve design is the conservation of the core biological resource areas and linkages within the MSCP study area. In addition to existing Federal and State-owned land, the MSCP Plan estimates State and Federal contributions to the MSCP should result in the long-term preservation of approximately 5,465 hectares (13,500 acres) of habitat (in addition to existing Federal and State-owned land). Thus, establishment of the Vernal Pools Unit would contribute to Fish and Wildlife Service participation in the MSCP. 1.7.2 Naval Air Station (NAS)/Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar The Department of Navy actively manages a successful vernal pool habitat conservation project on Navy lands in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), National Environmental Policy Act, and Department of Navy Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual. NAS/MCAS Miramar has a management plan for vernal pools, Vernal Pool Management Plan Naval Air Station Miramar, by Bauder and Wier (1991). This management plan has provided the framework for vernal pool management on NAS/MCAS Miramar. NAS/MCAS Miramar has conducted several vernal pool projects in accordance with this plan including a basewide 1993 vernal pool basin survey, vernal pool basin enhancement and restoration, fencing, signage, exotic plant removal, closure of roads in vernal pool areas, and restoration of road pools. In addition, NASIMCAS Miramar has funded several projects relating to vernal pool faunal species, native American connections to vernal pools, and monitoring of restoration sites. Also, NAS/MCAS Miramar employs a full-time botanist who is responsible for monitoring the vernal pools, protecting or avoiding future damage to vernal pool areas, coordinating research, and conducting vernal pool education programs for military and civilian personnel. The mission of the Department of Defense is national security and military activities on NAS/MCAS Miramar vital to fulfillment of that mission can impact natural resource protection and management. As a result of a formal consultation with the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Navy is currently developing a Multispecies Habitat Management Plan which will integrate their military mission requirements with the conservation of natural resources, including vernal pool resources. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-11 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 Federal trust responsibilities for vernal pool resources, including endangered and threatened species, are shared by the Department of the Navy and the Service. The conservation of the most important concentration of vernal pool habitats at NASIMCAS Miramar and within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area represents a significant contribution by the Department of the Navy. The Department of the Navy, through the Multispecies Habitat Management Plan and interagency cooperative agreement under the Sikes Act, would be a critically important partner in the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area. This cooperative agreement would facilitate stewardship of trust resources and would remain in effect during the Marine Corps administration of NASIMCAS Miramar. 1.7.3 Bureau of Land Management Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa Cooperative Management Area The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to acquire approximately 4,000 hectares (10,000 acres) of private lands in the San Ysidro Mountains to connect with public lands at Otay Mountain and Cedar Canyon and with public lands at Little Tecate Peak and Tecate Peak (BLM 1994). BLM's Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa Cooperative Management Area is adjacent to the Vernal Pools Unit at Otay Reservoir and Otay Mesa (see figure 1-1). The Service, County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and the California Department of Fish and Game have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to develop a proactive and coordinated planning and acquisition effort for the Otay Mountain area. 1.7.4 Otay Valley Regional Park The Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and County of San Diego are proposing an Otay Valley Regional Park that stretches along the Otay River from South San Diego Bay to the drainage basin for the Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs. The proposed Otay Valley Regional Park overlaps portions of all three of the proposed refuge units. Overlap occurs near Lower Otay Reservoir and Otay Mesa within the proposed Vernal Pools Unit and at the salt ponds and adjacent open water within the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit. At the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit overlap occurs at the Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs and the eastern Otay River Valley. The proposed Regional Park is an important regional conservation initiative that would protect a significant riparian corridor and would connect the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit with the proposed Otay-Sweetwater Unit. 1.7.5 Otay Ranch Wildlife Reserve The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan approved by the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego calls for the development of a 4,560-hectare Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-12 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 (11 AOO-acre) open-space' preserve on lands owned by the Baldwin Company and other landowners. The proposed open-space preserve would include a large block of contiguous habitats along Otay Valley, San Ysidro Mountains, and Proctor Valley and vernal pools on Otay Mesa. The Service would work with the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and County of San Diego to coordinate management, monitoring, law enforcement, and environmental education. The Service has applied to function as the preserve owner/manager for the Otay Ranch open-space preserve; however, the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego have jointly assumed the responsibility as the preserve owner/manager. 1.8 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation's fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain marine mammals, and anadromous fish. This responsibility to conserve our Nation's fish and wildlife resources is shared with other Federal, State, Tribal, local, and private entities. As part of this responsibility, the Service manages a national network of protected lands and waters dedicated to the conservation of wildlife. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations. Unlike other Federal lands which are managed under a multiple use mandate (e.g., national forests administered by the U.S. Forest Service and public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management), units of the National Wildlife Refuge System are managed as primary use areas. That is, they are managed primarily for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and their habitats; and secondarily for other uses. In addition, refuges are closed to other uses unless specifically and formally opened. Before secondary uses are allowed on national wildlife refuges, Federal law requires that they be formally determined to be 'compatible' with the purpose for which the refuge was established. For recreational uses to be allowed, a Refuge Manager must further determine that adequate funding is available for the development, operation, and maintenance of the activity. A refuge purpose may be specified in or derived from Federal law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum. In addition to providing a basis for making compatibility determinations, a refuge's purpose also serves as a vision or broad mission statement for refuge Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-13 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 management and the public. It provides a broad, long-term statement of management direction and priorities. Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System 1. Habitat. Fish and wildlife will not prosper without high-quality habitat, and without fish and wildlife, traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will continue to conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges. 2. Public Use. The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 3. Partnerships. America's sportsmen and women were the first partners who insisted on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. Conseivation partnerships with other Federal agencies, State agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can make significant contributions to the growth and management of the Refuge System. 4. Public Involvement. The public should be given a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquiSition and management of our National Wildlife Refuges. Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 1. To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems, (when practicable), all species of animals and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 2. To perpetuate the migratory bird resource. 3. To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands. 4. To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and the human's role in the environment; and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these activities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-14 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 Lands acquired for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, including the proposed Vernal Pools, Otay-Sweetwater, and South San Diego Bay Units, would be managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System). Purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge The purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is to protect, manage, and restore habitats for Federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds, to maintain and enhance the biological diversity of native plants and animals, and to provide opportunities for environmental education. Goals of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge The goals of the San Diego Refuge reflect the core mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect wildlife resources of national importance while providing compatible opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural heritage of the region. These goals would: 1. Aid in the recovery of Federally listed endangered and threatened species and avoid the listing of additional species as endangered or threatened by providing a diverse base of protected and managed wildlife habitats. 2. Coordinate and promote partnerships with Federal, Tribal, State of California, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego agencies; local universities and colleges; landowners; community groups; and nongovernmental conservation agencies in support of the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve. 3. Provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities on Refuge lands to foster public awareness and appreciation ofthe unique natural heritage of the San Diego region. The authorities for the establishment of the San Diego Refuge are the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), as amended; Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as amended; Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r), as amended; and Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460-k-4), as amended. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 authorize the Service to use funds made available under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (U.S.C. 4601-4601-11), as amended to acquire lands, waters, or interests therein for Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-15 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 fish and wildlife conservation purposes. Federal monies used to acquire private lands through the Land and Water Conservation Fund are derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf, excess motorboat fuel tax revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property. 1.8.1 Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities and Compatible Refuge Uses A compatible use is a use on a refuge that will not materially interfere with or detract from the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. Some compatible uses may be supportive of refuge purposes, while others may be of a nonconflicting nature. All public uses, such as public use of trails for observing wildlife, must be compatible with the purposes of the national wildlife refuge. Compatibility use determinations require an analysis of the availability of Service funding and staff to oversee the activity pursuant to the Refuge Recreation Act. If the proposed use is found compatible, the use may be authorized by the Refuge Manager if management funds are available and other laws and regulations are satisfied. Compatibility determinations ensure that the natural resources are protected while providing for uses on the refuges that are consistent with wildlife management. Prior to acquiring lands for a national wildlife refuge, the Service is also required to identify those existing wildlife-dependent recreational activities on lands to be acquired that will be allowed to continue on an interim basis pending completion of comprehensive management planning. Wildlife-dependent recreational activities are defined as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental educational and interpretation. Lands within the proposed Vemal Pools Unit support wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as upland game bird hunting and wildlife photography and observation. Upon completion of the San Diego Refuge planning process and prior to acquiring any lands from willing sellers, the Service would prepare interim preacquisition compatibility determinations for wildlife-dependent recreational activities that would be allowed to continue until comprehensive Refuge planning was completed. The interim compatibility determinations for wildlife-dependent recreational activities are meant to temporarily bridge the time period between the acquisition of land for a new wildlife refuge and official opening of Refuge lands to public use. The continuation of wildlife- dependent recreational activities would also require the determination of the Service's authority to regulate the use, availability of funds and staff to oversee the activity, and an analysis of any environmental impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Vemal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 1-16 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Chapter 2 describes three alternatives, including the no action alternative, being considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The two action alternatives for the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project differ in the type of land ownership (public and private lands versus private lands), acreage, and distribution of land. Under the no action alternative, the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project would not be implemented. However, the Otay-Sweetwater and South San Diego Bay Units of the San Diego Refuge could be established under separate decisions. 2.1 Habitat Protection Methods A variety of habitat protection methods could be used to implement the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. On lands owned and managed by public agencies, cooperative agreements and coordinated planning/management efforts, including shared resources could be used to conserve vernal pool resources. Vernal pools located at NASNMCAS Miramar would continue to be managed by the Department of Navy. A cooperative agreement among the Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Department of Navy under the Sikes Act would be developed. Acquisition of land or interests therein by the Service for the proposed Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is another habitat protection method. The Service could acquire fee title, conservation easement, long-term leases, and/or cooperative agreements with willing public agencies/willing landowners through purchase, donation, transfer, exchange, or written agreement. Funds from the Land and Water conservation Fund, Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, and other available sources would be used to purchase fee title or conservation easements from willing sellers at fair-market value. Certain lands could also be conveyed to the Service from landowners to meet mitigation requirements or to fulfill zoning and land-use permit requirements of the local jurisdictions. Approval of the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project does not grant the Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the project boundary, and it does not automatically make lands within the project boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands do not become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System until they are purchased by the Service or are placed under an agreement that provides for management as part of the refuge system. Vernal Pools StewardShip Project San Diego NWR 2-1 Drall Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 2.2 Land Management Lands acquired by the Service for the Vernal Pools Unit would be managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see section 1.8). Specific refuge management activities may be subject to separate review under the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental regulations and would include opportunities for public input. Management activities would include monitoring the status and recovery of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species; controlling nonnative species; restoring native habitats; and developing and providing wildlife-oriented interpretive and educational opportunities. The draft Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge contains a general description of the proposed management program. A comprehensive management plan would be developed at a later date to provide detailed management guidance. 2.3 Alternatives for the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project The major, remaining vernal pool complexes in the San Diego region were included in the alternatives considered for the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. Buffer zones, habitat linkages, and land ownership patterns were also considered in defining the boundaries of the alternatives for the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. Wherever possible, the boundaries of the alternatives follow parcel lines to minimize splitting lots and to minimize uneconomic remnants, even though only a portion might contain native plant and wildlife habitat of interest to the Service. In cases involving an acquisition, the Service and the landowners may negotiate an agreement as to what land is actually added to the proposed Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. Lands with and without development potential could be acquired by the Service. Access to refuge lands will also need to be acquired. In some cases, access rights crossing lands outside of the refuge boundary may also be purchased from willing sellers. Adjustments to the boundary could be made with the approval of the landowner. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 2-2 Draft Environmental AsSll1lSment Chapter 2 2.3.1 Alternative A. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Includes Approximately 3,327 Hectares (8,223 acres) of Private and Public Lands (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative A, the Service's preferred alternative, approximately 3,327 hectares (8,223 acres) of private and public lands, would be included within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project (see figures 2-1a and 2-1b and table 2-1). This alternative conserves vernal pools located on Del Mar Mesa, Lopez Ridge, NAS/MCAS Miramar and adjacent areas, Montgomery Field, Sweetwater and Otay reservoirs, and Otay Mesa. Seventy-one private landowners and six public agencies (including the Department of Defense) are represented in Alternative A. Conservation of vernal pools at NASIMCAS Miramar would occur through a cooperative agreement among the Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Department of the Navy under provisions of the Sikes Act. Some vernal pools located on eastern Otay Mesa, Sweetwater Reservoir, and at Otay Reservoir could be included in the Otay-Sweetwater Unit for management purposes if contiguous blocks of habitat in that Unit are acquired. Alternative A includes 925 hectares (2,282 acres) of vernal pool habitat, 644 hectares (1,592 acres) of coastal sage scrub, 495 hectares (1,224 acres) of chaparral, 470 hectares (1,161 acres) of grassland, and 3 hectares (8 acres) of riparian woodlands (see table 2-2 for additional plant communities and maps in appendix C). Approximately 1,655 hectares (4,092 acres) and 1,549 hectares (3,830 acres) of the total area in Alternative A are included in the Multiple SpeCies Conservation Program (MSCP) boundary and Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA), respectively. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 2-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project North Area San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Or,;E:~AR ~ ., LOPE:Z RIDGE: UIRAMAR RESERVOIR o ,--------- , ..........-,,- , / , ',- ' \ ',---' - MIRAMAR ARE:A , , r--~ ,--- r , r' JU NAVAL AIR STATION/ MARINE CORPS AIR STATION MIRAMAR /"'------' /--t/) L/ ,,/ j------ I , , I , , , , t) g~u---------~ ACREAGES _ PRIVATE LAND c::J PUBUC LAND EZZ:3 1I1UTARY LAND ~ Del War W.sa Lopez Rldg. Wlramar Area Montgomery Fl.ld PUBUC 175 36 4.152. 190 PRIVATE 272 78 112 o . Includ.. 4.131 (Ie.... military land A MONTGOME:RY Fino ~ 0 2 MILES "'--' "'--' "'--' 0 2 3 K1LOllmRS I Figure 2-1 a Vernal Pools Stewardship Project alternatives: Alternative A includes public and private lands. Alternative B includes only private lands. USFWS 00tiQbIt 11M 2-4 Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Area South Area San Diego National Wildlife Refuge rI\ San Miguel Mountoin SWEETWATER RESERVOIR CHULA VISTA Otoy SPRING CANYON United states _ _ Mexico ..... - CJ IZ:Z3 MILITARY LAND PRIVATE LAND PUBLIC LAND Figure 2-1 b Vernal Pools Stewardship Area alternatives: Alternative A Includes public and private lands. Alternative B includes only private lands. USI'WS October 1", 2-5 ~ ;f\rI\ fI\ ^^ rI\ Jamul I' \ Mountains OTAY RESERVOIR Son Ysidro rI\ Mountains rI\ rI\rI\ ACREAGES PUBLIC Sweetwater Reservoir 131 Ofay Reservoir 247 Ofay lIt.so 265. Spring Canyon 0 . Includes 163 acres military land PRIVATE 30 262 1.195 1.078 ~ 0 ........ ........ ........ 0 2 2 MILES 3 KILOMETERS Table 2-1. Private and J ublic land acrea ~es of vernal 0001 sites PRIVATE VERNAL POOL SITES PUBLIC LANDS LAN DS1/ TOTALS2I 'acresl 'acres' Del Mar Mesa 175 272 447 Loeez Ridoe 36 78 114 Miramar Area 4,15231 112 4,264 Montaomerv Field 190 0 190 Sweetwater Reservoir 131 30 1614' Otav Reservoir 247 262 50g4' Otay Mesa (includes 265!11 2,273 2,5388/ Serino Canyon) TOTALS 5,196 3,027 8,223 1/ Alternative B; 2/ Alternative A 31 Includes 4,131 acres at NAS Miramar 4' Also included in the otay-Sweetwater Unit !II Includes 160 acres at Brown Field 8/1,462 acres also included in otay-Sweetwater Unit Note: Numbers may not sum to total as shown due to rounding Vemal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 2-6 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 < Gl > :;::l '" E Gl .... <( 1 u Gl .- o ... a.. .9- .<: III 'E '" ~ Gl .... tI) III '0 o a.. c;; c ... Gl > 'C Gl III o Q, e Q, Gl .<: .... .5 .<: .... .~ Cii' E u ~ III Gl E c ~ E E o u .... c '" ii: N , N Gl :c '" I- . '" Iii 15 I- <1> " .~ Q) (J) --0..0-0 ro c ~ c ~ro.2ro o .!:2 -I Z 0 , - '" illii" .- '- c: ~ OJ '" ~-...J , ~.<: -5i Q) fIJ Q) ro ro u:3:;:E ~ c: <1> <1>- 8-~ <1><= E<1>.c :.:::"'5::J ." 8 tl ~::J(J') fJJ ffi ' ._ "0 (J) ~O" '" 0 c: .9-> '" <:<:>- '" " c: '" Vi '" '" c; c: "'.0 'C: ::J '" ~ 0." o:fJJ Iii ~ ~ '" 0. m .<: U ~Q)..o '" C) ;;> '" '" u 8cnU) x - <1> ~ "6 a. ~ 0 E ~a..o u .... ... ... o , ~ o o o o o o o M o M '" ~ on ;:: ~ '" ::E", - '" <1> Ql O::E ... ~ ~ o o o o o o o .. N .... on '" ~ ~ 0: N 8 ...J ~ '" E '" l!! Ql ~< ... "' N " "' .. .... o ... N o N o .. M o on on ~ M M .. on .... ... o o ~ ~ ~ Ql E o C) -" c:_ o Ql ::ELi: o '" ~ M .... o o o o o '" N o o o .. .. ~ .2! ~ '" .- .!~ Ql Ql ~ ~ fJJ<:<: o M .... o o o ;:: ~ M ~ v o ... o ~ '0 ~ >,Ql '" '" -Ql 0<:<: 2-7 '" o on o o ~ o o l:j o .... ... '" M N c .. M on N M on .... ~ :::I o ~ o ;:r; ... .... N ~ C! .. .. .. N '" '" Ql ::E >, '" 5 M :::I .; on ~ N ~ .... ... M ... N ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ... :::I. .. c ~ ~ e s G ~ " Sj on. - ~ ';i o ~ ;; S S E ~ o "0 c >- ~ E Ie .8 E ~ 1'= N .. N N . o i ... 2.3.2 Alternative B. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Includes Approximately 1,225 Hectares (3,027 acres) of Private Lands Under Alternative B, approximately 1,225 hectares (3,027 acres) of private lands would be included within the proposed Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego Refuge. No lands owned by a public agency, such as NASIMCAS Miramar, Sweetwater Authority, or the City of San Diego, would be included. The Service could acquire fee title, easements, leases, or agreements from owners of private lands only. Vernal pools on private lands occur on parts of Del Mar Mesa, Lopez Ridge, Miramar area, Sweetwater and Otay reservoirs, and Otay Mesa (see figures 2-1 a and 2-1 b and table 2-1). Seventy-one private landowners are included in Alternative B. Some vernal pools located on eastern Otay Mesa, Sweetwater Reservoir, and Otay Reservoir could be included in the Clay-Sweetwater Unit for management purposes if contiguous blocks in that Unit are acquired. Alternative B includes 155 hectares (383 acres) of vernal pool habitat, 365 hectares (903 acres) of coastal sage scrub, 216 hectares (534 acres) of grassland, 128 hectares (317 acres) of chaparral, and no riparian woodlands (see table 2-3 for additional plant communities and maps in appendix C). Approximately 1 ,225 hectares (3,027 acres) and 1,119 hectares (2,765 acres) in Alternative B are included in the MSCP and MHPA boundaries, respectively. 2.3.3 Alternative C. No Action Under the no action alternative, the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project would not be implemented. Vernal pool habitat would be protected through the existing land-use and regulatory controls administered by local, County of San Diego, State of California, and Federal Government agencies. Implementation of Alternative C would maintain the current level of protection for vernal pools. However, under this alternative, a piecemeal approach to vernal pool protection would continue in the San Diego region, and no active management or preserve design criteria would be applied to vernal pool preservation from a comprehensive or long-term management perspective, with the exception of NAS/MCAS Miramar. Alternative C does not preclude the establishment of the proposed Clay-Sweetwater and South San Diego Bay Units. 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Studied in Detail Other alternatives were considered that included vernal pools located in San Diego County. Some of these pools on Otay Mesa, for example, were determined too Vernal Pools stewardship Project San Diego NWR 2-8 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 ai <II > ;:; '" c "- <II ..... < .!. u <II Oe D- c. ~ III "E ~ <II ..... II) III "0 o D- C;; C "- <II > "C <II III o C. o "- C. <II ..c: ..... c ~ ..... '3: en e u '" - III <II ;:; '2 ~ E E o u ..... c '" a: ..; , N <II :is '" I- '", <ii (5 f- <1> " .~ (l) II) -"'C~\J ('iJ C ..... c: ~ro..2ro o .~-.J Z 0 , - '" GC5u Oi:; :s ~ If-....J , ~.r: ~ Q) U) J:~~ ~ <:: <1> <1>- o-m 03:; <1>e: E~..c :-2 a 2 ro u u ::;::>'" '" Iii ' 'L:; -g ~ m 0 <:: .9-> m 0::>- '" "0 <:: m u; '" ~ c.:l <:: "'.0 "C :J l1tl ir'" ~ ~ m 0- m .r: (J ]jQ)..Q '" Ol 2 m m (J 8(1)(1) x - <1> m-_ <:: 0 0- ~ 0 E ~a..o (J N '" ,.. ,.. N '" c " " " " " " "' '" "' ~ M "' ~ m ::;:m -'" <1> OJ 0:;: ,.. " " " c " " c '" ~ N ... S! 11 " ir N ~ o ...J ~ m E m ~ OJ ~< ~ - '" ... c c c c c c M c "' ... <D e:- OJ E o Ol -" <::- o OJ :;:u: " " c c c c c c c c c c ~ OJ - ~ m.- ~~ OJ OJ ~ :3 "'0:: C M '" c c c c c ;! c c c ,.. ~ .0 ~ ,.,OJ m ., _OJ Oll:: 2-9 N <D N c cl c c N C ~ c c "' .., ~ M N M ,.. ,.. N N C N M" .., :; ,.. ~ '" ~ c ~ c ,.. ::;: ,.. N ;! <; .... O!i N m ., OJ :;: ,., m o .... ;: .... "' ~ '" ~ N ~ c .., .., .... c .., '" .... N .... '" '" ,;, c '6 c ~ e s .. ~ ... .., '" .., ~ .<= on on .. ;; 1i s . on i ~ E ~ on "5 c >- .. E ~ ..!l E ~ .,. degraded to be included. Other pools, like the Mission Trails Regional Park pools, are already in public ownership and are afforded some protection. 2.5 Summary of Alternatives Table 2-4 summarizes the major features of each alternative. Table 2-4. Summary of alternatives bv malor feature. Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (no action' Total lands (acres) 8,223 3,027 0 Public lands 5,196 0 0 Private lands 3,027 3,027 0 Vernal pool areas 2,282 383 0 Coastal sage scrub 1,592 897 0 Lands in MSCP 4,092 3,027 0 boundary Lands in the MHPA 3,830 2,765 0 boundary MSCP . Multiple Species Conservation Program; MHPA . Multiple Habitat Planning Area 2.6 Comparative Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative Table 2-5 summarizes the environmental consequences of the alternatives. Chapter 4 discusses the environmental consequences in more detail. Vemal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 2-10 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 ~ ; l'lI E .! cc >. .a III CD U C CD :J C1' CD III C o (.) ii - c CD E c e "S: c w ii ; c .! o ~ ~ o ~ l'lI E E :J I/J ~ ; l! l'lI Q. E o (.) iii . N CD :is l'lI .... 'i' ~ 'ICe .~ CD -:_~,-.::: 1lJ'IC e" ~~ 'lCol!! l ...:.. c: Ol o ::l ""C: "ii-,=ca~...... E !l''' 0 0 ~ 0 l! " Xl s:i;!.g l!? J111ih,"~ ll;Ec:i:i-C !...~:c~ c:..c: ,2 ::l..... "'-ulL c:;" iiii .~ :gu en c:.. -cS SVG)ct) &...".!!!Ol -giS;Q'g J"g.~iiltl ...!Il""a.,!s !&.QCc ~ Cl 80sa. c: " o 0 tl-g tl .6:S,!~ 10.ls Q, .... 8.a.G>>g 11_ C E en € "'ii~:l o2Eio~ -~""~ ~e;a-tl-c 0lC:-;2' ail,s u'~ "CIco:!i::cv c~~.Q> art!_,fs ~ ~i .1;; ~"OucnG.1 i-g~-g;Q' It: .. ...!!! ill ii E ~ ~ .2 c: O+, tl.!!! Ol~ l~ _c: 08 Ol .. !=o- ~.. -c'2 -;;.. Ol '" ..c:- r~ ~ .. J: "0 o lL ii c: ~ ~ Vernal Pools stewardship Project San Diego NWR ~ o ii'i .!lee ~ 0 Ol jjE1ii S -c Ol o -c ~ -":5 l!! ~ '" iIl.2 .. g.;g al ~c:" a.0l:!! ~;f'!-g o . 0 ~ :e ~- G) "CIQ)=~ ~ ~'ZS m 0" !-g Zl!?CllfD jal I! Ol- _0 c:~ .~ Ol lEi; ::l " '" Ol . ~ '" i.5.~ o.i! is..tacn ocao -o&. ,..- -aiai- ~i5~ c:.. Ol ::::l..c:> o &. ii E ~ j ,!l II) - o ~ ~ " ! il '" Ol '0 -g! ..", i-c ~ Ol Ol c: CIS c: '" '" Ol -c~ C:..c: WI- ii alE 2 ~ "" - c: 0 8 a :5"" 'I~ l! 'f~ Ol-c .:i!:-c '& i . :i5 - i.a~ " tl '" ::li~ i Ol &.0 It:-c ii -E o~ fj '&3l :i5::l o rl . -Olal C:J:lu ilbOl ::lC:_ J:l::lO 01: 0 is.. 'Co_ 00'" ~ ~i5 ~c~ ~:i2 '" '" Q. 00 ~&. Cii aEuj "'~Ol - '0 0!J! f'[", Ol::li .i!: ~1ii '& "" .0 :i5~i .s~Q1 '" a.-g ~~.. :s -ES C~:a 00.. oO..c: f Ol .:i!: o ii " .8' "0 iii 2-11 c: o '" .. >c J!! U .!!! "0. " '" 09'2 XlJ!! gi ~~ 8,.. b-'; c:- s.~ Oa. lll'o( iilJ " .. ,!E - Ol ~~ ~.5 ..-c E c: Ol .. ~i~ :L~= u Q. 5i ~'Q:2 CD c.sQ Ol::lm Eo" '" E c: "'.... CI E 2:' '2 o"'i ca ol::'E..c: i"'''' > a. Ol o Ol ::l E ::l c: CD c ~ ~ Ol Ol i~1t: ,= !l Ol ::l J!l CI 8'_02 ca o~ . .g~~~ .!!!...JiE Q)"";: - >- -c:cam "~Cla. .~ >cEU lLJ!!E< '" ~ .. I- ~ ! e lL rl ..5! 09 U Ol ;Q' ::l '" Xl ::l c: !. 8~ _.1= c: c: Ol 8 [3l S::l ~-o Ol c: O.!!! b. 'MOl ""E c:"" S ~ &.~ - oal '" " i!! '" ""0. ~.lI! ",-c <'I_-tl -c: ,.... j-; ..- E~ 'R a. oS ~ Ol ~~ ~ .. "0. .lI! -c -", 0" '" c: !.!! " Ol ..- II)J:l ".. "a. _ 0 --.; ,..> -Ol S-c .. b . E- Ol 'R.'" E O!:I:I as ~ ~&.i; - c: Ol [ o l Ol o c: .. -e ::::l " ~ o " '$ J:l Il~ ::l ,i'i c: " 8! 3l! . ::l0l- _J:lC: e ,.. Ol ::l= E ""'a. ::l.a 0 .g c"is ~Ol > > Ol Ol" "'''' ! .. " E ~ aI'1:IO-'= g i.E g ",-::e.. - ~ ~I! a- 2::1cO ca::"N C E ::l .. Ol "sc.g aF= elil'~o>' Q, .2- ~~.!! ~ . ~ ca.c Q) fl-g,gJ.5 ~.!!!ll!c: 1/1 .. 0 Ol" tl. ol!.!::J~ C CD_ -,::, C :iQg!~ -g6 .!!!~ <'I'di"" N ~ .J:: ~~ ~g -- ::J OF;! ca: b,g e':: s CD 02 aJ aJ ... C E~.s CD 'R c: 1= Q aJ.!! >. a-g~! 9- ca: =.. E -- '-:1 ~ Ol fl.. c: ~ o.'!'c CD Q '0:8 . ... In C U In g Go) >-::::J"'g .- l:;E .. al '" :E as ... ~ ~ ::l o Xl It: ii ~ ::l " 'C: :t 09 =lD'O Ol"'_ ,,::l c: "'" ~ <c:c: .. ~~ 8 E g'~ c: .ee'2 &.:; .. a. i :I ~j~ ca: 0 0 . C ... ... ~ o Q.Q.Go) i6Xl~i 'i'~eo . a." o a. c: Zca:ca:.!!! c: .. ..c: -.. ~ Ol Ii ~e ::l_ -;:3l Ol::l Erl ~,! &.< a. Ol . o~al i"'u :t=~.s E.. 0 ~c(Q. o - c: o 'E &. ~ .5 1/1 Ol Eo; ~i &.E a.~ 0.. ale; ""Ol :5 .l/l -I C:' Ol' -c-g1t: Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 3 describes the existing biological, social, and economic environment that would most likely be affected by the alternatives. Appendices A, B, and C provide additional information on vernal pool sites, species list, and plant communities. 3.1 Biological Environment The proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area includes varied topography made up of mesas, terraces, and canyons ranging in elevation from approximately 60 to 245 meters (200 to 800 feet) above mean sea level. Physiographically, the area can be categorized into southwesterly draining canyons carved from the mesas, a series of marine terraces with elevations from 90 to 150 meters (300 to 500 feet), and hills and mountains to the east. The vernal pools within the proposed project occur primarily within the coastal terraces and level topography of the lower coastal foothills. Vernal pools are an extremely rare wetland habitat type that contain a high number of endangered, rare, sensitive, and/or endemic plant species. Vernal pools are recognized as a distinct habitat type occurring in only a few places of the world. By their nature vernal pools are unusual and scarce, but losses have been greatly accelerated by human-induced impacts. Thorne (1976) describes the vernal pool plant community as " . . . one of the most characteristic and fascinating plant communities of California. . . . Winter rainfall, shallow basins with a hardpan of relatively impermeable clay and warm, dry, desiccating spring weather seem to be requirements for the development of this plant community." A unique feature of vernal pools is their high degree of endemism. More than 50 percent of the State's vernal pool flora is endemic to California's vernal pools (Thorne 1981). More than three-quarters of the species characteristic of vernal pools are endemic to vernal pools (Bauder pers. comm. 1995). Endemic animals, including three species of fairy shrimp (Riverside, San Diego, and Lindhal's) have also evolved in vernal pool ecosystems. Vernal pools provide essential habitat for five Federally listed endangered species (San Diego mesa mint, San Diego button celery, California orcutt grass, Otay mesa mint, and Riverside fairy shrimp) and three proposed endangered or threatened species (San Diego fairy shrimp, thread-leaved brodiaea, and spreading navarettia). The endangered Del Mar manzanita and Orcutt's spineflower, threatened Encinitas baecharis, and three additional proposed species (San Diego thornmint, willowy monardella, and Quino checkers pot butterfly) occur or could occur within the habitat surrounding vernal pools in San Diego County. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 3-1 Drall Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 Appendix A describes the biological characteristics of individual vernal pool sites within San Diego County. As previously discussed, 97 percent of the original vernal pools in San Diego County have been destroyed (Oberbauer 1990). Remainjng pools occur in a highly fragmented patchwork of small and large mesa systems. The destruction of vernal pool habitat in San Diego County has resulted primarily through housing and commercial development and highway construction; additional impacts are caused by off-road vehicles, agricultural development, and illegal dumping. Habitat fragmentation affects the viability of the few remaining vernal pool habitats. The adjacent plant community within the watershed contributes to the biological diversity of the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project, provides habitat for the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, and could provide habitat for the endangered Pacific pocket mouse and two sensitive species, the San Diego horned lizard and the orange-throated whiptail. Additionally, species of concern are known to use adjacent habitat around vernal pools (see species list appendix B). Plant communities and their acreages in the proposed refuge are listed in chapter 2, table 2-2. Maps in appendix C illustrate the distribution of these plant communities. Vernal pools increase wildlife values to the adjacent upland habitats by providing a source of water for wildlife in otherwise arid upland habitats. Wildlife using these pools include amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. A variety of migratory birds are known to forage in pool water and along pool margins, probably eating insects, tadpoles, and aquatic plants. In the larger vernal pools, waterfowl and shorebirds such as cinnamon teal, sandpiper, common snipe, and killdeer have been observed. Additional grassland, marsh, and brushland bird species are also known to use vernal pool wetlands. Small mammals using habitat adjacent to vernal pools include Audubon cottontail, San Diego pocket mouse, Pacific kangaroo rat, deer mouse, western harvest mouse, dusky- footed woodrat, and California meadow mouse. These mammals, in turn, are a food supply for numerous raptor species and larger predators. Large mammals, common in the vicinity (mule deer, gray fox, coyote, black-tailed jack rabbit, American badger, striped skunk, raccoon, and opossum), use the pools as watering holes or as foraging areas. 3.2 Social and Economic Conditions San Diego County was formed in 1853 and occupies an area of 11 ,036 square kilometers (4,261 square miles) (Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce 1994). The population in 1992 was 2.6 million people (California SecretarY of State 1994). Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 3-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 San Diego pioneered in agriculture and aerospace and has a diverse economic base (Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce 1994), ranking among the top 20 counties in the nation in dollar value of agricultural production ($1,049,393,000) for 1995. Gross value of farm products does not reflect total value to the local economy. For every dollar value of an agricultural product, a multiplying factor (3.5) may be applied, making an estimated economic impact of $3,672,876,000 (County of San Diego Department of Agriculture 1995). Major industries include electronics, ship building, aerospace, industrial machinery, oceanics, and biomedical (Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce 1994). Tourism is a major contributor to the economy. In 1992, 35,620 million visitors generated $3,665 billion in revenue in San Diego County . Military payrolls and business activity add substantially to retail and service businesses in the area. Military defense spending in San Diego County totaled $9,982,400,000 in 1992 (Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce 1994). Land Ownership Approximately 1,225 hectares (3,027 acres) of private lands representing 71 landowners are within the project boundary. Approximately 2,102 hectares (5,196 acres) of public lands representing six entities (Department of Defense, State of California, County of San Diego, City of San Diego, San Diego Unified School District, and Sweetwater Authority) are within the project boundary. Property Taxes The basic property tax rate is 1 percent of the assessed value of land and improvements. Property tax receipts for 1995 on private lands within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project were approximately $517,000. Urban Development Approximately 2,800 hectares (6,900 acres) of land within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project are identified as vacant and undeveloped land according to the existing land use data from SANDAG's 1990 Land Use Inventory. Portions of NAS/MCAS Miramar are included in this category. Other main uses of the remaining 530 hectares (1,300 acres) of land within the proposed Stewardship Project include agriculture and general aviation airport. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 3-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 Agricultural Resources Ranching and grazing are the primary agricultural activities that occur within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area. Approximately 470 hectares (1,161 acres) of grassland and 66 hectares (162 acres) of agricultural land that may support grazing are found within the project area. Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities Neither private lands nor public lands, such as NASIMCAS Miramar and Montgomery Field, within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project are open or available for use by the general public. Upland game species, such as dove and quail, are hunted on private lands. Wildlife observation and photography occur, to a limited extent, on private lands within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 3-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Chapter 4 identifies and analyzes the environmental impacts expected to occur from the implementation of either Alternative A, B, or C as described in chapter 2. Environmental impacts are analyzed by issue for each alternative and appear in the same order as discussed in chapters 1 and 3. Table 2-5 (chapter 2) gives a comparative summary of environmental impacts by alternative. In the social and economic section (4.2), several effects are common to Alternatives A and B; these common effects are described first in that section. 4.1 Effects on the Biological Environment Alternative A would result in the highest degree of conservation and management of endangered and threatened species, native wildlife habitats, and biological diversity. Under this Alternative A, approximately 925 hectares (2,282 acres) acres of vernal pool habitat; 644 hectares (1,592 acres) of coastal sage scrub; 5 hectares (12 acres) of maritime succulent scrub; 495 hectares (1,224 acres) of chaparral; and 20 hectares (50 acres) of riparian woodlands and scrub would be conserved (table 2-2). Alternative A contains all of the known extant United States populations of Otay Mesa mint and the majority of the known populations of San Diego mesa mint, San Diego button-celery, California orcutt grass, spreading narvarettia, Riverside fairy shrimp, and San Diego fairy shrimp which occur in San Diego County. Alternative A would provide essential habitat for, and would assist in, recovery efforts for listed vernal pool species. It also provides protection for coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, chaparral, and riparian habitats. Establishment of a Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego Refuge would assist in achieving the goals of the Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) and Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program through habitat protection within core biological resource areas. Alternative B would result in the second highest level of conservation and management of endangered and threatened species, native wildlife habitats, and biological diversity. Under this alternative, approximately 155 hectares (383 acres) of vernal pool habitat; 362 hectares (897 acres) of coastal sage scrub; 5 hectares (12 acres) of maritime succulent scrub; 113 hectares (278 acres) of chaparral; and 12 hectares (30 acres) of riparian scrub would be protected (table 2-2). Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 4-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 Implementation of Alternative B would reduce and prevent further destruction and degradation of vernal pools and vernal pool watershed through the acquisition and protection of these resources where they occur on private lands. Alternative B would include only 37 percent of the area identified in Alternative A. As a result, major populations of San Diego Mesa mint, San Diego button-celery, and San Diego fairy shrimp would not be included in the proposed Vernal Pools Unit. It is unlikely that this alternative would provide sufficient essential habitat to assist in the recovery of federally listed vernal pool species. It would, however, provide protection for coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, chaparral, grassland, and riparian habitats, although to a lesser degree than Alternative A. Alternative B does not include any public lands, such as NASIMCAS Miramar which supports the largest contiguous block of vernal pool habitat in San Diego County. Implementation of Alternative C (no action) would result in the greatest level of potential impacts to vernal pools and vernal pool watershed through continued destruction and degradation of these resources as no private lands would be acquired for protection, restoration, or management. These potential impacts could result in additional species being listed as endangered or threatened. Public lands where these resources occur would remain in public ownership and would continue to receive varying degrees of protection. Under Alternative C, no additional progress would be made towards the recovery of the San Diego mesa mint or San Diego vernal pools. 4.2 Effects on the Social and Economic Conditions 4.2.1 Effects Common to Alternatives A and B Social and economic impacts that would occur on land ownership and property taxes share common effects for Alternatives A and B and are discussed first for this section. Effects on Land Ownership No new or additional zoning or land-use regulations would be created by the Service within the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area. Land-use designations and zoning would continue to be the responsibility of the local jurisdictions, and development of private land would remain subject to local land-use regulations. As private lands are acquired by the Service, these lands would be managed pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and other Federal laws and regulations as described in section 1.8. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 4-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 Upon completion of the planning process and the identification of an approved project boundary, the Service has the authority to work with interested landowners to purchase or to arrange agreements for habitat protection of their properties. By identifying an approved project boundary, the Service enlarges the group of potential buyers that a private landowner may consider in the sale of their property. This group would include the Service, and a variety of nongovernmental agencies such as The Environmental Trust, Trust for Public Lands, and The Nature Conservancy. Thus, landowners may increase their opportunities to sell their lands by being within the approved project boundary. Service policy is to acquire lands only from willing sellers. Landowners would not be not required to sell their lands to the Service. As required by law, landowners would be paid fair-market value for real property and interests therein. The fair-market value would be determined by appraisals conducted by professional appraisers meeting Federal standards. Since zoning and development would continue to be regulated by the local jurisdictions and because undeveloped land sales and values are influenced by a variety of market and economic conditions, private lands within or adjacent to the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project are not expected to be devalued through designation of an approved Refuge boundary. In contrast, many landowners have stated the proposed Refuge would ensure their views of open space would be maintained and thereby enhance the value of their properties. The Service is not interested in purchasing homes, residences, or other buildings. By focusing on the acquisition of undeveloped land, major social and economic impacts resulting from the dislocation of homeowners and local businesses would be avoided. Thus, little or no displacement or reduction of existing residences would occur within the project area. Effects on Property Taxes Fee acquisition of private lands by the Service would reduce property tax revenues to the County of San Diego because Federal lands are not subject to State or local taxes or assessments. However, this decrease would be mitigated by 1) payments to the County of San Diego by the Service in lieu of property taxes under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, 2) fewer demands for services and infrastructure on the County of San Diego in this area, and 3) development could occur in greater density elsewhere in the County. Under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, an annual payment would be made to the County of San Diego to offset the loss of property tax revenues resulting from the Vernal Pools StewardShip Project San Diego NWR 4-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 acquisition of private lands. Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments for acquired lands are based upon the greatest of 1) three-fourths of 1 percent of the appraised value; 2) 25 percent of the net receipts produced from the lands; or 3) 0.75 dollars per acre. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act also requires that Service lands be reappraised every 5 years to ensure payments to local governments remain equitable. Funding for Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments are derived from all revenues received from Refuge products, such as timber fees, grazing fees, permit fees, oil and gas royalties, and leases. If these funds are not sufficient to make full payments to the counties, Congress is authorized under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act to appropriate funds to make up the shortfall. When Congress does not appropriate funds to enable full payments to be made, counties receive a pro rata reduction in their Refuge Revenue Sharing Act disbursement. The Service hes not completed any appraisals and therefore cannot estimate the difference between the revenue sharing payment and property tax revenue. However, in the context of the rapidly expanding tax base within the county, this difference is likely insignificant. 4.2.2 Specific Social and Economic Effects on Alternatives Effects on Urban Development Under Alternative A, lands acquired and managed by the Service would not be available for future urban development. A comparison of the Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast Land Use 1990 with Planned Land Use indicates there would be up to 588 hectares (1,445 acres) potentially suitable for residential and commercial development within the boundaries of Alternative A. By acquiring private lands for the proposed Vernal Pools Unit, urban development would be reduced. Dwelling units that would not be constructed under Alternative A could potentially be accommodated by increased housing densities in other areas within the San Diego region. Increasing housing densities in other areas of the San Diego region would be subject to land-use planning and approvals by the County of San Diego and the local jurisdictions. Increased densities within existing land-use designations is envisioned under the MSCP Plan to accommodate project housing needs within the MSCP study area between 1990-2205 (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). However, the impacts of accommodating increased housing densities in other areas of the San Diego region is beyond the scope of this environmental assessment. The short-term impact upon the housing supply caused by the Service acquiring lands with development potential would be moderated by the current market conditions for large-scale housing projects in the planning area; the long lead time needed for the startup of residential developments; projections that lands planned for urban residential Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 4-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter .. development currently identified in general and community plans may be accommodated within the greater San Diego region; and the limited availability of Federal funds for habitat acquisition. By reducing the amount of land available for urban development through the acquisition of lands for habitat protection, long-term cumulative impacts would occur. In the context of all the lands available for development, the relatively minor acreage included in the proposed refuge unit would not result in significant effects on urban development. Impacts to public lands would be negligible, because these lands are existing preservation sites, compensation lands, or are compatible with existing and planned uses. Impacts to NAS/MCAS Miramar are expected to be negligible due to their existing management plan and their obligation under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative B, impacts to urban development would be similar to Alternative A, but smaller in magnitude. A comparison of the Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast Land Use 1990 with Planned Land Use indicates there would be up to 555 hectares (1,365 acres) potentially suitable for residential and commercial development within the boundaries of Alternative B. By acquiring private lands for the proposed Vernal Pools Unit, urban development would be reduced. Under Alternative C (no action alternative), wildlife habitats suitable for urban development would not be acquired by the Service. These lands would remain available for future urban development subject to local, State, and Federal permit approval processes. Effects on Agricultural Resources Under Alternative A, ranching and grazing are the primary agricultural activities that would be affected. Domestic livestock grazing could be phased out on lands acquired by the Service. Approximately 470 hectares (1,161 acres) of grassland and 66 hectares (162 acres) of agricultural land that could support grazing would be affected by Alternative A. These agricultural lands are located primarily on Otay Mesa. As grazing lands are retired, a reduction in the employment of ranch hands and a reduced demand for ranching equipment and supplies would occur over time. However, some of this loss of employment and demand for equipment could be alleviated by purchases and contracts by the Service for fence construction and maintenance on Refuge lands. Under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, landowners would be reimbursed for reasonable relocation and related expenses, replacement housing payments under certain conditions, relocation assistance, and certain necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in selling real property to the Service. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 4-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 Because of the relatively small amount of grazing, impacts on the local economy, employment, and agricultural production from the loss of this grazing on lands acquired for the Vernal Pools Unit would be relatively small. The impacts also must be considered in the context of the no action alternative in which agricultural lands would likely be developed. Under Alternative B, impacts to agricultural resources, including unemployment of ranch hands and less demand for ranching equipment and supplies, would be similar to Alternative A, but moderately smaller in magnitude. As in Alternative A, these impacts could be mitigated by new purchases and contracts for fence and maintenance on Refuge lands and by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Approximately 215 hectares (533 acres) of grassland and 64 hectares (157 acres) of agricultural land that may support grazing would be affected by Alternative B. These agricultural lands are primarily located on Otay Mesa. Again, the impacts to agriCUltural resources under Alternative B must be considered in context with the no action alternative where agricultural lands would likely be converted into housing and commercial developments. Under Alternative C (no action alternative), agricultural lands would continue to be used for grazing in the short term. However, agricultural uses could eventually be replaced by urban developments. This pattern of replacing agricultural lands with urban development would likely continue under the no action alternative. Effects on Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities Alternative A would increase the limited potential for public use and wildlife-clependent recreational activities on lands acquired by the Service. All uses must be compatible with the purpose of the affected refuge unit. Public uses and wildlife-dependent recreational activities on lands acquired by the Service would be sLibject to a determination that the proposed use is compatible with the purpose of the San Diego Refuge. If the proposed use is found to be compatible, the use may be authorized by the Refuge Manager if management funds are available and other laws and regulations are satisfied. Certain public uses on lands acquired by the Service would not be allowed. To protect sensitive habitats, certain areas within the refuge unit would not be open to the public. Activities that would result in significant adverse environmental impacts, conflict with the primary purposes of the Refuge, or conflict with other uses of Refuge lands would not be allowed. Under Alternative B, opportunities for public uses and wildlife-clependent recreational activities on Service lands would be similar to those of Alternative A, but moderately Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR ~ Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 smaller in magnitude. As in Alternative A, public use activities must be compatible with the purpose of the San Diego Refuge. Because of the smaller size of the refuge, less land would be available for public use. Under Alternative C (no action), the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project would not be established so there would be no additional opportunities for public use activities and wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Access to public use activities would be provided through the land use approval process of the local jurisdictions and by the consent of private landowners. 4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No direct or indirect unavoidable adverse impacts to the environment would result from the selection of Alternative A or B. The identification of an approved boundary for the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project would not result in unavoidable adverse impacts on the physical and biological environment. The selection of an approved boundary for the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project does not, by itself, affect any aspect of land ownership or values. Once land is acquired, the Service would prevent incremental adverse impacts, such as degradation and loss of habitat over time, to the lands and their associated native plants and animals. 4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources There would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated with Alternative A or B. Under the no action alternative, if the vernal pool habitats are not protected and continue to decline, some plant and animal species could become extirpated over time, causing an irreversible and irretrievable loss. 4.5 Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity The Vernal Pools Stewardship Project is proposed specifically to maintain the long- term biological productivity of the San Diego vernal pools. The local short-term uses of the environment following acquisition includes increased management of wildlife habitats and development of potential public use facilities. The resulting long-term productivity includes increased protection of endangered and threatened species and maintenance of biological diversity. The public would also gain lon'g-term opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 4-7 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 4.6 Cumulative Impacts The proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project would have long-term cumulative benefits on wildlife habitats within the San Diego region. The protection of wildlife habitats within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project and Otay-Sweetwater and South San Diego Bay units would represent a cumulative benefit to the long-term conservation of endangered and threatened species and biological diversity in the San Diego region. The proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project and national wildlife refuge units would protect a broad spectrum of native habitats and conserve important populations of endangered and threatened species and other native plants and animals. In addition, the establishment of a preserve network as envisioned under the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) represents a long-term cumulative benefit to the conservation of endangered and threatened species and biological diversity in the San Diego region. The regional preserve would protect large acre2ges of native wildlife habitats and a large variety of native species. The cumulative impact on the environment under the MSCP is described in the Draft Joint EIR/EIS Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area (City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). The Otay Valley Regional Park and Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve also contribute, cumulatively, to the protection of wildlife habitats and open space within the southwestern San Diego region. The Otay Valley Regional Park is especially important because of the opportunity to link the Otay- Sweetwater Unit with the South San Diego Bay Unit in a mountain-to-the-sea corridor. Finally, the Bureau of Land Management's Otay MountainlKuchamaa Cooperative Management Area is another important cumulative benefit to the conservation of the biological diversity in the southwestern San Diego region. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 4-8 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 Chapter 5. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, AND COMPLIANCE 5.1 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service distributed the Concept Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in August 1995, to government agencies, interested citizens, and landowners within and adjacent to the proposed planning areas for the Vernal Pools, South San Diego Bay, and Olay-Sweetwater projects. In October 1995, Planning Update 1 was distributed to all those interested to provide an updated status on the San Diego Refuge. Public workshops were held in October 1995 at the Imperial Beach City Hall, Jamul Primary School, and Mission Trails Regional Park to describe the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. These workshops provided an opportunity for landowners, residents, and interested parties to meet directly with Service staff, and staff members were able to provide background information, maps, concept plans, and planning updates. In March 1996, Planning Update 2 summarizing the public workshops and outlining preliminary draft alternatives for the Vernal Pools, South San Diego Bay, and Otay-Sweetwater projects was distributed. In November 1996, Planning Update 3 announced the availability of draft environmental assessments and other planning documents and announced the schedule for upcoming public meetings. During 1995-1996, many meetings were conducted to inform and coordinate with various city, State, and other agencies and groups. These meetings included members of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, San Diego City COlincil, San Diego County Departments of Planning and Land Use and Parks and Recreation, City of Chula Vista Departments of Planning and Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, community and environmental groups, and Expanded Multiple Species Conservation Program Policy Committee. Meetings were also held with landowners and other interested citizens regarding the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. 5.2 Environmental Review and Coordination 5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act As a Federal agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must comply with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An environmental assessment is required under NEPA to evaluate reasonable alternatives that will l11eet stated objectives and to assess the possible impacts to the human environment. The Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 5-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 5 environmental assessment serves as the basis for determining whether implementation of the proposed action would constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The environmental assessment facilitates the involvement of government agencies and the public in the decisionmaking process. 5.2.2 Other Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders In undertaking the proposed action, the Service would comply with a number of Federal laws, regulations, and executive orders including: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended; Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (Executive Order 12372); Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990); Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988); Hazardous Substances Determinations (Secretarial Order 3127); and Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Executive Order 12996). 5.2.3 Distribution and Availability This draft assessment was sent to many agencies, local libraries, organizations, groups, landowners, and individuals for review and comment (see appendix D). Comments received on the draft assessment will be considered and addressed, as appropriate, in the final environmental assessment. Vernal Pools stewardship Project San Diego NWR 5-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 5 Chapter 6. LIST OF PREPARERS Authors Cathy T. Osugi, Wildlife Biologist, Planning Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon (BA Wildlife Conservation) Nancy Gilbert, Wildlife Biologist, Ecological Services, Carlsbad Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California (B.S. Wildlife Biology) Andrew R. Yuen, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California (BA Zoology; M.S. Zoology) Reviewers Georgia L. Shirilla, Senior Realty Specialist, Acquisition Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon (B.S. Business Administration) Charles J. Houghten, Supervisor, Planning Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon (B.PA Public Administration; M.L.A. Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning) William D. Rundle, Refuge Manager, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California (B.S. Wildlife Science; M.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Biology) Other Agency Reviews Department of Navy Naval Air Station Miramar, San Diego, California Marine Corp Air Station EI Toro, Western Area Counsel Office, Camp Pendleton, California Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 6-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 6 Acknowledgments Nancy J. Brooks, editor, Portland, Oregon Linda Wester, Christine Ardner, Vaughn Ruppert, Lisa Remillard, Division of Education, Publications, Interpretation, and Cartography, Refuges and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon Ron Beitel, Geographic Information System Specialist, Planning Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon Vemal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 6-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 6 REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. The checklist for North American birds. 6th edition. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Baldwin Vista. 1990. Phase I resource management plan, Otay Ranch. 127 pp. Bauder, E. T. and H. A. Wier. 1990. Naval Air Station Miramar, Vernal Pool Management Plan. United States Navy, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. 106 pp. Bauder, E. T. 1986. San Diego vernal pools. Recent and projected losses; their condition; and threats to their existence, 1979-1990. Vols. 1 and 2. Report and appendices 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game. Endangered Plant Project. Beauchamp, R. M. and T. Casso 1979. San Diego vernal pool study. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Heritage Investigations, Endangered Plant Program, 145 pp. Job 1-1.0. Beauchamp, R. M. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press, National City, California. Bond, S. I. 1977. An annotated list of the mammals of San Diego County, California. San Diego Society of Natural History, Transactions. 18(14):229-248. California Coastal Commission. 1980. Statewide interpretive guidelines. February 20. California Department of Finance. 1993. Population trends and projections in the southern California region. Prepared by ABS Cooperative Extension, University of California, Davis. California Department of Fish and Game. 1980. At the crossroads: A report on the status of California's endangered and rare fish and wildlife. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. . 1986. Endangered, rare and threatened animals of California. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR R-1 Draft Environmental Assessment References California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Designated endangered or rare plants summary list from Section 1904 Fish and Game Code (Native Plant Protection Act). State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game and California Resources Agency. 1993. Natural Community Conservation Planning Process and Conservation Guidelines. California Secretary of State's Office. 1994. California Roster. 271 pp. City of Chula Vista. 1989. Chula Vista General Plan. City of San Diego. 1981. Mira Mesa community plan and local coastal program. . 1996. Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan. MSCP Plan. City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Draft Joint EIR/EIS for Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area. City of San Diego Planning Department. 1988. Robinhood Ridge environmental impact report. Environmental Quality Division No. 86-1014. 145 pp. . 1981. Montgomery Field airport master plan and comprehensive land use plan environmental impact report. Environmental Quality Division No. 80-09-34C. 35 pp. and appendices. County of San Diego. 1980. Conservation element (Part X) of the county general plan. Planning Department, General Plan Amendment 80-6. County of San Diego Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures. 1995. Annual Crop Report 1995. 24 pp. Everett, W. T. 1979. ''Threatened, sensitive, and declining bird species of San Diego County." San Diego Audubon Society Sketches. Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce. 1994. San Diego Where California Begins. 31 pp. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished report for California Natural Diversity Data Base, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 156 pp. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San DIego NWR R-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Reterences Jennings, M. R. 1983. An annotated checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of California. California Department of Fish and Game 69(3):151-1/1. Jones, J. K, D. C. Carter, H. H. Genoways, R. S. Hoffman, and D. W. Rice. 1982. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1982. Occasional Paper Museum. Texas Technology University, No. 80. Jones and Stokes Associates. 1987. Sliding toward extinction: the state of California's natural heritage, 1987. The California Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Michael Brandman and Associates. 1989. Biological resources survey report Otay Ranch-Proctor Valley area, San Diego County, California. 58 pp. Munz, P. A. 1974. A flora of southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Oberbauer, Thomas. 1990. Unpublished Report: Rare Plants and Habitats in San Diego County, County of San Diego, January 1990. Regional Environmental Consultants. 1979. Report on vernal pools of the Kearny mesa region, San Diego County, California. 18 pp. and appendices. Remsen, J. V. 1978. "Bird species of special concern in California: an annotated list of declining or vulnerable bird species." Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Wildlife Management Branch, California Department of Fish and Game. Administrative Report No. 78-1. San Diego Association of Governments. 1994. Regional transportation plan. 1994. Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast, 1990-2015 (Interim Forecast). 1989. Draft final San Diego air carrier airport site selection study. 175 pp. , San Diego Herpetological Society. 1980. Survey and status of endangered and threatened species of reptiles natively occurring in San Diego County. Fish and Wildlife Committee, San Diego Department of Agriculture. 22 pp. Skinner, Mark W. And Bruce M. Pavlik, eds. 1994. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. CNPS Special Publication No. 1 (Fifth edition). Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR R-3 Draft Environmental Assessment References Thome, R. F. 1976. ''Vascular plant communities of California." In: June Latting, ed., Plant Communities of Southern California. Special Publication NO.2. California Native Plant Society. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Federal Register 43(189):44810-44812. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Formal section 7 consultation on the San Diego vernal pool preservation program, San Diego, California (1-1-80-F-89). 11 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Formal section 7 consultation on State Route 52 project from Interstate 805 to Santo Road, San Diego, California (1-1-83-F-10). 16 pp. . 1984. Recovery plan for San Diego mesa mint (PogoQyne abramsii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 111 pp. . 1988. Formal section 7 consultation, land transfer from the Navy to the city of San Diego, San Diego County, California (1-1-83-F-29R). 16 pp. . 1989. National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 58 pp. and appendices. . 1990. Formal section 7 consultation Miramar Road Auto Center, San Diego County, California (1-1-83-F-108R). 13 pp. . 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Three Vernal Pool Plants and the Riverside Fairy Shrimp; Federal Register 58 (147):41384-41392. . 1995. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Federal Register 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. U.S. Department of the Interior. . 1996. Endangered and Threatened Species, Plant and Animal Taxa; Proposed Rule, Federal Register 61 (40):7596-7613. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil survey of San Diego area, California. U.S. Department ofthe Interior. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Biological Report 28. 67 pp. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR R-4 Draft Environmental Assessment References U.S. Navy. 1984. Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA), 1984. Initial Assessment Study of Naval Air Station Miramar San Diego, California. NEESA 13-058. Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1985. Naval Air Station, Miramar Masterplan. Gillespie Delorenzo, ASLA and Associates Inc. Unitt, P. 1984. The birds of San Diego County. Memoir 13. San Diego Society of Natural History. 276 pp. WESTEC Services. 1981. Lopez Ridge draft environmental impact report. Environmental Quality Division No. 80-10-27,1981. 182 pp. 1987. East Mesa County detention facility draft environmental impact report. 1987. Environmental assessment for the proposed land sales and exchanges south of California State Route 52 Naval Air Station, Miramar. 147 pp. . 1988. Spring Canyon preCise plan biological survey report. 40 pp. Zedler, P.H. and T. A. Ebert. 1979. A survey of vernal pools of Kearny Mesa, San Diego County, spring 1979. 152 pp. Zedler, P. H. 1987. The ecology of southern California vernal pools: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85 {7.11}. 136 pp. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR R-5 Draft Environmental Assessment References Appendix A Vernal Pool Individual Site Descriptions Figure A-1 depicts the general location of various vernal pool series. Maps of individual pool complexes are detailed by E.T. Bauder (1986) in San Diego vernal pools recent and projected losses; their condition; and threats to their existence 1979-1990, vol. 1. Del Mar Mesa. The vernal pools found on Del Mar Mesa [(H series of vernal pools 1 to 15 and 18 to 23; pool series letters follow that delineated by BDuder (1986)] are part of a large mesa of approximately 36 square kilometers (14 square miles). They are bordered on the west by Interstate 805; on the east by Interstate 15; on the south by Penasquitos Canyon; and to the north by McGonigle Canyon. Residential development occurs to the east; agriculture consisting of row-crop farming occurs in McGonigle Canyon; Penasquitos Canyon is a regional park; and undeveloped privately owned land occurs to the west. The H series vernal pools within the proposed refuge boundary consist of approximately 120 pools with high diverSity of sizes, depths, surface configuration, and soil types (Bauder 1986). Pools on Del Mar Mesa occur in two soil types-Redding soils with a subsurface hardpan and a white clay soil with no hardpan (Bauder 1986). Vernal pools on the Redding soils are small in size and contain abundant populations of San Diego mesa mint. Vernal pools on the white clay are large marsh-like pools and support large populations of San Diego button celery. Associated vegetation types include chamise chaparral dominated by chamise (Adenostoma califomica) and mixed chaparral dominated by Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa). Nonnative plant species are not abundant except near disturbed areas such as the margins of dirt roads. Del Mar Mesa pools are mostly undisturbed except for those pools in or adjacent to dirt roads. In addition to the two sensitive plant species noted above, little mousetail (Myosurus minimus), Orcutt's quillwort (Isoetes orcuttil), and spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) are known from this pool area. Lopez Ridge. The vernal pools on Lopez Ridge (B series 5 to 8, approximately 8 hectares or 20 acres) occur on a mesa on the south edge of Penasquitos Canyon, bordered to the south by Calle Cristobal Road, to the east by residential development, and to the west by undeveloped chaparral. Some of these pools are owned by the California Department of Transportation and the city of San Diego. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR A-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix A The Db pools (0 5 to 8, 8 hectares or 20 acres) occur to the south and east of Lopez Ridge. These pools occur on the north side of Carroll Canyon now being quarried for sand and gravel. To the north and east is an existing residential development; a community park is proposed to the west. Plant communities adjacent to the proposed vernal pool refuge area include various forms of chaparral, coastal sage scrub, southern California grassland, live oak woodland, and sycamore riparian woodland. Biological survey work in the Lopez Ridge area recorded approximately 200 plant species, 146 bird species, 10 amphibian species, 28 reptile species and 32 mammal species (WESTEC 1981). Fourteen plant species known in this general area are listed as rare and endangered by the California Native Plant Society (Smith and Berg 1987). Animal species considered to be depleted, declining, of limited distribution, or included on Audubon's Blue List of species of special concern include 17 different reptile and bird species (WESTEC 1981 ). The B 5 to 8 pools have a wide variety of pool sizes and depths (Bauder 1986). San Diego mesa mint is abundant in most of these pools. Associated vegetation consists of chamise chaparral. Vehicle use and dumping has damaged some of these pools. A restoration program required by the city of San Diego was implemented to repair this damage to the vernal pool habitat. Additional sensitive vernal pool plant species include Orcutt's brodiaea (Brodiaea Orcuttil), Orcutt's quillwort, toothed downingia (Downingia cuspidata), little mousetail, and San Diego button celery. The Db vernal pools (D 5 to 8) have medium pool-size, depth, and diversity (Bauder 1986). They occur within mixed chaparral vegetation. Endangered and sensitive species include the San Diego mesa mint, San Diego button celery, Orcutt's brodiaea, toothed downingia, Orcutt's quillwort, and little mousetail. Naval Air Station/Marine Corps Air Station (NAS/MCAS) Miramar. NASIMCAS Miramar is the home port for the jet fighter and early warning aircraft of the Pacific Fleet. In 1997, NAS Miramar will transfer from the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Marine Corps and be known as Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar. The mission of the Department of Defense is the protection of the national security of the United States, and military activities on NAS/MCAS Miramar are vital to fulfillment of that mission. NASIMCAS Miramar consists of 9,382 hectares (23,185 acres) and is bisected by Interstate 15 into eastern and western portions. Interstate 805 and State Route 52 form the air station's western and southern boundaries, respectively. The communities of Tierrasanta, University City, Mira Mesa, Kearny Mesa, Scripps Miramar Ranch, city of Santee, and the proposed community of East Elliott border the station. NAS/MCAS Miramar is generally divided into two areas: the area west of 1-15 supports the operational, maintenance, and administrative complex, as well as the housing area; Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Sen Diego NWR A-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix A and the area east of 1-15 (approximately 6,070 hectares or 15,000 acres) has been left largely in a natural state. East Miramar is primarily used for infantry and weapons training and includes an ordnance safety zone, Air Installation Compatible Use Zones, and natural resource management areas (U.S. Navy 1985). The vernal pools in the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project that occur at NASIMCAS Miramar encompasses approximately 1,634 hectares (4,039 acres) and are located on western Miramar from Highway 805 to approximately 3 kilometers (2 miles) east of Interstate 15 (series A, F, I, U, V, W, X, Z, AA, EE, FF, GG, HH, GA, and RR). These pools occur mostly within the approach path and overflight areas of NAS/MCAS Miramar airfield. The vernal pools located on NAS/MCAS Miramar support the greatest number and highest quality vernal pools remaining in San Diego County. Approximately 80 percent of the remaining vernal pools that occur within the range of the San Diego mesa mint occur on NASIMCAS Miramar. According to a 1993 vernal pool surVey conducted by the NAS Miramar Natural Resources Branch, there are 2,248 vernal pools on NAS/MCAS Miramar, 686 (30 percent) of which occur in the Miramar Mounds National Natural Landmark. The vernal pool complexes on NAS/MCAS Miramar occur in a wide variety of vegetation types including, but not limited to, chamise chaparral, coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and disturbed areas (Holland 1986). The pools exhibit a wide range of size, depth, type and number of cobbles, soil types, hydrological characteristics, species composition, and habitat characteristics. In addition to the endangered San Diego mesa mint, San Diego button celery, and California orcutt grass, sensitive plant species that occur in these vernal pools include Orcutt's brodiaea, Orcutt's quillwort, toothed downingia, and little mousetail. Additional sensitive plant and animal species are expected to occur in the associated mesa top and canyon habitat. Montgomery Field. The Montgomery Field vernal pools (N 1 to 4, 5) are part of the 39-square-kilometer (15-square-mile) Keamy Mesa pool system (Bauder 1986). These pools occur within the approach path of Montgomery Field Airport and are owned by the city of San Diego. To the north of Montgomery Field is an industrial development; to the south across Aero Drive a research park and office complex; to the west State Route 163; and to the east an industrial development and Interstate 15. Three separate areas of airport land are known to contain vernal pools. These three areas encompass approximately 35 hectares (86 acres) and are located in the approach zones to Runways 28L and 28R, Runway 23, and an area east of the control tower (city of San Diego 1981). Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR A-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix A The N 1 to 4 pools occur within chamise chaparral and grassland habitat. This area has the greatest number of pools per unit area in San Diego County (Bauder 1986). The pool exhibit a wide diversity of pool size and depth, and mima mound topography is well developed (Bauder 1986). Cobbles are commonly found in many of the pool bottoms. San Diego mesa mint is abundant in most of these pools. Other sensitive plant species occurring in these pools include Orcutt's quillwort, toothed downingia, San Diego goldenstar (Muilla cleve/andil), Orcutt's brodiaea, spreading navarretia, and San Diego button celery. Most of the 138 pools and their associated habitat are relatively undisturbed. The N 6 pools are medium in size and exhibit a wide range in depths (Bauder 1986). Some of the pools have been adversely affected by discing for fire abatement, siltation from adjacent development, and construction of a sewerline (Beauchamp and Cass 1979). Due to alteration in drainage patterns, increased amounts of water have entered into the 60 pools in this series, changing both the amount and duration of water normally occurring. This has resulted in the invasion of marsh-type plant species such as cattails (Typha sp.) and umbrella sedge (Cyperus sp.) to the detriment of the naturally occurring vernal pool plant species. Sweetwater Reservoir. These vernal pools occur at the southwestern edge of Sweetwater Reservoir in south San Diego County. They are one of the few remaining examples of isolated vernal pool series occurring between the central mesas of San Diego and Otay Mesa to the south (Bauder 1986). The surrounding area has been brushed or grazed and consists primarily of disturbed or non-native grassland habitat. Twelve pools occur within the Sweetwater vernal pool series (S 1 to 3). These pools are mostly small in size and shallow to medium in depth (Bauder 1986). The disturbance to the pools themselves is low; however, the adjacent plant community is disturbed and appears to have been brushed or grazed, and the vegetation consists primarily of exotic grasses. The only known sensitive plant species in these pools is spreading navarretia. Otay Reservoir. The Otay Reservoir vernal pools (K 1 to 8) consist of several scattered pool groupings not connected by any continuous mesa system (Bauder 1986). The K pools proposed to be included within the refuge consist of the K 6-8 pools and are located east of Lower Otay Reservoir and north of the eastern arm of the reservoir. Surrounding land uses consist primarily of dry-land farming and grazing. These pools are owned by the Baldwin Company. The K 6 vernal pools consist of eight vernal pools located in a large mima mound field. The surrounding vegetation is disturbed grassland which has been heavily overgrazed , however, the potential exists for restoration. One sensitive plant species, little Vemal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR A-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix A mousetail, occurs in vernal pools at this location. Additional sensitive upland plant species include San Diego thornmint, variegated dudleya, San Diego barrel cactus (Feroeaetus viridescens), pygmy spike-moss (Selaginella einerascens), Munz's sage (Salvia munzil), San Diego sunflower (Vigueria laciniata), and San Diego goldenstar. The K6 vernal pool complex was known to support thousands of Quino checkerspot butterflies in the past. The Quino checkerspot is not restricted to vernal pools, but its host plant Plantago erecta is associated with vernal pool habitat. This butterfly was last observed in this area in 1982. Populations of California gnatcatcher and grasshopper sparrows occur adjacent to this area. The K8 vernal pool complex consists of 11 pools. Dominant vegetation on the mesa top is native and non-native grasses. Otay Mesa. The Otay Mesa vernal pools (J 1 to 30) are located in several disjunct locations across the southernmost mesa in California. Otay Mesa extends from just south of the Otay River across the international border into Mexico, west to Interstate 805, and east to the foothills below Otay Mountain. The vernal pools occur primarily on Stockpen and Huerhuero soils; generally there is no subsurface hardpan layer (Bauder 1986). Due to historical and ongoing agricultural activities, 78 percent of the vernal pools once located on Otay Mesa have been lost (Oberbauer 1978). The remaining vernal pools are scattered, with the only sizable areas of vernal pool habitat occurring at the northeast corner of the mesa. Vernal pools being considered for refuge status on Otay Mesa include: a) J 13 (N, S, E) between Dennery Canyon and Spring Canyon; b) J 11 and J 12 found in Spring Canyon; and c) J 15, J 16 to 18; and J 23 to 25, J 26, and J 29 to 30, located on the northeast portion of Otay Mesa on small mesas extending into the Otay River Valley. Otay Mesa is farmed for truck crops, barley fields, and grazing. However, it is rapidly developing to industrial and residential uses. Brown Field Airport is located west of the J 29 to 30 pools. A state prison is located south of the J 23 to 25 pools, and a county prison is located south of the J 26 pools. The flora of the J series vernal pools is substantially different from that of the vernal pools in the central San Diego mesas. Plant communities found in association with vernal pools on Otay Mesa often contain succulents and cacti. Maritime succulent sage scrub and native and nonnative grasslands are found in association with Otay Mesa vernal pools. The entire United States population of Otay mesa mint is found in this series of pools. Other sensitive plant species include Orcutt's grass, San Diego button celery, little mousetail, San Diego spreading navarretia, San Diego barrel cactus, variegated dudleya, Orcutt's quillwort, cliff spurge (Euphorbia misera), San Diego bur sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia), Otay tarplant, and toothed downingia. Sensitive habitat types in association with vernal pools include maritime succulent sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and native grassland. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR A-S Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix A PACIFIC OCEAN Del Mar H 1-15 ~J 18-23 Mesa fJiIJI B 5-B" Lopez Ridge c::? MIRAMAR RESERVOIR "- ~ SAN VINCENTE V RESERVOIR Naval Air Station! Marine Corp Air Station Miramar ..... r. I, u. V. w. x, Z, M, EE, rF. GG, HH. GA. RR LAKE JENNINGS ~ MontgomerYll Field .-. N 1-6 SWEETWATE~ RESERVOIR S 1-3 ---..----.. ~. LOWER OTA Y RESERVOIR K 3-5 Otay -1' J 2' Mesa J 23-25 J 22 Spring~ Canyon J 11-18 ~~~~_~!~"!'_~u_____._-------- ___ . ______n--- MEXICO ~ Tljuana Slough NWR o , . , 8 , 12 K~ , o 5 Ij' .. VERNAL POOL COMPLEXES J 11-18 SERIES DESIGNA nONS F1gur~ A-I. LOCATION OF VERNAL POOL SERIES WITHIN PROPOSEO VfRNAL POOLS STfWARDSHIP PROJECT SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE RfFUGE AREA ENLARGED Location Map A-8 APPENDIX 8 Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species, candidate species. and species of concern that may occur in the area of proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project, San Diego County, California Common Name Scientific Name Status Listed Species Mammals Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus E Birds Coastal California Polioptila californica californica T gnatcatcher Amphibians Arroyo southwestern Bufo microscaphus californicus E toad Crustaceans Riverside fairy Streptocephalus woottoni E shrimp Plants San Diego button Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii E celery California orcutt Orcuttia californica E grass San Diego mesa mint pogogyne abramsii E Otay Mesa mint Pogogyne nudiuscula E Del Mar manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa E ssp. crassifolia Orcutt's spineflower Chorizanthe orcuttiana E Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR B-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix B Listed Species Plants Encinitas baccharis Baccharis vanessae T Proposed Species Insects Quino checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino PE butterfly Crustaceans San Diego fairy Branchinecta sandiegonensis PE shrimp Plants San Diego thornmint Acanthomintha i/icifo/ia PE Willowy monardella Monardella /inoides ssp. viminea PE Spreading navarretia Navarretia fossa/is PT Thread-leaved Brodiaea fi/ifo/ia PT brodiaea Candidate Species Birds Mountain plover Charadrius montanus C Species of Concern Mammals Greater western Eumops perotis ca/ifornicus mastiff-bat Mexican long-tongued Choenycteris mexicana bat Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR B-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix B Species of Concern Mammals Pacific big-eared bat P/ecotus townsendii townsendii Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse ChaetocJipus fal/ax fal/ax San Diego black-tailed jack rabbit Lepus ca/ifornicus bennettii San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma /epida intermedia Birds Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza bellii bel/ii California horned lark Eremophi/a a/pestris aelia Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Loggerhead shrike Lanius /udovicianus Cactus wren (coastal populations) CampY/orhynchus bruneicappilus couesi Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophi/a ruficeps canescens Tricolored blackbird Age/aius tricolor Reptiles Southwestern pond turtle C/emmys marmorata pal/ida Coast patch-nosed snake Sa/vadora hexa/epis virgu/tea Coastal rosy boa Uchanura trivirgata rosafusca Coastal western whiptail Cnemidorphorus tigris mu/tiscutatus Orange-throated whiptail Cnemidophorus hyperythrus be/dingii Coronado skink Eumeces ski/tonianus interparieta/is Northern red diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber ruber Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR B-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix B Species of Concern Reptiles San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbotti San Diego homed lizard Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii Amphibians Western spadefoot toad Spea hammondii Insects Hermes copper butterfly Lycaena hermes Plants San Diego ambrosia Ambrosia pumila Parish's saltbush (=brittlescale) Atriplex parishii Orcutt's brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii Wart-stemmed ceanothus Ceanothus verrucosus Knotweed spineflower Chorizanthe polygonoides ssp. longispina Summer-holly Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia Variegated dudleya Dudleya variegata San Diego barrel cactus Ferocactus viridescens Otay tarplant Hemizonia conjugens Southern spikeweed Hemizonia parryi ssp. australis Coulter's saltmarsh daisy Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri San Diego goldenstar Muilla clevelandii Little mousetail Myosurus minimus Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR B-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix B Species of Concern Plants Snake cholla Opuntia parryi var. serpentina Nuttall's scrub oak Quercus dumosa Narrow-leaved nightshade Solanum tenuilobatum California Adder's tongue Ophioglossum californicum Status E. taxa that have been Ilsted as endangered T. taxa that have been listed as threatened PE. taxa proposed to be listed as endangered PT. taxa proposed to be listed as threatened C.. taxa for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list them as as threatened or endangered species. Species of concern or species at risk .. entire realm of taxa whose conservation status may be of concern to the Service. but neither term has official status. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR B-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix B APPENDIX C Plant Communities Maps Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR C-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix C ~ w ~ 0- ~ X ~ ~ :E ~ ~ . '" . Q. 0 g "El:- I:- E o. 0 00 0 0"0 0 M 0 -0 . '"0 " :2.3 .!o "0 "0 0 0 V", , "0 . 0 - 0 0 0 "'"0 'Q Z g "001 01 .. .. . .0 >-e 0 m .- 0 o V -;; a , ., ~ " " o.~ e E V >- 0 - . 0 00 "0'" 0 00 "0 Q "" 0 . 0. Z .... .. > .. '<:.0 0 0. 0 0 0 ... 0'" 0' 0"0 0 0 '" 00 0." 00 "' Q. -v ... "'V> "'''' zo u :> --' ~ ~ I D II III '..,' I;. 'I;; ...: >- '-> ~ 0.... :i:SS ~t:; ::to:: ~~ ~ 0::- ......:q:,;:::! <(;;:;:;::~ [;]~....;;:' ~;:,>-:::;; ~V) O::~ --.J <{O~~ ~(.)OO 0;;:; ;:j>-Cl..<{ C:l ~ --.J <: Cl..~0 e;~ :>.:2S El~ (;)(;\ o Cl.. o :i: I (.) ~ '" .">> .;: .., '" '" ~ o '0 o E ~ C-2 , .._._--......_-~_._._._...._-,.- ".--..-- .9- x "' . . 0.. " "c c E c. 00 0 0" ~ >" 0 u :;::g '" J!c " w c 2~ ~ "'" -0 w 0 " . 10 " "", 0 0 0>" W . '" "- .. ~ 0 .- .<. >~ 0 00 -. 0 " 0 N c..!. 0 c " ., <; ] 00 " " 0 c >- - 0 -" 0 . ](1) 0 ;::!! 0 z "-"- "- > 'i:.<. 00 0. W .. 0' C Q. '" 00> 0.- C" 0 0 w I 00 _0 OC "' S ~ U"' "'"' Zo U .~ [] I CJ m ~ 0 -z '- '-' ~ C)~ g:<..:l 2 ~~ '" ~Clt:: ~Cl::- ~E:::~c5 <..:l<:~-.J Cl::::'o-.:~ o::::l::'" ~",-.J ~C)-.J~ Cl'-'C)C) C'-Cj::: -.J<:Cl:<( 3-.J<: Cl~C) e53 ~cs s<: "'''l C) Cl C) g: 0,; I '-' ~ ::> .0> ..;: ~ m 0> " . ~ o 8 "' E "' " 0- x i . " jH ~ Ii . <.> ~ ~ . Ii c ~ cn~ 1 1: . . c l.ll & . ~ R " . 2 ~ J ~ ~ >., i ~ FP .. , ~ U i! B ! ..~ c C 0. K . c ;; " e . R . o. J 4! 1 " z .. 0- U i u .~ c . ~ w K' ~c &l! . ~ K !- Il ~ :~ ~ <> lEol: z. <.> 0. Ii t\ II ~ I . 8J II I . I -z , ill " H 0- ~ c'" t:g ...b =>:'" '" c~ ~~:::J i::~9 ~~~~ "'::>'" "'"" ... Q::~~~ ~~cc ...,.....ci::; :;:",Q..:"{ :i:Z:~:Z: :5~c ...",,,, ~iS l;l>: "'i:\ ~ :l: .; I U ~ , .!1> to: . , ! ii ~ Q. x :<; ~ 0 Q. "2i:'- 00 i:'- E 0'" 0 00 0 -0 ." ~." 0 " :2.3 0 ':0 ." 0 0 "0 ~ ;; ,,>> ~ "'''' 0 0 0 ~~ 0 ."", '" 0. >-e 0 .... ~ =ti - ., ~ 30 .., '" "0 " ." ~~ .., .., o ~ ~ >- 0 ... .... g..o- e 0 u 0 ._ 0 0 .., .... ::2Vl 0 OQ Q. 0 :E Q ........ 0 ~ ;; 0 Q. 'l: T Z 0.0. .. > 0~ 0 0"" C C ... CO> E -" Q. ; 'J 00 ii: '" 00 Zc " ~ ""' '" 0 [J I I - z , 'I , C C :I!:I!III!III'III'!::!I!,IIII!I!I,HI": :'I:!IIIIIIIIII~IIIIIII!:, ' ::'/llli!l.,i'i ; .::, ":,';':" ::.'!:;,;' ':1. !,I .... ~ .., Cll<l :t~ ;:, !?:::t::; :J:Cl:: (f)"" (f)~t...: Cl...__ ;:;:j;:: ~ is i:;:~~~ )..;:'(f)S e5$(f).... ~Clc5~ Cll.JClCl i2....11..i::: <::<:: ~ Cl-q....<. ~-..I~ ll..<l:::8 ~"" Ci e<:: (f)('i 1t ~ ll.. -.t I l.J ~ ::> .~ t...: <D '" '" .8 o U o ~ ~ ~ => Q. x :c 0 ~ Q. ~~ ~ E o~ ~ 0" 00 0 -0 " ~" 0 0 -0 ~ 0 00 " 2~ ~ 0 Vi~ 0 "0 0 - '0 0 ~ 0>" 0 "", 0 0 00 ,. 0 '" Q. >.0 . 0 . .0 E . 0 - :t ~- ~ "0 0 0" .. "0 " o~ - .a >- "0 0 Q.~ ~ 0 " 0 0 - ~ :t 00 - "OlIl 0 0 :;~ '00 ~ 0 Q -- " 0 -;; ~ 1: Z .... .. > ~. 1:.0 "" 0 0 ~ 0 W 00> ~ 02 1:0 0" 0 0 Q. <:> 00 E .2-0 0>0 00 Q. - "' w I Olll <:> C<1Il "'~ Zo 0 ... ...J ~ I I I I - tl] ~ ~ ,~~ ,;'.,' '1..;' '" .... ~ ~ ~~ 0..:;:, o..~ :i:Q:: !!: 19:::: ~~ Q::- Q::~ ~CS bJ~ ....,;::! ....~ ~~ V) ~ V)-.J (;jC -.J~ ....~ Cc ~.... C~ 0.." ....<: -.J<:: t;j::5 ~C ~o.. Q::~ V) ~- Cl It) f;}<: V)i'i I Cl ~ 0.. ~ c it '" .!2> L..: 0'1::--.. 'T,JI>:- _ .",~;:;... -z I:- '" '" '" . . ~ o <; o ~ V> => [-6 0- X . :c . . ~ . Q. ,,~ 0- ~ E o. ~ ~ ~ 00 0 0'" " . ~ '." 0 " -0 ." w w 2.3 ~ w ~o ." . c 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 w "', , "0 . c 1: '0 x 0 0>." 0 0 0 0 ::E . 0 ."", '" 0. .. C 0 0 . .<> 0 >.<> c 0 0 0 .- 0 , c 0 . ~ N :1 00 .. ~ "0 c ., C ~ o-.!!. e c 0 0 0 ,g >- c ~ 0 0 0 00 ~ ;;:.!! 0 c 0 cc 0 . 0'" 0 0 '. 00 0- . . .2 Z 0.0. 0. > .. '0 01:.0 .~"'C 0 0- 0 ~ ~ <; 8 w . 0' 0." 0 . . 'S 00> 0 O-C ~o ~ Q. co 00 6 ._ 0 0>0 00 ~ Q. 0 '" w ,,'" "'''' "'--' zo " 0 ~ '" -' ~ ~ I D I - - - :~L :~' 0 ~.")I' C-7 -z ..... ~ --, 0 "" ~g Cl..t:J ;j;Cl: ~ Cl~ l:3 Cl:_ !!: ~cS j::: .... ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .... l:3 ~~ Cl: 0 00 \.,) OJ::: :>-. ..... Cl..~ ~ <: ....:<:: 0 ~ ~O ei~ <0 :>;e; I ~<: \.,) ~ ~(;!i 0 Cl.. :;, 0 .0> ~ t:: <0 '" '" . ~ o 8 '" ~ '" => ~0 0'" -~ :E.s "" .. E 0 2 0 "'" 00 U '" .. "2 >.0 '" ~ ~ 0 ~ , .., 0' 0 0<: "0 0 ~ U ~ , >- ~ ~ "0 ~ - _0 0 e.!! 0'" 0 0 '0 00 0. ~ 0; '<:.0 -, "" - U.., ~ 0. =u ~ 00 0 0 0 0> 02 "t:~ ~.., 0 ~U 0 0 0 E .!!-u 0>0 o~ "" o~ Q. e 0'" C> "'''' ...~ ZO 0 ,"", 0 ... ~ ~ I m ~ m m I I':: ~,., < ,:),: ~'i;~:~ ,';~", ' ;, ~ 0. :E ~ o 0- 'E~ E 0.0 1: 0 .",.g U _ c ~ VI ~ ::I il Q) c8 ~~ "ii 0._ U C e E ~ z: G..CL 4- '" C> '" ...J '0 o .. "0 ~ ~ o > ~.. "'1 ........',.,... .. '- ~ o ~U~ Cl..~ :t:L.J t'lCl:: c::. t'lCl::~ L.J__ i::::~-J -""c::. ~~",,;::! L.J::l;t'l:;t: ::l;::l;t'l , 0 -J ;;! -\j0~ ;:5 00 0~Cl..i:::: ~-J~ Cl..~ ~8 :S:L.J - c::.c::. ~~ O~ Cl.. o g: " I \j ~ " .0, c;: '" ~ '" w I" I:' w '" 0 0 0 0 0 N :J 0 0 ~ <0 0> 0 ~ " . " 2 u 0 - Z ~ '" => [-8 a. x :;: . . c. ~~ ~ E Cc 0 '" c '-' .0 " Ui~ 0 "0 , 0 0 ..,CD CD "- . .- .. "0 OU a.~ U 0 00 c :;; 0 c C C Z "-"- a. > .., " .., ...J ~ ~ .0 2 U ::2(() .. CC> oc '-'''' o. 0" -0 -0 2...J . "'" .. >-e .' >- 0- . co o 0" 00 zo --z ~ .z "3. u" -':0 C>O <(...J c . "6 '.0 .0. .c .0 .:~ .., o o ;;; . o c " o C -':.0 c' a.c 0_ U "'''' [W......:... ~::(S I ii' ~';:~,: ".,. >.~.i '11::;i !I' , ~ \ ' 1.1 DI ~-9 '- ~ o~ Ii~ ~~ ~ ~t:: v,Q::_ ~ ~:::n5 ~_:::s;:..... ~~...s:: ~:::,t;;;s ~~ -oJ v,:i2 ,-,(lCSo ~ 0;::: CE'-Q... l<.~ :i2 v,::5-oJ l<.:i20 e5~ ::':CS E'l~ v,~ o l<. o Ii ~ I (.) ~ ::: l:>) i;: to IQ ~ ~ ~HI '" '" '" w n o " o if> ~ if> " APPENDIX D Distribution List for Draft Environmental Assessment Federal and State Congressional Offices U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer U.S. Congressman Ron Packard U.S. Congressman Brian P. Bilbray U.S. Congressman Bob Filner U.S. Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter State Senator Ray Haynes State Senator David G. Kelley State Senator William A. Craven State Senator Lucy Killea State Senator Steve Peace State Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian State Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith State Assemblyman Susan Davis State Assemblyman Steve Baldwin State Assemblywoman Dede Alpert State Assemblywoman Denise Moreno Ducheny Federal Agencies Department of Defense U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Navy U.S. Marine Corps Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Federal Highway Administration Immigration and Naturalization Service Tribes Vemal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 0-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix 0 State and Local Agencies State of California California Coastal Commission Department of Fish and Game Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Transportation Department of Water Resources Office of Historic Preservation Office of Planning and Research Regional Water Quality Control Board State Lands Commission Wildlife Conservation Board San Diego County Board of Supervisors Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Planning and Land Use Department of Public Works Environmental Health Service San Diego Association of Governments City of San Diego Airport Division City Council City Manager Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Water Utilities Office of the Mayor City of Chula Vista Public Ubraries San Diego County Branch Libraries Bonita-Sunnyside Casa de Ora Del Mar Imperial Beach Lemon Grove poway Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 0-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix 0 City Libraries Chula Vista San Diego City Libraries Central Mira Mesa North Clairemont Otay Mesa Rancho Penasquitos San Ysidro Serra Mesa Tierrasanta University Community Landowners (71) Private Individuals and Groups (approximately 850) Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 0-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix 0 APPENDIX E Glossary Anadromous. Ascending rivers from the sea at certain seasons for breeding. Approved refuge boundary. A project boundary which the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance process. An approved refuge boundary only designates those lands for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to acquire and/or manage through various agreements. Approval of a refuge boundary does not grant the Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands do not become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under an agreement that provides for management as part of the refuge system. Biological diversity or biodiversity. The variety of life and its processes and includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Candidate species. A species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support a proposal to list as threatened or endangered species. Conservation easement A legal document that provides specific land-use rights to a secondary party. A perpetual conservation easement usually grants conservation and management rights to a party in perpetuity. Cooperative agreement A simple habitat protection action and no property rights are acquired. An agreement is usually long-term and can be modified by either party. Lands under a cooperative agreement do not necessarily become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Endangered species. A species officially recognized by Federal and State agencies to be in immediate danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Endemic species. A species occurring naturally in a particular locality. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR E-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix E Endemism. The extent to which the plants and animals of a region are unique to that region. Ephemeral wetlands. A wetland that exists only briefly during and following a period of seasonal rainfall. Habitat The physical environment in which a plant or animal lives. Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). An area within which preserve planning is focused or defined and implementation provides for conservation of viable habitat and wildlife use and movement; designed cooperatively by the participating jurisdictions in the MSCP study area in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game staff, major property owners and environmental groups, based on biological, economic, ownership and land use criteria. Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). A comprehensive habitat preservation planning program which addresses multiple species habitat needs and the preservation of natural communities for a 900 square miles area in southwestern San Diego County. National Wildlife Refuge System. All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program. A habitat conservation program instituted by the State of California in 1991 to encourage the preservation of natural communities before species within those communities are threatened with extinction. Overlay national wildlife refuge. Lands and waters that are under the primary jurisdiction of one Federal agency and the refuge purpose is superimposed as a secondary interest in the property. Primary administration is retained by the host agency. Wildlife management must be compatible with those uses for which the primary agency acquired the land. Refuge Purposes. The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit, and any subsequent modification of the original establishing authority for additional conservation purposes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.4L, Refuge Planning). Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR E-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix E San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Joint Powers Agency which undertakes regional planning on behalf of the 19 members: 18 cities and the County of San Diego. Threatened species. A species officially recognized by Federal or State agencies to be in immediate danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR E-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix E DRAFT LAND PROTECTION PLAN Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Land Protection Plan Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 503-231-2231 800-662-8893 November 1996 Table of Contents Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Purpose and Goals of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Project Area ......................................................... 2 Threats to and Status of the Resources to be Protected ....................... 6 Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Identification and Selection of Lands to be Included Within the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project ............................... 6 Summary of the Planning and Land Acquisition Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Willing Seller Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Habitat Protection Methods ............................................. 9 Other Habitat Protection Methods ....................................... 11 Land Protection Priorities Within the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project .. 11 Land Protection Plan Tables and Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Tables Table 1. Public Lands within the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project . . . .. 13 Table 2. Land Protection Priorities of Privately Owned Tracts (by tract number) Within the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Table 3. Land Protection Priorities of Privately Owned Tracts (by owner) Within the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Figures Figure 1. Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. San Diego NWR . . . . . . . .. 3 Figure 2a. Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project - North Area . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Figure 2b. Proposed Vemal Pools Stewardship Project - South Area. . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Figure 3. Del Mar Mesa Tract Map ..................................... 22 Figure 4. Lopez Ridge Tract Map ...................................... 23 Figure 5. Miramar Area Tract Map ..................................... 24 Figure 6. Montgomery Field Tract Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 Figure 7. Sweetwater Reservoir Tract Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 Figure 8. Olay Reservoir Tract Map .................................... 27 Figure 9. Olay Mesa Tract Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 Figure 10. Spring Canyon Tract Map .................................... 29 Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan DRAFT LAND PROTECTION PLAN PROPOSED VERNAL POOLS STEWARDSHIP PROJECT SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Introduction This draft Land Protection Plan describes the various habitat protection methods for lands within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. This plan also includes a priority listing of private lands to be considered for acquisition after selection of an approved project boundary (see figures 3 through 10 and tables 2 and 3 at the end of this document). Public lands (including military lands) are not prioritized, because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) will not be purchasing these lands. Public lands could be managed under a cooperative agreement and mayor may not become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Conservation of vernal pool habitats, including endangered and threatened species, at Naval Air Station/Marine Corps Air Station (NASIMCAS) Miramar would be shared between the Department of the Navy and Service within the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project area. The Department of the Navy is committed to the continuing conservation of vernal pool resources at NAS/MCAS Miramar under existing authorities and through the development of a cooperative agreement with the Service and California Department of Fish and Game under the Sikes Act. Concurrent with this draft Land Protection Plan, a draft environmental assessment that evaluates alternatives and the environmental effects of conserving vernal pool habitats for the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project and a draft Conceptual Management Plan that describes the general management approaches for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge have been prepared by the Service. These documents are available for public review and comment. Project Description The Service proposes the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project to conserve outstanding vernal pool resources in the San Diego region by using a wide variety of habitat protection methods. The proposed boundary of the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 1 includes the major remaining vernal pool habitats for a variety of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species (see figures 1, 2a, and 2b). The proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project provides essential habitat for five Federally listed endangered species (San Diego mesa mint, San Diego button celery, California orcutt grass, Otay mesa mint, and Riverside fairy shrimp). This refuge unit could contribute to the Service's goal of providing compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities to an urban population because of the proximity to metropolitan San Diego. Purpose and Goals of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge The purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is to protect, manage, and restore habitats for Federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds, to maintain and enhance the biological diversity of native plants and animals, and to provide opportunities for environmental education. The goals of the San Diego Refuge reflect the core mission of the Service to protect wildlife resources of national importance while providing opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural heritage of the region. These goals would: a. Aid in the recovery of Federally listed endangered and threatened species and avoid the listing of additional species as endangered or threatened by providing a diverse base of protected and managed wildlife habitats. b. Coordinate and promote partnerships with Federal, Tribal, State of California, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego agencies; local universities and colleges; landowners; community groups; and nongovernmental conservation agencies in support of the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve. c. Provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities on Refuge lands to foster public awareness and appreciation of the unique natural heritage of the San Diego region. Project Area The project area for the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project is located within the City and County of San Diego. Primarily, the project area is located on Otay Mesa near the United States and Mexico border; near the Otay and Sweetwater reservoirs; and in central San Diego County on Del Mar Mesa, Lopez Ridge, NASIMCAS Miramar and adjacent lands, and Montgomery Field Airport (see figure 1). Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 2 PACIFIC Del Mar MesolbiJv /IJ Lopez Ridge ~ ~ SAN VINCeNTe V ReseRVOIR ... I , NavOl :A.lrStation/ Morine Corps Air Station , T Miromor SW.ETWAT~RP R'S'RVOIR~ ----- LOWER OTAY~ RESERVOIR (?- Oto~ ..Jl!dl 11 Mes~ Spdng UNITED STATE~___----- Canyon _----- ----- MEXICO OCEAN Figure ,. PROPOSED VERNAL POOLS STEWARDSHIP PROJECT SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE o 5 Ml ~ ~ VERNAL POOL COMPLEXES o 4 I 8 12 KM I I Location Mop USFWS October 1996 3 Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project North Area San Diego National Wildlife Refuge D~€~AR ~ it! LOPU RIDG€ utRAMM Rf:sERVOlR o \--------- , ""',. 7 / ''-. ' \ ',..-' , , r------ 1--- .J- hTF' NAVAL AIR STATlON/ t.4ARINE CORPS AIR STATION t.4IRAt.4AR MIRAMAR _ AR€A /..------' /t/) v // ,------- I , , I , , I , ~ ~n-h-------J ACREAGES _ PRIVATE LAND c::::J PUBue LAND E'ZZa 1I1UTARY LAND ~ Del liar _ l.opN RIel,. lIIIramar Area llonIgorMrY nold PUBUC 175 36 4.152. 180 PRIVATE 272 78 112 o . 1ncIud.. "'.131 GONe mllftory land MONTGOM€RY FInD ~ ngure 2a. Vernal Pools Stewardship Protect alternatives: Alternative A includes public; and private lands. Alternative B Inc;ludes only private lands. o ........ 2 WILES I o 2 3 klLOlofEYEIlS USPWI 00I0INr '. 4 Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Area South Area San Diego National Wildlife Refuge CHULA VISTA Otay SPRING CANYON $ ;1\ Son Miguel Mountain SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 1'/\;1\ fl\ ^^;I\ Jamul I' \ Mountains OTAY RESERVOIR Son Ysidro ;1\ Mountains A AA ACREAGES PUBLIC PRIVATE Sweetwater Reservoir 131 Otoy Re..rvolr 247 Otay Mesa 265- SprIng Canyon 0 . Includes 163 ocres mllttary land 30 262 1,195 1,078 United states _ - - - Mexico ~ 0 2 WIlLS ........ ........ "'--' "'--' 0 2 3 KILOMETERS .. PRIVATE LAND IZ:ZI WIUTARY LAND c::::J PUBLIC LAND Figure 2b. Vernal Paols Stewardship Area alternatives: Alternative A includes public and private lands. Alternative' B includes only private lands. USFWS ~ 199of; 5 Threats to and Status of the Resource to be Protected The destruction of vernal pool habitat in this region is caused primarily through housing and commercial development and highway construction; additional impacts are incurred by off-road vehicles, agricultural development, and illegal dumping. San Diego County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation and housing is expected to keep pace with this growth. The resulting habitat fragmentation further deteriorates the viability of the remaining vernal pool habitat. Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project to conserve outstanding vernal pool resources in the San Diego region by using a wide variety of habitat protection methods. Two action alternatives were evaluated in the draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. Alternative A, the preferred alternative, includes approximately 3,327 hectares (8,223 acres) of vernal pool habitat and adjacent buffer. Of this total, approximately 1,225 hectares (3,027 acres) are private lands and approximately 2,102 hectares (5,196 acres) are public lands. Alternative B includes only the private lan~s. Although approval of the project boundary would allow the Service to negotiate with willing participants throughout the entire 8,223-acre area, not all of the lands in the proposed project boundary would become a part of the Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. As funds become available, private lands would be purchased from willing sellers. Some lands within the project boundary may be developed and no longer be suitable for refuge purposes. Some lands may be purchased and managed by public and non-profit organizations. Some lands may be transferred to the Service or managed as part of the refuge through cooperative agreements. However, some public lands, such as those at NAS/MCAS Miramar, would continue to be owned and managed by the respective agencies. Identification and Selection of Lands to be Included Within the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project The major, remaining vernal pool areas in San Diego County were selected for inclusion into the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. Buffer lands and habitat linkages were included. Land ownership patterns were also considered in defining the boundary of the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. Wherever possible, the boundaries follow parcel lines to minimize splitting lots and to minimize uneconomic remnants, even though only a portion might contain native plant and wildlife habitat of interest to the Service. This would add flexibility when working with the landowners to determine what lands would actually become a part of the project. Access to refuge Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR . Draft Land Protection Plan 6 lands will also need to be acquired. In some cases, access rights crossing lands outside of the project boundary may also be purchased from willing sellers. Adjustments to the boundary could be made with the approval of the landowner. Some vernal pools located on eastern Otay Mesa and Sweetwater and Otay reservoirs could be included in the Olay-Sweetwater Unit for management purposes if contiguous blocks of habitat in that refuge unit are acquired. Summary of Planning and Land Acquisition Processes The Service's planning process includes the following steps: . Preliminary agency planning . Concept plan issued . Public involvement activities (such as planning workshops) . Draft environmental assessment and other planning documents released . Public review period . Final environmental assessment released . Notice of decision (whether or not to establish refuge) The Service prepared and distributed to landowners, elected officials, agencies, and interested public the Concept Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in August 1995 and Planning Updates in October 1995, March 1996, and November 1996. The Service also held open house meetings in Jamul, Imperial Beach, and San Diego in October 1995 to solicit comments from the public. The draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project is included with this draft Land Protection Plan for public review and comment. The Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves the designation of the project boundary upon completion of the planning and environmental coordination process. This process includes compliance with NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), the Endangered SpeCies Act, and other federal regulations and executive orders. The Regional Director reviews the NEPA and other compliance documents and decides what course of action the Fish and Wildlife Service will take. When the decision is made and final approval for the proposal is given, the proposal can be implemented as described in the land protection plan and environmental assessment, and discussions with willing participants can commence. Approval of a project boundary does not grant the Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it does not automatically make lands within the project boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands do not become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System until they are purchased by the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR 7 DJaft Land Protection Plan Service or are placed under an agreement that provides for management as part of the refuge system. No new or additional zoning laws would be imposed by the Service within the approved project boundary. Any landowner within an approved project boundary retains all existing rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private-land ownership as determined by local, city, or county jurisdictions. Again, lands remain under the' control of the owner until management rights or the property has been transferred to or has been purchased by the Service. The Service land protection policy is to acquire land only when other protective means are not appropriate, available, or effective. When lands are to be acquired, the minimum interest necessary to reach management objectives is acquired or retained. When the Service acquires land, it acquires fee title (control of all property rights) only if control of lesser property interests, such as easements or leases, will not achieve objectives or would create problems for the landowners. The Fish and Wildlife Service is looking at the long-term protection of this area. Acquisition of private lands would be phased in over time as funds become available and willing participants come forward. The acquisition and habitat protection program is expected to take several years. Initial acquisition efforts would focus primarily on protecting larger blocks of land having the highest biological values. Lands with and without development potential could be acquired by the Service. It'is expected that some lands would never become part of the refuge. For example, some lands will be developed and will no longer be suitable for refuge purposes; some lands will be acquired and managed by public agencies and nonprofit organizations; and some owners will choose not to sell or enter into refuge-related agreements with the Service. Willing Seller Policy Service policy is to acquire lands only from willing participants under general authorities such as the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the Refuge Recreation Act. Landowners within the project boundary who do not wish to sell their property or any other interest in their property are under no obligation to enter into negotiations or to sell to the Service. The Service, like other federal agencies, has been given the power of eminent domain, which allows the use of condemnation to acquire lands and other interest in lands for the public good. This power, however, is seldom used and is not eXpected to be used in this project. The Service usually acquires land from willing participants and is not often compelled to buy specific habitats within a rigid time frame. Vemal Pools stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 8 In all cases the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of fair-market value for lands to be purchased as determined by an approved appraisal that meets professional standards and federal requirements. Under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, landowners who sell their property to the Service are eligible for certain benefits and payments which include: 1. Reimbursement of reasonable moving and related expenses or certain substitute payments. 2. Replacement housing payments under certain conditions. 3. Relocation assistance services to help locate replacement housinglfarm/or business. 4. Reimbursement of certain necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in selling real property to the Federal Government. Habitat Protection Methods A variety of habitat protection methods can be used to conserve the outstanding vernal pool resources in the San Diego region. These methods range from the acquisition of land by the Service for the Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego Refuge to protection under the Sikes Act through interagency cooperative agreements with the Department of Defense. The proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project, by coordinating with landowners, local jurisdiction, government agencies, and Department of Defense to protect native habitats for rare species, would provide a long-needed counterbalance to the rapid urban growth of the San Diego. The term 'conservation" is defined to include a wide variety of habitat protection methods. On lands owned and managed by public agencies, cooperative agreements and coordinated planning/management efforts, including shared resources could be used to conserve vernal pool resources. 'Conservation" also includes acquisition of land or interests therein by the Service for the proposed Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The Service could acquire fee title, conservation easements, long-term leases, and/or cooperative agreements with willing public agencieslwilling landowners through purchase, donation, transfer, exchange, or written agreement. Habitat protection methods that could be used by the Service to include lands within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project are described below. The actual Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 9 method selected for any individual parcel will depend upon the needs and desires of the landowner(s) and what is mutually agreed to by the Service. If a mutual agreement cannot be reached, the landowner(s) would retain full use, control, and responsibility for the property. Lease. and Cooperative Agreements. Potentially, the Service could protect and manage vernal pool habitat through leases and cooperative agreements. Management control could be obtained by entering into long-term renewable leases or cooperative agreements with the landowners. Cooperative agreements could include the transfer of funds for shared management activities. Cooperative agreements can be used on both public and private lands. An overlay national wildlife refuge can be established through a cooperative agreement on existing Federal lands. The host agency retains primary jurisdiction and the refuge purpose is superimposed as a secondary interest in the property. Lands under a cooperative agreement do not necessarily need to be included in the national wildlife refuge system. For leases and cooperative agreements, property taxes would remain the responSibility of the landowner. Conservation Easements. Conservation easements provide the Service the opportunity to manage lands for their wildlife habitat values. Such management would preclude uses inconsistent with the Service's management objectives. Only land uses having minimal or no conflicts with management objectives would be reserved by the landowner. In effect, the landowner transfers certain development and management rights to the Service for management purposes as specified in the easement. Property taxes would remain the responsibility of the landowner. Easements would likely be useful when 1) most, but not all, of a private landowner's uses are compatible with the Service's management objectives and 2) the current owner desires to retain ownership of the land and to continue compatible uses under the terms mutually agreed to in the easement. Land uses normally restricted under the terms of a conservation easement include, but are not limited to: · Development rights (agricultural, residential, and others) · Alteration of the area's natural topography · Uses adversely affecting the area's flora and fauna . Private hunting and fishing leases . Public access rights · Alteration of the natural water regime Fee-TItle Acquisition. A fee-title interest is normally acquired when 1) the land's fish and wildlife resources require permanent protection not otherwise assured, 2) the land is needed for public use development, 3) a pending land use could adversely impact Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 10 the area's resources, or 4) it is the most practical and economical way to assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. In some cases, fee-title acquisition with use reservations are negotiated. Fee-title acquisition normally conveys all ownership rights, including mineral and water rights if any, to the Federal Government and provides the best assurance of permanent resource protection. A fee-title interest can be acquired by purchase, donation, exchange, or transfer. Land acquisition from willing participants would be pursued under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), as amended; Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as amended; Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r), as amended; and Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460-k-4), as amended. Federal funds to purchase these lands would be primarily through annual appropriations by Congress from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and would occur over time. Other Habitat Protection Methods Lands that were dedicated, acquired, managed, and/or restored by developers as mitigation for urban developments may be donated to the Service (with management funding) as additions to the Vernal Pools Unit. The combination of dedication, purchase, management of private lands by developers to satisfy mitigation requirements; cooperative agreements with public agencies; and the independent acquisition by the Service of lands within the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project would yield a larger and more coordinated preserve system. The Service would consider the use of any or all habitat protection methods when, or as, they become available. Land Protection Priorities Within the Proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project Private lands within the project boundary have been prioritized for protection or acquisition into one of three categories (high, medium, and low). All vernal pool habitat is important and these categories indicate relative priorities. The following criteria were used to evaluate each tract of land. This evaluation is subjective and the three factors are not additive. . Reserve design based on 1) occurrence within the proposed project boundary; 2) the size of the existing habitat within which the vernal pool complex exists; and 3) proposed land use and adjacent land uses (existing or proposed preserve, proposed natural open space, agriculture, or development). Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 11 . Biological value based on 1) the quality of vernal pool habitat (number, abundance, and density of vernal pools and sensitive species, vernal pool plant species diversity; 2) watershed and mesa top habitat values; and 3) long-term conservation potential based on habitat patch size and quality. . Risk/threat based on 1) risk of commercial or residential development or agricultural use within or adjacent to the vernal pools; 2) land ownership (Federal, State, local, or private); 3) level of existing protection (preserve, designated open space, mitigation site, none); 4) accessibility (degree of isolation from disturbance with high meaning highly accessible); and 5) current and ongoing level of disturbance including but not limited to vehicle damage, grazing, and dumping. Land Protection Plan Tables and Maps Table 1 includes public lands within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. No acquisition priorities were assigned to public lands, because no money would be spent to acquire these lands. Cooperative agreements could be implemented to manage the public lands. Tables 2 includes private lands within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project and indicates priorities for acquisition or protection (high, medium, or low) listed by tract number. Table 3 includes the same private lands listed alphabetically by owner. Tract numbers were assigned by the Fish and Wildlife Service and are shown on figures 3 through 10. . Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 12 Table 1. Public lands (including military) within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. >> ....... ..< ..i> > . Tract > < ............................................ Approxilnate > Habitat ...>i.iii ...........>> No. III >>>f ........ ............................. Ac:re$~ Value United States of America 1 NAS Miramar 617 Pool 1a NAS Miramar 2,449 Pool 1b NAS Miramar 14 Pool 1c NAS Miramar 58 Pool 1d NAS Miramar 234 Pool 1f NAS Miramar 344 Pool 19 NAS Miramar 301 Pool 1h NAS Miramar 34 Pool . 1m Otay Mesa 163 Pool State of California 2 Otay Mesa 60 Pool 2a Lopez Ridge 7 Pool 2b Del Mar Mesa 86 Pool 2c Del Mar Mesa 6 Pool 2e Otay Mesa 40 Buffer County of San Diego 3 Del Mar Mesa 29 Pool 3a Otay Mesa 10 Pool City of San Diego 4 Otay Reservoir 243 Pool 4a Montgomery Field 163 Pool 4b Lopez Ridge 18 Pool 4c Lopez Ridge 12 Pool 4d Del Mar Mesa 30 Pool 4e Del Mar Mesa 12 Pool 4f Del Mar Mesa 8 Pool 4g Del Mar Mesa 16 Pool 4h Del Mar Mesa 17 Pool 4j Miramar Area 19 Pool 4m Otay Reservoir 1 Buffer 4n Otay Reservoir 4 Buffer 40 Otay Reservoir 16 Buffer 4p Olay Reservoir 4 Buffer 4q Olay Reservoir 2 Buffer San Diego Unified School 5 Miramar Area 13 Pool District Sweetwater Authority 6 Sweetwater 120 Pool Reservoir 1) Tract numbers correspond to those marked on figures 3 through 10. 2) Acreages are rounded to whole numbers. Vemal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 13 Table 2. land protection priorities of privately owned tracts (by tract number) within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project, San Diego Nationat Wildlife Refuge. TrKt ................................................................................11 1II.........i2...................I.......Ni~x;.. ........;............... Habitat NikW "iiAt". ............Vli'lMi.. nIlI. 10 Anderprises, Inc. Spring Canyon 202 High Pool 11 Borevitz, Ben A.lOtay Mesa Spring Canyon 45 Medium Buffer Assoc. 12 Portfolio Investments Ltd. Spring Canyon 37 Medium Buffer 15 Otay 19 Associates Spring Canyon 34 High Pool 16 Jennings, Frederick Spring Canyon 1 High Pool . 17 Biddle, Charles J. and others Spring Canyon 40 High Pool 18 Associated General Properties Spring Canyon 80 Medium Pool 19 Klein, Roddy, Trust Spring Canyon 291 High Pool 20 Security Title Insurance Company Spring Canyon 177 High Pool 21 Martinez, Elena, Trust Spring Canyon 62 High Pool 22 Handler Trust Spring Canyon 20 High Pool 22a 2 Medium Buffer 23 Dexstar, Inc. Spring Canyon 7 High Buffer 24 Bachman, John and Alice Spring Canyon 40 Low Buffer 25 Mitchell, Alvan and Patricia Spring Canyon 2 Medium Buffer 25a 1 Medium Buffer 26 Balsamo, John and Thomas Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 27 Burgueno, Octavio and Deloras Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 28 Davisson, Hattie M. Spring Canyon 2 Medium Buffer 28a 2 Medium Buffer 28b 1 Medium Buffer 28c 1 Medium Buffer 29 Orzco, Jose M. and Martha E. Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 30 Quijada, Joseph W. and Marjorie Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 31 Sampo, Michael and Penny Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 14 Table 2. (continued) TI'lICt ................................................i....i.... ............................................................................ i..'...... i............ i/ ....... ~1li'QlI. liS,.......... Hllbltllt .i ,>;> No!!)1 lii""ii Acres~ Value 32 Darr, Dennis and Darlene Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 33 Glen Rock Estates Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 34 Davisson, Clara Spring Canyon 2 Medium Buffer 35 Bennett, Jack R., Trust Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 36 Duenas, JOe and Peggy Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 37 Backsl, Jack and Anne Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 38 Ritchey Family Trust Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 39 Collins, Joseph F., Trust Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 40 Velasquez, Jose and Amparo Spring Canyon 2 Medium Buffer 41 Zuniga, Joseph and Vasquez, Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Santiago 42 Stoney, Daisey Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 42a 1 Medium Buffer 43 Sorenson Uving Trust Spring Canyon 3 .. Medium Buffer 44 Peterson Family Trust Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 45 Evans, Agnes C., Family Trust Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 46 Martinez, Agustin and Christina Spring Canyon 20 Medium Buffer 47 Martinez, Jose and Maria Spring Canyon 15 Medium Buffer 48 Russell, Geraldine Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 49 Oakland, Warren and Ma~orie Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 50 Otay Vista Associates Otay Mesa 90 High Pool 50a Otay Mesa 384 High Pool 50b Otay Mesa 11 High Pool 50c Otay Reservoir 457 High Pool 51 Kenyon, Dorothy, Trust Otay Mesa 23 High Pool 52 Milgen Investment Spring Canyon 10 Medium Buffer Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Drall Land Protection Plan 15 Table 2. (continued) Ttact .i......................... ....~J~i........................................................................... ........................ ................).............. APProX; ilI. Hallltllt Nol!'! ......Al:.....ffl..... .\(.Ili. 53 Ingalls, Melvyn V. Otay Mesa 10 Medium Pool 54 Smith, Gregory and Georgiana Otay Mesa 193 High Pool 56 Baldwin Builders Otay Mesa 268 High Pool 57 Clay Mesa Six, LP Otay Mesa 119 Medium Pool 58 Zinser-Furby, Inc. Otay Mesa 40 Low Buffer 59 Struthers, Alexander, Trust Otay Mesa 41 Low Buffer 60 . Shinohara, Jimmie and Judi, Trust Sweetwater 16 Medium Pool Reservoir 61 Lamer!, Gene and Juanita Sweetwater 1 Low Buffer Reservoir 62 Fares, Anthony and Adele Sweetwater 1 Low Pool Reservoir 63 Barba, Manuel and Patricia, Trust Sweetwater 10 Low Pool Reservoir 64 Hirano, George and Nora, Trust Otay Mesa 9 Low Buffer 65 Fenton, H.G. Material Company Miramar Area 56- Medium Buffer 66 Pipefitters Welfare Education Lopez Ridge 9 High Pool 66a Fund et al 46 High Pool 68 MacFarlane, Dr. Antonia Miramar Area 12 Low Buffer 69 University of Califomia Miramar Area 45 Medium Pool Chancellors 70 Mansfield, Florence Lopez Ridge 14 Medium Buffer 71 Mills, Joseph and Mary Del Mar Mesa 2 Low Buffer 71 Mills, Joseph and Mary Del Mar Mesa 2 Low Buffer 72 Farkas, Louis Jr., Trust Del Mar Mesa 2 Medium Pool 73 Smith, Sharon Del Mar Mesa 2 Medium Pool 74 Hervey, James E., Estate Del Mar Mesa 20 High Pool Vemal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 16 Table 2. (continued) 1'~. iii. . i........ I ..................................................................... ...................I.....~l'f(ll(....... IWii.. Habitat No}'Wi ........................ .............i.. ~i..fM.!'ll...ffl..... Valllll 75 A.G. Land Associates Del Mar Mesa 32 High Pool 76 Gleich Family TNSt Del Mar Mesa 20 High Pool 76. 19 Medium Buffer 77 Miller, Gerald and Dorothy, TNsts Del Mar Mesa 6 Medium Pool 77a 1 Medium Pool 78 CMR Properties Del Mar Mesa 20 High Pool 79 Sandoval, Josephine Del Mar Mesa 1 Medium Pool 80 Aerial View Investors Del Mar Mesa 9 High Pool 81 Mervynne, Olga Del Mar Mesa 20 Medium Pool 82 Schlachterllnvestments, Inc. Del Mar Mesa 80 High Pool 84 Carrillo, Ignacio and Antonia Spring Canyon 1 Medium Pool 85 Bricro Partners Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 1) Tract numbers correspond to those marked on figures 3 through 10. 2) Acreages are rounded to whole numbers. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 17 Table 3. Land protection priorities of privately owned tracts (by owner) within the proposed Vernal Pools Stewardship Project, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. III .',-,'.-,'-',-.'.-,'-'-",-.'.-.'.',',',' .....~It8t. ",:",:,-:-",:,-""-,,,-,.:.,.:.:.:.:.:. ..n.."........_....____ -'-,---,""',""'-'''''''," (,i1()flW(.. ......Vallili..... A.G. Land Associates 75 Del Mar Mesa 32 High Pool Aerial View Investors 80 Del Mar Mesa 9 High Pool Anderprises, Inc. 10 Spring Canyon 202 High Pool Associated General 18 Spring Canyon 80 Medium Pool Properties Bachman, John and Alice 24 Spring Canyon 40 Low Buffer Backal, Jack and Anne 37 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Baldwin Builders 56 Otay Mesa 268 High Pool Balsamo, John and 26 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Thomas Barba, Manuel and 63 Sweetwater Reservoir 10 Low Pool Patricia, Trust Bennett, Jack R., Trust 35 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Biddle, Charies J. and 17 Spring Canyon 40 High Pool others Borevitz. Ben A./Otay 11 Spring Canyon 45 Medium Buffer Mesa Assoc. Bricro Partners 85 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Burgueno, Octavio and 27 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Deloras CMR Properties 78 Del Mar Mesa 20 High Pool Carrillo, Ignacio and 84 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Pool Antonia Collins, Joseph F.. Trust 39 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Darr, Dennis and Dariene 32 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Davisson, Clara 34 Spring Canyon 2 Medium Buffer Vemal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 18 Table 3. (continued) .Hibitllt ",VlIlllt,. ::-:,,":;',,:;8:':~:':~::::::. Davisson, Hattie M. 28 Spring Canyon 2 Medium Buffer 28a 2 Medium Buffer 28b 1 Medium Buffer 28c 1 Medium Buffer Dexstar, Inc. 23 Spring Canyon 7 High Buffer Duenas, Joe and Peggy 36 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Evans, Agnes C. , Family 45 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Trust Fares, Anthony and Adele 62 Sweetwater Reservoir 1 Low Pool Farkas, Louis J., Jr., Trust 72 Del Mar Mesa 2 Medium Pool Fenton, H.G. Material 65 Miramar Area 56 High Pool Company Gleich Family Trust 76 Del Mar Mesa 20 High Pool 76a 19 Medium Buffer Glen Rock Estates 33 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Hirano, George and Nora, 64 Otay Mesa 9 -Low Buffer Trust Handler Trust 22 Spring Canyon 20 High Pool 22a 2 Medium Buffer Hervey, James E., Estate 74 Del Mar Mesa 20 High Pool Ingalls, Melvyn V. 53 Otay Mesa 10 Medium Pool Jennings, Frederick 16 Spring Canyon 1 High Pool Kenyon, Dorothy, Trust 51 Otay Mesa 23 High Pool Klein, Roddy, Trust 19 Spring Canyon 291 High Pool Lamert, Gene and Juanita 61 Sweetwater Reservoir 1 Low Buffer MacFarlane, Dr. Antonia 68 Miramar Area 12 Low Buffer Mansfield, Florence 70 Lopez Ridge 14 Medium Buffer Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diago NWR Draft land Protection Plan 19 Table 3. (continued) W~=~ Martinez, Agustin and 46 Spring Canyon 20 Medium Buffer Christina Martinez, Elena, TNst 21 Spring Canyon 62 High Pool Martinez, Jose and Maria 47 Spring Canyon 15 Medium Buffer Mervynne, Olga 81 Del Mar Mesa 20 Medium Pool Milgen Investment 52 Spring Canyon 10 Medium Buffer Miller, Gerald and Dorothy, n Del Mar Mesa 6 Medium Pool TNsts na 1 Medium Pool Mills, Joseph and Mary 71 Del Mar Mesa 2 Low Buffer Mitchell, Alvan and Patricia 25 Spring Canyon 3 Medium Buffer 25a 1 Medium Buffer Oakland, Warren and 49 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Marjorie Orzco, Jose M. and Martha 29 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer E. Olay Mesa Six, LP 57 OtayMesa 119 Medium Pool Olay 19 Associates 15 Spring Canyon 34 High Pool Olay Vista Associates 50 Otay Mesa 90 High Pool 50a Olay Mesa 384 High Pool 50b Olay Mesa 11 High Pool 50c Olay Reservoir 457 High Pool Peterson Family TNst 44 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Pipefilters Welfare 66 Lopez Ridge 9 High Pool Education Fund et al 66a 46 High Pool Portfolio Investments Ltd. 12 Spring Canyon 37 Medium Buffer Quijada, Joseph W. and 30 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Marjorie Ritchey Family TNst 38 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Russell, Geraldine 48 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 20 Table 3. (continued) ~7~ i,'}!.........I....................................i.................................,~...................................i.. ~~: ........\................;i.i....... Habitat iii.iii Vallie Sampo, Michael and 31 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Penny Sandoval, Josephine 79 Del Mar Mesa 1 Medium Pool Schlachter/Investments, 82 Del Mar Mesa 80 High Pool Inc. Security Title Insurance 20 Spring Canyon 177 High Pool Company Shinohara, Jimmie and 60 Sweetwater Reservoir 16 Medium Pool Judi, Trust Smith, Gregory and 54 Otay Mesa 193 High Pool Georgiana Smith, Sharon 73 Del Mar Mesa 2 Medium Pool Sorenson Uving Trust 43 Spring Canyon 3 Medium Buffer Stoney, Daisey 42 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer 42a 1 Medium Buffer Struthers, Alexander, Trust 59 Otay Mesa 41 Low Buffer Zinser-Furby, Inc. 58 Otay Mesa 40 Low Buffer University of Califomia 69 Miramar Area 45 Medium Pool Chancellors Velasquez, Jose and 40 Spring Canyon 2 Medium Buffer Amparo Zuniga, Joseph and 41 Spring Canyon 1 Medium Buffer Vazquez, Santiago 1) Tract numbers correspond to those marked on figures 3 through 10. 2) Acreages are rounded to whole numbers. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project San Diego NWR Draft Land Protection Plan 21 0. 0 >- ~ ~'" 00: \ c '" !lI:~ e1 2- ~~ ..... \ 0 ~~ ~~ a~ '" 0 e; ....IQ: I"" 0 ~. ~'~ .... ~i:: v>'" ~\ ~ ~,\,l ~,(l iSY -, -, ; N I ; '" I \ '" / ,'''; " " r:"" ....... \ \ I'" ,- , l;; '" '" 0 w w ~ l;; 0 " 0 0 e 0 ~ ~ - z ~ @ 0 0 ... ~ '" 0 '" vi ... I- , -, (0 Y '1-' \0); \ a> I '- ~/ 0 @ U) N N 22 -, -I 0 \ IN; '- ~ 0. " ~ "0 ~i:- 00 '"0 ~C "'~ o "0'" ~ ~- &.~ 4i e"E e o..Q.. ~ i:- o "0 C , " o 0 '" o..x -~ 00. EE ~O >U o z '" C> '" .... ~ > x ~~ -~ '- <...> ~ 0... lt~ ll..... :t~ Vl... C:l... <1::- :q: ~cS ~ll..~::::! ~~Vl~ <I::'-Vl-J ~<"'>-J~ ~g ~ -.It-Cl,t--.: ~ -J~ ~O <1::<':> ~~ C:l fj<: Vlt:!i o ll.. o <I:: ll.. ...; ~ '" .0, ~ ~ ~ , 0 '" ~ ~ e '" ~g Q o ~ p u<< 0- ~ g: "'--0'\ ,,~ @ . ~ .B o o ~ ~ ~ " D. ~ - "2~ ~ 00 >- ~.., 0 ~c .., . '" ~.. -~ c u "' o!! I ~ 0 ~ '0 ~ ~ ..,1Il .g 0 0 "" ~ ~~ ~n . "'x 0 " -- &.! .. _.!! ~ 2 ,,~ OD. 0 ~~ . ,~.. ~ia u 0 0 ee ~ EE fO - 0 N Z 0 u :1 .t".":\t ...... D. .0 of 2 ..~ "" >0 0< . I C> ... "" - ~. ~t\ -' z ~ 1.-0....... 8 i51~ \ '" 1 c:/ @ 0 ~ x <> >: -~I i;: i:\ <3 g ~ cZ? D. o '" c .!! '0 () o -' '" '" N '" " ... '" '" ~ "0 'Y. '?O "'A ~ 0- "0 :> ~ '" .2> t...: .... ~ ~..., a..g a..t:; 5:Cl:: lI) C:l~ Cl::- ..., ~CS <:la..~~ S!:'l:lI) Cl::::lE ..... N....~~ <..;1..>00 a..~0>::: O;::a.._ ..... .....~ ~O ei~ :sees S~ ~l'l ~ a.. ~ \ \ CD '" '" vi ... '" C> C> ... ou~UJ08 ~ $ o o ~. E '" " / " 23 ~ i 1i~ ,. l~ ~ ~ U1 ~ ~ c a:.g ~ ~ .~ 0 ~~.~~: w ........ 0 < C/ D..ll.. D.. Z ~ ~ . ;~ O~ ~~ ~~ O~ ~. '02 .~ >~ o o . ~~ -~ ~1ii 0.10 ~ i ~~ ~ .( ~i~ .! >~o ~ ~ < z ~ ~~ ~] _0 ~~ >~ , 9 ~ :j~l /.-0..... \ N \ ......:.1 ! i;t; I.. ~ ':Y i " - z o ---1 II !- ii L..-; 1..-: i. ! I ~ ! ~ ,/~ \i . \.. \"\ \-;) v --"'! i L. ~ ~ -- ~ , . ~ 1'1 E ij-- N = M ~~ ~~ \ . "~ 24 ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~I % ~~ i ; el s~ -Ii J."l\ ~\\ ~ d-~l ~ g l 0; c& ~ o '" c o " o u .'l '- 1;l ..., c'" :l:<> :::. ll..... =t~ "> ~~ ~ :0:(..... Q;:Cl...~Q oq~~~ ",<"> :s.....V)..... cu.....:l l~cC) it-.:~i::: ...~ '" ~c ~~ CI i:l'" :g~ 0.. C :l: .,; ~ .51> '" . ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ Q. :c 0 " O~ ;:- >" 0 ~C " ~ "', C 0 0 , 0 . , "", 0 0 0 ". ~ OJ "'X 0 0- ~ ~ 00 Q; co.. '" 9 Q.~ 0 00 0 EE . ~o Q z .. 0 '" ...... ... ~(J o~ 0 <:i u.:; . '" >- -' ~ /- - Z , 0' 'N' \,,,:-/ @ I;; ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ;~ ~ct:~ "' ~ w I;; o '" ~n . 00 ""e :::iCl:l lllOl -&../~ c ~~ ",'" ..:5 z w , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (f):V> , ""U) .-:.... 1-)1- , , , , , 1- - ____If.__'- ~ M \:_~n '" ~ v> c.. "'- o ~ "'- IS' ,avo~ ~::)O~aNVS I 2:, ~Q;: ~~ ~~ ..'" >- >!'" \ co " 0\ U~\ll , o~ .E:.;::;;I'T,i:=l j IJ ~~ 0;" , x i ~ ""- ~I r--~ ~ Q. o '" c ~ o o o -' I-- (..J l..J ..., o ~l..J <.:l 9::i;: ::r:l..J v,Q: o o Q:~ c:: ~:J i:;: l..JO Cl.."'-' )..",v,~ ~:)!v, ~.....-.I-.l O(..JO~ ~~:t~ <:1-- I-- o :q!~ ~ <: ~O ::.:~ OC; ~<: :tt;!; o ~ <C '" .... '" .!;J> .... ~ '" '" . D o -0 o u; if ~ o z .., " .., -' Q. :r o 1't- tg ~ 4) C ~ en 5 ~ ,"" '" =13 ... ~~ e e e ...0 ...... 0 ~ g , "" 0 " e "'x 0 0 '" 00. 00 Q CE '0 E ~o 0, >0 0< .... (.--0...." ~ \ ~ J ,- @ ~ "- o,y.;>. "- "'~"'/' "- o,y.;> . "- IV"'df "- o \ \ \ \ ~o "'0.-...;\ ;s'''''o.- 26 .. . ~~ 'I "!1 !l:!l: " ~~ ~~ !\~ ,.~ L,i. ~~ - ~I "'rill! 8 >g ~j <~ .2. f,:, ~:5 O:i I . x ~2: >:: ~ <> <:> --- : "j o o '" '- l.> ~ c.., :tg ~~ II') !l: Q~ C "'_ S ~-J '" "'Q lrlll..~~ .., ~ II') '" II')-J e:it;c:~ '-'~cc :q~Q..i::: :;:: -J~ '- .. t::: >::0 ~ e:i'" (r) :s:~ Cl ::1", II')~ :r ~ -z C- o ~ cZ? C 2- o u o -' \ B ~ ~ t; :J :J " ~ " ,Q> c.: '" ~ '4. ~ 'C> '" 't., -, (-\ .\ <0 ) ........ ,-- -, ----{ N , \ <0 ) ,- '<> m m ~ '" o 1> o '" i! '" ::> o z '" <:> '" --' "- :c 00 1'<:- 00 <:- '" 0 .0 " ;j) 5 5 ,,'" 0 . '" &.i ] ee (; "-"- "- " o a.x . 00.. EE .0 >0 . U L ~ o 00 . '" .0 Oe 0< ~ t;; w '- "" 9 o o o N '" '" w t;; ::;; o :" o U E f- o o o tJ >- <c c.=> ga ~~ :s: CIl' <C~ ei~ ~l Z !tv) ~\O '" W'l;~ l/)~ ~~ "', ~~ ~:s. :2:\ l:iei ~1 !i:~ ~ ~ ~,,\ II) OJ ,1 .. '" 2 ~ ~. "< i:'i " C> ~:] @ o "- 0 c& '" 0 ,j 2 c>' (f) (f) -0 0 "- ro .3 e- e- o-.; ~ C) ..... g: <..:l :::, ~ 9: t:; ~ Cl: C) ~ Cl:: !!:: ~ -.J ro "- C) N ~ ~ -.J n Cl::Q.. V) ~ .....~ V) -.J V) ~ ~t; -.J C) ~ C) Cl S' )...~ Q.. ;::: c1:J ~, I;j ~'- -.J ~ ( CL I t] C) ~Cl ).::/ '" ~<..:l '" "- ~~ Z C) A'v'lO OH::JNV'C1 <l:i S <: @ ~ V) (;l C) :;, Q.. l:l> C) i;: Cl:: Q.. ~, \!fl ro _/ - z NV'IOI<J3~ ONIOClV'NCI38 NV'S 27 3 l CI M l <J ~ '" '" . ~ 2 u o <!I.74f07 '" '" '" ::> Q @~o <0 N "4 '0 1 'i A. @ a:. if' 0 N 0 0 " N 0 N \ \ 0 Q \ a. :c 0 ~i:' i:' v 00 '" 0 ~ " Vc c <> " "" Vlg " 0 0 0 0 e ,,'" '" a.X V V 0: ~U - -a.. ~ ~ g E Vo u Ov "V ~ a..~ 00 " Co 8.\: t- O ~() '" a: a: 0.. Z w -, <.> (N \ w ~ ...J \ lfl / ,- CD ~ ~ .., .., ~ .., .., "- ~ :j ~ s 1 o o -z <Xl Ol -, / - \ \Ln/ '"( \ -....... --...... I d \ f v , \ (") I \ ...0 / ,,- )- 10 ONIOHVNH38 NVS NVIOIH3~ -, ";('1\ \ Ln / '- ... N '" o G 28 ~ ~~ <>~ lii.. ".. ~~~ ;\"~ ~ ;;; i5 .... "'\:1 ::l ~~ ~I o~ t;;18 0 eiei ~\; ~ :!t~ i ~ Oct: ~, .:3 ~~ ~ 't.: ~ 0;' '" <0: ~f!E ~~ ~i:l 'i!... .... ~ 2 X -~ o 3 1 H 's 81 1 M I H 's 81 1 c---~ ~ a. o :::l; c o 'E u o ...J lfl N @ @@ ~G @@ t- ~ ~ Cl::..... Q..\:) :::. Q...... ::t..... v>Cl:: ~~ ~~ ~~ "'{Q..v>:;:: v>"'{ .....~V>..... :);t-C:~ )...~OO ~~Q..i:: Of.C:.....~ ~ e:i8 ::.:..... QCl ~~ O~ Q.. ~ Q.. <0 m m oi ~ " Ol l;: 0; ~ B u o ~ ~ => >- ~9f \ Q. o~ : :i: ~ei ~\ 0 0 ~fl: ~ "D !i~ ~:i I.&.l w "i:" i:" ~~ O~ I C> w ~ 00 ;.-J 0:101 a:: ~ '" ~"D 0 0 e; l.".,i! j w ~C "D U ~ C " ~t3 :j!J "'~ ~ "0 ~ 1;;;>' Z 0 0 0 0 "" <n'" ~I-~ "DO) 0) "-x 0 0 0 e ':j 0- 0 '" - Z OU 0; C"Q. -0 ... ~ U "" '" U EE 00 c 00 . .0 0 <( .. 0 00 o. . Z 0.."- "- >0 0<( I- ... C> 0 ... ..... I~O""'" 2 ~ \ ",\ X ......":../ ~]j @ '" .. <;: C'i <:; '" ~ <:> .. \ c& Q. , 0 , ,. \ c .2 , , ;; ?< \ U 0 ..... I-- , ... , V> \ i!; ~~ ''''I \~/-- ~~ ,..~ \~/ - f..-O..... \'" r f:'/ ~~~~:f~t~~3~~i'.t~#JZ~~:j;frtb.~ h ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I m A ~1 i 0 @ @ ~ ~ t! ~ @ @@CIDi ! @ @@@@ i I (]) @0@@ ~ ~ @@@ @ ~ ~ @ ~ ril A~ M (;;\ ~";\ 'i\V~" 00~~ I@)@(]) @ C~l ~.' ~ ~ fA~::"'YfW~~~tHl:Y'X~~~.,f,,~{.w.~m~ft~Y%;#.:#r. '" '" .... ~ ..., c..... ll::~ ll..:::> ... ~~ l3~ ll::- ~ ~i5 ~ll..~~ ~~Vl "'t .... (.)....Vl:<{ ,.(.).....:::: v~cc ~Q:Ci:: ll::1-:ll..~ e:; .....:::: ~c ~~ <;:) ~iS e~ ~ Vl (;Ii " c .0, ll.. .;: c ll:: ll.. -..( ''''1 \..:> @ ~ o '" , @ <n ~ t) Vi~ -"" " " ~~ t: '" @ & -" ''''1 \"'/ '1 ~ ~ ~ ~@ ;;; ~ @ ~ ~ '" '" vi vi <<> '" l- I-- V> ~ V> => @ "'~ o m m . " $ U o \ , , \ 29