The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 1993/09/13 SD County Supervisors .. " AGENDA JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 3:00 P.M., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNCIL CHAMBERS 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 1. ROLL CALL . Tim Nader, Mayor City of Chula Vista . Brian Bilbray, 1st District County Board of Supervisors II. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may address the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council on any subject matter under the jurisdiction of either the Board of Supervisors or City Council not otherwise on this agenda. However, pursuant to the Brown Act, no action can be taken by the Board of Supervisors or City Council <In such an item not listed on the agenda. III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - OTA Y RANCH During the public hearing, the County Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council will deliberate on any or all portions of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and the Otay Ranch Project. It is anticipated that the public hearing will be continued to the Joint Board of Supervisors/Chula Vista City Council hearing of September 27, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the County Administration Center Board Chambers - Room 310. IV. ADJOURNMENT . Chula Vista City Council to its meeting on September 14, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. . County Board of Supervisors to its meeting on September 21, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. in the County Administration Center Board Chambers - Room 310. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) - The Otay Ranch Project Office, in complying with the American With ~isabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who may need special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a city meeting, activity or service contact the Otay Ranch Project office at (619) 422-7157 for specific information on existing resources/or programs that may be available for such accommodation. Please call at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired. . , ~ ~~....... aiR...... RAnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT COUNT":t' OF SAN DIEGO' Cln' OF CHULA VISTA MEMORANDUM DATE: August 31, 1993 TO: Members of the County Board of Supervisors Members of the Chula Vista City Council FROM: Anthony J. Lettieri, AlCP General Manager RE: "What to review and bring" to the September 13, 1993 meeting Presentation Order # I: Board/Council Referrals Referral 1: Traffic JHK memo dated August 25, 1993 General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP /SP), Chapter 2, pp. 209-228 Hearing Binder: Tab 6: Planning Group letters Referral 2: USF&W and EHL Position on Staff Recommended Plan USF&W Matrix dated August 26, 1993 GDP text: Chapter 10, pp. 349-389 Hearing Binder: Items B.7 and G.2 - Use of Salt Creek, Salt Creek/University Text changes Tab C - Development Around the Lakes Item D.l - Central Proctor Valley Preserve Area Wildlife Corridor Study Presentation Order # II: J amul Planning Areas GDP text: pp. 193-198 Hearing Binder: item E.! (for other recommendations) Presentation Order # III: San Ysidro Planning Area GDP text: pp. 199-204 Hearing Binder: Tab F (for other recommendations) 315 Fourth Avenue. Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157' FAX: (619) 4?2-7690 . . Presentation Order # IV: Development Around the Lakes GDP text: pp. 173-192; Chapter 10, pp. 349-389 Hearing Binder: Tab C: Development Around the Lakes Issue Paper Tab 6: Planning Group letters Wildlife Corridor Study Presentation Order # V: Central Proctor Valley GDP text: pp. 181-187; 193-198 Hearing Binder: Tab D: Central Proctor Valley Issue Paper Tab 6: Planning Group letters Presentation Order # VI: GDP and RMP Related Text Amendments Staff text recommendations concerning the university designation and adult education facilities (included in this agenda package) Hearing Binder: Tab G: Errata Sheet GDP text: as referenced in the errata sheets, Tab G GDP text: Chapter 3 (Housing), pp. 231-237 GDP text: Chapter 5, (Solid Waster Management), pp. 266-268 Presentation Order # VII: Village Density Reduction in Non-transit Villages Staff text recommendations (included in this agenda package) GDP text: pp. 122-136, 145-152, 158-161 215\review4.913 OTAY RANCH PROJECT ... ~ u ;; - o u ~ U 0:>- >-frl ~a :'ill' COI IU C'z ,"0: OCOC tuO> 1JJ!!?<l: I6:5 '"Ww ~~~ i:~z ~oo g:2l~ C5~ ,"u >0: >-w z> co'" 00: u>- OZ ill~ is z 0: :" - Z ~<ij o 0 o . cr" o 0 "0 o 0 OC E ~(B Ou o 0 o 0 t~ <OiL 0- > 0 $1: o 0 o E ;~ o ~ o 0 So 2-g ~. o 0 - u "g .~ 5'" u 0 u~ c;E"" ~~~ ~~~ '" - .c'ffia. ....."- u O~ u ~~z ~.~ ;S -g q; .~ .0 > ~ E ._ ~- ~ C :0= o . . o u ~ ~~5 " 0 u t; z ~ !l ~ o j; "6 . u o ~ " o j; . . o i5 ~ ('. ..,g *~ o _ cro ou u 0 o 0 S;:u w 0 o " 5a. .u o 0 o . 00 ~ ~K "- " a: ~ ~ i ~ ~ ;; " .0 u o o . ~ , o 11 ~ ~ o o u o 15 o.~ ~c: - > 0- o 0 crO . 0 uu o 0 "-~ ,,= OC 0 0- ~ 0 - . ." Q).::: o 0 Ocr o No "j; o <!l .... <l> <i~~-S '" 'iii~BE <ll Q;;; ~ a.,g ~~~~ti~ Ol::!'.c <ii C <ll .....:. ~ ~'; 5.~ 1[~ :::OE,-~~~ o_'~ 05 ___ Q) 0 0 <ij 4.> ti t::. ~ 6 ~ 5-,s lij ~ tii~~~.sa:~ '" ~ E 0 "C 3'<0 <l> C <0 <ll a.> o'C ~ fa ,:d:~ -g 1ii _, C<lluQ.>~ ~~~~.~~] ~.s~~~~:Jl a. c O"'C <0 ... Q) <llOI;.s:<ij01l~ O_<llc'c~>, .... c: (/J III v; w <0 9~Eo:JE5 ~E,gc~:?:& ~5<llg~u.!!! ~ u.::> S Q) ~ 0 Q.(ij ~ 'E ~:g g ~ ~.g 1: ~.Ql(f) g:23:QO~o ~~].s.s1l5 0.,& "'C.!!! .0 ~ 0 rJt<l'l M 8. '0--'- & g-.~..~ .!!!"'(jN 5cQ)~ og,st; OJ 0 E..- u a. 0 <fl <:i <:)..:::;;: <!l~~.!!! ~ : Oi E ":l_U ~ -s ~ '0 ; c Vi >. > W ::l ~ K~~~ It.~ * ~ $~~c o Q) >.'~ M:E 20 <1>''<: 0:;:::: ~jo~ ~ _ c c 0..51 0 ~ g~~2 - '0 CJ .- o .:;; C '0 "'" W -= C "'" '- t:I Q ~ if ~ !l >- g iO o. .., ~ " o u E " > " E u u '" ~ ~ o " ~ u ~ o ~ ~ 5 u ., o ~ '" ., '" " o " ~ Q > " o o u o j; ~ o u u o "' ~M N"'- ~g: ~;::- a'.; ....9 ~~ o 0 Z E .. E Jj S 0::> o o ~M -g$ ON ~~ o 0 u Q ::> m ~ ~ Vi * ':' 3 ~6 C .:. o . o . Uu o 0 ~ 0 -a: a~ ~o: :5 g' B'g 90 M 0 ",'--: o . .~ . 0 o 0 ~" ~ ~ 0: "E o. . . . " > o 5 "' > '" 'l . > ." . j; . . o V u ., o ~ . u o ~ > o . E , o I N ,,; ~ . OM s~ ~~ ,,- ." o 0 o 0 NOC G~ ~o: u_ o 0 . 0 a: 0 >,:.p . 0 5" u . " -E,g Q.a :::.::: u 0 .u 2 ~ N E . E ~ 0 "' u o 0 . " . 0 o 0 ~~ a 'E ~ E o 0 "u "6 o D o ;~~ Iii 0 'Iii ~ .~~ ~ . 0 ~~~ :5 E ::: _0. -6.~ g- 0;).5 ~ ~ E . 2:gg- "';;:::U 9:! <II I:: !:::U<ll . 0 0 ~.....'::\! U-glll ~u.Q S .~ z. ~~ 'E <lI <ll./!! '5ifj~ . ~ _ 0 0 ~~~ "Uu - U 0 o 0 ~ .0. .- b Qj .~ o u . .- '- '- 00. .....a.."U; <;> >- 1O~i! >,0;..... 5~~ U . 0 ~o{: 9 ~ 5: ~ - 0 >o~ cO U ::J1Il1::~ o <ll <ll M U~:5~ >,<llOlD -O'"32~ * .s'5 t:- III 0 -0 III [l E tii ~ a. 0"00 1::":= <II U ~ ~.~ & 0.>C..c:.s! ~;:!~'5 o ~ E o o E o E x o E j; .. ~ . ~M ~"'- E~ ot:. Ua: 2m '" 0 OD iii~ 2:0 " 0 o 0 Qj.(ti "0 o 0 - u .~s: u .~ u> o 0 . " > ~~ o~ o 0 0_ u' -:5"8 o E D E >0 D u >u " 0 o 0 O~ E 0 ~ ~ 0- o 0 D .- o . .- ~ .~ ~~ o 0 0= :;::Qj o , "u ~ ;! E g u . . . o v E o D . . .~ .~ - o u o 8 u ~ g 5 0; o ~ u ., o ~ o. '" u o M- . 0 ,"u o ~ 0 ~ s: ~~a-g<ll E on .- '" ~ E -::J U._ .- 0"021::"0 U 8 u; ~ ~ go. a ~ 't E ill un:;'" ~:;-g~~ a......'" >, ~~ .~.s E ::JE-gtiiVl 8 ~~-:5~ ~ ~ .... :5 E :::~5~EM g.~~~~~ t>: ~ ~ 2:! ~ '" E E u g t=. 2oE:€~~ ~c~~3~ III go CI: 0- 1Il :J:tii .-llll s: 1II-g1ll0~1:: l1<110-UO I::E8a::~~ .Q~g:sE~ o :.l q i:i ~-@ ::;;: .... <:I" lI:'l U ._ o .!!l .~ ~ g .~.; ~ E u " EOU; o g I:: U .0 ~ u ~- U so 0 I:: 0_ 0 0_ o 0 ~ O::E~ 2:' 0- c 5.2.2 8t'E _ u 0 g. g'-~ . t::;::~M <II'E Cll ~ 0'- E C\I -::E~ 900 r--. ,.,~u""" on,gob: ~{g:i:: m ;3 0.2 O-Eo-o a E o. ~ ~ 8 g ~ "'" W .<Il ""'...<:1" <II ~ o ~ "' ~ . ~ . D 0; u '" ~ ~ " > > 5 o o " o E ~o. o . ~ ~ o 0 u , u . ~ ~ o ~ '" 0 u .0 a:i.2 o . ~ 0 ~ III ~ & 'Iii <ll:: ~ W<IlOOl "0 CllOlC .9 g'!;.s! ~ '5 ~ ,Q Q 0 a. ~ ~ ~ g"E c.s!'CE E ~ ~8 EwwOl 8 -g ;;;.5 ~E~~ g E 5.0:: 'Iii 0 I:: >, .!!! ~ ~5 ~ ~ ~ :u 0.... U a. u<J),"'>c OlE.2 * ~ -~ ~u iij ~ ~ ~ O::ut;<J) ~ ~ -;,.5 -cno!::::::G a </lU III ." Cll--o::J U Ol C >. u.l!! <II_~ <11._ _ '" B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~iii<;'5 5 E c E o W :::l ~ U <Il 0 0 "0 ::J U a. c TI 0 III <1l C - <J) 9.2,&::' ~ ~ ~ ~ O:~2 E eg:-g <Il..c:"O<lI w - C .. </l 1Il <lI <Il ~ ~ -;:5 , a....."':;::;:;:;- a .~ -g ~!l!. 'E.~ 8 .~~ ~S~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . > " o ]! " o 15 ~ Jj u . " o ~ 'ijj ~ o 0 u 0 o E ~~ u 0 SQj 2 it .u o ~ o 0 1o'E " ~ ~ ~ " 5: 1ll1? '" 0 o. ~ .~ > .~ . > ." o o E "6 ~ o ~ o ~ ~ o E e E o u u ., o ~ " D " '" ,,; o ~ "' :s o o ~ v "' o u o o . 0; u Jj o o ~ u o E E o u ~ " '" " . E g ~ o "' <;> ~ >M B~ UN 0_ ot:. 0- . " " . >0 - ~ o 0 o " o ~ u~ >~ ~" ^ > 0- . 0 . 0 o 0 ~u o 0 o 0 ~-g " . ~ 0; . > c o " ~ ~ o ~ Jj '" 0; o . o o . E e ~ u U c---. ~ 0 o 0 ~g ., ~ o 0; D 0 mU o. ~ 0 a:i g: o . , ~ " , co U o ~ ~ " " " w ~ ,,; o . V .. ~ . . . " E . E ~ o .. > . ~ ~ o . ~ X . 2 o Q " ~ o . E E o ~;;) ~$- ~~ 0.:;;- ~E . 0 o m - E 9~ ~ . ~~ <5 :7l ~ . o . . b 9 !; ~ - ~o _ 0 ~ .9 8s ~~ ~ . ^ ~ .~ ^ . ~ . ~ 0 o~ Q 5 <3~ "2 o ' o 0 .!: g .~.E ~~ 0_ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ !: . ^ o 0 ~2 !: :5 .~ ~ . <il :: '" 0 <a ~ o 0 o z 8.;g _ 0 - . il E o E . 0 E v E " o~ v _ ~ ~ " 0 . " _ 0 ^ - c.~ v 0 v - V" o . 2@ o .Dr;; ~'"- C~ ~- d:. o ^ 9<a ~- o ~- C .-: o 0 o , U~ ,.,.!: ~~ . * ~ ~ XJ.9~ ~~~ 00- '0 n * ::2: S ~ ~ ~~ . ~ 0 O~ Z .~ ~ ~ ~ OJ TI- C !1 ~ ~ . 0 ~ ~ " 0 . " . ^ 2 '" ^ , ~ ~ :s ^ ~o ,~ . . ~ ~ v ;; .!!:i ~ ~ :0 0 ~ 2 ~ !i U 2 ~ ~ " 0 , . E ~ ~ ~ 0 ^ ~ ~ ~ 0 v ~ 0 j ~. ~ o . . ~ 0 15 . E E ~ 15 E , 15 g,g ~ ~ ~ 0 " 0 ~ ~ . . 0 O~ " . 2 g>1S ~ . 0 I! ~E ~ ~m .-: 0 . ~~ 0 ~ . ;;; m ^" b E ~ <3 E 0 ~~ " .': S 13 E ~i5 . ~ 0 ~~ 0'; . > " t U 0 . :1:0 E . . ^ g 0 0 . g . 0 '" '. 0 . .': E " . ~ . 0; . ^ o . b . ~ il ] '" b b . .21c E " 0 ~ . . ~ <i: E E 0 E b " 0 Z 0 .f .~ ';;; . " ~ " .. m<D " 0 E ,,~ .- '5 > ~fd . . 0 m. 00' . ~ ~ - ~ 0 0- o 0 . w ~ ",. " ^- " . ~ ";:: 0 ~ ~ . ~ , <t " ~ u.;e ~ 0- . ^~ . ~ o 0 . .~ ~ .~ . ~ ~ . . . m .- ~c "~ w :;; m ~ 11 5 1'3 (ij DE b 0 0 0 :l; ." S 0 . 0 . u~ -S5 0 cncE u , - ^ 0 U <D ~ " 0 . . e: . . 0 :2; ^ 'i 'i 0'0 J . E E ~ ~ b - 0 -; '0. ~ ' . " " ~ ~ oJ o " ~ -g ~ ~~ o ~ ~ li . 0 0 . " ~ 0 " ~~~ mU mo " w_ .~ ~~E . , . 0, . . .:: :J }g <ll 5~ > ~ - " ':: '" 0 <> ' 0 , ~ $'0"0 >~ " >.~ u~ u :0 . ~ E . 1i . w 13 m o .~ . ~ z o o E ~ ^ :s o o o o z U . . > .~ c ~ . 0; ~ 2 <;> ~ ~ u ~ o . o ~ ~ E o o U ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ o ' ~" 0,"- g~ "to .. :0 . ~ E . 1i . w 13 m o .~ . ~ '" -"" ="" Si -6 ~'" () - .0 ~ --= V'l0ll = "'~ ~ o o E ~ ^ :s o o o o ~ U . . > ~ c ~ . 0; ~ 2 <;> ~ ~ u ~ o . <;> ~ ~ c o o U ~ ~ ^ . ^ ^ . ' ~" 0,"- ~~ "to > ~ ~~ DiR...,... -::u~nCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT CQUNTI" OF SAN DIEGO. C1TI" OF CHULA VISTA JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CIlY COUNCIL PRESENTATION ORDER September 13, 1993 I. BOARD/COUNCIL REFERRALS Referral # 1: Does the Otay Ranch traffic analysis adequately analyze the impacts of this project ? JHK & Associates memo, dated August 25,1993. Referral # 2: Compare the Staff Recommended Plan to the positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Endangered Habitats League. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Matrix, dated August 26,1993. II. TENTATIVE ACTION ON ISSUE AREA "E": .JAMUL PLANNING AREAS (PIanninll Areas # 16 and # 19) E.l: Should sewer be permitted in Planning Areas 16 and 19 ? III. TENTATIVE ACTIONS ON ISSUE AREA "F": SAN YSIDRO PLANNING AREA (Plannin!J Area # 17) F.l: What areas should be developed? F.2: Should sewer be extended to Planning Area # 17 ? IV. TENTATIVE ACTION ON ISSUE AREA "C": DEVELOPMENT AROUND OTAY LAKES C.l: Should the area south and east of the Lower Otay Lake be developed (Village IS)? C.2: What should be developed North of Lower Otay Lake (Village # l3)? 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157. FAX: (619) 422-7690 . V. TENTATIVE ACTION ON ISSUE AREA "D": CENTRAL PROCTOR VALLEY 0.1: Preserve Area: Should CPV preserve area be enlarged? 0.2: Development Densities: Should CPV include a village and associated urban densities? 0.3: Should Proctor Valley Road be classified as a 4-lane major road? 0.4: Should CPV be sewered? 0.5: Should the JamuljDulzura Community Plan text be amended to delete the requirement that Millar Ranch Road be a private road? 0.6: Should the Urban Limit Line (ULL) be extended to include the development areas west of the wildlife corridor, and in the "upside down "L". VI. TENTATIVE ACTIONS ON ISSUE AREA "G": GDP and RMP RELATED TEXT AMENDMENTS G.1: Should the errata sheet containing GDP/SP text and RMP text amendments be accepted ? (This issue area would include chapters of any text that have not been addressed by the land use issue areas mentioned above. So far, public requests for further consideration of the text include GDP Chapter 3, Housing; and Chapter 5, Capital Facilities - Integrated Solid Waste Management (Section "C.3"). Chapter # 3: Chapter # 5: Housing Capital Facilities - Integrated Solid Waste Management Facilities (Section C.3) University Text Revision (County Counsel/City Attorney) Adult Education Facilities Text Addition (Councilman Rindone) VII. VILLAGE DENSITY REDUCTION IN NON-TRANSIT VILLAGES CVillal!:es 2, 3. 4. 7. 8 and 10) (Board/Council) VIII. NEXT OTAY RANCH MEETING DATE: MONDAY. SEPTEMBER 27.1993.3:00 P.M.. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' CHAMBERS OTAY RANCH PROJECT I. BOARD / COUNCIL REFERRALS . . jhk& associates MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the County Board of Supervisors and Members of the Chula Vista City Council August 25, 1993 VIA: Anthony J. Lettieri, AICP General Manager FROM: Daniel F. Marum, Senior Transportation Planner IHK & Associates SUBJECT: Summary of Valle de Oro Issues/Concerns Regarding Olay Ranch Transportation Analysis with IHK and Associates Responses (IHK 8246) A series of meetings have been held with Mr. Jack Phillips of the Valle de Oro (VDO) Community Planning Group over the past several weeks to discuss specific issues related to the Otay Ranch Traffic Analysis. Attendees at a total of three separale meetings have included Mr. PhiUips. members of the Otay Ranch Project Team, JHK & Associates (Dan Marum), and representatives from the County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and Caltrans. Based on these discussions, a series of basic issues have been defined. The following section of this memorandum identities each of these basic issues raised by Mr, Phillips, and 1HK and Associates' response is provided: Issue 1: Is the "Southbay Molhi" valid in Valle de Om and other fringe areas for for predicting Olay Ranch impacts? Response: Summary: Yes. Staff has consulted with SANDAG. Caltrans, the County, the City of San Diego and Chula Vista staffs as well as professional transportation consultants throughout the process and sought their advice on every aspect of traffic modeling for this project. All of the agencies remain convinced that the model used is a valid tool for predicting impacts associated with the Olay Ranch Project. Additional Background Discussion: The Final Program EIR (FPEIR) Transportation Analysis was based on an evaluation of build-out traffic impacts within a defined study area south of SR.54 and SR-94 in the south bay. This study area fully encompassed the 23.000-acre Otay Ranch projcct and extended well beyond its boundaries. Within this study area and throughout the entire southbay, all land use assumptions used in the transportation model were based on build-out conditions. 8989 Rio San Diego Drive . Sui!e 335 San Diego. California 92108 . (619) 295-2248 . F"X (619) 295-2393 _jhk 60: ".,>eillte' August 25, 1993 Page 2 For all community planning areas along the fringe of the study area, including the Valle de 01'0 Community Plan Area and the remainder of the San Diego County (to the north and east of the Southbay), all land use assumptions were based on SANDAG Series vn Growth Projections for Year 2010. All of the ElR Traffic Analyses considered the cumulative effects of development in the region. based on the "Combined Southbay Model" developed for the Otay Ranch Transportation Analysis. The process for locating the study area boundary involved an analysis of "project only" traffic assignments. This computer assisted analysis indicated that the majority of project generated trips would utilize regional facilities as the trips enter or exit the Southbay subregion. Thus, facilities such as I-80S, SR-54, SR- 94, etc., represent the primary network for project traffic based on average trip length and the fact that the core of the project is located some 7 to 10 miles south of the northern edge of the study boundary (along SR-54 and SR-94). The method for detennining the Sttldy Area for this project is consistent with the methodology that is utilized when analyzing projects of this size and scale. Technical assistance provided by SANDAQ and all affected jurisdictions. includini the County, cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, Caltrans and MTDB, ensured that the modeling of future traffic volumes and the subsequent identification of traffic impacts were preformed accurately. Vane de Ora references the SANDAG SR-54 Corridor Study as an analysis which contains a different conclusion concerning the traffic volumes on Millar Ranch Road. Specifically, Valle de Ora cited a portion of the SR.54 Corridor Study which indicated a traffic volume of 36,000 ADTs on Millar Ranch Road near SR. 94. In contrast, the Olay Ranch trllffic study of the Phase IT Progress Plan shows 27,000 ADTs along Millar Ranch Road. The SANDAG SR-54 Corridor Study and the Otay Ranch EIR traffic study appear to conflict because each study employs different assumptions concerning the land use and the traffic network. 1. Land Use Assumptions. The "Combined Southbay Model" used for the Otay. Ranch Transportation Analysis assumes build-out of the Southbay study area. That area includes the area south of SR-54, including the Olay Ranch. For the area north of SR-54, the model assumcs a 20 year planning horil-on consistent with the SANDAG Series VII population forecast _jllk & a"neWts August 25, 1993 Page 3 The "SR-S4 Conidor Study Model" assumes build-out of the SR-54 corridor area. The Otay Ranch model did not refine the area north of SR-54 to include build-out data, because Otay Ranch's forecasted connibution to traffic volumes north of SR. 54 fall below levels of significance. Specifically, for those facilities north of SR. 54 forecasted to exceed LOS "C", project impacts for the New Town Plan (the most intense development plan evaluated for Otay Ranch), never exceed 10% of the project traffic volumes (Otay Ranch Response to Comments document, p. LO.25-5). However. under the "SR-54 Corridor Study Model" cumulative volume conditions. two additional roads are forecasted to operate over LOS "C" (Millar Ranch Road - LOS "D" and SR-94/Campo Road (eto Millar Ranch Road) LOS "F"). Project contribution for these facilities ranges from 13 to 33 percent. Thcse higher cumulative volumes will necessitate special design consideration. Specifically, on SR-94, the high cumulative volume from this model indicatcs the need for increasing the capacity of this future freeway facility from four lanes to six lanes. SR-94, however. was sized based on 20-year traffic volume projections rather than the build out volumes predicted by this most recent modeling effort. 2. Traffic Network: The SANDAG SR-54 Corridor study assumes, for analytical purposes. a series of alternative traffic networks. The alternative that causes Valle de Om Concern assumed SR-54 to be a six.lane expressway tenuinating at Main Street in E1 Cajon (an alternative which has not been approved). Configuring SR- S4 in such a manner divens and encourages trips to flow onto Millar Ranch Road, which may explain the increase in trips from 27.000 ADT (as shown in the Otay Ranch analysis) to 36,000 ADT shown in the SR.54 analysis. A review of the two models indicate that if similar network assumptions are used. similar volumes occur on Millar Ranch Road. This is true in the SR-54 alternative that tests SR- S4 as a six-lane expressway from SR-125 to SR-94 continuing as a four-lane collector. "t"-ing into Jamacha Road at Hillsdale. At the point in time when the Otay Ranch Transportation Analysis and modeling work was conducted, the "Combined Southbay Model" was the most accurate model available for project related impacts. The Project Team spent considerable _ effort refIning all input parameters for conducting computer modeling within the Southbay Study Area. It is recognized that the "SR-S4 Corridor Study Model" gener,lIes much higher cumulative volumes within the fringe planning areas along the north-east edge of the Otay Ranch study area. However, the response to comment number two below discusses the level of project contribution for the Otay Ranch development as a proportion of the cumulative volumes predicted by the "SR-54 Corridor Study Model" and the "combined Southbay Model" used for the Otay Ranch Transportation Analysis. _jhk & amlCiatc, August 25, 1993 Page 4 Issue 2: Response: Additionally, the Otay Ranch contains safeguards to ensure that proper traffic assumptions are used at each SPA level. Upon the selection of the final facility for SR-54, all subsequent modelling will be based on that facility. At each phase of the Otay Ranch the most recent network configuration will be used and appropriate mitigation will be developed for each phase. Are the level of impacts to the Valle ds Oro area correctly nported in the FPEIR for the Dtay Ranch Project? Summary: Yes. The new traffic projections from the SR-54 Canidor Study enable a new comparison of the impacts associated with the Olay Ranch Project (as compared with the county General Plan Land Uses for the property). The new "Impacts" (the differences between the Otay Ranch Volumes and the county General Plan volumes) are consistent with the impacts reported previollsly. Additional Background Discussion: As indicated at the end of response to conunent number one, JHK has prepared an updated reference table (see Table 1) for all Circulation Element facilities within the Valle de Ora Community Plan area. This table identifies the cumulative volume levels on these local facilities from each of the travel forecast models discussed above ("Combined Southbay Model" used for the Otay Ranch Transportation Analysis and the "SR-54 Corridor Study Model"). In addition to identifying the significant differences between the two models in terms of cumulative volumes on these local facilities, the table provides an indication of the estimated amount of project related traffic contribution from the Otay Ranch development The Olay Ranch land use alternative which has been selected for this analysis is the New Town Plan which represents the most intensive plan evaluated for the Otay Ranch and would thus create the greatest degree of project impact. As revealed by the table, the percent contribution of project traffic to the total cumulative traffic volume is reduced when comparing the "Combined Southbay Model" with the "SR-54 Corridor Study Model." It is important to recognize that a number of facilities (including: Millar Ranch Road, Avocado Boulevard. SR-94/Campo Road, Troy Street. Fuerle Drive, Jamacha Road, and State Route 54), located along the fringe area of Ihe Otay Ranch Transportation Study Area, are forecasted to experience poor operating - ..: ..J < Z < ..J '" ~ ! i . '" '" IiIl " > ... : (.:I - ~ i 0 .~:l! ii: . " ~ - ~ '" i = 9 t . E E IiIl " . I ~ .. '" .g :. - ; 1 8 1 < ._ u u .. i · '8 a . I . ::: .3 ~ ~ . ! . , ~~ ~ . .. i . 1 ~ ." \oJ~ ' . .b 1 f '" - J '" '" .; ~ <..J Q i J I "'1iIl c :::OQ ." ! . I -0 .5 : g j i : ",oll:::O '" - J i t -~>-l'f\ a U - cn~ 0\ o '8 U t >-:::oQ'" u ~ a z t ! ..J ;;)- ... . a 1 <;;)..... U . ~ . Z...cn- i '" I j I . '" -s .b ] I <0".. ... . .; \oJ>O'" S .:l Q !O:..eG i f ! I '"'Z,,;;) i <1iIl I ~ ..,,:::o~< It) ....(.:I\oJJ. f 1 i . .aOl:IiIl~1iIl :; lI_r.r.I ~ j I I-t'"'ci:< 1 I II ~ f oCl')- . ; J '" \oJ z ~ ~ =-=0 ! . \oJ"'..", ! . j i 1 Z>--CI'J ." ,., Ii : <..J~-<::;;0= ii: "" S . a . ~z<= . l. ~ ... ! 1 i I ! ~ i i oOz'" ~ ;a~ . I I a ! i i Ol:- i . " <'" t J ~ 1 f ~ .. "'z i i ! I a 01 :::o~ . 01 ~ 00 . ~ j t ~ J I I \oJ.. ~ :! ~ l I I ~ f 1 ! 1 i IiIl f ~ ! . 4 ~ . ! I }I ! l , ~. 1 I .. ..J t J i . ! 1 ~ ~ IiIl .. .. :; f f ! = J Q I " s- o 1 p . ! ! i :::0 I I ~ ::: .I 1 t 1 ! \oJ .. .. :; 1 ... ! I ~ i .l Z . U H. < ~ I " ~ " '3 z j f a a I l 01 >- '" ~ i . E ~ ~ i < .. . ~ .. ! 0 . . ! . .~ ~ := . ~ ....~ .. z -- _jhk & "ssoci.,e\ AUgust 25, 1993 Page 6 Issue 3; Response: levels of service (LOS D, E, or F) under the cumulative volume scenario predicted by the "SR-54 Corridor Study Model" and/or the "Combined Southbay" Model. However, as stated earlier, the contribution of project traffic from the Olay Ranch development to the high cumulative volumes reported for the "SR-S4 Corridor Study Model" is only significant on two of the analyzed facilities. These two facilities are Millar Ranch Road and State Route 94 west of Millar Ranch Road intersection, Is the FPEIR valid with respect to analysis of impacts related /0 inclusion of Millar Ranch Road as part of the project? Summary: Yes. Staff has included Millar Ranch Road as a transportation facility based on the follOwing considerations: 1. Traffic analysis has shown that the elimination of Millar Ranch Road would not eliminate a significant number of trips from the corridor. Rather, it would force the traffic to take a longer path through Jamul and along SR-94 with associated additional congestion and pollution. 2. The Board of Supervisors provided direction to County Staff in the Hidden Valley Estates hearings. 3. The inteJjurisdictional Task Force provided direction in response to the Millar Ranch Road Issue Paper. Based on this direction and the professional judgement of staff, Millar Ranch Road was included in most of the OlaY Ranch Plan Alternatives. The FPEIR then analyzed the impacts of those plans appropriately. If the City Council and the Board of Supervisors select a Plan that does not include Millar Ranch Road, as a public road, an assesment of the adequacy of the FPEIR will be required to address that facility. Additional Background Discussion: In traffic modeling for the Olay Ranch Project. Millar Ranch Road was assumed to be a public road, except for the "No Project Alternative", which did not assume Millar Ranch Road and the Composite General Plans Alternative (which did not _jllk & .ssoci.rc, August 25, 1993 Page 7 assume a connection to Proctor Valley Road), consistent with previous Board of Supervisors' action on Hidden Valley Estates development. It should be noted that staff is not recommending that the Circulation Element be amended to classify Millar Ranch Road as a public road, only that the lamul text be amended to delete language mandating private use only. Under County Road Standards, a maximum of 250 dwelling units (2,500 trips) can be served by a private road, It is estimated that the Otay Ranch Project would contribute up to 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to this facility under the Phase n Project Plan Alternative, while total cumulative volumes on Millar Ranch Road at a mid- segment location range from 24,000 vpd (according to the "Otay Ranch Combined Southbay Model") to 30,000 vpd (according to "SR-54 Corridor Study Model"). Thus, even without the Otay Ranch. projected traffic flow on Millar Ranch Road would exceed County standards for use as a private road. Issue 4: Is the Final Program EIR valid will, respect to analysis of impacts relaUd to modeling the SR.125 as a freeway instead of motkling as a toU road? Response: Summary: Yes. Traditional transportation modeling utilizes standard speed and delay parameters for freeways and surface roads. There are no standard parameters or even guidelines for toll roads, since each one is unique. The project team did develop projections in conjunction with SANDAG, Caltrans, MIDB and the other involved agencies (Chula Visla, the County and City of San Diego) to estimate those impacts. The estimated impacts were reported in the Otay Ranch Traffic Analysis Technical Report for the Phase I Progress Plan which was included as an appendix to the FPEIR. However. no discretionary approval was sought for a toll road by the Olay Ranch Project. CaItrans is currently involved in seeking such a discretionary approval and will be analyzing toIl road impacts as a part of their EIRlEIS process. Another issue related to the impacts of a toll road facility in the Southbay is that the Olay Ranch Analysis is based on bulldout of the project (40-50 years), which extends beyond the 35 year term of the toll road franchise agreement. In the interim, numerous SPA level ErRs will analyze the evolving traffic situation including actual diversion from the toll road. Perfonnance Standards (Threshold. Standards, Congestion Management and Growth Management restrictions) will prevent impacts from occurring. ~hk & .."Odatc,' August 25, 1993 Page 8 Issue S: Response: Additional Background Discussion: The Toll Road Analysis conducted by JHK for the Phase I Project Plan Alternative was conducted with the assistance of SANDAG staff and members of the Transportation Sub-Committee. This analysis revealed. that the toll road facility would potentially have a positive effect on Circulation Element facilities within and adjacent to the Valle de Oro Community Plan Area. Circulation facilities in the north eastern portion of the Otay Ranch Study Area such as Proctor Valley Road, Millar Ranch Road. State Route 94, and State Route 54, would experience reductions in Average Daily Traffic (ADT) in the range of 3,000 to 8,000 vpd. The logic within the modelling process that would result in these fmdings is based on a concept of "Reverse Attraction" when the SR-125 facility is coded as a toll road instead of a free facility. Thus, under toll road assumptions, vehicle trips are directed away from State Route 125 and seek out new trip paths and alternate routes which present viable options in completing their trip. Roads which would be used to access the freeway expcrience the same type of reduction in volumes as the freeway itself when SR-12S is converted to a toll road. The EIRIEIS for the State Route 125 facility, currcntly being prepared by Caltrans, will include an assessment of toll road impacts base on potential levels of diversion. This EIR will also be required to mitigate the impacts of diverted trips as a result of toll road implementation on an area-wide basis with in the Southbay. This analysis will include the segments of the critical facility of Proctor Valley Road and Millar Ranch Road in the impact and mitigation analysis. 1, the Final Program EIR valid with respect to analysis oj impacts related to modeling the SR-12S using a western alignment instead of an eastern alignment? Summary: Yes. When the EIR was prepared Staff consulted with the involved agencies to dctcnnine how SR-125 should be modeled. The consensus was that the Eastern Alignments were not viable and that the Western Alignment, as depicted in the Chula Vista General Plan, should be used in the Olay Ranch Traffic Analysis. This decision has been reinforced by the exhaustive and thorough Alternatives Report recently issued by Caltrans in which they detennined that ~ of the Eastern Alignments showed sufficient promise to justify future study. _jhk & '''OCiaIC' August 25, 1993 Page 9 Additional Background Discussion: During the initial phases of the Transportation Analysis for the Otay Ranch Project, the western alignment of State Route 125 was the only alignment under consideration by Caltrans. As the Transportation Analysis continued over a number of years, the concept of Eastern Alignment alternatives were introduced. A series of preliminary evaluation and assessments on the viability of Bastern Alignments vs. Western Alignment have been conducted by Caltrans. Recently, these evaluations have resulted in the selection of a set of final alternative alignments which will receive consideration as the draft and flllal BIRJEIS for State Route 125 is being developed. Thus, the validity of the Otay Ranch Traffic Analysis is upheld by the elimination of Eastern Alignment alternatives for future consideration by Caltrans. DFM:cb cc: Steve Thomas Steve Denny Mike Hi" c:'bd\32JOO4 6'.danQrQ,mmo , , '" ~ ~ - '" N I- rJJ ~ r.; ~ ..: z o ~ -,C ~~ ffi::! ~::! w8 O:w =0: o z~ ::l:l 89 0;: !ilio<s C:I; "'", il: ui :;; " o .- " ~ .2 "E co E" o~ OE "'E " 0 "2 ~ fija: 0:: .S1" >- .co llJ ~-E -= "C a.Q.l lii ~ ~ en _> muw OQ,)_::::ctl~ ,..:..~~o"C=o -0_>:"'<' ;?:-:. OJ ::l ::>- G =-.!; lD.E "C C'll '0 III Q) C -gti>~..aca tt1..s:: >- Q) (J)..s:: :!: .o..c 5'~ s ~ ... Vl >.LJ... r-:."C~5C:cn _<I,) t.- ctl .- ~t::l'o():J~ ca::~'51wci:l is C ID C Ol= o8~8ci:g~ " .2 =.co (tl'O IiHii "E E .- E SlS " 0: ~ ..Q "C ~ Q,l o UJ 1ij ... <t: ::J"E E "'C := c 0 a.. C") C" "C (l) ctl'l::~ 0 ~~";;~~~OW $. o"C.....:..:~rj.,......c Q) ctI ' t'il E > '5.~~~ > >u"i'S.;: (J)~ OlE oE ....:> e~N g-w 5M.5 8 ~:g Q) lfi 0.<(..-...32 >>(J).= u QJ c.. 3: ..s:: 01 Q) a.. . (J) ::l C QJ ::::l C'll:= m_;:'tll aCl)~ Q) 0')(0 cnO"o"C ~ g.o.9:: Q) Q) .,..... :Q 0)0 ~ ~ - ~ ev-"O >-lii:: wQ.5"5la..lfi lfl (J)O Q.l"C.c_ ~c.."i 01(/)'(3 Ol-g :Jo"O::J-coctlllJ,-o'ii:'=ctlctl "0 lO a5 0 ~ Co a."'E cnQ.. 0 0 ~ ::: "E E 5 <<I.-a..-= E'OC!:l a.:Ei 0 ~~E"CU)(J)U)u",c CI.l__ ...JE .t:IIlC_c,Ba:l....:"'C$..... 0.1"20..... 8 ~c..~"'C:!: Q,l..;!:C ~ F '-E ~ ,9., ~ ~ ~ v c g > u ctl 11l r- _ '-' .... .... '-',...... .!!!' >.B:!.!; .c. C'l -' :I; w -0 " " " " .~ "C ~g-g "0-01:: :ilVQ) o'ii E ~ 01 III cEO. E E g (/) .- g 13 6 E [.~ 8.~ ~ ~~ ~ " " E ::ctl 'C(!l g:o<s o<s-:i5 ..s::U:: .!a ttl ~ "E '" 0 .~ :0- <'3 " o " ~ ctl E > "" " ~" ~ g ij5 ai 3: Q) .,:;.::: c.. 0'1 Q) "V5 g ~ ~ ..0= ..... QJ C 0 .~.~ ~ g..sttlQJO u..... ~ ~a; Q) co.,:;.:::.~ c~=c..o 5"(;) ~~ ~ u c: c_ E~.!2~-g Qle~O'"OO @o:J~>- 2:~e<{-t oo~ -= -c:i ~ 0._ e Q,l g ~8l.g:;o. 'w ~ ~ ~,g .... coo C QJ "0 e _ 0 ..ceOOo. l- 00 U C :J o~ :o~ :> 'E c.!2 > QJ 000.. CU) ~- ! ~~ [~ QJ.~ e If),~ ..oIl)OOe'-J QJ5!BQJ!!l 0I>-....c..1I) 00 c 00 0._ ~OO-II)> :Eo!6~-3 .$ '0, r:::: -g ..c: 'in OI.E!! m U :g ~ ~.~~ Ql"O:JII)- ..c: C 0 QJ r:::: l-ctlu"Co == .~ ~ o " o o 00 " o .~ 00 .E E o o -s:g 0_ CC(f) Ql "C a.. OJ) E Q,l>-2 r::::~f!?o~ eai c 0 ~ 0I"O.r:::: Q) ~ a.. r:::: - [ r:::: oQ)~m.c!a-~~,g@~.~ ~g ~..o..os~o..~j~.5~ ~iOJ)u ~S5jB~~~lI)z!~e.~~.5.~~ cJi ~E~~';::o"".gJ~.s >-~ ~g>-~ O"~ II) ctl Q) en'''' 'u "0 CIl .r::::.... "0 M ~ 000001 ~o.~b.-E<{_U)3~.c1J) lJ)o.QJQJ~ QJu-~II)~IJ)~0~U~ .-e.r::::>r::::~~;ic-v'.~IJ)....~.E ~O'-QJs~~~U)~~~~~~~~~ r::::"O.5== ~> Q) Ql 0._ 0'""0';:: OIl/) QJ Q)oo"OII)~II)>5~~.~m~.E~oo~~ ~e~~1I)3~;Kg~"o~ouc..~.~ Q)E2.E!!~gl-II)II)~BS~uQJa..O! i?"E;;-"o8..o QJ"OIJ)OIoo ~~Q2.a.O ctl c.- o."OROI.="O.Q.Q'I~:s'5a..a.. rJ) ....~O.c~CNooDooO:oo=50~U) OWU~II)~NSN2DEa.~>~~~ '0 '0-" CiilJ)'5 'u QJ 0 " 0. 00 <%~-g N~~ ~- ~ 'i:: 01 0 ocr:::: CLi ~..2 ~ ~ (/)ca..g.~ ~~@~ ~<{U(l.) '';::; ~'Ol ~ ~:JOIoo ~U5cfo ;; ~ ~ 10' Eu E Qj c [ r:::: -u .Q E 0_ m'- >- t'O 01 Qj ~~;e.c ocEE '510l_~ 01"0 e - ~@g~ ~ ,'" .f: ~ g-"O 5~ti~ B 3 ~~ .2 ~ ._ :s: Ql u 0 (/) ~ -0."': 3 " 0 0 ~ ~;..;:: ~ <{ .- ....... "- (l.) ~....: S "'''~ c .c .'t::: ~ OO1:.ou o.a!g oj "0 <5 ~ .~ Q 00 Q ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ " " 'S .2 CT- ~.~ "C .'t::: C E ~ ~ 00 0 " " 00 (j m~OO "So 0. 0.- .~ g,~.9 z o ~ ~05 a::;: UJ:;: ""0 UJo a:UJ da: o zUJ :::>\1, 89 0- ~~ 0" CO en u:: CIi ::i '" ~ ;;; ,s ,s '~ '~ e 5 5 0 e 0 0 '~ e e 00 ,Q 0 0 'E .. 0 0 E " 00 00 e e e 0 w 0 0 0 E '~ '~ o>E 00 00 e 0 E '[: '" 0 E E e W 0 0 ~a: 0 0 1L ;:s:: ~ a.'! 15 CO en CO e .Q "'.. "''' U5$ c E ~ g o W a: " 15 ~ a: S >, 0 W 00 ~~"O"'C >..... ~ ~ >>- ..... (tl 0 >. Ql o'5~= Ii 0 ~ ~ "5 ~ ::!"(ij wv';-::=c ~o-::::l ctl"'" 0 0 ---l"Oc~ -0 Q)"(ij:>l:. C"Q.u Vi .Ql "0 0 (I.J (ij 0 cr: 3: .~ ~ '0 s ~ 00 W E w ,,~ ~- -;'0 _ 00 e ~ ow ~ ~ t_ o ~ c .-=: &lil oo~ (Lj:2 > 0 ~ > - '" 00 w 21: ~w~ oE'5 00 e 0 ~ .Ql (/) ~ (ij 0 0 8:E€.~ Ql t- 0 en ~ e e ..... >--o:.c: -g~$~ ttl tU tfl 0 .... >.::!. b ~ffi"'Oc u'E;: ttlll) B(1l2~ <...c c...... ttl;'!:: O'loES': B Q) >. >. (1) :s -=.!!! "0 C w ..0 55 rn"O 0 Q):::l lI.l > '~~E "05:-gg~~c: .~~...; ~~"6 ttl Cl..g~ ~ ..c:._Q,J-o c:o:-- 0 t- g it ~ ~ ~ $ a:: 5.~ Ql (i):9:;{ S,~.g5!QO~~ !B.oc..EQlwo~.S:!g ~_en 0.0 Q,)~f"'= C rn :=.:L~:Q c c:'3:~:g.~.2 g'ti~ 8 EQ.l-g=~U) a:COQJ(I) c: <<l - Q) Q3 . 0 ~ Q) g-'E (/) 5 ~ ~ ;5 ': r- (/),,00 W w.e:-E{:<:( ~,fi2-o ~-a;.a::g.::;a.o"'>co~~ "0 "0 (/) rn OJ en ,,,.. ,,~ e_ ~ ' .. e w 00> >,~ ell. ~- 0>, _ w 0= :;:~ .f: "6 ctl .2'~~,~~~~ rn-g~ ~~~cu~:ilQ)&~c. ~ ~o..~8~ ~g~.(I)e.~ '~:;:5 :~~ ei.;~.~~ ~~~.~~J2..c lVC:UQ u..... ...,.... ::::l--5 ~ CIJ'-o-C) gco.f:~~o.!;W(/).sc.. . tnO~ttla:~~rnm::;"g:; w.,....wQ.Q)rn(/)w.....-c.o .gm~"i6~=::)51co;:C'Cl= E>C Qlc:-~clii8.. 1ij c.. Q:i ,Q vi rn.Q g... ~ .;:: "0 0....2 .~ g gl ttI rn (l.J ~ (/) u c (II.... .... U ::::l Q).... 'v;.~ 8- ~~~.s [I~~~8~ ~~ w ~ ~ ,," ~"" "".;; ..c:U:::: .!:2 ttl u.. "E 0..2 =>~ o III Q.l ~ >. ..c.J:::Ot'll Eo~o i1'5.9~~ Q) 0 Vl - e ~m~~~ '6EEcg Q) Q) ._ 0 ..... ~..c: C ~.s ~~~8-g og:g:a'~ ~ € ~ ~ :~ ~ 0 - c: E " :: :>. ~ Q.l ~~~~..c cct::~~.9 ~.2~-="2 ="'O~Q)Q) ~.!a:Ec ~g~~~.~ 6~OE~~ >, J1! <1i > ~ w > a: >, ~ 15 ~ w W ..J ,s ~ I 00 w UJ '0 a; ~ ~ " ~ '~ 0 C e 00 " 0 ~ ~ 0 >, '0 ..J W " '"' Z UJ ~ '" "2 (l) $ ~~;:; :gill EOOCll.J::ct1 c!::c.gt5-5 _ "'0.2 (ll ~ ::) .3g~~'5~ 01-'= ~'E -g g .~ (J) iil ell' ctl (tI -g g = Cl (/) ::: u~>!~m~a) '~5~Ern:V:O ~'::O~~'~E. ~&Jl8~~~ g"O c.2 c.....:; '~~5QJQ)c~ ~{g'~-6:g~~ 1rl~-glll'>-fig :V=.~t$80l ~2EID~t>.= .:i.9 ~ c.1fi ~ ~ '<i z o ~ -,0 C2il5 ffi~ Ib~ a:() -,UJ 13 a: ZUJ :0;: 89 c;;: ~'" OJ: ell en Ii: ui :i '" ~ ;;; -E .~ " 0" .~ .2 "E ii E" o ~ () E ",E " 0 '2 ~ ija: il: ~ u " o o ~ " o .~ ~ .E E o o " 15 <D " g =m ~" Ci5~ 1: E '0 E -, 0 u ~ a: ~iO~ Cl Vl g 5od::?:.~ ~~ ~ 8C\l...52-nt:L: "O.~ ~T""ot;~8-fj &rn .g~ lii~';,.9~.~ (0= ~<-5~.sELr.l.:!:::~-g ~.~~;;;OON.....;CtiCtl 'u'Oll: C'll (1)1:"";" w.J::'O -cC:o .s:::oc:.......-Cij lll~~l:!3t-~~g-~l ~ Q.ctIT"":>.= 0"'0"0 U'l a.<(a..Q,)Q)~_ttlc:Q.l eliiln'51ijo...aiC:~~ a.a..~~>Y2.Ea:E"O ::t:: <( :::l "0 >-0... c..o 0 ~ .$0..13 cSO.5?a; (,) 0 C/)C).5coO<!:l(ij>.~E -' J: UJ Ei Q) . ~:~.s~ ..c::: ~ a: C'lO - ,,- ~~ ~'13 ~ .- '-:J c " i;;> i511 "U) ~.- E ... tI) Q) a:: "0 0 > >- (I) c t; a>S-gttllii oS 011)"0.2: C'IQ)Effi.... .~= ~!o .~ '0 ~ ~ Iii OIll....~'O o:J...JU")E ~~[5~E ~ ~~ "Cl ~'" "'-:;; .r::.i.i: .~ ctI u-- .E (1)E ::;~ o d:c~ 000'15 >.~~.~~ Q.l<<l>"O...... ~()o~d: > C ,-,':= en liigE.5= 'f:.E ~ 'ij'~ ~~1rl*"2 'Cl"5~1ii:E .S::l >.'0 E VlOQjQ)O 21: U)..c u u~~=51:;2 43~-g~:!2~ ~g=tngm ....,o3:'O.c- C'I"5"O ai fJ):"!::: .50 cu.... 0>01 'O.r; 00.5.5 ~(I')a:"o(/)(I') Ollt) Ctl 'E (I') Vl (llC\lJ::::Oee a::....<t:uuu .; " ~ ,., U ~ ~ E ~ otl)~ID o..m5~ Q.1 Vl 0 >- ..a-gOS o ~ enO '0 _.5 Q) 'E ~ ~ oS 8.Q '1J '0 .~ ~~ ~ 1;; $ "E ttI 1:: C'll .... .... a.~ Q) ~ 0-'5 w.- ~ .!2 '0 ~ ~.8~8 rn -;jJ: =0)Q).s~ -ogl.s"OQ,I ai~Ui~ID-ai ~>~'~~5 ~~'~~f~ III l/l Q.l 0 .- C :J.2: .w.g.s......;.. .~ -g 5 .~ ~ ~ ~ .~oS!oEE~3:co E ~- I/).Qz E ;;-Q) 8 C <<ie OE.D Q)Q)C u.;:::o~g..DO .r::. c....... 5 >. (/) ~ oQ)-gO"E~co tD=coUO;:JU " ~ il: ~ .0 ~ 0. (1) ::; Q) ci. 1ti U5~c'O -m "'C 'w 0 Q) ~::l C 1ti~.~w>-g(/):3~ttico ;;..... I/)O.__"'CM (/).-I/)'Eoe-~ocr-- Q) 3: ~::l a.;:J '=' ii) oS! ci. 1;m'~~ea.~Q)Q) V)t>~coo.~.Q3:.:::g ~ CO'E 1ti ~ f- ro .~.~ (!) Il) :::J;; '0 '.8 ~ ai 15 Q):g~'O:i$.~~~~ := ~:~ ~:g~'~ 6LJJ '0 ::l,2 E! I/) ~.~ co c: c.: x8'O.s ~.=::.2! Cl6ffi .2! o::t.~ w.g ~ gj ~'Oil:" Q)gjo->2C:Q)5~DC;- ~.!:!~~tn~=.2a::~~ -mz, 5 :Q ~ 0. ~ (1)~ -... o ~ ~~ 'W""'C ~ ~ :a ~ .Q Q) .00. ~1; -;ii) " ~ I- E ~ .0 " "5 o " ~ ~c.i ~ ~ o~ ~ &l ~ .S 5l ~ ~ <lip ~..c: ,.,0 - - 'ii) Q) ~-5 .~ 2 ~2 " ~ 1-" <D ~ I/) .tij ;Ew ""'C.:::: ai5 ~ E ~{g CI.i E co C I/) 8 _~ 8 ~ ~c.~~ C ~ co Q) 0_ (/) en .tij...... t'll_~~_ .~ 0'0 E t:: C > E co co- o a. Q) ~ u~~ai -5co"'C:-Q ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ " ClE.~ '0 0 'Ow 5 Q).2 -'0 E I/) W c: co -'€C5 ai5'.o-~:=.Qw I/) 00.... wE.... ::l .... ~ coc-:=o.O:;~~'O~w ~Q)mo.2ij;~w;:!.w~ u .s 0...... ~ - '';::::; E C') ~ a. u......oiXw<(.ii>c .....1/) oOu;....'OQ..co-gc.c ~Eu ~-g.~~~o.~~.~ ~ E(1l~::.c:r.~ EOJ~g"'C OJO>lJ")~l!:!.2OJv"-~ E c.w.....a...;:::-<::::Q.tnO'" I/) c.. (/) .=::-OJ a:: u ". EM II: .... ..Q.- a:: ~~ ~ ~.-: (/) S!?.g OJ ~ >-0..0.....- (/) 0 OJo....;::: ij; Q) .$ com ~ ~ ClD "- 0:=0 o(!)'O 0..<( [(!;i 8 .,; ~ ~ ~ ~ -6 " ~ 15 z oS ~ .$Q);>, ~go..oco >Q)'032~~ai >-::l c: ::l .... 3: Q) ~'Ot'llO~.c~ o'Oii~~...co.o~ ...... W Q)~_u... 0'$ 0 <<i 5l!:! ~ cO :=0:; a. ct'llQ) ::l"'C~ I::l"'C.... o co~......ICco I/) Q) (/)'2: 0 _;:J Q) ..0 ::l Q)'O 0 m326E"'CCO.D~ :0 :::J I/) E '(i) 0 Q) I/) .DO-oU)C::=~ ;:J..c:lrluQ)(j)I/)Q. ..c1/):t::Q)3:= CO"'C Jg~:~~~-g~ ai~.g;>,-;.$g;E ~>~~';OQ)E OJc:oCOQ) ..Da. .....-U>a;E32 0 V'OCO"-OQ)::l(ii Q)COo..~oc:O> ~~.~a:~ ~~~ '"' z o ~ ....0 ~i5 a:::' UJ::' "-0 UJo a:UJ da: o zUJ :o~ 89 0;: !Ii", 0:<: "'en u: ui ::i ~ o "Vi c ~ 0 "e ~ E-g 0" OE mE .~ 8 ~ " Iii a: c:: ;;; N ::; '" t')"'C cv ~ i? "'CCVtnJJI-c{_o c: U rtI c:. E..g Q.l:::: .- "- lO E~to;!!5~'*' Ow-IIlQ.C.c 1rl..o~~~CD~ a:.~E'u1ij~c c-Q.>.......-o o 'Vi..9..o (/) to__ 'iiiC:~"OQ.lQ.l.2 Vol Q,J QJ (l):: I 0 'E"O"O-g_'E~ E~WQ)O'5O: oc.sE~"""')O...: () Q) .!;; E CI) Q.l c.. Q) >.32..c 8 OJ';:; Ill-g G~'~~[o~iD " m ~ :> '1i ,,~ Q)~ Q) " 0::; 5'0 'w Vi ~ ro 'E Q) E-g o ro o~ Z"S ~ 0 ~ ~ 8~ ~ .2 "';;; ro"C rn ~ c: E '0 E ,0 u " a: ~" "0 :;;; c~ ~ .2 ~ a; -.!!!E Q,ltll:.:: :t >-~~;g..Qo.. c::= 's;:. ~ 't:l (j) :J > 0 (ij c Q) 8~ ~c:!2:S ,,-Q).Qc<i: c: vl ~ OJ co CI:l c:!!! ~.S?.,...; >.OQ)_~Cll "5~= ~ ~15 ~-go.Q'~~ ..... E Vi Cii ~ (J.l ~Em~.g:~ .o8"O~'Eg? E~fiia.8g; E .~€ (l) ~ Q.l c: 0.. >,-:5 rn~~e.:L8 'Vi't:i Q) 0..0 u) 8 ~ a..~ III c: wClJgJc5=i ..o:S.cQ)::':5 f,I).!:: g f; 3: E E ~ :.~~~ 'E;g"OlIl c: wo.3C:=<<l E 0.. (f.l 0 6 g-~ot5U)'5 w-~~(l)~ ill Eo 5:5 [l "03:0u.3a: ;>,0 ~t) ,,0.0 ~ E ~ t: Q) ti ~ u ~ =;ij~ [Illlli Vi ~ (/J g']j >'OlClllQ) C c: ~ rn..c 5.2 0 Vi':::o u cti (f) ~ III -0 Cll u Vi .c ffi 01 Q.l <tl I-~~.~i .coQ)Q..~ t:uow.o g ~ 0..:= ~ ~ " u~-g etr.lc'E ~ ~S Q) lii'S ~ ~ 8. 8 ~t~ -Ol5lt:VCll-E 13,g;:-o>:::l 0':;: rn c.. Q) III "0 OLCQ)Q)D~O ''-If.IJ)C::Q)(f.I~ ~~ :r:::S ~ "II< . m$rn$<;}ctI.cW Q.Vl...CJ)C-lCtl"'O c Q):~ Q) co III t: ffi OO"'u.c:{'\J.c..... tl)a: ::~.;:.oOl .~fQ.5,O.ccl1.l.E U 0.. -- o:t ro :J (;; rn oogjcni-OUQJ CL.C'-coO.!:.d:.QI -' :<: UJ .!Q .~ gj "E~ """ " " ~~ - - (;;"0 -Ev.; ~ ~ .2 Q) '1;5 -g o ~ ~= ~~ :<:0 UJ~ "'!2 m ~tu o ~&>- c~ro>. ci~.Q"O ~~~ w~~i~~~~~~'~i~ ~~~~82~~~~'~'Ogj~~-c~ 1:: Q) C -c'fD a; :J ro ~ -S ~ -0 0 g. (i'u- ~~~~~i~;~o~i~o~-~t~~ QJ '= [l ~ - Q) g.!:2 .a ~ -0 ~ _ &.- .. - ~ .i_~~~~f~~~~~O,,~!~.Qi~ -Q)- -0 wio'-c-~QJ~~.~c .c...()..s:: ~c-- ~EQJ~-.cCJ)llJ~Ql !~WEQ)oEEE~"E-c~w~...QlE Qlg~~~~QJQlOE.-..._c~~-cE ~a~~[El~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~.~i~!~~~~~g~~O&~~ ~~~~o~ro~-c~~.coQl~~u- >ro~~.5~E"O~2=~!o-ESwo :C ro 0; ::; .~ ~ " 1;' m <! C o .in ~ .E E o o "" (3 ~ - " ~ am oQJO: ~~c " ~ "01Ii~ "Wc-c .s .Q .& w (;; -ii) -g.Q't: " " 0 E ~ ~ E ~ !!:: o - ~ o.s -5 1;' -0 == ~ ro tl<..Q <t: .s 'E ~ as_s 5 ~ ~ E o-sg.~ 15 E:5 ~ c~ :5 C~ID ~OJ.Q32 o'li<<i~~O'l o>..c:cti~ E~~g5~~ C_~-S~ll.l 5 ~ .::':: -g g -E .~~ ~ f::: ~-E EQ)mo'Uw ID2:g""o.'Q ctl..c: <..) w Q) Q) O'l ~ C,.l --_ ~_s:; <I) E~:= ~o::g~.8lG ID~ ~.g_ B-'!:::g,:so..o~ ~uu...", ~ ~ -ii) ~ Q) ~ ~ _~ ~ :; c 'S .g ;>. .~-Eo!!::.D rg~!lJ -g ~~ ~~5 <I):..c~"Q)'::;:o-_roCl.Jv E- ctll1.l ..c:>~ctla...<I)~~~EC:: c'~EI-I eg:ffi~ ~ 0..0 0 0 S"53::luit.U~""-"O~_lLa;:g CCCO<l>~uS5c~Oo~~ 8 ~ ro &:;~~(9~ ~ 8.(000 ~ ~ o .!:2 "0 " ~ -C..s:: 0 >. Q) ol--c-cg>.~ <..) 'E.2w:2-c ~ ~ 8 W < ~~-~~~~Cii .g,o~ ~;~~ ~ ,... = rn ~ 0>1- l1.l~oC\Jro{:.$ -5Z'*~a;tI).c o's~Z'.D-(\:l _"C m-cC?..g 0 Ina...Q)OC,)~v.; U3.'!2 rn'~.d: ~ ~ -5"2 5 8.~ ~ _ 0 !!:: ~.!:2 " ~ ~ :5~~ o~g ~~-g ..c: _E m v.; 0 l1.l ~ - ~ " ~ " " u ~ :5 ~ ~ " ~_ro 53 li3 o.~ Q) O!!! := l1.l Q) o:g..;; €~~ O..c~ Z ~ ~ <ri ro ~ ~ ~ ~ o !ll 0 'OJ co t ~ >- 0 ,,"0 0. =.2~ -~~ o -a;: 0: 'tii'13 0 ~,,- " 0.0. mW:E " ro ~ rn Q) g OJ.D ~ ~"Cro I-:;Qi o ~ 1Ii..c ~ '" ~ ~ W ~ m a.i (ij.gcuC: Q)'C ~ W o~.ctl) ~8~~ ~~ B Q) Q,J =c Q):5 g-~.g "6 "0 0 ~ "0 -ro E ;; ~ "O(LiClOJ W.,C.D ::l o u"'C 0 Ecu"3o .BO::; B m ~ (l.1 ~ t5 5, In 0 CJ 'S:!.E:6Em .g~.2m~ W l1.l In ~ ~ ~a:cEo Q) -Q W <I) g-IIi1e:O-~ - W:i!5! >, ~"5a.o.rn>ro l1.l .a c "0 UJ 0. rtl rtl ro o "0 -E.8 ~ ~ ~~ " ~ ",0 ~- ~ ~ = 0 ;g 0.._ :;: g-o:' ~.- ~ ~ 0 " ro~:t::: ..c1-'5 J: E .~ ~ ~ m ~ g @ ....u~ IoO t.U (/) m ~m= t:.. Ci;.~ " ~~ "CC':> ~'" "'~ .cLi: .'!2 ro u.. .[:: 02 ::J~ o " .D E (f) C ~ (Li ,-_!2l :; - 0 In ,g ~:g ~ W.Q 0 l1.l W . 0 '= ~-~ ~ ~ Q)O~~ ..;; E'~~ _In_m ~~~~ ~ 3 -~ E Q):..c E m -gme-g m..c c.:I .s.88~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~~$~ l,{)"Olrll1.l ,....E:::w &.~ ~.8 ~ ~ .g-g > QJ <l> m 00 " a. .u .s 0. <0 z o ~ -,0 ~ffi 0:::; ~~ UJu O:UJ ='0: U zUJ :o~ 0-' Q9 0;: !1i.. OJ: OOC/) LL: oi :0 . , " o "ii) c: Vl.2 "e m E-g o ~ () E enE " 0 'c ~ iiio: 0:: '" .!l ~ ,5 .~ ~ ~ ~ en <( C o .;; ~ .E E o u ~ u ~ .c Q.l .s;:; !i ID ~~~~~ l3 .E E .9 <( <' Ql r::: 0."O'-:'~ .... Ql 0 III If.I ~uQj:t::oa:: .. .!2../ii.~ ~ t: g-go-W u ~ "ii) . ...c C'll.E .!!! ~ 0 J2 00. III E~:2g~~ E>l::..c::~C: o lLl 8 tf.I - 0 (,)=_ctljg:::: >-c:COQlC.s c'- c :;; OJ VJ ::J ...J .2 VJ :2 ..c:: 8 m ~~ ~ ~ " .2 ll=1ii "''' In ~ E E '0 E -,0 " ~ 0: OJ"* .!:: Q,J.s '0 ~ ..c:: 0 . 'E 0)'0 co = :v ii Q.l ~'3: (l) $ c: .~ OQ.:3E-QJ=!UG: ..c::_~ Q.l c: <<l o..$..c:: (I) E (f)......... c: li)..c:: 0 VJ I- :I Q.l >-~ .S:! 0 ~ ~u;~Qj~ .E.!::::"O>.C'll"O..-- ":: m~ ~ 0 g; 0, g..a m"O'Ec6 alQ.l :g"O~ g--g ~(() E ~ Ov ~= ~-g'ow ol:: ~ 15 ~ E ~(O >c:"'(I)i;a.O~:glUO~"" ....0'00 w_..c::o:uo=oID .9 (I) Q.l Q.ij Q) <<l_n-:::: 0= C) "0 c: Q) ~..c::u; c'~'-'... C'll ~ C'll o.......QJ:,: 0.:-0.2- Q) Q.l o(ij a. Cij>-II.lQ)c:C)~=E;c:a.. co Ow~ c C'd ~(i)~ g-.S:!.Q~ '::;:.2.2::a::: i..c~'iil:S:w ~ arc.. lii ~~ C'll E b- C IV >._....0 ()!!~(j)C'llU)o8;~~o~ -' J: UJ ..c~ ~ co~ :; m o..c 0 o....Q)"OQl "€'5..c::cti Ul.g.c~~ ~c:~~ ~.~~ ~~ ~-:~~€ ~ ~ [~ .9 ~ ~.5 8 ~ (ij"OCI)-""O..c::oeJ!:!ta ;= c: ~Q.l- 0 o.>="u c: :r: Q.l'i5 W, c: Q) E:g Q) ~(ij 0.::1"0 O.c o.'~ 0- 'u;C:0013'~'E-O CI) G.l._o-C wO'!a:irn(tl ....OJ :,:...Q)E.5>C ow.......'Oa..::.::WOQ.l l; ~~.g:2.2 g~.~-g w=o'Eg~~=~E t=oiE8~~~o:S~ ~ ~ ~ "OJ ;:.. ..~ ..cU: .!!2 ttl LL '2: 0~ :0.. U ~ I/) 32..c .913 ...J~'~15 g~-o :r:..c(ijt:Cl)'-ECl) UJ 'S c: Cl) ..c Q.. .- o~ QlOo..c_~!\f.~ '5 I/) '0,- 0 Cl) Ql c: :€Ot;!55~~'E ~~~mi:c::.g~ Cl)..c::2l8..Q';::o Cl) - 0 ". 0- '-w.c:::~ttl:gu-o ~]!'S=C'l~wQl .. lV g ~..E c:::; ~ ~-o _ ttl - I/) C ::;: 0 u; c: C Q) 'E OJ ~~:5~:~m~Eo~ o.Q~~li5ecg~-o on; oJ >.- 0-0 2-g~-g.g~~E~ Q..wttlttl'-EoCl)- -E~o~a.a::!:: JGEw-o-i2;>.:2 ~8~'E~~~o~ ()~~8'Vi~~B ~ '" " e ,5 o - B .~ E I/) -0 ~~ :.s~~- >- ~ ~ ~~~~ ..c:n;rn..c :g::; oQ ~ .~ ~ ~'o I/)......Ei5.. oE-gS(1) Ettlc:E o E.c::: I/) () (1) Cl I/) .cu~~ -co-o Ooc-o co U Ql <<l vi"2 . Q) B 8,...r:::: w >. > I/) (1) ttl.~ 1/)::; (1)O:t::-OOl~(1) Ciic:~ttl:~E.- E" "E ~ ct Vi i5...s (1)l/)rn>.EI/)=..9:!.;; E>> -OQ.l-.D c ~-g 5U:O.8 2 ~ 2otl:l8ca.3a:a..3 ';;'--0 Ul/)-O~ ID.D(1)"OoE(ijUJCLL ~~!ij-5c~~tI:i (ij'5'>~w~:::~(G '0.2 ~'u';.'5 0 (1)"0 ~.5 ~ c ~~ 5 ~ '0 8vi~~:Q-g~=1i5 I/).~ (1)gro.=o..~1i ~ 3 ~ >>~ 5- g ~ (l) t-I/)..c..cl-~UI/)= " ~ ~ ~ w U " ~ "0 z o ~EEc 13 m 8 ~ ~ 2 ~ (l) l3 ~ 1:: ijj 111 a.. <<l (ij 111 .= C [~ Cii '0(,')1/):2 ~';::(l)C'lm '-"O.~ ~ liil-.QCl-o'5 11l~-g5-5 .~~.:2.,.3 -g..r:::: ~'o,n; ~'c..- 111 I/) o(ijo!!2(ij ~.8~.t3-g ~(ij ~~._5.8 ~ ~ ~<<l I/).E -.... 01- (1)111- Ql ~=6 ~-o-a-&'~.8ni ;~~-a ~'5.:2 ~..r::::.g S=O.__~ ~ m BEC/).!!2:o '" ......(1)ou.....~;s::"O ....?:-ec 0""> (1) ell ~-oEI1l~-a[~E ~c(l)mOccCJ),~ '3 ctI g..r:::: ~ ctI.-:;:) '-' Cl.g8:E5~~(l)"o sw::- '~.Q-ot=iij "'"0 ..... (l) E;>."oQl2'.:J'!!.c'..r:::: ttl~Q)"OID:::J;>.~'~ ..., 'ia ~ Ql I/) a. ctI .ell LL E>ti)~-g&.E~o :: 1ii ~ >- ~ ~ " ., ~ tl:l 0 <( ~..r:::: -0 o:t::"OUJ m~$o '-~C..r:::: a> <<l~ == g' oS 0 ;s:: 0 o I/) (1) '- ~::!:::~'5 :;:;....:~"9. c (1) - .... ~~..:~ .- - ~ ~ ~~ '[:g E Cf) a. co: E " ~ ~ ~ . - ~ "':0 ~ ~ 1/)= ~ ~ ~ > - ~ '" 1-:'" ~'" O/J u.. CIl ::.J --- '" '" N N --- ~ - ~ => 00 => -< ... = C': ~ ~ '0 rIl LJ -- .: .Cl.l Vi -.- :.:~ "'0.... '" =oe: ;;......... ';='- ~...< = ... .c.....= ~ - CI'1 "- e': tf) ... Co- .... ~Q ~C': .- = '- ..2 C': u ...~ r----' " 1 i . L . . -<~ ~..~ tt ...--, L...'-1 r If il " II . ,. . "' , "........~""'" ~ "-""",~="_"",,,,,,,,~,-,,,_,,,,,,,,,,,,""'''''.~'''''-''''''''_''''''~_'''_~M~__~'._L~."__ ~"...~~ "''''__''',~,-,<"...._.....W_''_''_~.___,~_ _ II. JAMUL PLANNING AREAS (Tab E in Hearing Binder) III. SAN YSIDRO PLANNING AREA (Tab F in Hearing Binder) IV. DEVELOPMENT AROUND OTAY LAKES (Tab C in Hearing Binder) V. CENTRAL PROCTOR VALLEY (Tab D in Hearing Binder) VI. TEXT AMENDMENTS (Tab G in Hearing Binder) 4'.;;.::;- ~ __ .-. ~..,_._"r~".__-'-'__",,_,_,~~,__.__,__,_.___ ~ ~~..... DiA...... RAnCH JOINT- PlANNlOO PROJECT COUNn' OF SAN DIEGO . CITY OF CHULA VISTA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13, ).993 TO: - Members of the County Board of Supervisors Members of the Chula Vista City Council Anthony J. Lettieri, AICP f.r General Manager FROM: RE: Modifications to Errata Sheets The following are proposed . staff recommended modifications to the GDP/SRP Errata Sheets contained in Tab #4 of the Hearing Binder presented to the Board and Council on June 16, 1993. These are the only two areas where staff disagrees with the recommended text- language proposed by either Planning Commission. . Rationale for modifications: Input from other governmental agencies is critical regarding further planning for the Otay Ranch, however, it is staff's opinion that the local agencies (City and County) should not unnecessarily forfeit elements of the decision-making. process to these agencies. (#17:\ERRATA.MEMJ 315 Fourth Avenue, Surre A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157' FAX: (619) 422-7690 ERRATA SHEET MODIFICATION September 13, 1993 COUNTY/BOARD HEARINGS The following are staff recommended modifications to the Errata Sheets distributed to the City Council/Board of Supervisors on June 16, 1993 for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan: (GDP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section F.2.c, Page 125) Modify the policy regarding Wildlife Corridors: Parks and Open Space Policies: o Wildlife corridors shall be provided across Paseo Ranchero linking Wolf and Poggi Canyons as shown on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map, inDut should be solicited from lIftt:l lIeeeIlHlllle te the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (GDP; Part II, Chapter 10, Section B.2., Page 353) Modify the last implementation measure regarding preservation and restoration activities: 2. Preservation of Sensitive Resources Implementation Measure: Preservation and restoration activities shall be consistent with the guidelines of the anv avvlicable ref!ional oven svacelresource vrotection vrOf!ram MSCP and shall result in equal or greater overall habitat values than occur under existing conditions. (#17:\ERRTAMOD.POL) '-~-_..." ':~~'"'''''"'''''''--'-''-''~'~.....'.~ ~.";"~""'-'~""'''''''-'':.'-~_:"''.:.- UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCILIBOARD HEARINGS The following sections of the GDP/SRP are recommended for modification: Page 68: Land Use Designations Page 87: Components of Land Use Plan Page 109: Potential University Page 153: Village 9 Description Page 155: Other Village 9 Policies Page 157: Village 9 Graphic Page 158: Village 10 Description Page 160: Other Village 10 Policies Page 161: Village 10 Graphic Page 342: Phasing Village Phasing Plan, Page 4 & 7: Part Ill, Plan Implementation, Page 23: University SPA Requirements "~..,<"~,_""_,;,___~_"",--'~"~..e;;.",,,"_,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,,,,,,,~~,_ ' .""""""'........~,."'~-,.-...,. ,._""'....::,'"'~_'~,__A,,.__". . '-- __""'~,'''"'_''_.~_',~.~ ~._."-'~- _L UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCILIBOARD HEARINGS (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section C, Page 68) Add the following land use designation: Proposed modifications to the GDP/SRP: University University Primary Land Use Designation: The area indicated Site on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as the University Site has a primarv land use designation as a university site. At anv time. this area mav be developed for a university campus and ancillary uses such as campus-related commercial. residential. and research and development support services. However. use of the area west of Wueste Road. east of Hunte Parkway. bv a campus is permitted. provided that the use of Salt Creek Canvon (including defining slopes) is limited to trails. passive recreation. and to biological research and educational activities in keeping with the preservation of sensitive habitat and biological species located there. No buildings or structures shall be permitted within Salt Creek Canvon. Secondary Land Use Designation: The Universitv Site also has secondary land use designations: the land within Villages 9 and 10 has secondary designations for village purposes as described in Part II. Chapter 1. Sections F9 and FlO. and the area west of Wueste Road. east of Hunte Parkway. has a secondary designation as open space. This area mav be developed for university purposes at anv time. This area mav be developed for said secondary land uses onlv after the development of "Western Phases 1. II and III". as identified in the Otav Ranch Phasing Plan. has been completed. Completion of such development for purposes of this reouirement shall be deemed to be the issuance of building permits for 75% of the residential units in phases I through III. 2 '~"h.,<., _....:...""""~."'.~,.".. ~-'-........_'---"--,.."."....,. -..,........-- ".. . UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCILIBOARD HEARINGS ll2I!. Uni':ersity Uni~/ersity site psteBtia:l is iftdiellted by this desigftlltiEln. The IEleatien is eensisteat \\ifk resEllutiElns Elf the City ef Ciffila Vista, CElllnty ef SaB DiegEl aBd City ef San Diege. .<\ Geaera:l Plaa } JReRameflt is re!j:llirea fer iffij91ementatiEln of this land lIse. (ODP/SRP; Part II, Chapter I, Section C.2.e., Page 87); Modify as follows; e. University The ODP/SRP Land Use map identifies J! the general location for J! the j'lEltsntial university campus in the area delineated as Village 9 & 10. as well as the area westerly- of Wueste Road (Salt Creek)" y;ith an anderlying land lise designatien shElald the Ufliversity ef Califemia deeide net te lEleate in this area. The purpose of this land use these designations- is to afford a university the University sf California the opportunity to locate a university campus at this location, shsald the UnivElfsity seek te de so. (ODP; Part II, Chapter I, Section D, Page 109) Modify as follows: 4. Potential University The University of California Regents have expressed their intention to construct three new University of California campuses over the next 20 years, one of which will be sited in Southern California. On October 6, 1989, The Baldwin Company and the City of Chula Vista jointly submitted a proposal to the University of California Board of Regents to locate a new university campus on Otay Ranch. The proposal identified a site near Wueste Road overlooking Otay Lakes and adjacent to the United States Olympic Training Center. During 1992, the City of Chula Vista and San Diego City Councils and the County Board of Supervisors approved resolutions supporting the Wueste Road location for a university, subject to several conditions; notably, that an environmental process be completed assuring the identification and protection of significant resources. The ODP/SRP Land Use Map delineates ideffiities the general location for the j'leteatial a university campus in areas within Village 9. Village 10 and westerlv of Wueste Road. It is the intent of this ODP/SRP to reserve the land so desilZIlated for a university for a Deriod of time 3 '".i;;-c .~~.,,,,,,,-='~,:,,__,,,,""'_.'_',,,,_._.~-.~-_~C",-.,",'-'-'_'._.'-...c...o.~_'''':c..;'_'.:_ ...."._.__~.__._...._._. UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCIL/BOARD HEARINGS dependent upon phased development as set forth in the University policies below. after which other uses. as described herein. mav be developed on that land.lf the Unh'ersity ef Califemia deeides to leeated en the Otar Raileh, the el,aet size ef the eampas, eleaet leeatien and intensity ef neeessary SUPjlort land ases .../ill Be saejeet te aiserstienLUY astion BY the flJl:jlrejlriate goyemmental ageney. University Policies o The GDP/8RP Lana Use Majl shall sYfflBelieally a geneml loeation for a aruversity eampas westerly ef V/aeste Reaa. The generalleeatien sha11 ineluae, Bat net Be limited te, 400+1 (asable) aeres aajaeent to Waeste Roaa. The area shall also Be assigned an nnaerlying land ase designatien whieh shall Be atilized, showd the Uniyersity of California aeeiae flat to leeate ifl tae area. o The area indicated on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as the University Site has a primary land use designation as a university site. At anv time. this area may be developed for a uniyersity campus and ancillary uses such as campus-related commercial. residential. and research and development support services. However. use of the area west of Wueste Road. east of Hunte Parkway. by a campus is permitted. provided that the use of Salt Creek Canyon (including defining slopes) is limited to trails. passive recreation. and to biological research and educational activities in keeping with the preservation of sensitive habitat and biological species located there. No buildings or structures shall be permitted within Salt Creek Canyon. o The University Site also has secondary land use designations: the land within Villages 9 and 1 a has secondary designations for village purposes as described in Part II. Chapter 1. Sections F9 and Fla. and the area west of Wueste Road. east of Hunte Parkway. has a secondary designation as open space. This area may be developed for university purposes at any time. This area may be developed for said secondary land uses only after the development of "Western Phases I. II and III". as identified in the Otay Ranch Phasing Plan. has been completed. Completion of such development for purposes of this requirement shall be deemed to be the issuance of building permits for 75% of the residential units in phases I through III. o The University of Ca1ifemia sHowd Be re<}l!ired to jlr6jlare an Elwirenmenta1 IHlflaet R-ejlert whieh weald idemify and jlretest any signifieflftt eftvireHIRemal researees that ear.net Be mitigated. 4 """""~~''-'''-'_~'~h"",.,.:.;,.:,;_...~__.~..,-~_,...L,,-,,~-,-,,,,,-''''"-~,,,~,,.:o.,","'''~''''"'-'-'-'~'__'-'__'_"'''_'~"' UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCILIBOARD HEARINGS o The Ufliyersity of CalifElmia sholila be reqliirea to prepare The processing of university development plan shall include an analysis to efl5lHe of compatibility with adjacent villages. conformance with all public facility plans. including parks. and consistencv with the RMP. Q If the lilli~/efsity eleets to Ioeate ~;\4MHfl tke ~ianageffle:et Preser:e, tke Res0aree Managemeftt PIBfi shall ee re evalaateel te eBDlHe that the sitiag ef this faeility e1ees Bot iftterf-ere with or adversely ilHpaet the goals, ebj eeti'/es aRE! pelieies ef that plan. o If the lilliyersity eleets tEl IEleate, perfaffilanee standards shall be aaoptea to address design, aeeess ana reseUi'ee 13reteetieB. o If the 1Hli'/emity reqtlires mare lllfla thBfi aesigHatea ey the GDP/SRP LWla Use Mtlfl, transfers of resielefttial aeHoity shall be el<amiHea eB a ell5e ey ease ell5b. . o Iftlie a university reqllires Otlly RaBeh lana desigaatea by the GDP/SRP LWla Use Mllfl 115 BeigllbElrhoEla ar eeHlHlHHity park, the loeal park relj:liiremeftts shall be reviewed eB a ease by ease sasis. (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section F.9.b., Page 153) Modify paragraph as follows: The primarv land use for Village Nine is designated as a University. Part II. Chapter 1. Section D. herein. describes this land use. See also Part II. Chapter 9. Section B. for phasing policies. The secondary land use for Village Nine consists of is an Urban Village with transit/trolley. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Nine contains: (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section F, Page 155) Delete first bullet under "Other Village Nine Policies": Q Tke ffli"tl:1fe sf laBa uses, eenstties, an.d serviees required for a unj:',ersity may sause ehaages iB the fubrie ef the eelflffilHlity east ef SR 125. This village ana aajaeeftt villages shGll ee re e)[amineel, sholilel the URiversity ee leeateel WitIHB tRe Otay RaReR. (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section F, Page 157) Add graphic showing university as the primary land use (See attached exhibit): 5 UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCIL/BOARD HEARINGS (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section F.IO.b., Page 158) Modify paragraph as follows: The primary land use for Village Ten is desigpated as a University. Part II. Chapter 1. Section D. herein. describes this land use. See also Part II. Chapter 9. Section B. for phasing policies. The secondary land use for Village Ten consists of is an Urban Village. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Ten contains: (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section F, Page 160) Delete first bullet under "Other Village Ten Policies": Q The lanel Hsas fer tRia T:illage ana aEljaeeRt Tlillages 71111 Be fe 0Kanllnea, sa8alEl the University Be leeatea v.ithin the Otay RaIleR. The mbaure sf lana 1:1ses, densities, ana serviees reEJ.wreEl :fer a Wliversity may reEl1:1ke ekanges in the faerie of the 60mmunity east sf 8R 125. (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section F, Page 161) Add graphic showing university as the primary land use. (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapte~ 9, Section B, Page 342) & (Village Phasing Plan; Section A, Page 4) Add the following policy to both: The University Site mav be developed for university purposes at anv time. This area mav be developed as secondary village land uses onlv after the completion of "Western Phases 1. II and III. as identified in the Village Phasing Plan. See also GDP/SRP: Part II. Chapter 1. Sections F9 & FIO. (Village Phasing Plan; Section C., Page 7) Modify paragraph as follows: Fourth Western Phase: The fourth and final Western Phase includes Village 8, Village 9, Village 10 and the Eastern Urban Center. As previously discUssed, some components of the Eastern Urban Center will be provided during the Third Western Phase, particularly major public facilities and some office/commercial uses. the EUC residential component will be developed Within this phase, and associated public facilities will be completed. The Fourth Phase shsllld include!i approximately ~ units, generating a tetal, population of 18,395 persons at build-out in Village 8 and the EUC and either a university or 6 ~."_'-'" '.N~=~.~~"",""""-'_."''',,_,'~'_'_'",,.'__'-',, UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCIL/BOARD HEARINGS approximatelv units. generating a population of persons at build-out. The Fourth Phase is likely to have a long build-out period because of the large proportion of multi-family units at higher densities. It is anticipated that market demand for these higher densities will not occur until late in the build-out of the project. (GDP/SRP, Part III, Plan Implementation; Page 23): Modify as follows: University The University ef Califemia sheHla se reqHirea te prejlare IIR ElTvffellffieHtal Ilfljloot Riljlert ','Aiieh waula iaeffiify lIRa preteet IIRJ signia6ant ew.'iremnelltal reSeHr6eS that caDRet se mitigatea. If the lIni'/ersity eleets te leeate all. the site, the R-eseHfee MfrIlagemeHt PIIIR shall se re e'/waatea te efiSHre that the sitiag ef this flleility aees fiet illterfere 'lfith er ooyersely iIfljlaet the goals, oBjeetiyes ana pelieies of that plllR. PerfefffiaR6e stElfldaras shall se aaeptea to address desigll, aeeess aHa reS8\H'ee preteetieR. If tRe 1:H1:iT/ersity reqaffes more land than aesigaatea sy the GDP/SRP Lana Use Map, trElflsf-ers ef resiaelltiw aensity shall se el(amiBea ell. a ease sy ease sasis. The milftare ef laRa uses, ~eBsities ana ser,.iees required fer a liIliversity may saase sl=1anges ill the faerie ef the eemnRlllity east of SR 125. Shoula the university se loeated withill. Ctay Raneh, ilfljlaetea villages shall se fe elCamified Primary Land Use Designation: The area indicated on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as the University Site has a primary land use designation as a university site. At anv time. this area mav be developed fer a university campus and ancillary uses such as campus-related commercial. residential. and research and development support services. However. use of the area west of Wueste Road. east of Hunte Parkwav. bv a campus is permitted. provided that the use of Salt Creek Canvon (including defining slopes) is limited to trails. passive recreation. and to biological research and educational activities in keeping with the preservation of sensitive habitat and biological species located there. No buildings or structures shall be permitted within Salt Creek Canvon. Secondary Land Use Designation: The University Site also has secondary land use designations: the land within Villages 9 and 10 has secondary designations for village purposes as described in Part II. Chapter 1. Sections F9 and FIO. and the area west of Wueste Road. east of Hunte Parkwav. has a secondary designation as open space. This area mav be developed for university purposes at anv time. This area mav be developed for said secondary land uses onlv after the development of 7 "",-"..._""-,",,~~.,,...~~;;.L"'''''''-'-'~''''';'';'''''''''''''_'''''''''"__ '-"'-'---'"'-'~'-""";;'_::~'~~-- . "-~':''''''~'"''''''''',=>,-_,._-'---',- - -"-'~;>"-~:"""~~"""""~-- UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCIL/BOARD HEARINGS "Western Phases 1. II and III". as identified in the Otav Ranch Phasing Plan. has been comoleted. Comoletion of such develooment for ourooses of this requirement shall be deemed to be the issuance of building oermits for 75% of the residential units in ohases I through III. (GDP/SRP Pages 109, 155, 169, 165). (:\UNVLANGS,CC) 8 -.....,.<";..-.,,-..,',--....-.,.,-. VILLAGE 5' r" H_.'4.5~ @ .... ~1 au ~ ~A~- P ." . r~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "'I 1 1 I MU ..... '" ,5 'U \ .~ J ... r Planning Area 18-A -------- " ~ "" g".; '.._- ADULT EDUCATION FACILITIES POLICY September 13, 1993 COUNTY/BOARD HEARINGS The following provides specific policies for the provision of adult education facilities on the Otay Ranch:. (GDP; Part II, Chapter 5, Section C-8, Page 316) Add the following objective and policy to the School Facilities section: 8. School Facilities c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures GOAL: COORDINATE THE PLANNING OF ADULT EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES WITH APPROPRIATE DISTRICT(S). Policv: Provide for the reservation of one or more sites for adult educational facilities to serve the residents of Otav Ranch. Imolementation Measure: Provide for the reservation of sufficient land/floor soace within the EUe for the Sweetwater Union Hif!h School District adult education facilitv. (:\ADULTED.POL) ",,;,~,-."'.~ ~'~_'-"'''~'''~',~r-'''''''''''_''''''Y-<,-_ .. >"~'''--' ",,'--" VII. NON-TRANSIT VILLAGE DENSITIES .......::~.,'".~ _,~-=-....,:.:';__~:"':"';';'::~';;"~;.~_~=-.""~';~",",,"".,-~,~,w_.. . ._ . ~ ~........ ~.... aiRY RRnCH JOINT PLANNINQ PROJECT COUNTI' OF SAN mECO . CITY OF CHULA VISTA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13, 1993 TO: Members of the County Board of Supervisors Members of the Chula Vista City Council Anthony J. Lettieri, AICP ~ General Manager FROM: RE: Referral for Reduction of 491 Units on Otay Valley Parcel On July 26, 1993, the Board of Supervisors and City Council requested that staff return to them with recommendations for the reduction of 491 residential units from the general area west of La Media/Otay Lakes Road, in order to offset the increase of an equal number of units resulting from density increases in transit village cores (Village I, 5 & 6). The increases result from adjusting the core areas from 16.0 du/ac to 18 dulac. The following are options for achieving the requested reductions. Tables detailing these options are included on the following pages. Option #1.(Staff Recommendation): This option involves the reduction of both single family and multiple family units, equally offsetting the estimated increase in ADT in the transit villages. . Option #2 (Baldwin Company Recommendation): The Baldwin Company recommends that if an .equivalent ADT approach is used, that this option is preferred. This option includes a- combination of the reduction of residential units and commercial acreage. (#l7:\REDUCTN.MEM) 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157. FAX: (619) 422-7690 PROPOSED REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WEST OF SR125 OPTION 1 (ADT Equivalent)* Staff Recommendation OPTION 2 (ADT Equivalent)* Baldwin Recommendation 2 -264 3 -58 4 -137 Totals -4591 Totals -340 -4,504 I * - The increase of 491 multi-family units in the transit villages results in a total of 3,928 additional ADT on the Otay Valley Parcel. (# 17:IDNSREDU1.OPS) ~ ~^''''''''''_"''''''''''''"'~__'''''''''''''''__'''''''''"-''''^''''''''_'''''''''.''__~''''''''~^~...w'';'_"...;.,.,,,,.\.-.o,.'_-,_,~,,,,,,,______,~-,,,,,,""""_'-"~,..,_~._..-______...____.............._...__...~---'~__~..__._"",_."~,_".~ OPTION 1 (Staff Recommendation) PROPOSED REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WEST OF SR125 (ADT Equivalence) Vill. Acreage area GDP 2a 320.2 2b 53.6 2c 44.4** 2d 68.6 3a 12.8 4a 34.1 4b 18.8 Density Units ADT GDP 3.5 5.0 5.0 10.0 14.5 3.0 102 10.0 188 Total 2,681 11,210 See attached map for Village areas * - A total of 10 acres has been shifted from 2d (MH) to 2a (LMV). ** - Through tentative actions by the Council and Board the acreage for this area was expanded to a total of 44.4 acres with a resultant gross density of 2.9 du/ac. Proposed reductions will reduce acrual gross density to 1.5 du/ac. T - The increase of 491 multi-family units in transit villages 1,5 & 6 will total 3,928 additional ADT. (# 17 :IDNSREDUC.OP I) :,,",,"""0";""'-"""" ~"""",-"~"""""~""'--",-^"",,,,,,,,,,,-<,,,,,,,,,,,,---," ~,~,-~'''~....'~ ~',..' , --"'--~~""""""""'''_.'~.'~'''~'''-~-'---'--OP~'~ =:;~AND(i(ib-- ~ "~.:..~~-.;.-~ . ..~- . -- - r-"'. -.. ,":,-' ..': " ~.... '1',., OPTION #1 (Staff Recommendation) OPTION 2 (Baldwin Recommendation) PROPOSED REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WEST OF SR125 (ADT Equivalence) ViiI. Density Units ADT area GDP 2a 320.2 2b 53.6 2c 44.4** 2d 68.6 2e 18.7 4a 34.1 3.0 See attached maD for Villaee areas * A total of 10 acres has been shifted from 2d (MH) to 2a (LMV). In addition, a total of 1.7 acres has been shifted from 2e (MU) to 2a (LMV). ** - Through tentative actions by the Council and Board the acreage for this area was expanded to a total of 44.4 acres with a resultant gross density of 2.9 du/ac. Proposed reductions will reduce actual gross density to 2.5 du/ac. ,. The increase of 491 multi-family units in transit villages 1, 5 & 6 will total 3,928 additional ADT. (#17:\DNSREDUC.OP2) . ('~~ \ . <?! ~- . . ~ I Q ~ '-~ . . ~.~.~':...~. * . .,. .. ... . , . , , . :~ '. "CT" OPTION #2 (Baldwin Recommendation) . ,. ~ ~........ ~..... D,AY RAnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT CQUNn' Of SAN DIEGO'. CITY OF CHULA VISTA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13, 1993 FROM: Members of the County Board of Supervisors Members of the Chula Vista City Council Anthony J. Lettieri, AICP ~ General Manager TO: RE: Request for Comments from Sunbow Development On July 26, 1993, the Board of Supervisors and City Council requested that staff contact the owners of the Sunbow Development, which is located along the westerly boundary of the Otay Ranch, and solicit any comments they might have regarding the extension of the residential development boundary at the westerly edge of Village 2. This area is located immediately north of the. County Landfill and adjacent to proposed industrial development within Sunbow. The attached correspondence from Portfolio Investments, Ltd. (new Sunbow owners), dated September 1, 1993, indicates that their only concern is that if the sale of residential units on the Otay Ranch precede development of the industrial property in Sunbow, that these residents be notified of the pre-existence of the approved Sunbow Tentative Map and not be allowed to object to the industrial land use. It is staff's opinion that steps can be taken at the SPA plan level of review to diffuse potential. objections of this type. .' (#17:\SUNBOW.MEMl 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422.7157' FAX: (619) 422-7690 SEP- 1-93 WED 11:09 GAFCON P _ ~32 . " PORTFOLIO INVES'rMEN'T'S, L'TD. A (.' a / l / () r tl i (, ..~ /, ; w i I (! d Ilartnef'shijJ ..."........-. - .... ....." September 1, 1993 City 0/ Chula Vista Planning Depilrtment 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Cali/ornia 91907 Attention: Mr. Duane E. Bazzd Senior Planner RE: Tentative Actions taken by City COuncil and lloaxds of Supervisors regarding Otay Ran~h Project Dear Mr. BazzeI: Th.nk you for your Iettcr dl1ted August 17, '1993, regarding the above-referenced actions. Our only comment at this time, is that future residents of the profXlsed single family dwellings must 00 made aware of the prc-exiswnce of the approved Sunbow Tentative Map, which allows for industrial development in the south-cast corner of the Sunbow property near the proposed new residenlial development. Should construction and sale of these reSidential units precede the Sunbow industrial development any obje'Ctions t<) the Sunbow proposed industrial devdopnw,\! by the new residents should not bc allowed by the City of Chula Vista. Sincerely, PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS, LTD. By: P One, Inc. JT/dlc dlc\rtc\sunbow \090193.1 SORT COKl'ORATJUN. vrotlCi"! II:u1ncr, O:mt~l L 51~pht~n_"t\r1, 11tc'~a(,l(:llr ero Itancnn rlnanrl~1 "no .Jetterson Av.nll' 'J'.m.c"lo, f.A 92;00 (909) t..l7(j.o~64 ll'JOM 676.,sS'" J::v;, I' OK1.:, INC.. Gcncl".11 r,Oll'tn"r, Yl"'hlldl (I:I((l:;n, l'rl'l,~lrlt:.,r ;;)0 C"r'~01', Ill";. 1~;';5 tli~h DlurfOri\'~: SUIle; ~6() San Diego. CA 91.I~O (t~IQ) )~..L.~..,-:c. t,;.,{\\ "oIl.'" ........ " - - r~~0i'~ '''ci=ri~~ ;;;;~~;';;'".Prtt8rve;li a vernal pool witlililSalf '. ~ th ~ oyotem w.. dnelOped' . Cr8ekclralnaga a_Homal (Dave ~r ~",gn'Uon of these verno! pools BrimdiIt, b(.''''1'otl in lIlt.. 1992). and in e.clut domP 1979). A omles letterla '. the SbmIt Hollow poo1in R1wi'slde use 0 enota vemal pools in " r_..... . region. and nuonben are used t~ ge:oere1",. c;;;;;:'~ Q.atluop.1976).1Il SaD J:!Iego d881gnete Severo! pool groupo within the ., on o:I; ~~~ Ia p_J:is ~ selies. Examples blclucle: Po~ogyne popu1atlnn of O. =li'1Jru~iaOn.""t nudiuscuIa end Orcuttla calJfamiqo ara In. vemal pool In Woodllmd ~ both found in the pools of the "I" S81ies Ventura County. TIle current population an Olay Mesa (theSe two .pedes are not status of O. cali/ornico in Baja known to occur in the ssme pool). CalIfornia. Mexico. is tIllknown. . Erynglum arlstuJatum viii'. padshii Agricultural development Js widespreed 0CCIlII in eeveral pool serle.. end the end increasing In areas where vernal Rivenide 'dry shrimp ill known to pool habilatls typically found (Moran occur within two pool serles a and U) 1981). . in San Diego (the "U" ..nes 0CC1JnI an Elynsium wluIatum vu. parish;; the Mhomar NavalloJr Station). once oCcurted from Riverside County. IDstarically. POflOgyile nudiuscuIa California. lOutb to northern Baja . was known to exiBl from Olay Mesa of CaUfomla. Mexico (Coll$tance 1977). ',T- me j,:KlI;;I -- - Diego Cou1lty. numeroul vemlU pov' COID~ in the county have been. ~ by Simovitcb. but no . addltfonal ~at\O!lI of Riverside. flliry shrim h&ve besD fouDd. ThIs ep8CIllS __ ~ fi>lmd at twO locationlll1llala . Col1forn1a. MtlXico: Valle de !as paimsS. 28 kUometers south of the MexIcan bOrder: and epproxlme18ly 37 l:ilometen south afE! Rosario [H. Weir. end J. Brown, Dudek and AsSCX::Ielel. pers. comm.. 1992). Urilan and agriculturel development cummtly threaten all four :emall1ing pools supporting the feJry shrimp In Riverside County. The clietn'butian of these three" plant and ana cruatacean vemal pool specles among pool group liti. Is summerizeclll1 the following table. Pogo. 0rcuI- ~ RI'Ier- iMIu- Pool group - .= lIa IB/utn - cdIor- vat. falry SClJIIt .-. ~. IMmp shII San 0Ieg0 County: - 0Uly - .-...........................-.................-..............-..........-...............................................................- x x X X Kaemy - --...............................-..................-............................---.................................................- X M1ramor Naval StalIon ............................................-..................-....-.....-................................................... x - X Camp Pordetcn ..-.......................................-..............-.........................-..........--...................................... x San Matcae ................-.!......--....-.--.-----..................-.-....................-..........-....-.-......-................. x 'P8Il8Squllao ...... x ......................................-.-...-..-.....---............-....................................-.......--...-........... .~ DISTRIBUTION OF SPEClES AMONG POOt. GROUP SITES 4l386FecUnl ~ I VoL 58. No. 147 f Tunday.August 3, 1993 Iltul8s ltI1d llegu1at1cma ~ 0tcuI0 .=:; -- Pool grVl4l" 'f1Y'!II .. - IIdlI . - --- -- .~... .' , ecIlM - i:i ~.... Ccunly: _ RaM PIelMu .........-.--.-....--..--.-...--....--. " " SIulk HolloW . ..-- --.-.....------... ....----- 'x " SakCreek __.._.__.._......:....-----..:.-.....-...-..------...-....--~.- x '. Pechanga IndIoIn Rea --~---- -.- -- ...--. ----....-........ .... x MurTle18 Gall eo..- - ------- - --.......-.... x Ventura County _.__._____......._._.._~_..__ - .................. x Orange Ccunty ...-.--..... - -...... ... .-- .............- " BaJa C8l1fomIa. IAe>dco -. ...-....-..--........-- .. --"--"---' '--' - II II OISTRIBt1T1ON CFSPectES AMCHGPOOl..!3ROUP SlTEs-contlnued . l're9io... Federal ActlaG 1'b8 Se:vice publJabecl an updated' Fede",} action 011 two of the plant .noUce of review fOf plants on Decem~ .-pedel began when the SeaeWy of the. 15. 1880 (~ FR 8248O!. ThJs notice SmithlOm8JllnltltutiCll1.... dIreCted by ~lDr]~=um rifi :8Jld'M. oectlon 12 of the Endmg8nK! Specles ,a 0 . Act (Act) of1913 prapBred a report on sogne nudJuscWo" categOTy 1 . __p-~ be cafulldates {epeelea far which the thOle native pl8llls .........aanou to ServIc8 has 11.1fllclen~ data ll1ils . ~gered; ihl'eatsned. Of tIlltInct 111 the po....s101l to oupport a Federal \lating UlUtIId Statal. ThIa I'8port (Hou.. mo-l u endangced or threatened). Documll1tNo.1l4-li1) wu pment8d to ba'i'sbnwy 15. 19B3. the SeTvice _ ,.......____ fDnn....., A. 1A7.5...--.nd _oo'-'l'_t.._.... _ _~__L.t.D 'C'D ..".11:..,' ^'ite State osenel... county gan._ls. Federal.agll1cles. sclent\flc: tng8llbatianl. llDd othat Intemte<l parti.. wmI contacted lIl1drequested to comment. Faur lettert were f8C8lVlld 111 support af1lsll1l8 the Riverside taIfy shrimp. ~ two ofthel8lettea contribullld addit1oDallDfonaatlon tbat . i. incol'porated ll1to the Sammu'f of . Fadon Alf....1nS th8 Spe....ctlllll" pl'8sented baJa.. ane of the four \etIarI, & __....L_..- .. _ .._~._,,---L"'_L r- ':.~ OH-l: OH-2: OH-3: OH-4: OH-5: OH-6: OH-7: OH-8: OH-9: OH-lO: OH-ll: OH-12: OH-13: OH-14: OH-15: OH-16: OH-17: OH-18: OH-19: OH-20: OH-21: OH-22: OH-23: OH-24: OH-25: OH-26: OH-27: OH-28: OH-29: OH-30: Oh-3l: OH-32: OH-33: OH-34: OH-35: OH-36: OH-37: OH-38: OH-39: OH-40: OH-4l: OH-42: OH-43: OH-44: OH-45: OH-46: OH-47: OH-48: OH-49: OH-50: OH-5l: OH-52: OH-53: OH-54: OH-55 : OH-56: OH-57: OH-58: OTAY RANCH PROJECT JOINT BOARD/COUNCIL HEARINGS OVERHEAD EXHIBITS (through 8/11/93) Otay Ranch Regional Vicinity Map Organization Chart Baldwin New Town Plan Map Chula Vista General Plan Map County Existing Land Use Designations Map Otay Ranch Goals, Objectives, and Policies Otay Ranch - The Planning Process Otay Ranch - Open Space Fundamentals Otay Ranch Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Standards Relationship of Planning Documents Otay Ranch Surrounding Land Uses/City and County Open Space Otay Valley Parcel Surrounding land Uses/Open Space San Ysidro Parcel Surrounding Land Uses/Open Space Jamul Parcel Surrounding Land Uses/Open Space The Lakes Surrounding Land Uses/Open Space Resource Sensitivity Analysis Map Otay Valley Parcel: Resource Sensitivity Analysis San Ysidro Parcel: Resource Sensitivity Analysis Jamul Parcel: Resource Sensitivity Analysis Resource Sensitivity Analysis Study Area Summary Central Proctor Valley Issue Paper Outline Development Around the Lakes Issue Paper Outline Otay Ranch City/County Recommended Plan Map Otay Valley Parcel: City/County Recommended Plan Map San Ysidro Parcel: City/County Recommended Plan Map Jamul Parcel: City/County Recommended Plan Map The Lakes: City/County Recommended Plan Map Central Proctor Valley: City/County Recommended Plan Map Village #1 Map Village #2 Map Village #3 Map Village #4 Map Village #5 Map Village #6 Map Village #7 Map Village #8 Map Village #9 Map Village #10 Map Village #11 Map Village #12 (Eastern Urban Center) Map Eastern Urban Center: Open Space/Transit Corridors Chula Vista General Plan Greenbelt/Open Space Network Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plans Listing Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan Summary (3 pages) Otay Valley Parcel Phasing Plan Map Otay Valley Parcel Phasing Plan Table Eastern Parcels Phasing Plan Map Eastern Parcels Phasing Plan Table RMP Phase I Items RMP Phase II Status Summary of Major Issues CEQA Summary of Major Issues Otay Valley Parcel Summary of Major Issues The Lakes Summary of Major Issues Central Proctor Valley Summary of Major Issues Jamul Summary of Major Issues San Ysidro Summary of Major Issues GDP/RMP Text County Board EIR Procedure Chula Vista EIR Procedure OH-59: Project Actions OH-60: Findings Concerning Mitigation Measures OH-6l: Statement of Overriding Considerations OH-62: Prior to Final Action OH-63: City/County Planning Commission Agreement areas OH-64: City/County Planning Commission Disagreement areas OH-65: Planning Commission/Staff Disagreement areas OH-66: Program and Project EIR Table OH-67: Project Summary Table Otay Valley Parcel OH-68: Project Summary Table The Lakes OH-69: Project Summary Table - Proctor Valley OH-70: Project Summary Table - Jamul/Dulzura OH-7l: Project Summary Table - Totals OH-72: Issue Area/Document Sheet Matrix OH-73: Otay Ranch Open Space OH-74: Issue Area #1: Environmental Impact Report OH-75: Ogden Environmental Project Summary OH-76: Ogden Environmental - Purpose and Scope of Otay Ranch EIR OH-77: Ogden Environmental - Otay Ranch Project Alternatives Summary OH-78: Ogden Environmental - Offsite Alternatives OH-79: Ogden Environmental - Projects considered in Cumulative Impact Assessment OH-80: (Overhead number reserved but not used) OH-8l: Transportation Presentation Overview (JHK) OH-82: Otay Ranch Transportation Subcommittee Membership (JHK) OH-83: South Bay Study Area and Area of Implementation (JHK) OH-84a: Regional Issues/Concerns - Transportation Overview (JHK) OH-84b:"" " " (cont'd) (JHK) OH-85: Impacted Roadway Miles After Mitigation (JHK) OH-86: Surrounding Uses and Regulations - North and West of Otay Valley Parcel OH-87: Surrounding Uses and Regulations South of Otay Valley Parcel OH-88: Surrounding Uses and Regulations Southeast of Otay Valley Parcel OH-89: Surrounding Uses and Regulations South of San Ysidro Parcel OH-90: Surrounding Uses and Regulations North of Proctor Valley Parcel OH-9l: Surrounding Uses and Regulations North of Proctor Valley Parcel OH-92: Surrounding Uses and Regulations East of Proctor Valley Parcel OH-93: Surrounding Uses and Regulations Northeast of San Ysidro Parcel OH-94: Surrounding Uses and Regulations Southeast of San Ysidro Parcel OH-95: Discussion of Transportation Modeling Process (JHK) OH-96: Transportation Modelling Framework (JHK) OH-97: Southbay Study Area and Area of Implementation (JHK) OH-98: Surrounding Community Planning Areas (JHK) OH-99: Proposed Circulation Element - Portion of Sheet 6 (JHK) OH-lOO: SANDAG Role on Transportation Subcommittee (JHK) OH-lOl: Subregional/Focused Models (JHK) OH-102: Design of Subregional Model (JHK) OH-103: Comparison of SR-54 Corridor Model (JHK) OH-104: Summary of VDO Issues & JHK Responses (JHK) OH-105:" " " (cont'd) (JHK) OH-106: Table 1: OR FPEIR Traffic Analysis, August 19, 1993 (JHK) OH-107: Summary of VDO Issues & JHK Responses (cont'd) (JHK) OH-108:" " " (cont'd) (JHK) OH-109:" " " (cont' d) (JHK) OH-llO: MSCP Habitat Evaluation Map (South County Area) [J:\PROJECT\2l5\EXHIBITS.OH) ~ ~ rt.l llC o Co) Q ... ~ bO c:l .... - - o "l:S Q ~ c:l Q .... - Cd t Q c:l.. llC ~ ~ c..,. Q c:l Q .... llC llC =' Co) llC .... ~ ~ .... o ~ Q) S c<:l .... ~~ OJ:) OIl c 2 .- c<:l - .- - u Q) 0 "0 OIl o OIl :E~ ~o(:! ....~ ~:I: 0;:;, - . - c Q) S c e .- > c ~ OJ:) c - - Q) "0 o :E ~6 g~ .- 0 ~Z .E~ =SCZl CZl '-' - - OIl Q) OIl C o 0.. OIl Q) r:r. :::.c :I: -. o(:! OIl Q) =s OIl OIl - O~ o OIl >* 4- ,- o u o c OIl o OIl ',,= ~ .:so(:! c ~~ Q):I: ....-. 0.. '-' - - - '" '<;j ;>, c;; c ~ c ..c: .2 u - C '" '" 1:: r:r. 8- '" ;>, c '" '" - ... Ot-- I:I:l ~ ~ - U o I:I:l I:I:l -< ~ ~ ::t ., 8 ~ - I - -l1 o ~ o 6 = ... ~ bO c:l .... - - o '0 o ~ c:l o .... - = 1:: o c:l.. IIQ t; ~ c o .- .... <<l =s ~ Q) ,-.. >- "0 -u.l 0::: ;::: ~ .0 ..... 2:l .- 0 .-: -5 ~ E UJ'Q)5 E '-' Z .= o Co _0.; <<l U ._ "0 .~ ..0 .~ en- =s c",o.. iZl .- Q) 0.. Q),+-< U.A' C-Q)O....... o 00 ..... 0::: Q) .= 0::: <<l 0.. ..... "0 .:s 0 Q) OIl u.l o:::is<(-<:5E "'~O>'Q)<<l ~ cZ"O"O 5b .....<<l.A'=s00 ~ l-. ~...... ~ l-. --E-iZliZl..,:;o.. . . . . . . . .0 ..c ><: u.l '-' c:l o .... - = =' - = > II:! ~ ... o ~ - o Z = o .( o bO .~ ~ '" ..... U <<l 0.. .... - ..... ,-.. N - U Q) .S ..... >. 0..-0 0::: '" =s ~ ~ US u.l ~ ..... E ~ .g ~ a..> "t: 5b.::: is o....U ..... <<l 0..- =S'<j" <;::Elrl e E 0::: O=siZl '" U ..... .... '+-< ,0 C 0 ~ Q) - E .~ .g E >- 0 o-~ u ~ <<l o <( Q) .... ..... - <<l Q) <<l .0 ~ 5 =s o .- iZl 0...-: :> '" "0 ;> Q) "0 Q) 0:::<(2 .':: . . . '" "<;; >. -;; c <( c .:: .9 u - c '" '" t:: 0::: 8- '" >. C '" '" - ... OE- . ~ r.f:l r.::I ~ - U o r.f:l r.f:l < Cl(! ~ == ~ N I - ~z .... .... ... ... ... ... i ~ . llIC: :z: ..., ~ z 0 - !( i JX~ I i ,. Ii OUl 1 ,." ! IL- I ,." .> ,. '11\- Za: .. ,. os. j ... C> t!O I ! < % S g" ~ - % :l ~ ~ o t.l o a:: o III Q ~ ~ < % S g" >- :... - ~- - ~ ~ o u t :l ~ o % - a:: g" u.J ~ i5 a:: < % :s Il. >- E- - Z ::l ::E ::E o u ~ :l !:j :l Q :::J :l ::E < .., <( w a:: <( z :s Il. ~ Z :l ~ ::E o u a:: w ~ ~ w ~ t'l 8l ~ .. .. '" !':! '" Q .. >- ." (; >- .. 'iii ." 0 Z .. I .. .. '0 '0 "t: 0 0 w 3: CD c:: c:: .!! .!! Cl CD 'l: 0 0 8E w CD CD < ~. ~ ~ a .2. 0 U U ... ll. ~ '0 " .. 'iii :E w ::;: .!! "t: 0 :; .S1 ..; Q. U c:: ...J Cl I I . I I i . I I . I I . I . I . - "'" ~ 0> ..,.. "'- 00 w~~ cn<z o...Jw o..::::>~ oOw a:~...J 0.. ow I..L. o Zco o~ ~w a:w OJ: o..cn .: Cl \ -g \ 0 I ~ 'CD I::.:: -.... , ee z 0:5 a:ll. o~ w- CZ ::> w::!; ...J::!; ...Jo ~o fZl r.:l ~ - U 0 fZl fZl < a(S en ~ c:e II) = > II) .- I- .... --< c:e >. ~ >-, ;- - ~ -- ~ - '-' <l:; CZl U ..... ..... ~ = - I- U 0 0 .0 = I- ~ .- c:e .... II) .... c:e ~ "0 II) ::l = ~ - >-. .- c:e c:e c:e > .... E II) ~ 0 en II) :::> - I- ~ c:e <E "0 U - = = .- I c:e = - .c - - en ~ II) U "0 = .c ~ 0 0 .- u ~ .... = I- U c:e c2 II) ~ >. '.-., c:e 2 >. c:e .D .... = 0- c:e c:e .c 0 ..... Cl .... .- .c 0 ::l bIJ .... .... 0 II) ~ ..... ::l CZl ~ 0 0 Q.. "'0 I- bIJ .... 0 ::l II) >-. = 0 = c:e .- 0 - .- .D - - .D .c - II) II) E .... 0 "0 "'0 ::l ("1 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ U I- CZl c:e = = ~ "'0 "'0 '" "'0 .- II) II) ';j; II) .... I .... .... >. Q.. ::l r-- u c:e -;:; 0 0 ::l l- e en "0 II) - "'0 II) = --< II) - .- = II) > .- I- 0 e II) ::l II) U 0 .S: Cl ~ CZl ..c - u '" . . e t:: . '" . . ~ 0 c.. '" >. e '" e - OE- CI:l ~ ~ - u o CI:l CI:l < Q(S ~ ::: ..., ~ ~ ~ Q) l-o <e: Vl ::l Q) U Vl Q) ::l C"l 0 ..... - Vl I ~ Q) .D ...... ~ .- Vl ...... Vl ...... c: ..... Vl Vl .- CZl 0 .- OJ) Vl 0.. .J: c: ..... Q) E- '':::: c: c: ..... Vl Q) 0 0 Vl Vl E Z Vl ~ N c: Q) u Q) OJ) 0 Q) l-o Q) - u .- Vl "'0 l-o W !.;:: c: ..... c: "'0 0 .- ~ Q) '+-< - ..... <e: ~ c: ~ - .- 0... 0 ~ Q) E >< - "'0 .- "'0 W - ..... .- ~ Q) ~ - 0 .....l - - ~ ~ l-o .- ::l Q) Q) ~ c: ..... U l-o ..... 00 Q) l-o 0 - ~ ::l Ci .- .- ~ ~ 0... Vl U ..... c: .22 .- E ~ "'0 0 .;: l-o - "'0 .- 0 0 Q) - OJ) 0 <e: <e: Q) CZl U CZl ~ '" t:G '<;; >. . . '" c: <e: c: .<:: .S: u - '" c: t:: '" t:G 0 c.. '" >. c: '" '" - .. 0 E- ~ Cl:l ~ ~ ~ - u 0 Cl:l Cl:l -< ~ ~ <:: .2 == (!) 2 ... ...;. ...., <C ;::l rJ} ..... ..... (!) ..2 ;::l ... 0 0 rJ} /;lJJ ~ ..... "0 :::: :::: ;::l .- (!) ..... ..... rJ} u 0 <:: ;::l (!) u ... .-' u (!) (!) 0 :::: .D ct s;:: (!) .... "0 <:: 4- /;lJJ Q (!) <:: ..... "0 (!) ... 0 ::: u :::: ... ..... ..... ;::l <C "0 ;::l /;lJJ ... - "0 0 >> :::: 0 ;::l :::: ... .- .- 0 0 <C "0 ..... ... ;::l rJ} 0.. ..:::: u .- ... ..... >< rJ} ..... ~ ~ (!) 0 ~ (!) u rJ} I 4- ~ :::: (!) c: ...... ;::l ..:::: (!) <:: E c: ...... u (!) o:l "- ..... "0 ;::l 0 '" ... - <:: <;: <:: - .- <:: .:::; E 0 ..... c: >> > <:: rJ} 0 ... ~ "0 rJ} u "0 (!) .D ~ C) ;::l .- <:: 4- > - E ..... <:: (!) <:: 0 rJ} .- ..... u ... ... ;::l - ~ <:: U .D - ~~ - (!) .- 0 ;::l - u <:: <:: > (!) '" E :::: (!) U - .== .- ... "0 E rJ} <C ~ ..:::: - Vl Vl ;::l <:: .- - Vl ..... ~ .- u >> - (!) - rJ} "0 C) "0 .D <:: (!) <:: ;::l "0 0 <:: u ... ..... 0 ~ ..... (!) ;::l >> ~ ~ Vl ... ....."0 P-l c.2 ;::l ;::l . ~..... . Vl '" I ";;:: >. ";j c: <C c: .c .2 u .... c: '" '" 1:: IX 0 ~ i;' c: .... '" Or: '0 (]) ~ o - - o ~ Q) '0 o ~ '<T Vl I 0::: tI:J >. '0 OIl =.2 ~ 0 - '0 (]) 0 'O..c o - ~~ >''0 ~ ..... .0 ~ ..c'O - = ;::l ~ o _ tI:JtI:J . - (]) '0 o ~ - ~ = o .5'0 (]) 0::: E o <t: '0 (]) - ~ t: .- OIl .C o ..c - o a:l . ~ (]) ..... <t: >. "9 -' - tI:J "- o ..c - ..... o Z r-- CIl .92 ..... (]) tI:J (]) CIl ;::l - - - o a:l CIl ~ (]) ..... <t: >. '0 ;::l - tI:J ..... (]) - ~ = .- ..c - ~ - ;::l o '0 - .- ;::l a:l (]) CIl ;::l ..c - o a:l . :l > .- - ~ - ;::l E E ;::l u - = ~ ~ ~ "- (]) .- ..... O<t: (]) CIl U ;::l ;::l U '0 0 O~ ..... 0.. - t: ::; ~ .o~ ...:~ ~O - 0 .= .... tI:J (]) (]) ;::l .....0 ~ CIl CIl (]) (]) E '0 ;::l 0- ~~ . . ~ CIl (]) ~ >. ~ - o -- ..c U t: ~ 0::: >. ~ - o -- ~ - CIl :> ~ - ;::l ..c U II - (]) '0 o ~ >. ~ .0 ..c - ;::l o tI:J ..... o '0 ... ..... o U >. ~ ~ (]) (]) ..... ~ "0 (]) CIl o c.. o ..... 0.. II - (]) '0 o ~ ..... o '0 .C ..... o U '<T Vl I 0::: tI:J . . '" .0; >, -;; c: <t: c: .c .s u - c: .. .. 1:: 0::: &. '" >, c: .. .. - .. Or-- C/) ~ ~ .... U o C/) C/) <: ~ ~ ::c ..., ~ '<T I - - l;I:l II) all = o c::l.. all II) Cl:: all II) ..... = ..... Q o all all < ctd l:lIll = ~ all II) =' all all 1-1 o ... o .g II) - - ~ ..c:: - .~ '- '" 0 u '" c: _ "" u E .!:!., ~ E: c: "'- o .... u 02 ~ G ... u ,-.. c..~ o Z "<)<C > "-l '" "0 >. "'~ """0 ::: '" "0 c: "<) '" "0 = o = :::; 0 u ~ CI) u.l >- >. "" ~ ..c:: >. - OJ) ::> 0 0-0 "-l"O "0 0 '" ..c:: c: - .- '" ~:::; ="0 8 ~ 1;l : "'O"Ci; d) ~ en "=-:.= E-"-l_ . - u _ '" '" Q) "'0 ~ .~ -g ;~~ :::;o"'~ >. Cl 01).- s;! > c: - ~ ,c.S! ..c:: c:~"O 0'- !1> "0 .... - "-l:=~c... ~~o~ ...... "0 '" - '" .;; '" "" c: .g ::> ~ - c.. ~ >. c: o - u '" '0' .... c... c: o .. - c: ~ .:2 - ~ '2 -t;: E OJ ","0 c: "" '" '" OJ) .... .... <C ~ >. ::>"0 "'-::> = - o "-l U .:: . C'. '" u "" "'- = - .... ::> u u o >. .~ ~ c: "T .= C'\ .... ' :::..:::::: - " - ~ on '" , ""0:: ~ "-l .. '" on ~~ ;f~ ","-l .c:'-" - '" c: .~ :.2 - .-::: 'u ::: "" '" ~ "'->. 'C: ~ - ::: "O..c:: f1) .~ ~:c: '" c: .. '" c: OJ) 0 - .- u OJ) '" '" '0'0:: .... c: c... 0 . .... '" "'-'- o 0 .... c: "'-0 - .- .. - ..c:: u _ '" ~ ~ Bl '" c:..c:: '" - "0 '" "'- o "<) > '" "0 '" ~ ... .... c: 0 o ::: "0- '" <l.) '" c: "" - ., c: '" 8 :: ~ .~ '@ ::: -:5SfJE5 ::!. "- '-' """<)"0 = eo > 0 u ~ '" E ::: ~-_.5~ en ~ c:: I-W ~ :!:_ c... '" >.'C "-l::>.;:gQ. r=..cg"o8 C:UV':!.nc.. o ~ = :::: 0.. u d) tf.) -::: ~ ..c~_~"O U"O~O~ ~l1)-.::td)"'O o:::rnVi~d) = I ..c CI'.l >,~O::Q.::> ~~VJ..cQ) o en .... U ~ Q)c~ca_ _ 0 d) ._ - .- >. - ::: E- Q..'<::: <C '" ~c::= c:~ = :; ~ >...:2 ..c c:a~c...;.=~o. g c:a -; 'u ; .c ': u c: ca 0.0 u "'OSc~c~ "O""'_~c_ .... ......c:: ~ 0 0 """,,___U~ . '" .;; >. c;; c: <: ::: ..c:: .S u - :: ~ ~ 8- '" >. c: .9 E: OE- ~ ~ ~ - U o ~ ~ -< Q(S ~ :r: -= ~ ~ ...... I - - - r:r. U llQ = o c::l.. llQ ~ llQ U - as .... u o llQ llQ < ctd l:ld == loot llQ U ::I llQ llQ ~ o ... o u ~ u - ~ - CI) P:.l >- ., ::0 ~ ., ., OIl . on - 'I:l u ., '" "'- c.. ., ... E ... 0 _ <x: fr~ tiOc.::G3 .!:!. 0 >>0... o. > ':l "'" ... u 0... ., "t: ., .<: .<: ~ ..... 0 ..... <t:.8uc: C'l >>... ~ ~ .J:J '" .<: :;0 00 OIl> 'I:l ~ ., .5 ..... .J:J '" ~ .;; u -- ~ ., :: u ., c .~ ~ a-d ~ Il) ~ ~ E 1.: .J:J = ., ",-'I:l ~ ~ >. c: - ., u ... ., ., ~ 'I:l t: '- 0 0 '6 ~ u '<t 1: II") '" , on c.:: c: o - = .J:J .;: - c: o u - c: '" u l;:: '2 ~ .~ ., on.<: .<: - 1>l)'I:l = c: o '" -= c: ., .,'I:l > 0 U.l~ . ., ~ ....Eo ~ :5 Il) ""'.<: ~ t)"' = ., 0 Ol).::~ .5 lZJ ~ 'I:l >>'" g ~ ~ ~ ~:E Of o I>l).C c: '" _ c: ~ e ~ ., '" c: c.. ., .- o E.J:J ... = E 0_ 0 o 0 U c..> tU lU ~ g > -= .~ :: -~ = - C ::0.:.. ~) - .~ uo..cQG ~Eo- ., '-~~"'O~"'O0 o U ~- "':;;:-~~L..2 15O\~u~>, E ...:, U 1: c: 'I:l =........90=3 elZJ <"'-.-r,n ~"ti:';-ti~.... _ ... II") ., ... 0 l.":: I:':: , ""'" 0 "'0 .<: > c.:: <t: ".-t: - ~ OIl >>U.l 1l):5 ...... '" 0 N 0 'I:l ~ '"' U c: = ...... co::l~cncn~ gp.g'l:lc:O";' U '" '" 0 -J c.:: (1.) u 0 .;: -- lZJ .... 0 c.:: '" .,: o > t:: U - <t: '" 0.- c ..cc..C: ~ "'0 ~ CI'.l (l) t::"'EC:OIl 00 i:~ c..c.::~~o E.<:".<:'" .- u ~ u "0 CI'.l ~.~ ~ ;> .:::c.::Oc.::~ - U ., .0' .... c.. . Q) lj'l:l _ 0 >>~ .J:J 'I:l ->> ., '" -.J:J .~ .- "0 :; 1: 0 c.. OIl ., -5 "ii ;:; 0"8c: ::~~ c: E .s ~ 0...3= ..801l~ ., .... > 0 c.,; ., "0 ., 'I:l .E.: .<: 0 g U g "0 '" o c.:: --=I ~ tr; ~ ~l >. ~ N .", 5(.1)>.0::: 0: ~ ~ Il).,g~- .s::~~ E~-'- o '- 0 <.l:: "'0 0 ., 0 8 8. ~ '" ., c: .b .... 0 - on U ., .~ E o = .... - c.. 0 '- > o ., c: > o - .- '" - - = = ::: E E E o = >> U u-"C l1) ..c: g ~ ~ .~ '" ~ . 00 ~ ~ .... U o r:'-l r:'-l < ~ ~ ::r: ..., ~ t N I - - - on .0; >> ;;; c: < c: .s - '" t:: o c.. on >> c: '" '" - .... OE-< .<: U ~ ~ ~ ...l < Z < ...l "" '" '" '" '" c 0 g: = ~ cr. < ::: '" "" [- ~ U < , - "" '" :;: Q - 0 '" <<I :;: - '" ;.. .., '" '" ;..'" Q '" ...l:;: ;;l - <;;l [- e'S Z...l '" <0 '" [- U'" 0 '" <:[-Q;;l '-;z:-~ <",,,, ;;l ~ ",:;:'" < Gl [-CO '" :;; =:~U '" co -"';:;1;[- I- '" "" ' < ""0"'_ '- r.I:lW :::;!l:::0 Ur.l:l~r.I.l Z>-tn <...l~< "';;:! "'<<I ;..<:;~ <Z<::: [-0 .., O",Z -< ",...l <"- ""z :;:~ 00 U[- ~ '" ~ ~ ...l '" Q 0 :;: - U Z < '" ;.. < [- 0 -;", ~ tii ,'4 &: , .'t~ ".,', .{~ <; ~ <,!.; ;;f,'': ~ ~ 'iit ~.~ \.!', "." iii iii iii iii iii >/I >/I >/I >/I iii >/I .~ >/I iii iii " ~ ~ ... ~ ,,, ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ... ... '" ~ ~ !!:: ::: ot - ... ~ - .:; )\ .. ,'r . ?y .\"'; r"!:: " J:.1' . ~: ',:,;: , :..;~ ",.; . C ~.,/;; tt ~ ;,,, ~ , ,2 ~ ~it 'i-:: ~ ~fi. fiJJ. "!:;;;; ~. ;11( ~ B ~ 101'''' p" :~ ~" ; , iii iii iii ';, iii iii ~ ~ >/I >/I >/I " iii ,,~ iii iii ~ ~ ~ ::: r,-,,~ ~ ~ ~ !!:: ~ g ~ ~ ~.~,Z z ~ '" ~ i u 0. f" ~ W''ii \!'." .. ~~ ~'j~~ ; <<; ~ii . ~ 1l . f~ JjI,ihJi Vi :e 0 :,.~t;' e u (~ a ?~: I;; ~ 0. e ~ . :;: :C' *1\" ;;r.. . ~'~ '~ "0 o . '" ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~. > ... . ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii ... '" ff 1l ... ... N 0 2- ~ - - - N - N ~ ~ 0: N_ ,,":"l 0 ~0~~ "" :,>>t <t.- ~~~ >;; <t ~ ii::; r:' -:1, :.~, I :( 1 . - u .. .. Iii Iii .. c: c: '" u Iii c: '" U '" u :S " - I -If '" .. '" '" c 'g u 'j;""~ 4:,;: ~<. I" '," e 0 ; c .~ "'~ ''i- , , - - 1."-1 - - - - - u ... ~ .; .;*' !? 1~' ,- .. ~ " ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "' . '" "' 0:;; .; ~ N '" 0 '" 0 ;I ... ~ ... '" - 0 - ~ - cO '" ... ... ~ ~ .:1If') ~ N N - N ~ N ~ N ~ '" " "' ."''''' 1f~' ~: ~ u . .' " . . 0 -~:.~ a:l~tJ ~.< ~ '< '" :E " .... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" e - ':to ~~~ ~o,;. ~ ~: ~ .". 0 -g u Lf:~ f~~ .....0. u ::; e 1- .. -1- -I - Ii 1- - .,.: 'B Or. 0 - ~ ~,,;~. ,'fIW 11' ~ 4, :; ~ '8 '8 '" -s '" 8 ~ ~ '~.~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 8 8 ,., 0 .; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... 5 ~ '" ... ;~ '::JE ~i", ... = N " ~ - 0 .~ ,,; ~ N h' ... d ~t,; 1t1tt~ 11; 1<' ;;.:- u .Jj;" ;if~: W' e .. ~ r !',' 0 ~ "0 ~ ~ ~ ~i~~ ~ ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e .~ > ... ... .;; ... ~ ; '" ;;::. ,f' '" '" ... ... ... '" ... '" 0 .,; . u N -~ N N N N 'N N N N ... ... ::; '" :i! -2 h~ 'oil - ~; .;.,.; ~, "'~ 'Ii ;$ J. i<j . j#- l~ ~t :~ :~ "j '1/."" ~ ~ " ~ ;J ~j 1 '", t,~ '11 0 ~ u .. .~ j " ] ] .~ .~ ~ :E e r 3 0 ~ u u C N if ;3 . . '0 '0 d .-'0 . :; i v; :z .. ::; ::; u u ::; U ::; '" 0: "" u u 3 u~u u 3 u u u u 'u u ] 3 u u j .s .s~ .s Ii . Ii . .s :; ~ :; .... .... .... :: .... .... '" ;; ;; ;;; '" .. '" .. .~ ~ . "J! .. >-' i. .. .. i:il ..' I. , u ~ ~ .~ ~ .. .' .. iii I i ~ '. . ~ ;s:. OJ ~ " "' .. ... .. "' Q M " " c ;] ~ ... ~ J e -I ~ ... '" '" e ~ <, OJ .s ~ u 0 '" '" '\l ~ . .. I ~ " J: '" "1 '" ~ ... c ~ !l ~ ~ "' a M : ~ .. 1 .,; IS oS '2 .,; .~ '" '" b ~ "1 :2 .ti 8 .. Q ; ~ '8 ~ . .:: :(j g ... "1.. -~ ~ 0 ::l ... ~ 5 q ;; M ~ ~ ;;; ~ I ~ - '" ~ 8 ~ 1i c '" '" '" :2 '" :! u '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ '" '" '" "' '" "' '" "' . ,,;.-. : . J, ,c" ",~' : . I' . . , i'. j '" 1 . . .... '" " OJ ,., ~ ! '" " ;;l; ... . u ... ~ ~ 1l Q > Ii " u Q OJ c; 8 8 " '" ~ ~ ~ ~ . is 8 -. l ~ 6 0 z . '" c .:: ' . .:! . '" ... o - ~ ... '" M 'i <J ;J. . . j u .... . ~ .~ " M M u Ii ~ , "' ,- = d ! e ! J ! ! ;; ~ .< ei "' ::; :2 '" '" .. cO '" '" ? , 0 - ~ ~ :!: ~ ::: ... .~ " - N ~ " on '" ... " '" - - - - - "" IS ~ . ~ . . . ! ~ . ~ " . . . . . i e- . ~ ! ~ ~ . ;, 1 u 1 'i . ~ ] t i . ~ l ~ . ] ! I . ~ ! ;; ! ; i . ~ fv\ ... ~ , ! 'i ! z Ii ! \ . ~ i . . I . ~ . . ~ 1 ; , . ,. 1 . f ~ ; . ~ . b i . I ~ ~ " ~ f . / 1 . ~ t . ! t , 1 "- :.: i . ~ . I Ii . . i 1 ~ ~ . . :; l ~ 1 . . ~ . ~ ! . 1 1 , ~ ! . ! . i ~ . ;; . . z . . . ;- : ~ ~ . ~ ~ ? . ~ ... ! ~ ~ ! i 'l ! ~ . i . ; '! ; , 1 . ! ~ > ~ t . = t . . ! = , b .! ! ! ! t 1 I 'i . . ~ i . 'i ~ , ~ ~ ~ ! ,. . ~ E . ~ ~ ~ .. . ~ ~ . . 1 ! > . I f ~ , . . ; ~ i . ~ ~ . . 1 . . t ~ ~ i f . . . . . 8 . i ~ l . . f E , .i e i . ii ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ; , t - ~ . ~ u . u ~ ! . 11 . . :; ~ . ; .. ! . , . ~ 5 . ;- > .; ~ ! . . ; 0 5 ~ . I . ~ . ~ . ~ . -: . ~ . 'i u 1 : ~ . . ~ .. . . f . ~ , ~ . E ~ ! i . . . 1 ~ , l . ~ , b ! 1 l . j . . ~ ~ . . E . ~ . . : :; ~ ... f . ... . . ; z en ~ ~ "1" =..... - :l:! 0-- = ~ 0 u OJ ::> , OJ 0... - 0 0 ~ 0 - ~ "t:l '" = - ;::: ~ .- <Zl :9 OJ - OJ 8 en = ..;" .c u E Ol) :r:: - en 0 "t:l OJ = OJ oo 0.00 '" .c 0 -.; oo :::. -< "t:l 0 - 0 OJ - OJ o '" .c oo OJ> 0 OJ ~ '" <=a OJ - .... oo ~ - OJ> OJ> OJ> - ~ ~ '" "t:l .: = ... '" u "t:l OJ .D .c 0 - u c:: 0 OJ> = '" '" '" ~ >, c:: ....: '" :::: Q.. .- '" ..... 0 > .';:: '" 0 '" '" > ;; ~ .t: ::t:: ~ "t:l ::> - 2:: ... "t:l Q.. 'u 'E E <Zl ~~.: .c ... c:: u '" ..., .;: '" 0 '" c = e :r. c:: OJ> ....., <Zl or. U c:: ~ u 2 c:: ::! - C:C ~) .- "" .- . C - - ,~ '- - u -::: c:I .. c E i:: OJ C- '. .... Go) 1: 0 ... 0 0 ~ .2 0 c:: 0 .c "0 - '" - "t:l - llQ Q.. .S: <l:: c:: ::c '" c:l oo .c Q.. 0 "t:l '" "t:l oo - OJ c:: 'E c:: '" '" ;; "t:l OJ ~ Q U ... 0 '" .: C- Q.. c:: :9 "t:l '" c::l. ... .t: '" .~ - '" ~ "t:l - ,5 .... > - "t:l 0 c:: llQ '" ..... OJ c:: 0 = ~ <:l 0 '" Go) 0 Ol) .S: "t:l ... ... r;:: oo OJ c:: Q.. '" - ~ '" .... - "t:l - OJ en OJ OJ 0 en OJ OJ U .D U >, "t:l .c .D - OJ "t:l ~ U c:: l;: - llQ '" - '" Ol) 'S: = '" ..... c:: Go) 0 - E c:: 0 i5~ .- '" ::> ~ '" OJ 2 w... ~ .... ::> 0 - 0 ... .c c:: "'" u U ;; U ell .c - '" c. "'" ~ .c u - - <=a v.J ~__ .... c:: = 0 en U "t:l U c:: ~ '" c:: .... ~.';:: ~ & c:: OJ '" - 0 <Ii '" -.::r Q 0 u .S: OJ ~ <;:: U en Ol) -u . ~ U I llQ Vi .c <;:: - 't c:: '" OJ >< - llQ ... oo '2 ..... '6 c: ~ "'0 (1) >, OJ - oS c:: '" .t: 5:: -= :::I ..::: '" - < oo Ol) .... "t:l OJ '" .S: '" c. "- 1,0... - - - "t:l 'U; - '" OJ 0 ~ .c ::> u _ u ..... :; ;; OJ "t:l .c .- c:: 0 cId ... oo '" .c OJ <Zl en "t:l .'_ OJ 0 "t:l OJ 'U; OJ - - ..... OJ OJ> .c:: - >, .c ~ OJ "t:l >, - OJ '" 0 - .t: u 0 u - tld "t:l 'U; <=a '" ~ 'u '" ::> = c:: '" - ~ ::> c:: 0 'E - .~ ~ :. ::> E- = c:: .2 en '" 0 = 0 'E en '" t..Ll OJ ~ OJ ~ Cl u '" en 0 - 0 OJ .c -< I-t c:: u :l:! '" >, ~ ;a "t:l - U c:o .::; "t:l .~ Ol) OJ ..!:! " OJ> <;:: ::> .c - 0 '" = ..... 0 0 - OJ ~ OJ '" OJ 0 .c .~ ~ ~ .~ .c .c ::E ~ .: c:: o. c:: E- E- -= OJ :::: 0 > V"l CZl '" .2 t..Ll - N M u.J <Zl - . >- . llQ Go) "t:l c-. = '" - OJ> c:: u llQ - 0 0 OJ llQ :9 u ,_ ~ '0' oo 1-4 ~ '" oo 'U; C. ::> .c. ... >, 0 E u c. Q - u c:: <=a ... ~ - - c:: '" OJ c:: u - .c 0 - OJ ..... ~ - -< t..Ll c. 0 0 ..... fr: or. oo - .... 0 Go) OJ 'U; "t:l '" c:: ~ 1:: 0 "'C OJ >,~ ::E '" .c .~ .c .c <=a '" Q.. u Go) - - c:: -.; = 1:: .~ ..... oo '" - oo -< ~ 0 '" ~ 0 - - c. ~ oo r<) >, c:: '" t:: - 0 E- tt.l U IlQ = Q !:l.. IlQ U I:ll:l IlQ .s GS .... Co) Q IlQ IlQ < cld l:ld =: .... IlQ U 1:1 IlQ IlQ Io-l Q 104 o u "d u - ~ '" c: c: g~ -;;;..... u 0 . ;>, " .<::: ; U - :d CI) r.LI >- u c: .;.;: .~~ 8 ..::: c: :0 ._ ..c: "'U c: ~ .9 ~ - ... . u u '" .~ c U o ... ~ ... bI) "'- "'- ~ E 0. "0 .- o "'"0 ~ ~ 8 ... > 0:: "oc:_ :9 .;: ,:: "0 ~ lU E '0 ~ ~ ... E ~ -:S .;:: t) "'0 Qj .~ ; 0 ~~~ ~ ::ns . ..c: - ..... .~ 0 '" - :g .~ B ~ >-;;; - "0 CIl ~ ... cGc~.s -<;:; UJOO::bI) 0-. '== ~ti~ lI.) (I) ~ CJ ..c:"'-",-"O : ~ E 0 _0::_:;; -.:t ... ~ 1:: o "'- .., 0:: -;;; u '2 ..c: u ~ .~ v: >-. = , 5 o .: "0 ~ o "'-c: ~ ~ '" c:: - u '" ~ '" "'-~ E bI) .- 0 "0 ~... ... ..... - ~ .5 1;l - ~ '" ..c: UJO-. . II") N '" ::l ~ ... > >. c"-. ~"O :;>; ~ ... 0 ~o:: ....- ~~ '" ~ ~ "0 ~ o 0:: - ~ ... N .c ~ '" ~ " '" -;;; > o ... "'- "'-", ~ '" c ~ ~ 0 c: ... o "'- '':: fZl ~@ .~ IV "O=:: bl)UJ c: ... ~ lI.) .....c: ... - '" ..... o €t c: ~ ~ ~ ::l v: U ~ '" v: c: _ ~ u b ~ o .~ . ,:: ... ..c: - ..... o - c: ... ... - ... ~ ... ;>, II") ,.., S! - <5 ;>, ... ..0 v: "0 '" ... - >< ... ~ '" ~ ... ;>, o ";l ... o c: "<t ... :: E u ... ... ... 'S 6"n 5,< ... 1;l ..c: .- - ..c: ..... u o c: - ~ ::l ... o .... ;g~ ::l 0 c::IO:: . c: "0 .2 -0 -..c= B ~.~ '00 eC ..- uc~ IE ",.s ~"O- .... .....~ - ~ ... bI)"O - C C ~ .- ~ .... ..2:Vj- o ... 5 > U E .., c: ~ :3 ~ - = OJ N ~ '.. ;>,...:;; - ... ~O-...c: ~ . ~ "0 0 ~ ... .~ ~ 0 ~_"O &J~~ ~ QJ C - ..c: ... > - E ~E...bI) ~obl)C: 0-. <l:: ~ 'E Cl)c:~e ~ .S :;; U o en c: 0 ... ~ 0 E CI) > '=: 0 ~:.a~<l:: =-:=Ol)oo .. c: - ::l 0 U .s t) U ~ ... ~ . E ~ Of) ~ ._ c c .... ..... .- ~ c Q) "0 "'0 11) ..c .= c: > .... C,) ~ lU .s .s r;; E. . '" .- '" >. - ~ c: -< c: .c .9 U - c: ~ ~ 1:: ~ 8.. '" ;>, c: '" ~ - ... OE- t:I) ~ ~ - U o t:I) t:I) -< Cl(S ~ == ~ V"l I ...... ...... ...... llQ Go) llQ c:l o c:l.. llQ Go) ~ llQ .8 = .~ Q o llQ llI2 < ctd llIll e: llQ Go) ::I llQ llQ 1-4 o ... o Go) "t) o - - ~ o - '" '" u c '" Oll '" "0 '" > o ;;: c ~ CIl u.l >- ~ "0 '" "0 ;~ '" '" c"O o 0 u E ::: '" '" .D - <Zl:s1 "0 ::l ~ ~ Q.l/") ~ N Q. - ~ ~ ~<Zl c>:: ~ _ 0 U.l..c '" '" ..c c - .- c: E ~ ~ ~.g . ..c - .~ :!2 ~ c>:: ti:i 0- t.L. '" ..c - '" - ..::2 ::l ..c U '" ..c - c: "0 B '" .~ .~ Q.>> "'- "0 ~ gj <: u t:: <0- - c: '" ~ t= Oll..c :.= u <: ~ EC>:: '" >> t; ;g ~O '" "O..c c: - '" c: '" .- :c"O '" 1;:l 'S: = - '" o '" c: ~ ~ c: c: ..::2 E 0- c: - Ollt: _ '" <: :B EO '" '" - - '" '" ~> . "', ~ V1 \+-_ o N oC: '" - '" ,- 0' "0 E en_o::: ~c .Q "0 <Zl E B .,Oll_ ~ ~ ~ u~=~E~ '" ~ '" Oll c: ,;-1 Q. "0 c: Oll..... lZl Q.. 0 .- ._ '" E "'" '" - c: C>::_"",;::J<:", Irl '" '" '" ..c >.:: C;; 0 c: '" t = >. - 0"0 ::;:: Z ::l ......-- ..c '" '" oo..c !U ::l - - o "0 ::l ... ",- .cc:~ .; '6 c c l-o._ '" ~ v; tU >:) ::::l > "'O.~ - >-..8 :; >~ - .D 0 c:"O..c '" '" '" '" ::l '" ..o~c tI.) .- OJ ~ >>E -= c: g :B,~ 'V; u- 'u ~ <: > - '" c: < c: .c .52 u - ~ ~ et:: 8. '" >> c: '" '" - ... OE- .. ,,'I ~.~i ....,'J... 1<1'1 'I.... , I ;........... ! I -r---. . : ,~ I ,pWl" .. " I I." '. I JI, . }<. I , 1- --1('- . i .,..-'_ . '. ,.),..V-/"" ..~. ~_.lf '-. - 'C) . \~. ,...~ .~ ~ ", ,1 ~ . #_"',~:~ . ~ , ,if\ _ ' i. '..~ 1.-, ~~ ~ -.. '\ '~.' '. . ~~'...' (, ..,....' " ~ "',l '.... ~ " " -- " . .;.....1. . 1_. \.. \l( - \ .~"::i:.' -.,....-\ .. ' ,.~" ~ __=o;-~_. \. I ....'. f" ..- . " I , ',' ,..I, , '#.., / ~l1ii ." , r '\-:5' -=~)r ~~\ ~. I ----"-_.----+,- .< \" ,=,. , ._---') l; ,,'1;--- , _ 1-!.--~-_h-,.- r,? ---t-o , l..... .......- ... - ;-.. .f,. ie' '.~..\...~...,--.A .!~, ~ ~~ ~ ,,41, .! \:'. . ".~, ... 11 ........,~, ,. . ~.~~--- ). ~ ~ MAJOR SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES MADE IN RESPONSE TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS University structures eliminated from Salt Creek. Otay Mesa vernal pool preserve greatly expanded and industrial uses shifted to south. Hunte Parkway moved to west. Otay Valley Road moved to north. Development areareduced in western San Ysidro. Vernal pool study area at resort site. Central Proctor Valley development area reduced. Inverted L development area reduced. wildlife corridors provided in northern and central Proctor Valley. Subcorrunittee Meeting Dates 6/2/90 9/12/90 10110/90 11/2/90 11/8/90 12/10/90 12/21/90 1/21/91 1/30/91 3/4/91 4/5/91 SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FWS Corrunent/Suaaestion/Reauest Define and limit active recreation in the Preserve. Align Hunte Parkway to avoid resources. Provide RMP/RPO comparison. USUSFWS wants involvement in selection of Preserve Owner/Manager. USFWS wants funding corrunitment. State in RMP text that recreation shall be subordinate to resource protection. Add criteria for Preserve Owner/ Manager selection. Provide RMP/RPO comparison Provide more information on enhance- ment/restoration Provide more information on butter- flies Be more specific about educational/ interpretive uses in Preserve Provide more information on location of public facilities in Preserve. Require range management and beef up interim use policies. Add infrastructure graphics. Require fire management plan. Reduce number of river crossings. RMP ReSDonse See policies 6.1 and and 6.2 Hunte Parkway align- ment shifted to west Preface added to RMP See Policy 5.1 See Policy 5.11 See Policy 6.2 See Policy 5.1. See RMP Preface See RMP policies 3.1 through 3.8 and RMP Section 4.3 See Data Gaps Report See Policies 5.11 and 6.1 See Policy 6.6 and Figures 12-16 See Policy 8.4 See Policies 8.1 - 8.4 See Figures 12-16 See policies 6.7 and 6.8 See staff recorrunen- dation Subcommittee Meeting Dates 4/19/91 4/26/91 5/10191 5/24/91 7/7/91 1/10/92 3/27/92 413192 USFWS Comment/Suaaestion/Reauest USFWS provided a variety of comments on vernal pool report. Provide criteria for Preserve Ownerl Manager Selection - USFWS wants to review candidates. Provide more detail on RMP Phasing. Provide funding assurance. Beef up language on RMP amendments and Preserve boundary changes. Add more on monitoring. USFWS comments on additional reports on conference center location and addi- tional surveys for gnatcatchers in Jamul Mountains area. More USFWS comments on data gaps report and river crossings issue paper. More USFWS comments on vernal pool report (USFWS says will provide written comments on all tech. report - never did) . USFWS wants specific policy on acanthomintha. USFWS wants more specific bufferl setback criteria. USFWS wants more detailed habitat descriptions. USFWS says sensitive plant report revisions OK. USFWS comments on revised vernal pool - OK USFWS comments on RMP Preface. RMP ResDonse Report revised in response to comments See Policy 5.1 See RMP Section 1.4 See Policy 5.11 See policies 9.6-9.8 See Policy 5.4 Revised data gaps report prepared. Report revised in response to comments Report revised See Policy 2.6 See Policy 9.8 See RMP Chapter 5 None needed None needed Revisions made. < !!!. CD 0. <1l Q o () ~ 3 c:: ::I ~ "tJ Pi ::I ::I ~ CO) ~ o c:: 't:l . . . . Z ,-.n ~~ en:P Q..~ 0 0 ~-- 8~ ~~. ia~ ~ o g; = ~ I CD ~ " -- 00 (") 00 Vln 00 -- """,. f"+~ ~f"+ ~ > ~::n o ~ ~f"+ Z o n ~ ~ n~ ~ s:J ~ ~ ~ia <:~ o CD o~ Q.. o. ~ ~ 3.s c: """,. := ~ n ~ -< ::s =0 ~e -< ~ 0 (l) ~ ~~ ~ > ~ '<00 rJ1 - lotj~ (P ~Z en~ ~ ~ 0 Z 0- ~en Q..O a?i3 """,. t"'" (P (l)~ 00 0 ~~ f"+~ q~ 00 -< (1 a 0 ~ ~N s::~ ~ ~ = n ,<oVl ~ ~ ~ 0 '-"'~ """,.~ 0 ~ ~ ~ """'.00 6?~ ~ lotj ~ ::Soo ~ Z ~ tr:l~ ~oo ~ ~ ~ ~ =' ~oo 0 .... -. .- ~~ ::c g "-<: ~~ ~f"+ s:: > ::S:::r' Z > '"C - n CD ::: ~ ~ :::r' """,. 0 ~ ~ I > ::c ~a ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ =' 0 Q..'"C ~. ~ (Jej Z ~ {'j <: ~ 0 ~ n CD {'j ~ (1 a f"+ n 0 00 f"+ 0 ::: 0 > - z c:: ~ "0 ~ -- ~ en 00- n f"+ ~ 0 CD ~ s:: 00- 3 {'jo ::s ~ ffi e ::s ~ CD f"+ ~ """,. ~ (") -< """,. f"+ CD f"+ ~ """,. :::r' Z 00- ::s OQ ~ ca 0 """,. f"+ n en :::r' CD . . ::s f"+ < !!!. CD Q. CD Q o (') o 3 3 c:: :l "" . n m~> _O~ ng.~ ~. S :::0 o -.> t:St:SZ ~<en 1-1 ~ G ::::-:G ~ 0. < 00 G . 0. t:S ~g ~ ~ - -.- ::::S,< ~c:: ~oo G G en 0. ""d~ ::!.5 t:S OClen <~ ~Vl =~ ~n ~ 0 <s. ao. -0 G 1-1 0. en Gg 00. 8'< ~S= t:S 0 0.0. G - ~ O'"o.~ :< 1-1 G _. p! > G(J~~_ ~ ~ n. _. g. .~ c::(Jo ~~::;'<$: o ~ 0 0Cl ~oS"~ g.~Sg. '" t:S G I-' . '" ~ 00 Gq~8 ooN~O ooG(I)o. G~n", 1-1 _ ~ '" _....00- ~G~~ ::::s 00 <:; 0. Sf _. ~ ~t:S00 $: ~ -.$: 00 ~ r... G 5.00 G o.~~~ G ~n- SGc::~ _.,,~ 00 0 --GI-1 ""d 8: 0. ~ ~o~oo~ n~G <Gc:: _. t:S 0. ~ 0. ~L.oooO t:S Goo-~ o.c:: ~q _. 0'" 1-1 00 t:S 1-1 G _. G ~ 00 ~0Cl~ ~_._.o Go~~ ~~~~ ~ _. 00 - '< . > nff >1-1 ~~ ~~ Ze. en::::s ~0Cl 1-1~ o 0 (Dc:: .. 00 G S o 0. G - 00 Q = ~ =- a- = ~< -s> =~ =~ rIJ.~ Q~ -sr"""":] ~~ ~Q _.~ Q = ~ Q Q.. ~ ... ~ 1-1 en :::0 I ....... N Vl en o $: g. ""d 1-1 c.9. G n ~ . < !!!. CD 0. <1> Q o () o 3 3 5 "" ~ "tl i>> ::> 2. ~ o.~ .....:= <: =:3 ~ ~ ;!1.;l 000 :=n ~ 0 ~~ ::;'0 'JJ~ .en o c: f"+ s: ~ '< ~ o 0. G - G> a 6 ~ 'JJ t:: - f"+ G 0. ..... := ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ n > ~ f"+ o - - . m ~"'~ ~ ~~ n f"+ S" ~ .....;l ~-'JJ~ - G ..... 00 .....-3 n 3 : "'C ~ "'C ..... 0 ~ ~'JJ~~ no~~ F;t=:=CI.l _ f"+ o '< f"+ ::;... ~~Ooo f"+ '"10 ~."'C G ~ "'C(2n:= "" _ 0 """": .....(IQ - < 3 = ..... G .........N.S '"1 = .... . 'JJ "'~ G f"+ .....- G o~ g.o. = ~.......J ......'JJf"+~ ~' f"+ 0 o~g.= 3 .....G ~ f"+ := 1-3 0 ::r0.0~ GG=o. 1-3(t~> o a 0 = =;:J~~ .....0.- ~= '< o ..... en 'JJ ~ = ..... tn. 0. (IQ 3 .. ~g.c: ~G;- n f"+ Il-l- ~. :=: 0 ~ = . ... ... . m f"+ ~ ~~ ~~ ~f~ n ~ 'JJo S"z o.~ .....0 ~~ 00 ~ ~ n - ~ 'JJ 'JJ ..... ::t~ G 'JJ en ~ I - N Ul ~ 'JJ ~ ." ~ G ~ ~ ..... := ~ - - . n I?> S"~ ~~ ><z ~en "'Coo f"+~ ~'< 00 'JJ 1-3 en o~ -. -- ~N OUl ~ ::; o.~ ~ ~ Z o ~ == ~ == ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... = ~ ca 'JJ (I) (I) ~ cr" - (I) r;r;. ~ I ~ N Ul n ~ > r;r;. r;r;. ~ ~ ~ n > ~ ~ o z . ~ iD" 0.- CD ~ (') ~ 3 <:: ::I ~t:xj~ g. <~. - Q.. CD Q..'-'Sl """.~ CD <~Q.. ~=CM ~.= ~ o 0-- ::s.....Q Q :aC"Q t:t'T> ~a> ~ _.~ >~ e. 1-3 (JOrIl ~ """. ... ..... ::s -3t'T>('") :a Q.. 0 o. 3. ~ 0. t:I.l 0 trj ""1 . --- CD ~ ~ - C/) (j - ~ """. ~ 3 o ::s "* "ll g ::I ~ Gl -. g ~ CD C/) ~ . . ~~ ~~ ('")Q.. =-0 ~t'T> ::Srll Q..= ~o 0..... ('")~ "*Q.. ~Q.. <"'1 ~t'T> _rIl _rIl ~CD ~ ~~ o ('") ~"* Q..C/) C/) 0 ""'t') o ~ ('") o ::s ::s CD ('") "* """ . ::s (JQ ~ """ . - - ~ ~ ~ nz=~ Oo~>= S~~~~ "'<: III ~ = 1-3 0 ~~=>Z ~~O~o g.~:::Cn~ tr.lO=OrJ'J ~zOZ~ ~=Oz~ . ~ t;~:::c trjnno ~O~~ -3=<~ =~~= trjrJ'J~ trj~<~ Z <-- z ~ ~:::C~- t:I.lz~~ o~:::cn ~rJ'J>~ trjJlJt""4~ ~ ~ ~ """.::s ,..,." ~ ::s Q.. \ .oJ Z ::Z::~=1-3 s.: :::c >-- Q..>:::C g~> <~n an;3 ~ ~ :::c t'T> .. ~ ~ t""4 t""4 > :::c :::c > ~ ~ = ~ _ 'r"" ~ :::c o n ~ o :::c < > t""4 t""4 ~ < n o :::c :::c ~ ~ o :::c o ~ ~ 00 00 ~. 00 ~ t!) = Q...Q ~ \j ~ ;. ('1(JQ ~ .. ~=""1~n~~8~ ~ ~ t!) = f"'to f"'to 1-'. f"'to ~ .., = ::r ~ ~ 1-'.,0 ~ fii. ~ a ~ tn. :to =' > ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-'. ~ (I) ='" - ~ ... ... "'"t =' (I) 1-'. I". = t"') 0 1-'. ~ 8 ... ~ > tfj t!) = ~ =' n 1-'. ~ = t!) ~ Q..~~~g~::~~ Z ~ ~~~::rE.. =t"')~ < o ~ ~ - n ...... ='" > ~ 1-'. ~ = .., = ~ ~ a... = z > < ~~o ~ Ere:: ~(JQ ~ ('1 !!!. iD ="'l"I.le::~~8l"1.lt"')~ = ~ a., t!)=s:='~(/}. =='" CD ~ t"') f"'to S at!) ~ =="'..,O~ ~ > (') .., t!) too+) ~ ""1 = = tfj ~ t!) ~.Q 1-'. I-h ~ ~ _- rJJ. 3 = ... = 8 ~ (/) ~ = ;- ~ c: > ~ · ~ a ".'"0 n '" '"0 ~.., "ll ~a~~~o<= ~ ". tfj ::l f"'to n::4.t!)= I ~. ~ ~ (I) g ::r a ... ~ ~ 00 Gl .., ~ (JQ 0 o. a ~ > a ~. i5 ~;'0..::r~=,"O Z ~t!)='~;!8=~ ~ > = .., ~ '"0 1-'. 0 ~ 0 I-d ~ al"l.l~a~o..l"I.le. ~ (I) ~. 0.. ~ Q.. ~ tfj Q..= (I) ~ ~= c= ~Q..~~a~t"').., ~ 00 =~ (I)~ t"')~ l"I.l ..... 0.. ::r 0 l"I.l ~ 00 ... = 8 ft ~ ~ .., = ('1 ~ = 1-'. ~ (I) Q..;: ~ tfj t!) Q..:t. 0 ~ (I) 5;- ~ l"I.l (JQ ""1 ::r ... 0 a~ o(JQ= ~ = o.~ ~ ~ > .., t!) =' ~ ::s 0 ~ (I) 9I ~ "~ ';~ "~'" .... ....-- ........ .,~o.. .... . \ I.. ,~ I:: \:: \ , , \ I '. 'S>:al:a-l OcCD5.;; O CD C.=, - .. - ... -.. CIlCD (I) 0- _CQ CD C 0 CDc.-"TI Cr-10 CD CD ; -= 0 0< Co CD -Ie: CIl CIl - ;; CD - - c; I ,! I ~ . · 0 I . l'" :IH') ~ ." ." Ci=Cl,.:!.j; :r'""=-3_ "!!.\l~.~ ~~S:!l)>.:! __'""0:'. III III :!lCl !.!!l ...... -. 00. - ... ... ~ tit .. . l. . rn -I )> ." ." m X :z: lZl ::j c.l C. n<c.l o ." ~ )> ~l'"CD em.... Zoo ::jmc.l < ;!! ::j )> m Z ~ c:: .... ." o ~ ..-\ J .. -- . . . . . . . . . z ~ m !!.. .. ~ ~ ~ m m(')>< r-:sC> ,m(')or- ==c:"r- mr--4m z-m -4-0C ,:::! m mo 0 :XZ :D ~ 0 -4. 0) oJ ~ 1i) ~ ~ ~~ co.., n"" ::!! g 0= ~o 0- 00 ~ ~~ ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ c: 3 ~ n> - - - ~ m ~ _.n> '" m 0 ~ Xg 0 ",>w ~- ~..., 0.. tv ~ OWO ~ ~~ m = 0'" ~W~ ~ ~o 0 ~o ~ _0 =~= ~~ 0 .~ = C 0 n> '" %;=;;" 0 ";:x ~ ""- "'- ~-g ~ _n> = %0 ~ C = ~= = ~ = ~ 0.."" 0 ~ -< .... ~ ~ , ~ " " ~ " " " .. " " " ,'. " - " " " " e ~ . ~ " eo " . , 'Iii u - " '. " I~ :: " ., " "" , - r, " -" . 0 " . . , " . . . = . , " 11J1i:;l1 .. . .. -; 0 " m - e uu 'i m . = u=t. . = , . . , " , o . " e = , .. ~ .' ...... B n " m ~ m '" fii . o. " . ~ ~ < ~~ ~... C"'l'" ~ ,/j) "'- o~ 0 0 - = 0 = ~~ - - -::, "" 3 - ... c "'t>""'( ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~Q .... -.... - ~ "'_'" ~- - o"'~ ~~ .. .... 0.. ... <"'= ~ - ... 0 "'" E ~Q ~o 0- 0 - -- - 0 .... ~~= . - .~ = ':E;:';;' ~:;: ~ 0 ..:;;' ... c = E_ O "'- ~ ~-o -... ,<0 ~z ::t c '" 0..'" 0 -< ... - ~ . - = Illln . ~ ~ = " = , = ... :J :I' :i ~ ~ = .. " . .. ~, = <- " -. " . ~, ,,,, H . " ~ ~ - - " " " " n - . " " ~ ~ n - " " . . " -" " = , = = . = " . " uH .. '; , "~ = = = , = = . = = " 9 5 ~ '" m \rl . ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 > ~ 0 (l -< t""l ~ > ~ 0:: tj ~ ..... t""l > C 0 ~ = ~ ~ ~ C/.) ~ ~ z ~ e; ('11 ~ ~ O'Q ~ \0 ~ ::s ~ 8 -< 00 ::s -.J ('11 ~ ('11 Z """"" ~ 0.. ::s = C/.) 0 () l"'+ (l ~ ~ ::r' . """"" """"" 0:: ~ Z Z > ~ . (l 0.. (l 0 0 ~ 00 00 ~ ~ . . ~ ~ < 0 ~ ~ !!!. . 0.. CD . . ~ C1 c. > ~ > (l (l l"'+ I '" ('11 tit Q C/.) . C/.) ::r' ::r' . . ~ 0 m (l m ~ ~ () ~ 0 ::r' ::s ::s 3 ~ 0 3 ~ O'Q O'Q ~ - c: 0 -< ('11 ~ ::s ('11 =' 8 ('11 00 00 t< O'Q I-t . . 00 Z " ('11 . . iii -< ~ ~ C/.) . . ~ ~ ~. 0 tj N N ~ I Gl ~ 0\ ~ V\ ~ ~ 0 00 00 N < 0 S- a '" '" '" N ~ 0 0 0 c; ~ 0 0 0 0 tit ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ = ~ . . + . . + + , , , , ~ , , ~ I ~ I , Iu-. 0&;. i~ ~ 0\ = 10&;. 0\ 1= 0\ "" I,," "" I,," "" = 1= = 1= = ~ = 1= = != = = 1= = != = 00 I I , I ~ , ~ I I , , ~ ~ 00 00 VAllE DE ORO COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP PRESENTATION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CHUlA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RE: OTAY RANCH TRAFFIC SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 (TRAFFIC ISSUES VIEWGRAPH) THIS IS BASICAllY WHERE WE ARE FROM THE lAST MEETING. NOTHING HAS BEEN RESOLVED. OUR REQUEST FOR A VERY IMPORTANT NO-PROJECT MODEL RUN THAT WOULD HELP IN UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE IMPACTS OF THIS PROJECT WAS REFUSED. THE EARLIER RUNS THOUGHT TO FIll THIS NEED CANNOT BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE BECAUSE COUNTY STAFF HAD GIVEN SANDAG IMPROPER INFORMATION ON MIllAR RANCH ROAD. (VALIDITY VIEWGRAPH) SO WE ARE lEFT WITH AN EIR BASED ON THE SOUTHBAY MODEL. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS STATEMENT FROM CAlTRANS, AND THEY WERE BEING KIND, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO ANALYZE DATA IN THE SUBREGIONS ADJACENT TO SOUTHBAY. CAlTRANS TRAFFIC ENGINEERS SAW THE NEED TO CHANGE TO THE SR-54 MODEL FOR WORK IN OUR AREA. DON'T BE MISLED BY PEOPLE HERE TODAY CLAIMING THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH USING THE SOUTH BAY MODEL FOR THIS PROJECT. THESE BUREAUCRATS WIll NEVER ADMIT THAT THEY MADE A MISTAKE, AND WHEN THIS HAPPENS WE All SUFFER. (SR-125 CLASSIFICATION VIEWGRAPH) EVERY SEGMENT VOLUME IN THE EIR'S TRAFFIC ANALYSES IS PROBABLY WRONG BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE. CORRECTLY CLASSIFYING SR-125, THE PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR THROUGH THIS PROJECT, AS A TOll ROAD INSTEAD OF A FREEWAY WIll SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS -- ESPECIAllY ON OFF-SITE SURFACE STREETS AND FREEWAYS THAT WIll BE USED TO AVOID THE TOll. SINCE ROUTE 125 WIll ONLY BE BUILT AS A TOll ROAD, THE EIR CAN ONLY BE SEEN AS DEFICIENT BECAUSE IT FAILS TO SHOW ACCURATELY THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE. (MILLAR RANCH ROAD VIEWGRAPH) ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE RESEARCHED THE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO CREATING THIS NEW TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. NEITHER THE HIDDEN VALLEY ESTATES NOR THE OTAY RANCH EIRs DEAL WITH THE ISSUES LISTED HERE AS THEY RELATE TO THE VERY HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUMES THIS CORRIDOR WILL ATTRACT. (SEIR VIEWGRAPH) THE SEIR FOR HIDDEN VALLEY ESTATES FLIRTS WITH THE ISSUES IN TH~ STATEMENT YOU SEE HERE REGARDING THE PUBLIC ROAD ALTERNATIVE. THE DOCUMENT CLEARLY STATES THAT THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED AND FURTHER STUDY IS REQUIRED. WELL, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE FUTURE DENSITIES AND NONE OF THESE ISSUES HAS BEEN ADDRESSED OR MITIGATED IN THIS PLAN. IT PUTS THE EQUIVALENT OF CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD. THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF A RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREA AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE PRESERVE. (REFER TO PRESERVE MAPS) THESE MAPS CLEARLY SHOW THE DEVASTATING EFFECT THAT THIS ROAD AND VILLAGE 14 WILL HAVE ON THE COMBINED SWEETWATER RIVER/SAN MIGUEL/JAMUL MOUNTAINS WILDLIFE PRESERVE AREA. WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE HERE AND WHAT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED ANYWHERE IS THAT CONNECTION OF THIS ROAD WILL ALSO DESTROY ANY SEMBLANCE OF RESIDENTIAL TRANQUILITY AND RURAL CHARACTER THAT WERE INTENDED FOR THE HIDDEN VALLEY AND RANCHO SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE NORTH. . (VDO VIEWGRAPH) ONE BENEFIT FOR HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS RECENT REVIEW OF TRAFFIC DATA FOR THIS PROJECT IS THAT WE NOW HAVE AN EMERGING PICTURE OF WHAT IS GOING ON. IN 1987, JUST SIX YEARS AGO, WE LOOKED AT BUILDOUT TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND UPDATED OUR CIRCULATION PLANNING TO ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR REGION. THIS VIEWGRAPH REPRESENTS OUR STATUS AT THAT TIME. IN THE LOWER LEFT I HAVE CIRCLED THE SEGMENT VOLUME WHERE SR-54 AND SR-125 JOIN AND ENTER THE VALLE DE ORO & SPRING VALLEY AREA FROM SOUTHBAY. PAGE 2 JUST 6 YEARS AGO THE BUILDOUT FORECAST FOR THIS SEGMENT WAS 152,000 ADTs. THAT LOOKED LIKE A HIGH NUMBER TO US, AND THE REASON GIVEN WAS THAT IT INCLUDED BUILDOUT OF OTAY MESA. . (CHULA VISTA G.P. VIEWGRAPH) IN THIS FORECAST, THAT SAME SEGMENT HAS GONE UP 66,000 ADTs TO 2.18,.000. THE BIG DIFFERENCE, I AM TOLD, IS THAT THIS INCLUDES THE 1989 UPDATE OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN. (OTAY RANCH G.P. VIEWGRAPH) AND HERE, WE HAVE A FORECAST THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE OTHERS AND ADDS OTAY RANCH. THIS CHANGES THAT SEGMENT VOLUME TO 268,000 - 50,000 OVER THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND 116,000 MORE THAN WE HAD PLANNED ON. (SR-54/125 VIEWGRAPH) I HAVE SUMMARIZED THESE SEGMENT VOLUMES HERE BECAUSE THEY TELL AN INTERESTING STORY. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN INCREASES HAVE PUSHED OUR CIRCULATION NETWORK TO THE LIMITS - NOW OTAY RANCH WILL PUSH IT OVER THE LIMITS. YOU CANNOT REPLACE FARM LAND AND RURAL AREAS WITH INTENSE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND TREAT THE AREA AS THOUGH IT IS ON AN ISLAND. THIS IS WHAT THE SOUTH BAY TRAFFIC MODEL HAS BEEN DOING. THESE INCREASES, ALMOST DOUBLING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENTERING OUR AREA FROM SOUTHBAY, WILL CREATE UNBEARABLE CONGESTION. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO HALT THIS TREND. INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR PAPER MITIGATIONS OF THESE IMPACTS, WE SHOULD START CONSIDERING THEM AS ALARM BELLS. THEY ARE TELLING US THAT WE ARE EXCEEDING THE REASONABLE HOLDING CAPACITY OF THIS AREA. IT IS NOT A FAIR SOLUTION TO FORCE JAMUL, SWEETWATER, AND OUR PLAN AREA TO EXPAND OUR ROADS AND CHANGE THE RURAL AND SUBURBAN CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THIS RAMPANT GROWTH FROM SOUTHBAY. THE FAIR SOLUTION IS TO KEEP REDUCING THE PROJECT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INTENSITY UNTIL THE ALARM BELLS STOP. PAGE 3 PART OF THIS SOLUTION IS EASY -- DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE JAMUL AND VALLE DE ORO COMMUNITY PLANS. KEEP URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH-INDUCING SEWERS OUT OF PROCTOR VALLEY AND HALT THE MISGUIDED PLANS TO CONNECT MILLAR RANCH ROAD TO PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD. THEN THE HARD PART, YOU MUST KEEP LOWERING THE REMAINING DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES UNTIL THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES COME BACK TO REASONABLE LEVELS. LOOK AT WHAT THE CURRENT COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ALLOWS FOR THIS PROPERTY -- THAT WOULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE ISSUES PLEASE ASK -- I HAVE ADDITIONAL BACK-UP INFORMATION THAT MAY HELP. r PAGE 4 ~ i J '..J September 1, 1993 Mayor Tim Nader Ci ty Councilmen City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: On August 24th I flew in to San Diego from Kansas City, Missouri for the scheduled Council/Board of Supervisors' meeting in reference to the Otay Ranch project. This was at my own expense and, since the meeting had been on the docket for a month, I had adjusted my plans accordingly. Apparently the elected public officials had not since no quorum was achieved and the meeting was cancelled. This was the second time I have returned to San Diego specifically for a scheduled meeting. The first was the July 12th meeting for which I returned from Bozeman, Montana. I'm sure that other persons have also made plans to attend these meetings and perhaps with as much time, effort and expense as I expended. It seems a very unnecessary inconvenience with an entire month's notification. With these two cancellations due to lack of quorum I would like this to be on the record. I'm hopeful the remaining meetings will be held as scheduled. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Kath Ann J. Fetters 1183 Flamingo Avenue El Cajon, Ca. 92021 j i ....,,""' , ~ ., ; pi, -*"' i:; - i"'~":~~~~ \.,(\0i((Q.;';,:2:92~'30,:t '.;.~~j:\\')a{g?! <:\- '/ ,v""~i!~"} : '-~: 'C1~~~~~t~ " 22 s;~ ~: ~ September 1, 1993 Chairman Brian Bilbray Board of Supervisors County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Hwy. San Diego, Ca. 92101 Re: Cancellation of Scheduled Meetings - Otay Ranch Project Dear Chairman Bilbray and Members of the Board of Supervisors On August 24th I flew into San Diego from Kansas City, Missouri to prepare for the scheduled Supervisor/Council meeting on the 25th. It was at my own expense and, since the meeting had been on the docket for a month, I had adjusted my plans accordingly. Apparently the elected public officials had not since no quorum was achieved and the meeting was cancelled! This was the second time I have returned to San Diego for a scheduled meeting - the July 12th one - only to find it cancelled for a lack of quorum. For this one I returned from Bozeman, Montana. The next one will find me returning from Seattle, Washington, so, --please, don't wreak more havoc with more time, expense and inconvenience wasted unnecessarily. Thanks, I wanted this to be on the record and I'm hopeful the remaining meetings will be held as scheduled. Thanks for your cooperation. (l;j;!) Kath Ann J. Fetters 1183 Flamingo Ave. El Cajon, Ca. 92021 vC: Dtay Project Team Office, 315 4th Ave, Ste. A, C. V., Ca. 91910 (For inclusion for Sept. 13th meeting) . , MAJOR SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES MADE IN RESPONSE TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS University structures eliminated from Salt Creek. Otay Mesa vernal pool preserve greatly expanded and industrial uses shifted to south. Hunte Parkway moved to west. Otay Valley Road moved to north. Development areareduced in western San Ysidro. Vernal pool study area at resort site. Central Proctor Valley development area reduced. Inverted L development area reduced. Wildlife corridors provided in northern and central Proctor Valley. Subconunittee Meeting Dates 6/2/90 9/12/90 10/10/90 11/2/90 11/8/90 12/10/90 12/21/90 1/21/91 1130/91 3/4/91 4/5/91 SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FWS Conunent/Suaaestion/Reauest Define and limit active recreation in the Preserve. Align Hunte Parkway to avoid resources. Provide RMP/RPO comparison. USUSFWS wants involvement in selection of Preserve Owner/Manager. USFWS wants funding commitment. State in RMP text that recreation shall be subordinate to resource protection. Add criteria for Preserve Owner/ Manager selection. Provide RMP/RPO comparison Provide more information on enhance- ment/restoration Provide more information on butter- flies Be more specific about educational/ interpretive uses in Preserve Provide more information on location of public facilities in Preserve. Require range management and beef up interim use policies. Add infrastructure graphics. Require fire management plan. Reduce number of river crossings. RMP ReSDonse See Policies 6.1 and and 6.2 Hunte Parkway align- ment shifted to west Preface added to RMP See Policy 5.1 See Policy 5.11 See Policy 6.2 See Policy 5.1. See RMP Preface See RMP policies 3.1 through 3.8 and RMP Section 4.3 See Data Gaps Report See policies 5.11 and 6.1 See Policy 6.6 and Figures 12-16 See Policy 8.4 See Policies 8.1 - 8.4 See Figures 12-16 See policies 6.7 and 6.8 See staff recommen- dation Subcommittee Meeting Dates 4119/91 4/26/91 5110191 5/24/91 717/91 1110/92 3/27/92 413192 USFWS Comment/Suaaestion/Reauest USFWS provided a variety of comments on vernal pool report. Provide criteria for Preserve Ownerl Manager Selection - USFWS wants to review candidates. Provide more detail on RMP Phasing. Provide funding assurance. Beef up language on RMP amendments and Preserve boundary changes. Add more on monitoring. USFWS comments on additional reports on conference center location and addi- tional surveys for gnatcatchers in Jamul Mountains area. More USFWS comments on data gaps report and river crossings issue paper. More USFWS comments on vernal pool report (USFWS says will provide written comments on all tech. report - never did) . USFWS wants specific policy on acanthomintha. USFWS wants more specific bufferl setback criteria. USFWS wants more detailed habitat descriptions. USFWS says sensitive plant report revisions OK. USFWS comments on revised vernal pool - OK USFWS comments on RMP Preface. RMP Resoonse Report revised in response to comments See Policy 5.1 See RMP Section 1.4 See Policy 5.11 See policies 9.6-9.8 See Policy 5.4 Revised data gaps report prepared. Report revised in response to comments Report revised See Policy 2.6 See Policy 9.8 See RMP Chapter 5 None needed None needed Revisions made. PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY KEITH P. BISHOF> ADELE K. CARDOZA KAREN D. CRAIG MICHAEL S. CUCCHISSI SCOTT oJ. OARUTY PATRICIA A. DISCOE DEAN DUNN-RANKIN CHARLES S. EXON CHRISTOF>HER J. FARLEY. MARK B. FELDMAN GLENN E. FULLER ROBERT ..... GERARO. .JR. ALAN .J. GORDEE HOWARO HALL WILLIAM E. HALLE CHERlE ERICKSON HARRIS ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HEWITT LAWRENCE..J. HILTON ..JOHN D. HUDSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW CARY K. HYDEN DAVie A. KRINSKY M. RUSSELL KRUSE CHRISTINE L LUKETIC REBECCA A. MAUCH MARK R. McGUIRE ANDREA L. MERSEL MICHAEL L. MILLER DENNIS D. O'NEIL ..JAY F. PALCHIKOFF OANIEL L F>ELEKOUDAS ALAN W. PETTIS ROBERT A. RIZZI PAUL A. ROWE CAROLE STEVENS BRUCE A. TESTER WILLIAM L. TWOMEY KENNETH A. WOLFSON ..JOHN P. YEAGER MICHAEL G. YODER " ",o,OOTN"'"'H''' INCLUDING ....D....$$.O.."L cO....O.."T'O..S leeel VON KARMAN AVENUE, 16T.... FLOOR IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 POST OFFICE BOX 19766 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92713 TELEPHONE (714) 553-2500 FACSIMILE (714) 261-0ee2 (714) 261.7251 '" PRon:SSIOI'IAl CORPOR"TIOt< ell WEST SEVENTH STREET. PENTHOUSE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017 TELEPHONE (213) 362-0350 FACSIMILE (213) 362-0359 September 12, 1993 OF COUNSEL DAMON LAWRENCE MICHAEL B_ LUBIC WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER OUR FILE NUMBER (714) 253-2433 12500-00001 Members of the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors Members of the Chula vista City Council c/o Norman W. Hickey Chief Administrative Officer county of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, California 92101 Re: Comments Julv 21. on Endangered Habitats League 1993 Presentation Reqardinq Otav Ranch Dear Members of the Board and Council: This firm appears before you on behalf of Baldwin vista Associates, L.P. in connection with the 23,088-acre Otay Ranch project in San Diego County ("0tay Ranch"). The information presented herein is provided by counsel for the project proponent formally trained both in law and in the biological sciences.' This letter is intended to briefly respond to the presentations made before your respective bodies on July 21, 1993 by the Endangered Habitats League ("EHL") regarding the biological preserve and corridor design of the proposed Otay Ranch project. Notwithstanding the comments made by EHL, a 'specifically, prior to receiving his J.D., counsel earned a B.A. in the Biological Basis of Behavior from the University of Pennsylvania and is a published author in the area of ethology. Counsel also has reviewed all of the scientific papers cited by the united States Fish & wildlife Service in support of its decision to list the coastal California gnatcatcher as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. 09-12-93 12500-00001 F:\POC\161\CORR\93090014.lTR PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY September 12, 1993 Page 2 review of the EHL presentation demonstrates that EHL has failed to provide any scientific research which establishes that: (1) the Resource Management Plan ("RMP") for Otay Ranch is inadequate, or (2) that the RMP and Ogden's Baldwin Otay Ranch wildlife Corridor Studies report ("Ogden Corridor Study") do not provide the most pertinent scientific information upon which to establish the reserve design for the project. In its presentation, EHL criticized the RMP, alleging that it did not provide the necessary "building blocks" for a south county mUltiple species preserve and implying that it was likely to imperil the long-term viability of the coastal California gnatcatcher. (See Attachment 1, July 15, 1993 letter from EHL) As opposed to the open space system set forth in the RMP and supported by the Ogden Corridor Study, EHL has argued for the elimination of development in various proposed areas, including those areas south and east of the lakes in the San Ysidro Parcel, as well as those north of the lakes and those west and south of Proctor Valley Road in the Proctor Valley parcel. At times the EHL has talked about preserving a "reserve crescent" extending, unaltered by development, from the BLM lands in the south to the San Miguel Mountains region. Both the EHL's oral and written presentations are remarkable for their complete inability to cite specific scientific research to authoritatively criticize or refute the preserve system set forth in the RMP, which allows certain development in areas opposed by EHL. A careful review of EHL's presentation reveals the lack of authoritative scientific data to dispute the preserve design as set forth in the RMP or to contend that the EHL's corridors must be adopted to ensure the long-term survival of the sensitive species at issue. During its July 21 presentation, EHL relied on two documents to support its position: (1) the State of California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning ("NCCP") draft Conservation Guidelines for the southern California coastal sage scrub community ("NCCP draft Conservation Guidelines" or "Guidelines") (Attachment 2), and (2) Soule, Land Use Plannina and wildlife Maintenance, 57 Amer. Planning Assoc. 313 (1991) (Attachment 3). Despite EHL's implications to the contrary, neither of these two documents contend that the EHL's preferred open space design is essential. EHL selectively quoted from the NCCP draft Conservation Guidelines to suggest that principles of large block habitat preservation articulated in the Guidelines were ignored by the 09-12-93 12500-00001 F:~\161\CDRR\93090014.lTR PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY September 12, 1993 Page 3 RMP. To the contrary, the RMP was designed with the knowledge and consideration of the then-emerging NCCP program (see RMP, p. 13) and large reserve blocks have been incorporated. It is important to note that the Guidelines also specifically recognize the values of movement corridors between larger reserves. (See Attachment 2, p.9) As EHL should be aware, selectively emphasizing certain principles in attacking single elements of a large plan without regard to the whole set of conservation principles and the entire conservation plan is likely to lead to poor policy decisions. EHL also referred to a 1991 paper by Michael Soule. A review of that paper, however, reveals that it does not invalidate the preserve design established by the RMP and supported by the Ogden Corridor Study. (see Attachment 3) In fact, Soule emphasizes the importance of corridors in areas where urbanization is occurring, but notes that there are no cookbook recipes for design: The design of wildlife corridors, however, is a new branch of conservation biology. For this reason and others, there are few, if any specific guidelines. Potential corridors must be analyzed and designed by teams of planners, engineers, and biologists on a case-by-case basis. * * * Though there has been little research on optimum corridor design citation omitted, particularly as it affects the movement of different kinds of organisms, many of the [chaparral-requiring] birds have been seen moving and feeding in strips of chaparral only a few meters wide (Soule et al. 1988). Planners should bear in mind, however, that species differ markedly in habitat needs and tolerances, and that the utility of particular corridors for wildlife citation omitted depends on the behavior of the targeted species. Soule's (1991), p. 320. 09-12-93 12500-00001 F:~\161\CCRR\93090014.LTR PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY September 12, 1993 Page 4 In its oral presentation, EHL also stated: In the San Ysidro Parcel, any development south and east of the lakes, including low density estate homes, would severely interrupt and fragment the habitat. Viable ecosystems depend upon large, secure core areas and southeast of the lakes is exactlv the laroe block of habitat which the exoerts have told us is needed to make the reserve work in the long term. It is undoubtedlv a must have. Furthermore, this land represents a vital principle documented by the Scientific Review Panel, namely that coastal sage scrub must be retained within an intact mosaic of associated habitats, such as grassland and chaparral. Anv type of development here would be incomoatible. (emphasis added.) Several important aspects of this assertion should be noted. First, EHL has identified neither the "experts" which agree with this assertion, nor their qualifications, analysis or assumptions! The assertion is made without reference to any studies referencing this parcel. Second, although EHL stated that "any type of development [in this area] would be incompatible" with the NCCP draft Conservation Guideline's principle that intact mosaics of habitat should be preserved, EHL again does not cite any scientific data or studies to show that development within these particular areas of the San Ysidro or Proctor Valley parcels could not be achieved within the overall framework of the Guidelines. The proposed development bubbles located north of the lake and east of the wildlife corridor in the Proctor Valley Parcel and in the western central region of that parcel are also attacked by EHL, but again EHL does not provide any specific scientific studies of these areas to support its position. In fact, EHL's presentation unaccountably rejects out-of-hand the value of corridors, as if such mechanisms were no longer valid. Such a position is not supported by the existing scientific literature. See,~, Soule, suora, (Attachment 3). 09-12-93 12500-00001 F:\DOC\161\OORR\93090014.LTR PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY September 12, 1993 Page 5 In short, the EHL presentation, both oral and written, is most remarkable for the absolute lack of specific scientific data or studies to establish that its position on development within otay Ranch is a biological necessity. In its presentations, EHL also referred to the Multiple Species Conservation Plan ("MSCP") for the Clean Water Program and urged that the EHL position be adopted in order to conform to the evolving MSCP. In fact, the EHL has never established that the preservation program in the RMP is inconsistent with the principles behind the MSCP. Issue Paper No. 5 of the MSCP provides that "design of the future preserve system relies on a blending of land use, ownership, economic and local plan issues with biological preserve design standards and guidelines." (See Attachment 4) Accordingly, the MSCP recognizes that reserve design must be applied on a case-by-case basis. The RMP for Otay Ranch, prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc. (with input from a variety of entities including the state and federal resource agencies) does preserve large blocks of natural habitat connected by verified regional wildlife corridors. Through specific wildlife corridor studies conducted in San Diego and Orange Counties in California and in Colorado and Florida, and by studying local and regional corridors both on-site and off-site the otay Ranch project, Ogden established biologically supportable wildlife corridors for the Otay Ranch project independent of the development planning for the project (see Transcript for Joint County of San Diego/City of Chula vista Planning commission Public Hearing Feb. 19, 1993, pp. 8-9). Such independence underscores the biological integrity of the corridor system associated with Otay Ranch. It is also important to remember that the RMP incorporated reserve and corridor design knowledge garnered from the existing scientific literature on these subjects (see RMP, pp. 57-60 (Attachment 5)). Such literature included the work of Michael Soule, who's writings have been cited by EHL. In fact, the RMP does incorporate principles articulated in soule's research into its reserve design. And although EHL seems to emphasize large, single, un fragmented blocks of habitat in its recent presentations, the research of scientists such as Simberloff & Adele demonstrates that a network of habitat "islands" may, under certain circumstances, provide greater species diversity than a single, large, contiguous island of the same collective size. (See RMP, p. 57) Similarly, the RMP 09-12-93 12500-00001 F:~\161\CORR\93090014.LTR PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY September 12, 1993 Page 6 acknowledged the research of Loman and von Schantz which indicates that smaller preserve areas with higher quality resources may be preferable to large areas with lower resource quality. (See RMP, p. 60) Thus, rather than focusing solely on one or two selected, general guidelines for reserve design, the RMP has applied the full sum of current scientific knowledge of reserve design to the soecific biological characteristics of the Otay Ranch project. Conclusion In sum, the RMP prepared for Otay Ranch does follow the reserve design caveats and principles noted by such authorities as Soule, Wilcox, the NCCP Scientific Review Panel, and others. Simply put, the EHL contends that its corridor plan is the necessary and essential plan; however, the formulators of the RMP reviewed the same studies -- and in fact, probably more studies -- as EHL and arrived at different conclusions regarding the proper corridor and reserve system for Otay Ranch. Of course, from a pure biological perspective, more preserved open space is always better. However, since the Ogden wildlife Corridor Study and the RMP both allow some development in certain areas opposed by EHL while providing for biological and genetic connectivity throughout the project, one must question whether EHL has been able to point to specific scientific studies or data which show that the corridors planned by Ogden are insufficient to preserve the necessary connectivity. As explained above, EHL has not produced such information. Accordingly, we would respectfully urge the Board and Council to deny the proposal of EHL and not preclude -- at this time -- the possibility of development in the areas in contention under the EHL proposal. S~!( !IJ-~ Andrew K. Hartzell ~ AKHjvjw 09-12-93 12500-??oo1 F:\POC\161\CORR\93090014.LTR Dan Silver . CooralNlor 8424A Sulra Monica Blvd. .592 Lei Angel"', CA 90069 rEL/I'AX 213 .654. 1456 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE Ordj~l" to 'Ill protrCJlDn of Coa,t. Snglt ScnlO nnd Other Threllmrd Eco~sums July 15. 1993 Mayar Tim Nader City of Chula Vista ::76 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Otay Ranch hearing. July 21. 1993 Dear Mayar Nader. The Endangered Habitats League is an alliance of conservation groups and individuals dedicated to ecosystem protection and cooperative land use solutions. We commend you for your thorough review of the proposed Otay Ranch development and far the degree of public input you have solicited.. We look forward to sharing our views on natural resources with you during our presentation on July 21. Enclosed please find our position paper. Reservt! Design and Oray Ranch. and a map which illustrates our recommendations. We hope this information is helpful to you. With best regards. .d:: ~ Dan Silver. Coordinator ~, : -8,# .4..... .h_.,{... ,.." /,4"""-r ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE MEMBERS · San Diego area groups Friends of the Tecate Cypess The Environmen1al Trust"' Santiago Cleek Greenway Alliance Friends of the Santa Margarita River"' Friends ofdlo Northcm SanJacinlD ValIcy The Irvine~y SouthWeIlem Hc:rpecoIoaisn Society'" Back Country Land Trust- Alpine Land Coascn8Dcy* SlOp PoUuting Our Newport Save the H....tlh'nds Carlsbad Arbon:tum Foundation. Cottonwood Creek Conservancy"' Ecology Center of Soutbe:rn California Friends of the Hills DefenderS of Wlldlife Orange County Fund for Environmental Defense Laguna Canyon Conservancy Mounrain Defense League" Save Our Coastline 2000 Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. Friends of Batiquitos Lagoon" San Diego BiDdivenity Project. Ruml Canyons Con&er'Vlllion Fund friends of the Santa Ana River Tri County Cotlservation League San Diego Audubon Society. Santa Barbara Audubon Society Laguna Hills Audubon Society Palomar Audubon Society- Los Angeles Audubon Society Buena Vista Audubon Society" Pomona Valley Audubon Society Palos Verdes PerIinsuI.a Audubon Society Pasadena Audubon Society South Coast Audubon Society Sea and Sage Auduboo Society Sanla Monica Day Audubon Sodety EI Dorado Audubon Society San Fernando Valley Audubon Society Sierra Club San Diego OIapte'l* Sierra Club Angelea Chapter Siema Club San Gorgonio Chapter Friends of Los Penasquitoll Canyon ~e" Shoreline Study Centm"" California Native Plant Society. State OIapter California Native Plant Society, Orange County Chapler California Native Plant Society. San Diego Oiaptec* California Native Plant Society, Los Angeles/Santa Monica Chapter California Native Plant Society, Kern County Chapter Committee for the Environment (Orange County Bar Assoc.) San Bc:mardino Sage Friends Save Our Forest and Ranchlands. Friends of the Footbills Ballona I..asoon Marine Preserve Coutal Conservation Coalition Pomooa Valley Greens National Opossums. Inc. Envirollmental Healdl Coalition" Goldm State Wildlife Fedenuion FritDds of the '" Ill""'" Dislrict ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE Ded'"t" 10 tilt Prouw:tJ'on of Coost. Sng~ SC"'" and Other Thrratmc1 E.a1Sy!t""' Dan Silver . Coordinator 8-l24A Sl.nta Monic:a 1l1vd. N592 Los Angeles. CA 90069 TEL/FAX 213 .654. 1456 RESERVE DESIGN AND OrAY RANCH 11IlrOducrion Past deslniction of habitat has limited our options. There is only a single large area of inta.ct coastal sage scrub remaining in the South County, stretching from the Mt. San Miguel area southeast to the Olay I.alces and then to BLM lands. Nothing of significance is left to the west. and coastal sage scrub to the east is too high in elevation for California Gnatcatchers. If Otay Ranch is properly designed, the building blocks for a South County multiple species reserve will be in place.. These areas are indispensable for satisfying the new federal mandate for protection of the California Gnatcatcher. Protection of these same areas is also essential to making feasible our own multiple species program9, that i9, the NCCP and MSCP. And unleu these proactive programs SIICC''''ed. future development in the region will be at great risk of disruption from the listing of other species. For these compelling reasons, we urge you to take actions consistent with core habitat areas and linlcages as deterll'lined by the wildlife agencies. Additionally. the huge planning area of Otay Ranch provides great flexibility. The loss of a core habitat area wouW, we believe. be impossible to justify with a finding of infeasibility under CEQA. Protection of the reserve in an intemaJly-mitigalCd open space dedication is highly desirable. t-noe the unwise granting of entitlements or increased development potential could cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars if reserve lands have to be re-pun;:hased. To ensure a viable reserve, we must go beyond numerical standards, as found in the Resource Management Plan (RMP). Simply preserving 85 % of a population may not ensure that the population will still be here in 100 years. How that 85% is configured is a11-lmportJlnt. Reserve Desi/?n To understand what must be done. we refer to Dr. Michael Soule's article. "Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance: Guidelines for Conserving Wildlife in an Urban wdscape". The essential point. derived from studies here in San Diego, is summarized as follows: "... the most important conclusion from this entire body of investigations is that the best way 10 maintain wild/(fe and ecosystem IWue.r is to minimize habitatfragmentation" (his italics). Professor Soule then goes on to characterize the basic rules of reserve formation: First. "Wherever possible, natural open space areas should be made as large as possible and should be made contiguous." Second, in gener.d. "a single large habitat ftagment is superior to several small fragments. . ." 'Third. large predators. such as coyotes must be retained. Fourth, disturbance and edge effects. which many species cannot tolerate, must be minimized. And last, connectivity must be retained, and in this regard, wildlife corridors can help lessen the effects of fragmentation. 1 As a practical maner, one other principle must be invoiced: If possible. build a resave system adjacent to existing proteCted or public lands. This will minimize edge effects and management costs. and provides the most cost-effective acquisition scenario. Returning to Ot.a.y Ranch, our basic goal is clear: a broad sweep of contiguous Jwbiuzr must be 17IiJilllained from BLM lands. through Salt Creek and r~ SDn Ysidro parcel. and intO the large block ofhJJbuar in t~ Procwr Valley parceL From there. r~ reserve crescent must continue iI/IQCI ;1110 the SDn Miguel region. In outlining what we believe is needed., we are 1101 setting forth bargaining positions. We will honestly priontize those areas which are non-mitigable, "must- haves", and also tell you where we feel more flexibility is possible. SDn Ysidro Parcel In the San Y sidro parcel, development lIOUth and east of the I...aIccs would severely interrupt and fragment the habitat AC(:(lI'ding to the Scientific Review Panel of the NCCP. coastal sage scrub must be retained within its mosaic of associated habitats. such as grassland and chapamll, and this is exacdy the case southeast of the Likes. Ecosystems depend upon large. secure core areas, and any development here would be incompatible with reserve needs. Specific reasons for this include: the introduction of human disturbance and edge effects into a pristine area; degradation of the high biologic values of the public lands which surround it, including BLM wilderness; high management costs due to disturbance; intedc.c.lCe with large predaton; and blocbr of wildlife movement from south to north. Any development sourheall qfthe Lakes violotes the Cardi1ull1U~ of Q\lDiding hJJbiuzr (ragmelllation, Cl1ld tluls jeopardizes the penistence of]X}fJMilllions and species over rime. As a priority I ~ area, we do not believe that the federal government would approve any plan withoot this ~ area intact. We alllO note tbat the program EIR, ptepared prior to the gnate"~her listing, also classifies this area as significant and unmitigable. Proctor Valley Parcel For the Proctor Valley parcel, needed changes involve both habitat area and imprmwJ connectivity. For connectivity, we must discard the notion of IWIOW "wildlife conidors" and focus on the more up-to-date concept of "habitat linkages". This means that the best connection between areas is viable habitat in which animals can aauaily live, and not "highways" to ttavel upon. The existing habitat linkage.s on the Ranch must not be compromised. First, there is the connection between Proctor Valley and San Y sidro near Dulzun1 Occk. where wildlife movement is stressed by the conjunction of ptopo.ed development north of the Lalces and the neamy planned Daley rock QIlll11')'. To meet both habitat and linkage needs. die proposed cIevelopmcnt bubbles located just north of the LaDs and east of the wildlife corridor must be eliminated. lbis is also a priority I reserve area., and the results of recent g""tl'Jlltl'.tIer surveys here may be of interest. The rest of the area nonh of the Lakes is divided into two priorities. The area to the west of the corridor is an area of degraded but highly restorable ooas1ll1 sage scrub. It is a priority 2 reserve area. mc:aning tbat all or part is 1ikI:1y to be part of a reserve. One option would be to leave it a specUJl study a~Q pending further consultation and final reserve ~8'" More westerly, there is a priority 3 area in which development can be planned but with avoidance of sensitive!'CllOllJ'CeS. Central Pro..:lUI Valley... -IS a .imil",. ch"n..nge in providing the oombiw...tinn ofbabjw and linkage needed to connect Otay Ranch to the vital Mt. San Miguel region.. We have qaiD divided the area into priorities I and 2 (please see map), with priority 1 refetring to that which is essential far a ~e. and priority 2 referring to areas from which development should be 2 withheld pending oonsultation with the wildlife agencies. but where some clcvelopment may eventually be possible. Our recommendations here reflect the need to create usable. contiguous habitat. minimize fragmentation, and reduce edge effects from nearby development. Otay River Valley Parcel In the OIay River parcel. there are several areas of concern. The high biodiversity of Salt Creek and the Otay River Valley must, of course, be prcsc:rvcd as a priority 1. Also. ifwildlife populations are to remain viable in Wolf and Poggi Canyons. connections should be widened. road impactS mirigar.ed. and revegetation carried out For Wolf Canyon, this means tbat ~opment near the canyon mouth should be pulled bade per wildlife agency recommendations for beuer connectivity with the Otay River Park. Also, a change to industrial land Wle designation for the area of Village 3 is important, and needed for effective buffering. Finally, impacts of multiple road crossings across the River Park should be lessened by moving Route 125 westward, and the number of crossings should be reducecl to two. In general. however, on the Otay River parcel, we believe that appropriate development "l'pUIlUnities should be taken advantage of. Conclusion The best way to ensure success in meeting the mandates of the &dangerecl Species Act in regard to the California Onatcatche.r lies in maximizing n:sc:rve integrity on the Otay Ranch. Simultaneously, you will preclude future economic disruptions by alsuringthe success of the multiple species NCCP and MSCP prograDIS. Otay Ranch also provides your most COIIt-effective solutions. Regarding estate homes, there are ~JO"cellent OPlXlttlmitics north of the lake, a4jllCCllt to the Otay River Valley. and perhaps in the inveneci L parcel, Which is a mesa with views. As you solve regional habitat problems. you will also provide an aesthetic and quality of life achievement for which all future cit\z.cns will be grateful. We look forward to working with you. and thank you for considering our views. 3 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE (EHL) ESTIMATED ACREAGE AND UNIT LOSS (Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council Hearing July 22, 1993) . . .. 'o'o 'o'o Village PRIORITY 1 PRIORlTY2 SUBTOTAL . AC DU AC Dt1 '.'o A'C . OU 1 . . 99.0 390 99.0 390 2 - . 172.0 632 172.0 632 4 . . 219.6 338 219.6 338 13' 128.83 346 92.73 655 221.56 1,001 14 129.17 310 54.5 67 183.67 377 IS" County: 213.5 993 . - 213.5 993 City: 436.0 1.384 . . 436,0 1.384 Total Countyl 471.5 1,649 637.83 2,082 1,109.33 3,731 City: 694.0 2,040 . . 1,331.83 4,1U .. Loss does not include 3/4 of Resort Site (approYim"tely 180 acres). County and City figures differ due to County recommendation for open space option area on western portion of Village 15. . SOuntERN CAUFOANIA COASTAL SAGE SCRUB NATURAL COMMUNMY CONSERVATION PLANNING Draft Conservation Guidelines July 20. 1993 Published by: CAlifornia DepeIt/IIeI1t d IlIsh and Game and CalIom1a Resources Agency 1418 8Ih Itr. Sacnlll1elllO, CA 95814 Contact: Larry En;. PhD. NalUraI Cortlmunlll. ConseMltIo.. PlaIInlflg Prcgllm Manager Tel: 91&653-9787 Fu: S15oli5a-Z588 TABLE OF CONTENTi 1. Introduction I .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. I . .. .. .. . .. .. 2~ foundatiOn ,.... I I .. , .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. I . .. . .. .. . .. I .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. a. Premises on CSS eccIogy . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Premises on the ClONervatlon challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c.. Prmnises an timing t.... .. . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . 3. Conlllrvation Planning Guidance ................................ a.1heinterimstrategy' ..........11......................... b. lhe research agenda ..................................... c. Management ancI restoration " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. Appllcatlon to subregiOnal plannl/'lg .......................... 4. Implementing Intorim Strategy ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Cet&rrnining Potential Long-term Conservation Value. . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . - 10 a. Rlnklng land for interim protection .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 b. Evalultion proOlilSS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . '. . .. 11 Co Evaluation methods . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 I. Policy I..,........... I .. . '" . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . I I .. .. .. . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. '4 a. Pending approval of subregional NCCP ....................... 14 b. Wht\ lIpprovecl lubnlQional NCCP ........................... 14 c. In the absence of. subregional NCCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Attachment A. Generalized Map of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Attachment B. Subregional Focus Areas ............................. 16 Atractlmem C. Evaluation Logic Flow Chart ........................... 17 7 ftO"" 1 1 1 Z 4 4 4 5 7 8 s 01fAFT CONSERVAnON GUllJEUHES ",gw f 1. Introduction This cloc:ument presents draft conservation Guide6nes for the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Natural Community ConSeNation Planning (NCCP) process. The guidelines are published by the California Department of Fish.and Game. The guider,"es were prepared In coordination among the Department, the US Fish and W~drJfe service, and the Scientific: Review Panel (SRP), and are based on technical r~ew by and recommendations from the SAP. lhase guidelines B/'8 intended to be usDCl e10ng with the NCCP Process Guidelines a/50 published by the California Department of fish and Game. The SAP was commissioned by the Def)artment and the Service to review available scientific information to assist in preparation at the Cons.Netio'" Guidelines. The review addresses Information available as of March 1993 and is described in .Scientific Review Panel Conservation GuideUnes and Documentation,. which is IVIilable from the Department. Z. Found8tlon a. Premls.. on ess ecoIoGv 1. CSS vegetation is dominat.d by a characteristic suite of shrub speQies In southem California. The composition of coastal sage SCI'lJb vegetational . subcommunities may vary substantially depending on physical circumstanc.s and the successional statUI of the habitat. AA explicit definition of CSS and II descriptiOn Of Its constitvent species has been recommendBd by the SAP. (See S~ci" Report No. 2, March 1992.) A i'nerallzed map of CSS and ..ummary description Is included In Attachment A. 2. While a variety of species are characteristic Of CSS. no single animal or plant species readily serves as 8 consistent and entirely reliable indicator of CSS conditions across the entirety of the distribution of the habitat in southarn Califomia. Rather, many specieS dependent on OSS are found in only c:ertain subsets of the community, and, conversely. many nominal CSS species are widely distributed in non.cSS habitats. Nonetheless, a suite of "target' species ha been identified by the SRP that are useful as a surrogate for planning purposes. Species other than target species that nave been identifted as deserving special consideration on aecoUN of possible rarity or endan;erment arl referred to EllS species of concern. "'.se Ife state or federal candidates fer listing. (See SAP Survey GuldellnlS. Februaty 1992.) 3. TllI'get species are three vertebrates that are among the community's most visible impernvd erg&nlSm&: CaIlfornla gnalClltcher, cactus wren, and orange- throated whiptailliZard. Their distributions embrace the majority of the geographic ""9. of southem Canfomia CSS. 4. Many spedes that depend on coastal sage scrub exhibit transitory habitat OCCUpil/'l~, along with short lifetimes, high potential rates of reproduction, 7 ftOtt3 lJlfNiT CONSERVATlON GUllJEUNES Plge 2 6mited home ranges. dramatic population f1uefuations, and grest suseeptlbirrty to loc:el extirJ:)atIOn. 5. Because of population fluctuations and routine local extirpation and recclonization events, 8 single point-in-time appraisal of the presence or abs.nce of a species on an individual parcel of land does not reliably indicate th, parcel's long-term potential ~a1ue or importance as habitat 6. CSS may convert to chaparral or graGs/and, depending on slope, aspect, climate, lire hista/Y, and ether physical faeters end biological phenomena; conversely, chaparral or grassland areas may c:cnvert to CSS. 7_ CSS is a naturally patchy vegetation community. Over a scale of s.vera! moes, it is found in divers. habitat mosaics with other ecological communities. While there Ilt'8 species dependent on coastal ssge scrub, these species do not always exhibit a clear tendency tg oC:CUPV er.. of continUQU~ c:oastaI sage SCI\lb. Rather, vegetation components of coastal scrub habitat in mosaics with other habitat types may provide habitat for targ.t species and other species of concern. b. Prernl... on the conservation Challenge ,. The southern Cdfomia CSS planning region has been severely degraded by pest urbanization and agricultural land conversion. Certain Iubhabitats, such as those et ll:lw elevation, those c;loae tg the coast, and those with lesser slope, nave been disproportionaDy affected atld many have experienced Ioc:allosses of some species. 2. Threats to CSS habitat are more than losses of total habitat area alone. Threats also Include losses of distinct CSS iUOtype$'and losses of the special concfrtlcns needed to maintain the broad suite of CSS.resident species. (See discussion in AttaCrVnent A.) 3. Cl:lnYersic:m of natural land has also severed connections lIIT10ns remnant habrtat patehea resulting in their increased isolation. Connections among habitat patches are eritieal to the IMg-term SUl\livaI of ess species. 4. Because CSS is found naturany admixed with other vegetation communities, the best conservation strategy for CSS is to protect large areas of native vegetation that inclucte biOlogically significant patches of CSS. 5. Under present conditions. few eSs-dominated lands are of sufficient extent to a HIf-su8tainlng. A status quo $ltatGgy of 'benign neglect" management likely will rnult In substarrtlal further losses of CSS biodiversity. Habitat areas large enough to be self-sustaining should not be significantly reduced in size and they should be actively managed in ways responsive tg pertinent new informatiM as It accrues. 7/2"-"" CI'.AFT C%lNSE1fVA TION Gl./JDELJJWES faga 3 6. 11'Ie CSS community is inherently dynamic and should be managed to retain Its cap8dly to support the broad range of CSS species Over the long term. Under an adaptive management regime that provides for natural successional dynillTlics, a reserve system that consists of smaller habitat areas that are appropriately managed could have a greater likefihood of maintaining CSS biocfrverslty than a system of larger habitat areas that are unmanaged. The techniques associated with such a management regime, however, have not been fully developed. 7. CSS conservation will require appropriate levels of participation by pUblic agencies responsible for publiety owned land tha! contains CSS or that urves as linkages between reserves. State anclloeal government can participate through the NCCP process and federal agency land owners can participate tt'.rough federal progral'n$ coordinated with NCCPs. Although important to thi integrity of regional conservation efforts, not enough CSS exists in public ownership for public land to be tne ,sole basis of a reserve netWOrl<. 8. WIthin the southern California region as a wncl., roughl)t 8 dozen biologically defined subregions, designed around extensive habllat areas can be identified based on geography, the ecologIcal characteristics of CSS species, and patterns of past land use. Each subregion exhibits distinct local conditions that wUl affect the cons.rvation approec:h to be usld. &. Each subregion will need to meet explicit conservation objectives to promote ecosystem stabitity atbo1h subregional and regionallellels. Eaen subregion wiD need to ~oVide for conservation of the three target species. 10. Despite the extent of ClJrrent threats, the majority of the species inhabiting the CSS do not appear to be in imminent danger of regional extinelion. Some small amount of short-term habitat loss can be tolerated as long as it is ultimately counter.baJanced by acIe~uate long-term enhancement efforts. 11. A few, smaU-scale efforts at CSS restoration and enhancement have been attemptedj these examples Indicate that net enhancement of habitat quality may be altainable. Furthermore, ecological studies of CSS show natural recovery from disturbance suggesting that active restorative projocts mey be successful. 12.. Information aVlillable to the SRP supports a C(lnservalive estimate of S% habitat quality enhancement potential for existing CSS habitat. This potential for mitigation 'eadS to . corresponding estimate of 5'% Short-term habitat loss thllt can be tolerated in any subregion. A level of enhancement beyond 5% may be poSSible and with adequate sdentilic information, improved prosP<<:ts for enhancement can be the basis for allowing a greater than ~'" loss of habitat. 13. Land of high priority for in=tusion in . r.IMI system Cal"I be idantifillCi based en a combination of size, location. and quality criteria. 11'Ie impact of an overall 5% 10$8 of CSS habitat areB can be further reduced by avoiding losses of higher priority habitat. 7,"~ QN4FT CONSERVATION GUIDEUNES Page . c. Preml... on timing 1. The southern California planning region is too large to be planned as e single unit For conservation p18nnln~ purposes, the region needs to be divided into subregions that are based on both biological and poUtical considerations. The scale and fecus of the subregions has been defined by the SRP (Subregional Planning Document, May 1992, rcvi$ed August 1992). The focus area map is included as Attachment B. 2. Subregional conservation planning will progress at cfrfferent rates due to different local economic conditions. Some subregions are ready to initiate NCCP p1anni"i now; others may not participate fer several years. Some subregions may break Into subareas wr.ich may plan at cfrtferent times. 3. Scientific information available to the SAP does not support a conservation plan that w~uld lead to significant 10S!le$ of CSS habitat. Despite rea.nt efforts to address this data shortfall, there is still a lack of scientific information on Important aspects of CSS biology that may be necessary to formulate and implement. long-term plan. . 4. Land owners and local governments should inltlate the subragional planning process and identify and begin to fill information needs specific to that subregion. 'The extent of additional infOrmation needed, hence the time and effort needed, depends on the btent 01 projed8d habitat losses within a subregicn. The amQunt Of adcfJtionaJ date necel$8ty for cIeoision-making will be minimal where subregIonal habitat lOsses are expected to be minimal or where adeQuate mitigation fer losses can be demonstrated conclusively. Conversely, where greater habitat loss is proj:losed or where mitigation entails unproven technologies. data needs will be greater. 5. Subregions are encouraged to formulate NCCPs for approval by COFG and USFWS a$ elltly sa possible. One element of II NCCP must be an assessment of the status of scientific information in the subregion. A NCCP can be approved for implementation in phases despite a need for scientific information. Implementation of each phase of the plan must be adequately supported by scientitic information. 6. Short-term habitat conversion should not foreclose future long-term consel"olation planning options. 3. Conaervatlon Planning Guidance .. The lnt8rlm strategy o Short-term leis.. at habitat should be minimized so as to not foreclose future conservation planning options until such time as long-term enh8l'l"'..ement programs are formulated. 7120/h DRAFT CONSE1lVAWN GUlOEl.JNES pag. ~ o Tota/lnterim loss should be limited to 5% of CSS habitat in any indMdual subregior\. o To the maximum degree praolicable. the 5% loss should be limited to areas with smaller POPulations of target species. o To 1h. maximum degree pnIClicable. the 5% less should not dllproportionaJly impact specific subunits of the environmental gradient in each subregion (as defined by vegetation subcommunity, latitude, elevation, distance from coast, slope, aspect or soli type). o During the interim period. subregional and subarea planning should strive to protect areas of higher long-term conservation value - defined by extent of CSS habitat, proximity of that hab~.at to other habitat,. value as landscape linkages or corridors, or presence of target species or other species of concern - until a subregional plan can be put In place. o Development ""..sure should be dncted toward areas that have lower long- term conservation value. Such habitat areas art amaDer in extent, are more isolated. have limited value as landscape Bnkages. and support comparatively fewer individuals of target lpecies. . o Planning Should ensure that all Interim habitst 10lses are adequately mitigated or should eonttibute to an Interim subregional mitigation program that wiD be subsumed in the long-term l5Ubr.gloMl NCCP lIS specified in the Process Guideines. b. The r....rch agenda The followlng research ptQgr8lTl can resolve unanswered questions that bear on the conservation of wQet species that innabit coastal sage scrub and the biodlvel'Slty essOClared With 1I'l8t community. The SAP recommends silt interactive research tasks. 1. Biogeography and Inventory of CBS. The basic extent and distribution of CS! vegetation and its constituent species should b. adec;uatety mapped for the ...gion and each subregion. This information will be required to support any subregional p\an. The comprehensive rrterature review of CSS initiated by the SRP should b8 expanded and kept c\'/rrent. For the southem Callfcmia region. milps of the planning region should be provided at a scale of 1:100,000, with minimum mapping units of 100 ha (250 acres) and a minimum resolution of 100 m (330 feet). Ideally these maps would be GIS-based. Data layers Should inClude vegetation, urban and agricultural land use, land ownership, topography. climate. distribution of taroet species. 8t\d available Information on speCies CJf concern. 712Oft3 OAAFT CONSERVATION GUIDWNES ,-.- - For each subregion. GIS-baSed maps (or accurate manually drawn maps based en similar data) should bl provided at a scale of ':24,000 with minimum mapping units of '0 ha (25 seres) and minimum resolutiOn of 30 m (100 feet). Data layers should include those required for regiot'lal planning as well as specific concltions relevant to the subregion. WltI'I great emphasis on ground- truth!ng and verification of data. 2. Trends in biodiversity. It is the intent of the NCCP to preserve a sub$tantial representilllon of the biodiversity associated wi1h css. Setter informatiOn on the effect of reserve size and adjoining land uses on biodiversity would help planning deemons. Monitoring of select taxa is neoessary to assess the ongoing success of CSS ccmmunity canservation efforts. Indicator taxa (such as CSS dependent bird$, smaU mammals. and butterflies) should be employed due to time and funding ccnstraints. The relationships between species richness/composition and habitat patch area and the effects of isolation should be investigated in sampling programs. These sampling progr2lTls will entail surveys for species richness and ccmposit!on within a carefully selected series of CSS patches in each subregion. 3. DI.~etUI ctlar.cterlstlCl and landScape corridor use. More information about dlspersallimitalionS of CSS species would help planning for adequate linkages between reserves and reveal trade-offs between increasing reserve size end improving corridors. Dispersal information adequate to allow tests of sensitivity of metapopulation models to connectivity are required. Data from s.veraJ locations wllhln the planning region during both breeding and non- breeding seasons should be gathered on target species, mountain lions, coyotes. and representative small mammals and Invertebrates, 4. Demography and population viability analysis. One test of the potential effecti\leness of reserve systems is population viability analysis- l1mHeries data on the two target species of birds should be gathered in at least half the subregions and from represert.atiVe physlcal circumstances that span those found across the regional diS1rlbutions of the species. Data should include territory SIZe, time budgets. reprcduc:tive success, survivorship. emigration and immigration. with separate data obtained both for males and females where pos.ible. PopUlation viabifrty analyses should be carried 0l.Il for sample populations and metapopulations, and should consider connectivity and environmental effects. $. Surveys and auteeolOlllleal studIes of sensitive animals and plante. Basic:: information on the IccallOn, abundance, distribution. and natural histOry of vertebrate and invertebrate candidate species for federal protectiOn and CSS- usociatlKl pIarrt species of special concarn should be gathered from select lita throughout the plannil'lg region. Each subregional planning exerelse should contribute to this regional effort. 6. Genetic StUdl... The maintenance of genetic variation 1$ critical to the long- term viabllily" of speCies inhabiting CSS IItId wiU be an important as~Bct of 7/10~ ORAFT COHSERVATIQN G/JIDELJNES P.ge 7 monitoring populations under a NCCP. Ceclining genetic variation will be one symptom of inadequate &nkages between reserves and can siC,lnal a need for changes In reserve management. Baseline data for comparison with future concfltiona should tie gathered at the earliest possible opportunity. Target species and several invertebrates should be sampled from several locations in each subregion. Most genetic data can be obtained with non-destructive sampling techniques in conjunction with other studies that require handling of indMclual animals. c. Management and restoration Management and restoration prllC'lloes should be addressed as part of a weD- coordinated research program. Management and restoration research will be valuable to SUbregional NCCP planning. Even after a NCCP is adOpted, ongoing restoration l'8$earch will be essentlal to adaptive management of coastal sage scrub habitat. The Califomia Department or Fi$h end Game in COBaboration with the US Fish and Wild"f. Service wll convene a committee of experienced practitioners In the management and restoration of collStal Ng. scrub habitats to dewlop guideline. for .~h activities. This commlttH should revi.w pertinent docUl'lt8l'lts and address tl'1e ctJrT8nt state of knowledge In the following ar.as key to the management of coastal sage scrub: o Exotic speclts COntrol, including both animals (in particular, cowbirds and f.ral and domestic mesopredators IUCI'I as hOuse cats and intrOduced red fOxes) and plants (weedy species, especially annual specin of old world origin) o Aecreetional use of ClOaata/ .ag~ :scrub and other opon :space reserve ara~. inc:luding identification of suitabl. low Impact recreational pursuits consistent with preseN8tlon goals. o The role of fire in natural ecosystem dynamiC$ and processes, including the appDcation of COntrol bums and the control of ignitions of accidental and vandal origin. Restoration considerations to be addressed in welklesigned field experiments include: o Identification Of restoration unit sizes. including identification of maxirmlm areas that are restorable using current tec:hniQU8!l_ A focus on patch enlargement techniques Is advised. o Identi1lcation of coastal sage Sel'lJb responses to soil conditions in restoratiOl'l efforts, wtth focus on soa structure, soil nutrient levels. 'organic matter content, water holding capacity, and soil compaction. o IdentlllCatlon or appropl'l8te Seeding, outplanung, and irrigation techniques wilh fOCUS8!l on proper mixes of seedS. seeding techniques. and timing of applications of seed and irri9ation. , o ldentiftcatlon of techniques to encourage native herbaceous species and to cIIccurag. the establishment of exotic species. o Establshment of realistic success criteria to evaluate restoration considering sage spea" diversltt and cover, and use by target species. 7/2tl193 OMFT CONSERVATION fiWlJEUNES j'a~e B The management and restoration committee wil be expected to deSlgn multifactorial !tiel experiments at approp~ spatial scales using expficit and repeatable scientific method to aid in differentiating among altemative techniques. Since treatments will In aD likelihood vary wllh physical circumstances, local vegeta1ion composition and $U'UClUre. and Other uniQue conditions. eaCl'l sUbregional planning unit will be expected 10 contribute to the regional management and restoration research effort. d. Application to aubleglonal plannl"; The biogeography research task will provide mapping of physical features, land uses, and vegetation to portray the options for the design of a subregional reserve and corridor network. The other research tasks win assist planners in evaluating conservation planning Op1lons by documenting species distrIbutions and relative abundances within each subregion, by identifying the sizes and configurations of habitat patches necessary to sustain stable demographic units of target species, and by assessing the physical charaetetistic$ of Iandscep. corridor linkages required to facilitate cfl$persal, gene flow, and recolonization by s~les inhabiting the coastal sag. scrub eommll\ity. Sased on this Information, subregional NCCPS win designate a system of interconnected r.serves designed to: 1) promote biodiversity, 2) provide for high likelll'lOOdS for persiStence of target speCies in the subregion, and 3) provide fc:lr no nat Joss of habitat value from the prellent, taking Into account management and enhancement No net loss of hllbitat "Vole moanll no net reduQtion in the abilIty of the subregion to mlintaln viable populations of target species over the long-term. The NCCP will need to establish a wide range of habitat management and enhancement tools and incorporate a monltaring program to provide guidance for ongoing management WIth Improved tec:hniques for management and restoration, the goe! of no net loss of habitat value may be attainable even if there is a net loss of habitat. acreage. Several basic tenets of reserve design should be a~lled to each subr~ion: 1. Conaerve targetspeele. throughout the planning area: Species that are weJl.cfl$tributed ecross their native ranges are less susceptible to extinction than are species confined to small portions of their ranges. 2. Larger r8HlYes ar. better: LNglI blocka of habitat containing large populatlQns of the target specieS are superior to small blocks of habitat containing small populations. 3. Keep renrv. are.. ctose: Blocks of habitat that are close to one another are better thin blocks of habitat far ~art. 4. Keep habItat contiguous: Habitat that occurs in le$$ fragmented. contiguous blacks ii preferable to habitat that Ii fragmented or iSolated by urtJan lands. 7j20/ll3 0IlAFT OON$E1IIIATION GUllJEWIES Peg. , 5. Unk r...1'VM wfth corridors: Intan:oMeeted blocks of habitat serve COIlS8IVIlion purposes better lhan do isolllted bJoc:l<s of habitat. Corridors or inkllges function bitter whln the habitat WIthin them resemOl8$ haDltalll'lat Is preferred by target spedes. e. R..rv.. shOuld be diverse: Blocks of habitat should contain a diverse rejnSenllltion of physical and environmentlf condilions. 1. Protect .,rve. from encroachment Blocks of habitat that are roadless or oltlerwin inacc:essible to human distu~c;o serve to better COI"lSeIVo target species than do accessible habilal blocks. 4. implementing interim Str.tegy The interim &tratogy can bo 1mJ'lernenlccl in steps as Ilpecltied in the ProClS$ Guidelines. ThIN'" summarized below WiltI comments: 1. EstabGsh each subregional NCCP planning body aocordlng to process ;uldellnes. 2. Designltl abregions. ,,_ ..... ~ b.-. d~ by IN SRP. l.OCIII /UMd/cI:lons a,. 10 draw the a=UlIIllCIUfICIaIleIl b8lwMn 'ClOYS _ Ie ~.. ...~ ..... NCeI' p!alWllI- Icl-'Y. the.. etlQUd be one eubregJgn lor IKh bM..... H_. IUbreglorwl llOIftfarl. QI/\ be drawn IQr p1arJWlg ~ ~ 1IO COI'HtlllaIll JIlriIdl=lIonlll lIaundaIIeL DMIIOIlI Ulng COIII'IY tlOI/f1daIIn .. appIOpllIIa. an:! Vlefe .. '4111I10 COlIIdinallng p1a1'llll1lll Oft a . 1CIle. How8vw. the K Inlarin .... l01I cap wi apply 10 .l:h blcIogIcIIIy dellned IllIngIoll. L.Irga iUbreglona mull mlllC the Db/eel""- oIlmil1ng t/IoI1-t11l1l CSS l01I. on a b101Oll1C111ly \oIIIl1CS "a. and aorne lUIlIW .uIldMaicll at a II/gt pIamIng I\lIIre;Icln lr'IIo approptlllely Iized blologlcal SUblreu for lIle DlI'llOM oIl1CCOU111111ll fclr Irtarlm hIIllllIIloS$ nay be NIl;esury. 3. Inventory CSS habitallnd species In subregion. ". II........... ,.... .... llweMory w-.rlc ... ''80~ ......Ina has .... _pi....,. S~ IUN~ hMcYer..... ....geIt InDcJnplele. DIll COInp'~ apecIe. NW)'I _ IlOl cIllJca/ IA IIarlm I<<lIIt ThI PIannng A;r8lmlllllllllbllahlnll a mlbrlllllOll wiI epedfy _ CIIh... ope..... r MY. In MdIdoll Ie> tIlo .,.. 11'"100 willie ..l01Iy add__ In pWIn1ng fClr hIr IUbrwgIort. II\dMdIal paRllIb IhlrIIIlI conlldered lQr _It=~ _..... Ill. 10 belUN~ lor 1hllI. .pecIa 4. Determinllong-terrn conservation YIIlJe of lands In subregion. S.lMUlIon llfOC8U n"""l.lIticln IlWlhodclogy. belew. AI as habitat lit the ~ 1110 be MuallC and mapped. 5. CelouIate ass habitat area and compute 5% itIWim Ion cap for each aubreglon. NI C:SS hablIaI In !he _11111; 1\ ilIA be eourod 10 CClIIIllloQ \III IlISII lor tM15-. IrI!eIfrn 1-. IrlcI1MlIIIg all publldy ANI pIMIIIy GWNICI land. 'TN IMIt lndUlMo dlllNllcn (II ess IIloi.CcI be laM. There II no 1IIIIIimu"" pIICel ,Ill IIvlIIIIald for C_IIl-. IlUIclUgll W _"" rnapPIMQ ..... lor 11II lUIlrIlgfOll ll.g. 25 acres), C1r 7/20~" 8iz8' and density, locatiOn. and blOlogie QOlnponlnts. , ." 7120"'3 OAAFT CONSERVATION G/JIIJEUNES Page 10 IClIl1e ocn.r lInsl1cld 11m! rr-.y be IPprapriate for de!ermlnilg hab/lat _ that .,. 'too ,mall to COUI'Il.' Where. pla.'VIII'Ig 5Ubreglon has been drawn on . &Call Iarg.r than Ihe focus ateIIldt/lllllld by the SRP, Ule subl'lgJotll'lllY need to be dMd.:llnto smaller sutlareu that are adequate To accOUllT for Int.rim C$S Iosaea. The baseline should reflec;t tile eaten& of CGS u of March 25. , 9S3, 1h_1lme tho SRI" DOnMNatiOl'l ~ lKommenclallon ~. IllIde and the USFWs "sting at the Califom/a llnatcatcher was pt,IbI'lhed. Only thatt pn)jtcts already IPProved bV COFG and USFWS and IlCpIlcllly lIleellng lhe l'lIqulremems allhe EIldangered SpecJes ~ Ihould be exchJded from the bI.... The butI,,. calcUatJon and designation at subareas tar ICCCllll\llno muSl be Verified bv !he US Fish and WIIdlWo SOMeO and tllA Califcmla O'~tNllf of J:b,II And Gem.. 6. establish an entity to serve as a central Clearing hOuse to aoc:ount for cumulative habitat loss in each Subregion. That entity wi1l advise local land use Jurisdictlons. Tht IIllily oocAd be tht Nec:P PannIng body, a eautlcll aI gGWmrnenra, or a wild/II. 1Q8IlCy. Some ;rgvlllcn wtlll8tCIlo be mad. to c:oardlnare and to lIaQOunt for Itlile Il<<llecu. or for UliIlty or transponmjon prajecrs t!lal croa SUbregiOnal bouncIar1e.. 7. Identify interim mtigation requirements for aD development on CSS habitat. ThIa wauIcI belt be done by !he allbl'elllonal NCCP pIanIIhg body; II muat be .Ifabllshed In . aubragJQna/ P/lItInlng agfIt/IlInt or '1lCllher wrtten dacument rlQulrtng COIICUIl'IfIca r:llha US FIsh Ind WDclite SeniIc:e and the CaI!omIa Department of FIsh IIld Gerne. lb, PfOI/IIJons for Inlerlm mftlGatlor1l111Ulna wilIllIId to be appled by Ioc:tI llll'bdlctlofta and ftllly Induct. . roqUlrOfl'lOrlt!hat the 1aIwI0INrl0I reo.iving appr-, for Irlterim CSS Jake will maIca an apprcprlal. ClOIIVlI/lment to Q;1fItInu. to Plltic11llU 'n the 0\1""" aubre;lcqf NCCP progr.rn. It Is recognized tnat fUl mIllgadon I!l8y nor b. pracrJc:aI dUrUlg tht 1nIeth1 penoa blCIUH I'IAIlYIlCqulslllon pI'CIgI'a/nI and al'lh8neemenr t8cl\niquta Ivr4 nor beM nIabllshed. Howevw, an 8pprGwd 8Ubreg1cna/ NCQf wlI ~y mlllQata -erlm IoheI. 'n Ihe IrIaItTt llhae. adeQU/II. rnftlOlllJon flit losaea d Iowar ~lIlt hIllllat may fII1ge from PI)1IltnI of a fee to purchaaa or to tel aide hlQnar IIaIut habitat. Mana;ernem and rtlsIor8rJort doni unclenakan II mitigation dtlrirllJ III4IInl.rlnl prCl;lllm wI! IIdd to tile 0IfCl'Q/1 ability of thelle aol'lCONIltIon too/Q fa be II1Iplo~ more SlICCeasfU/ly in the fUMe. 8. Identify and tlD Scientific information needs for long*term planning. A~ op.iIte acIn11c raellch tasks will vary from flIbt8Qion to IUbfO$l'on d'pendlng on !he amount or lnI~n aVBlabl.. Ih. .mount of heblta% conversion pr~OS8d. and the CClnM,.".Ucn 1IlIEegl-. belnll canslderad. Sclantlllc: fMllrcn rnuat be coordinated with l'8Glon-Y4da dOltS. The tlmlnQ and funcilnO for aubregJonal rllSllllCll may need to be phased with ataged 'mpjemenlallctl d a plan. 9. Complete and implement aubregionaJ NCCP according to proceal guidelines. 5. D~rmlnlng 'otentIaILang.tann eonservatlon Value .. AlInklng lend for Interim protection CSS and Icme assoeiated non-CSS natural lands need to be evaluated and ranked for Interim Pratec:tlon. Interim protection ShcuJd be afforded to lands that are ikely to be impOl"tar1t to long-term eons.rvation pfllMing options clue to CSS Patch size and density, location. and biologle components. 7/20/>>3 f)/W'r ~/NATION GWDEUNES ",g. 11 1. HIgher potential value: To determine areas of potential long-term conservation value, large, relatively dense areas of CSS must be identified. These are termed Higher VlIlue Oistricts and are possible core areas fer a reserve system. They need to be Identified early in the plaMing process and protected from habitat loss and fragmentation while planning is under W'lq. The methodology described below places 50% of the CSS in a subregion in the higher potential value calegory. 2. intermediate potential value: Lands that probably can not b. managed B$ independent reserves. b'.rt which by virtue 01 high quality. or proximity or linkage to the Higher Value Districts should be treated as potentially significant for subregional conservation plaMing. 3. Lower potential value: Land considered to have lower potentia/long-term consel"Vation value will be that remaining after the higher potentia value districts and the intermediate value are.. hive been identlfted. Small, isolated CSS patd'ies (especially those surrounded by urban lands) with rtlatively small populations should be considered of low Iong.term potential value. Development of these Ianels could result in a take of small numbers of individuals of target species and would probably not affect the long-term vlabiltty of 'laIget species or other species of ccncem . OVerall, an estimated 10% to 25% of the CSS in a subregion would fall into 'the lower potential value category. For the ranking approach to interim habitat loss to fundlon. it is important that . lignltlcant amount of land be clilllod lIS lower value. The criteria for identifying higher and intermediate value land should be adapted to local conditions. b. evaluation procn_ Each subregion needs to show interim protection for higher potential value lands on a map. The step-clown 8Y8Iuatlon process is outlined here. Large, dense areas of CSS are the Higher potential vatue lands. N8turaJ lands that occur in linkag.., that are dose to pOlliblo core CSS area, or that have h~h 5pecle5 richness are considered Intermediate potential value lands. Remaining CSS is considered to have L.cwer J)Otential valUI!I. The guideline policy for local government treatment of the Higher. Intermediate, and Lower potential value lands during the interim periOd is given in section 6. A flow chart IUustrsling the logic is included as Attachment C. ,. Natural ~nd: Is na1UraI vegetation present? Yes: Check CSS presence (#2) No: Not r.revant for reserve planning. 2. CII: 1$ CSS present? YIS: Check large size (#3) No: Check landscape linkages (#5) 7120,/13 ulW'r c;oNSEllVAl1ON GlJlDEUNES Plge 12 3. Large Size: Is CSS the most dense CSS in subregion? Yes: land forms a Higher Value District No: Check pl'O.XiJT:llty (#4) 4. PrOXimity: Is land Close to Higher Value District? Yes: Land is Intermediate Value No: Cl'lecl< landscape IInkagtt$ (#5) 5. Land.cap. Unkag..: Is land located in corridor between Higher Value Districts? Yes: Und Is Intermediate Value No: Check species presence (#6) 6. Species Pres.nce: Does land support l'ligh denSity of target SPecles? Does land support significant population. of highly endemic species or rare eub-habitat types? Ye$: Land is Intermecf_ Value No: I.JInd is lDwer Value c. Evalultlon me1hoda 1. Natural Land: Natura/land is land with e signlllcant cover of natural vegetation. Natural vegetation in this COntext InCludes au native California natural communities and includes forestlands, shrublancts, native and non-native grasslends, non-irrl;ated IBnd. gTced land, and vacant or dlsturbed natural land. N.turaIland el(cIudes lands subject to intensive agric:ulture and urban uses. Disturbed !Me:! or land recently cleared may lIbll be restorable and should be included In the evaluation. The California Department of Conservation F8m'IIandI Mapping and Meniloring Program is one ~ to identify natural lands: natural lands are annas classified II "grazing" or Oother.. GeneraDy, land not mapped by the Department of Conservation can be assumed to be natUral in eastern portiOns at the study area and urban in western portions. 2. Coastal Sa;e scrub: CSS includes landscape areas supporting priml1y or secondary cover of characteristic ess plant spedes dominants as defined by the SRP, Speei&I Report No. 2, March 1992. A generalized map of CSS and a summary description is attached as Attachment A. 3. Urge Size: The largest CSS patches in 1he subregion shoulcl be c:onsidered 8$ possible core areas fOr 1utrze reserves. Because CSS distribution is naturBfty patc:hy, patch size needs to represent presence of CSS habitat at an intermediate spatial seale and needs to integrale over minor fragmentation and cfdferences in vegataticn mapping methodologies. Habitat patches should net be discounted as "too smaS" merely because they are mbled with other nat\Jl'a1 vegetation types. It is, however, appropriate to exclude landscape sre8S that are highly urbanized.. 7.1201>>3 D1lAFT COHSEJfVATION GU/OEUNES Page 13 The objective of the evaluation process is to id.ntify larger patches of CSS In 1M aubr.;icn. These are the Higker Value Distriets. The method of finding the larger patches can be adjusted to contritions present in each subregion. The SR? recommends determining the percent of CSS cover in 8 neighborhood around individual CSS patches. When the entire subregion is evaluated, these patches of CSS habitat with the highest percent CSS cover in the neighborhood. cumulatiVely representing 50% or more of all CSS covar within a subregion can be identilled. Neighborhoods should have a radius of , /2 to 1 mile. Thi$ spatieJ scale for planning reflecb biological CharacteristiC$ of CSS species end the need for agglomerations of CSS on a scale potentially suitable for incorporation into a reseNe networlcs. The determination of the 'core 50%" also takes Into account the presence of urban al\d non-CSS natural land. 4. Proximity: CSS patches close to a core can be identified by measuring direct, straight-fine distances. Appropriate spatial scale must be determined for each subregion and Sl'lould be on the order at one-quarter to one-half m~e. :5. LanCS,gap. UnkIt..: Natur.'Ian~. and even lands in intensive agriculture, may contribute to reserve network COMec:tivity. Corridors must be drawn such thllt each Higher Value District Is connected 10 the closest adjacent districts. A geometric corridor between Higher Value Districts is defined by drawing two straight lines tangent to each district. Boundaries can be adjusted as necessary to refttct naturII features such as riperian areas that may curve outside of a defined geometric corridor. 6. Species Presence: A test must identify areas 1) that need special protection In the interim to reduce the Plcollhood of take of species and 2) that may have long-term value due to special =nditions that support significant populations of highly endemIc species. rare sub-hahital: types. or vegetation subcommunities. What constitutes significant populations must be determined for each subregion. For target species, the SAP oonsidel'$ habitat that supports a portion of . local population with 1Iv. or more pairs of gnatc8tcher or cactus wrens to bl signJllcant. For other spedes of plsnl.l Qr ilnimals Qnclucfng tho:;;e species Dstad or cancflClates fer listing). the SRP considers habitat that supports a porticln of . Jocal population representing more than 20% of the known population of the St.lbregion to be signifant. The species presence test spec/fic:aJJy means that each parcel under consideration for development will b' subject to . species clearance: a SIJMtf for t8rget species and other rate plants and animals. The survey snould use teChniques speCified by the SRP or equivalent methods. (See SAP Survey Guidelines.) Species presence during a OM-time survey is not a reliable measure of habitat value. Moreover. species survey work i$ also expensive and time consuming. For this reason, the basic methodology to identify potential rese/'lles relies most heavily on less variant aspects of the landscape. 7;20"" ORAFT CONSERVATION GUaUNES rage 1. e. Polley t. 'ending approval of subregional Neep When formal ~anning is underway, the conservative interim strategy seeks to mlnim2e short-term loss of habitat and CSS species and to prevent foreclosure of options for long-term con$erv.tion planning by deferring development decisions on lands that may be important c:omponent$ of a final CSS community conservation plan. Potential Long-term Conlfll"ll8tion Value Pofi~ Defer development decisions where possible. Determine actU8I COn5lN'VBlIon suitability in NCGP. Allow development only where It can be proven that the loa will not foreclo" resorve planning options. Special mitigation wDI be required. Case-by-ease deci$ionS. Special mitigation may be warranted. Higher Value Intermtdiate Value Low.r Value . Allow development with adequate mitigation. Cumulative CSS loss in any subregion or any subarea of . large subregion Is rmltod to :i% during the interim period. . b. WIth approved sUbreglona. NCCP An approved subregiol".a1 NCCP plan will supercede the interim designation of potential long-term conservation value and the interim 5% CSS loss limit will no longer apply. Implementation of an explicit subregional plan wt1l allow long-term economic interests to be served. Inl'lerern In the NCCP II resolution gf tec:hnical and implementation issues to allow specification of Jong-tetm c:onslN'Vation programs. The flnal subregional NCCP may provide for development of IancIs inltially designated as having potential long-term conservation value If it is later determined that actual long- term eonservation value is lower. Conversely, lands originally thought to be of lower value may be cW.ermlned to be valuable in final conservation plans. This consideration i$ one of many 1hat support a conservative interim Ios$ ceiling. c. In tM lbaence of a aulngional NCCP If total cumulative loss of CSS habitat area is kept below 5%, public agencies can undertake 1'88loraticn independently of private lands to attempt to compensate for the 5% habitat area loss that was net directly mltigattd by measures imposed on ap~ovals on private land during the interim precess. 7120"'3 D1IAFT CON$ERVA T10N G/JIDEUNES Page 15 Attachment A. G.n.rallzed Map of Co.sial Slge Scrub Habitat '<~-~ ,.,'.. 4itr #~ SAN ElERNAADINO LOB ANGELD . ..c.. COASTAL SAGE SCRue ICSSl .~~'& -r... ~ SAN DIEGO .~J ".. ~.~,..~: .. ..~. ~~ . F\....'..: t;,- ;. .. .... ell.. ..,,,,,041 q the Callfomi. 0.....,.,._ of FiItI en4 G.me. NMlnl MerRae' Division. Covwap incompllte, CS$ .. mapped lIy UC SwIll BarDen GAP "Of"'" flO'" La1ldnt datil. . Pritll.'V CSS COVlrao'. . II SeconcIery C$$ CCl\/llllIIC. Ctla...ft..i~;c .p..... of CO_I sa.. scrub includ. Ca~fomla ~ AffMftisie etlilorlllul. .......1 specie. of "I' ~ me/IIf~1 .,.,~ "'}f'I1J~.".t end SMv. ..".J. Celifomia etlUI~ ~ t:""""c.I. llrirllebueh CEltt:.,. ~N'I. 1M Diego llU'Ifloww (V~ INNrel. ..-Ill bUt:Kwheetll rlf'lCluding ~ f,a:icuJ,rum and &-.- ""-"I. Mtll"" tcleropn.,llD... ...,.... sUGll .. 1tfMtIm,~. IfiHn "'''/lflt*. and Nw ov." lI1I mell IlItchily .iStfllMK in ~ of coestal saQe sc:ruII. 1j20~3 I I I J I c . . D 7120)13 fJRJFT CONSEJrVATION GUIDELINES 'aga 18 Attachment 8. SUbregional Focua Areal Subregional C55 NCCP Planning Unit Focus IAap -.N ~-~_." Sulot... ,..... Ar_ c.... 1uo<1i..... ...... _ " ...,.. ..-...... ~ IMule .. ~ . iIId...... IlCa' ............ ~ 1lIliIs. W ~ .. ...... Ill. _1Iof UIIils .. _ ...... eN OmJiI,,*,Iali.. 1M mt 4fi9I 01 "" o.lIlity ........ .... tho ~ f_ _ ......_ 0lIl lIIe .... ... reI1tds lII\ClItiIrl ..m.,a,;.. _.~". at tile ..e. s.w;11 AI_ l_ 01 tIIMIeaIioI C$S hQitdl .... ...... .. "..... .. ._ wilJl ... .r 1Ile'-_L lItw .... 1#91. _ .... ..",..... ,_ 01 MIdoIe _. ..., __ as nallllll. _ witll we. os -"- . hCilal 1Mo1f" f., CSS """ _ il'lCluile .._ A~" .i c~_ .oil...... IItIa: fA TIle fecw GIld _lei.. ... .. ~ .. ft.k.latNrl If ._ _..... ~ ..._.s.... _ IIIll ........ ~u., .f .MIIiWe 11~ n;,.. Mt . ... .. CIS ......L .. - -- DRAFT CONSE1IV~TION GUIDELINES ".Qe17 Attachment C. Evaluation Logic Flow Chart Refer to Illld sllClion S. Co ElIllluatlGn Method. for detinlllona. RESULT Hili ,.'-1r!or ~ planni)a. v" a.-l fonns a HioIw VaIua Dlaicl HI,her Potential VaJui For ::motenn Conu on D.f. "''',..nr dIcIsians 'Mhn~. Ottamline _1111 CllrUl'4IIon ~.~ "elM.. __"'~ wIIbenlQUirld. No v. Illtermedlate Patafttlal Veil.. for Long.tirm ConatMtlOn e.. 0)'- ........ $pec;m m~ m'1 be lIfaIraI1IId. Lawr Potential Value For Long"'.rm CoIlltMtlOft AllN~lI. Adequate nqdOll. 7/20/P~ ..."..- if . fIIIIIt-- j I Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance Guidelines for Conserving Wildlife in ln Urban Landscape lichael E. Soule 'Ie study of plants and animals on islands, both llural and artificial, has produced a body of :neralizations immediately useful to land use 'anners concerned with minimizing the impacts ' habitat destruction on the environment. A case !Idy of 37 isolated chaparral fragments in San ;ego, California, demonstrates the conse- dcnces of habitat fragmentation, including '"lid and predictable extinctions of native birds isolated canyons. This study and others can be "d to generate planning guidelines for the pre- 1tion of such disappearances. Among the most nortant measures that can be taken are con- ,idation of open space set-asides and the pro- ,ion of corridors linking habitat patches. Cor- ;,; Jors can mitigate some of the negative effects , i development on wildlife, especially where they :dcilitate the movement of large predators. '--ollie received his doctorate from Stanford University ,,," was founder and first president of the Society for l.'lllll.;ervation Biology. He is the author or editor of five :"Ioks in this field, including Viable Populations lor COll- ,-:wit"" (Cambridge University Press. 1987) and Con- " ',-lwio" Biology: Science of Scarcity and Diversity (Sinauer \"I)cintes, 1986), He is at the University of California, \nlla Cruz. as chair of environmental studies. He was .h;lirman of the Planning Commission for the city of r 1~1 .\-lar, California. ~":"'/(I/ of the American Plannil/g Association. Vol. 57. No, I. Summer 1991. D American Planning Association, lhil:ago,lL. The public concern about environmental issues will continue to increase as the planetary environment de. teriorates under the weight of a rapidly growing human population and accelerating discharges of toxic chemi- cals. solid and organic wastes, greenhouse gases. and other by-products of human activities, Since the publi. cation of Design with Nature (McHarg 1971), an envi- ronmental perspective has gained prominence in land use planning. This interest is exemplified by the attention given to physical factors, such as soil hydrology (Dearden 1980; Dunne and Leopold 1978), geologic hazards (Griggs and Gilchrist 1983), and visual amenities (Elsner and Smadon 1979). and by the integration of planning and landscape architecture (McBride 1977). CUl1'ently, many environmentalists and the public at large are asking that planners give more attention to the impact of development on native animal species (wildlife values). For example. there is growing concern among environmentalists that laws such as the Endangered Spe- cies Act. though they provide for the short-term needs of cel,ain critically threatened, "nagship" species, do not address the fundamental issues of the deterioration of entil'e ecosystems or regions. The worrisome if slow de- cline of songbirds and amphibians, and the steady dis- appearance of wetlands in the United States (ferborgh 1989; McKibben 1989) exemplify this gradual environ. mental deterioration. Surveys (Kellert 1980) have shown that most city people appreciate natural amenities, in- cluding native wildlife. and that citizens are willing to pay for a more authentic environment. Just as the 1970s was the decade when land use plan. ning and landscape architecture were integrated. the 1990s might be the decade when planners recognize the relevance of conservation biology, landscape ecology, and restoration ecology. An integration of principles and guidelines from these modem biological disciplines would provide planners with additional tools to deal with the effects of development on biological diversity in gen- eral. and the viability of native species in particular, The principles of modem island biogeography, one of the Core disciplines of conservation biology and landscape ecology. can provide useful guidelines for planners wish- ing to assist communities in maintaining a I"ich environ~ mental mosaic that complements other components of human welfare, To demonstrate this point, this article opens with an ove,'view of conservation biology, followed by a case study from San Diego showing how the results of such research are relevant to the issue of cumulative impacts of development' on envil"onmental quality. Guidelines that might p,'omote the maintenance of wild- life in the suburbnn situation are then suggested. and the limits of extrnpolntion f,'Om the San Diego system to those in othe,' regions are explored. Island Biogeography and Conservation Biology We live in n world in which natural habitat is increns- ingly confined to isolated pntches, FOI' some time it has \PA lOL:R:-;-\L 313 SL:\I\IER ,qq, r MICHAEL E. SOULE been observed that isolation increases the risk of extinc- tion. and in the last quaner-century the rules governing species extinction in isolated patches of habitat have been clarified by practitioners of the scientific discipline known as island biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). Though some controversies linger. there is sufficient agreement (Soule and Simberloff 1986) among these practitioners to warrant a system of guidelines for land use planners. Similar guidelines have been discussed for over two decades in the literatures of applied island bio- geography and conservation biology (Diamond 1975). Island biogeography is one of the cornerstones of Con- servation biology (Soule and Wilcox 1980; Soule 1986; the journals Conservation Biology, Biological Conser- valio", and Biogeography), a field dedicated to the ap- plication of science to the protection of genetic resources, species diversity (the prevention of extinction), and eco- logical diversity (the maintenance of ecosystem processes and habitat diversity). Island biogeography overlaps con- siderably with landscape ecology (Turner 1989); both areas are concerned, in pan, with the loss of species from habitat fragments, and with the disappearance of wildlife in the vicinitv of human settlements. One of th~ established principles of island biogeog- raphy is that the rate of species extinction in an isolated patch of habitat is inversely related to its size (MacAnhur and Wilson 1967); this is one aspect of a more general phenomenon known as the area effect, a term referring to the deleterious effects on biotic systems of decreasing patch size, per se. Even quite large habitat islands have observable rates of extinction. For instance, it is now recognized that most national parks in the western United States are too small to prevent the extinction of many medium-sized and large mammals (Newmark 1987). On a local scale, isolated patches of habitat the size of most open space "set-asides" are often much too small to pre- vent catastrophic rates of habitat disturbance and the loss of many species of animals (as described below). Unfonunately, by the time the disappearance of wildlife is noticed by the human residents in a new subdivision, it is too late to do anything about it. Edge effects are also associated with habitat fragmen- tation. Because the ratio of edge habitat to interiOl' habitat inc,'eases as fragment size decreases (Figure I). it is im- p0l1ant to understand how edges affect wildlife. Edges (or ecotones. as habitat interfaces a"e called in wildlife biology) Occur where a habitat. such as a forest. meets a road, a clear-cut. or some other element. natural or artificial. Edges benefit certain species, such as dec,,, But most conser'Vationists believe that edges, overall. aI'C detrimental to the maintenance of species diversity (see Conservation Biology 1988). Among some of the major categories of deleterious edge effects are (I) higher fre- quency and increased severity of fire, (2) highe,' rates of hunting and poaching, (3) higher intensities of pt'edation. (4) higher' probability of nest parasitism on bird nests by brown-headed cowbirds, and (5) higher intensities of browsing and other forms of disturbance that favo,' weedy species. As habitat destruction spreads and the distance be- tween remnant patches increases, animals find it more difficult to disperse between patches. The relation be- tween isolation and movement frequency is inve,'se, and is known as the distance effect. A corollary of this prin- ciple is that endangered populations in isolated patches are more likely to be "rescued" by dispersing individuals from other patches if the patches are close together (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977). Dispersal of individuals between patches can help protect against demographic "accidents," such as an episode of unusually high mo,'- tality. Immigrants can also "rescue" a population that is in jeopardy because of inbreeding or an unbalanced sex ratio. Generally, therefore. compact archipelagos com- prising islands that are close together have more species per island than do archipelagoes comprised of remote islands. This is because proximity facilitates both the res- cue of endangered populations and the recolonization of habitat islands where local extinctions have occurred. Another relevant generalization-from the discipline of community ecology rather than island biogeography_ is that large predators help to maintain the diversity of species within an ecosystem because they suppress the II 8 C [] ITIl [] [] . . - .... ... .... .... ................. .................. ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:-:.:-..;.;.;. .:.:.:...:.;.;. ................. . [ill [ill ... .... Eilll [ill ", ... '" .... ... ." ... .... .... .... ... .... ". ". ... .... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... .... ... ", ." .... ... ... . [] [] [ill [ill ... .... ... ." . ... .... ... ... ... .... ... ... .... ... .... .... .................. .;.;.:,.,:.:.:. .;.;.;...;.:.;. ................. .................. ................. .................. ................. .................. [] [] [] [ill .... ... .... .... . I nterior Habitat !ill Edge Habitat FIGURE I: Diagram of the re- lationship between edge effects and the amount of interior (un- affected) habitat as a function of the area of a habitat frag- ment. Note that the edge effects penetrate a constant distance, regardless of the size of the fragment. A represents a large fragment; B, four fragments that together equal the area of the Afragment; and C, 16 small fragments that together equal the area of the A fragment. , , APA JOURNAL }14!UMMER 1991 '" I f LAND USE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE MAINTENANCE numbers of destructive smaller predators. the depreda- tions of which can be disastrous for species such as ground-nesting birds. A common myth is that large pred- ators (such as wolves. coyotes. and cougars) are bad for wildlife. But this is true only if one uses a very restricted definition of wildlife. and if one means by "bad" that there are. say. fewer deer where predators are abundant. In most parts of the li nited States. it is deer. not predators. that damage natural and artificial ecosystems. None of the above problems occurs instantaneously; as fragmentation increases. the area of individual patches gradually decreases. the distance between patches in- creases. and edge effects creep inward. It is expected. therefore. that extinctions of species within isolates will be cumulative. In those rare situations where the ages of the isolates are known. one might expect to detect such an age effect; namely. the older the isolated patch. the more altered it should be. and the fewer species it should contain. A San Diego Case Study: The Fate of Birds in Chaparral Fragments ; The consequences of f,'agmentation have been studied in deciduous forests in the eastern United States (see Wilcove et al. 1986 fOl' a review). in the tropics (ferborgh and Winter 1980; Lovejoy et al. 1986). and elsewhere, but there have been few systematic analyses of fragmen- tation in the western United States (Newmark 1987). The case described below is an analysis of fragmentation in sage scrub and chaparral habitats in coastal Southern California. This example focuses on a particular group of bird species living in remnant habitat islands left after denaturation and development in San Diego County. In general. the results of this study are typical of those in forest habitats. except that the relative immobility of many of the birds in chapalTal may lead to a higher rate of extinction than would be expected on the basis of results from temperate fOl'ests. Chaparral' is a form of dense scrub vegetation. Among botanists. chaparral is celebrated for its extraordinary diversity of plant species (Raven and Axlerod 1978). Among fire fighters and plan- ners. it is often vilified for its flammability. especially dUI'ing the rainless summel' and fall typical of Mediter- ranean climates. Even though the dominant shrubs in coastal chaparral are ,'arely more than three meters high. and often less than one or two. this habitat suppOI'lS a very rich fauna. including mountain lions. bobcats. coy- ote. deer. diverse birds. reptiles. and insects. Only a fraction of coastal scrub vegetation remains in Southern California (Westman 1987; fensen et al. 1990). and most of the remnants of chaparral habitat in the coastal section of San Diego County a,'e limited to steep- sided canyons that dissect the coastal mesas. Until re- cently. these interconnecting canyons constituted a net. WOl'k of natural open space. They also served as neigh- borhood boundaries. Historically. people. especially children. have used the canyons fo,' the same purposes that people everywhere use open space. namely visual relief. exercise. walking dogs. and other forms of spon- ~ ~ , f I I taneous recreation and play. Recently. the coastal can- yons have been serving another function-shelter for the homeless. Other socioeconomic conditions and techno- logical innovations. including escalating land values, the perceived need for a dense system of freeways. and the availability of efficient earth-moving machinery. have led to the denaturation of most canyon habitat and thus to the physical isolation of the remaining fragments of chaparral. This case study. therefore. addresses a com- mon dilemma in land use-the conflicts arising from pressures for short-term economic gain. on the one hand. and for long-term environmental quality. on the other. A Summary of Methods and Results The San Diego study (Soule et al. 1988; Bolger et al. 199 I) focused on species of birds that require natural scrub habitat for breeding and shelter. These were the black-tailed gnatcatcher. roadrunner. California quail. California thrasher, rufous-sided towhee. Bewick's wren. and wrentit. Censuses to determine the presence/absence of these chaparral-requiring bird species (CR birds) were conducted in 37 isolated canyons (Figure 2). The bio- geographic variables that are typically considered in such research (habitat area. isolation. island age) were used. and simple. partial, and multiple regressions were per- formed to determine the possible influence of these vari- ables on the persistence of the CR bird species in frag- mented habitat. Only the results relevant to planning are discussed here. The variables in this study included the sizes of canyons (AREA), the total area of natural chaparral cover in the canyons (CHAP), the "ages" (time elapsed since they became isolated from adjacent chaparral habitat by de- naturation and development-AGE) of canyons (fable 1). various measures of disturbance. and several variables estimating the degree of isolation of canyons from each other and from the closest unfragmented habitat. Much of the information was obtained from aerial photographs. subdivision maps, and city planning maps and records. Besides using these standard variables and sources. we included variables (such as FOXCOY) that represent the distribution of potential predators (see Table I). and we tested for interactions. We also took a census of birds in unfragmented. "mainland" habitat (Bolger et al. 199 I) in nearby. relatively undenatured. areas in southern Cal- ifornia. including Camp Pendleton and Tecolote Canyon. The following points summarize the most relevant results (nonsignificant effects are not discussed here); 1. Most canyons lose at least half of their CR birds within 20 to 40 years after isolation, though the larger canyons retain from two to six species (Figure 3). For canyons less than 50 hectares (about 123 acres). the av- erage number of surviving CR species after 40 years is 0.5. The attrition of habitat due to mechanical distur- bance. fire (Westman el al. 1981). and invasion by exotics (Macdonald et al. 1988) must account for some of this loss of bird species. A statistically significant proportion of these local (within canyon) extirpations. however. is independent of the amount of chaparral cover (as shown by partial correlation analysis). and can be attributed to \PA lOLR:>;AL 315 SL.\IMER 1991 ....... ~ MICHAEL E. SOULE '0 C....non 11 Zena 12 Baia 13 Auburn 14 'w'ashinQton 1 S Solan.... Dr. 16 SlIracus. 17 32nd St. S. 18 47th St. 19 Mil Cumbres 20 Cho Has 21 60th St. 22 .Juan 23 Acuna 24 Edison 25 R....ff.. 26 Sprue. 27 O.k Crost 28 54th St. 1 Floridi 29 Titus 2 Sandmark 30 Chat.au 3 34th St. 31 N..,.ort 4 Balbo. T.,.rae. 32 Ab.r 5 Alto L. Jon. 33 T.lbot 6 Kat. Susions 34 Montolnosa 7 Pott'n~ 35 PoinSfttia 8 Lau,..l 36 El Mac 9 C....mino Corolilino 37 32nd St. N 12 28 ... ... .21 ~ .. '-11 18~~ 20 13 7 .A J · . , " "'6~ LA JOLLA 33 .33 5) 9li-\. '30 , '.J4 62(\ "24 ~ : 31 I 10 . ^ 36 . /' 33 .35 , . , . ,. ,: ;. Ji ): " . . . .j '. . 3 : " j ~ I ~ MI~ES 2 I . the number of years since the canyon was isolated from a larger tract. Soule et a!. (1988) refer to this temporal component of the extinction process as the "age effect." It is likely that the underlying cause of this age effect is the small population sizes of most species in the isolated canyon fragments. Small populations are chronically vulnerable. Theoretical studies (e.g.. MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Goodman (987) and modeling results (Shaffer 1983) have shown that the probability of ex- tinction of small isolated populations increases exponen- tially below a population size of 75 because of the ran- domness inherent in demographic (birth and death) pro- cesses. Unmanaged populations under ] 0 or 20 individuals cannot normally be expected to persist for more than a few generations. Empirical studies also es- tablish that population size is the best predictor of local extirpation (ferborgh and Winter 1980; Soule et a!. 1988; Pimm et a!. 1988). 2. As shown in Figure 4. there is also an area effect. That is. the number of CR birds persisting in canyons is correlated with the area of undisturbed. natural habitat (CHAP) in the canyons. This effect persists after remov- ing. statistically. the age effect. Our interpretation of this area effect is that the amount of chaparral habitat that actually exists in a fragment at some point in time limits the number of species that can live in that patch at that time. This result is typical in that an area effect is the statistically strongest interaction in most island biogeo- graphic studies. 3. A third. statistically independant factor. FOXCOY. remained after removing (by partial and multiple corre- . " :, , I. " , I ': , .' " I' " d :j 19 - ... 15 FIGURE 2: Location of the study sites (canyon fragments) in the vicin- ity of San Diego, Cali- fornia. Site 37 was con- sidered a satellite of site 17, and was not in- cluded in the analyses described here. lation and regression) the age and area effects. Canyons frequented by coyotes and lacking grey foxes retain more species of CR birds than canyons without coyotes but inhabited by foxes. We attributed this result to the fre- quently observed inhibitory effects of coyote predation on smaller predators. especially foxes. opossums. skunks. and domestic cats. These smaller "mesopredators" are more likely to prey on birds and bird nests than are coy- otes. Foxes. for example. frequently forage by climbing bushes and small trees. 4. There was no statistically significant distance effect. In other words. the persistence of bird species in isolated fragments appears to be unaffected by the proximity of canyons to each other or by the distance to the closest unfragmented "mainland" habitat. Our interpretation of this finding is that the CR birds are virtually unable to cross barriers (streets. freeways. subdivisions). and thus are unlikely to benefit from proximity of other habitat islands. This is not to say that they are unable to fly the necessary distances. though many are indeed weak flyers. Rather. the poor dispersal ability of CR birds probably represents an intrinsic aversion to abandoning cover. In any case. recolonization of canyons following local ex- tirpations appears to be rare (Soule et al. 1988). The dramatic loss of species in canyons is not limited to birds. The attrition of native mammals. such as rodents. rabbits. and hares. occurs even more rapidly. These na- tive mammal species are replaced in the canyons by non- native (alien) species. notably house mice (Mus musculus). black rats (Rat/us rat/us). and opossums. a relatively re- cent invader from the east. Anecdotal evidence from APA JOURNAL 316 SUMMER 1991 - , LAND USE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE MAINTENANCE -- TABLE I: Biogeographic data used in the regression analyses. AREA CHAP AGE CANYONS SPECIES' (hectares)' (hoctares)" (yearst FOXCOV'" 1 Florida 6 102.77 67.83 50 1 2 Sandmark 6 84.05 75.65 20 1 3 34th St. 6 53.76 40.32 34 1 4 Balboa T. 5 51.77 38.82 34 1 5 Alts L.J. 6 33.14 16.57 14 1 6 Kate Ses. 6 25.56 15.33 16 1 7 Pottery 5 17.92 10.75 14 1 8 laUrel 0 9.72 .49 79 1 9 earn. Cor. 4 9.08 8.62 20 3 10 Canon 0 8.66 1.73 58 1 11 Zena 3 8.51 2.55 36 1 12 Baja 3 8.4 4.37 31 1 13 Aubum 2 8.37 2.51 32 1 14 Washington 2 8.07 1.31 74 1 , 15 Solana Or. 7 7.64 6.87 11 3 16 Syracuse 5 7.51 6.38 18 1 17 32th 5t. 5. 1 6.36 .95 56 1 18 47th St. 1 6.31 2.52 32 1 19 Mil Cumbres 6 6.23 5.61 11 3 20 ChoUas 1 6.22 1.56 36 1 21 60thSt. 2 6.11 2.14 37 1 22 Juan St. 2 5.97 2.99 23 1 23 Acuna 3 5.08 1.52 22 2 24 Edison 5 4.75 4.28 8 1 25 Raftee 3 4.74 2.37 19 1 26 Spruce 0 4.28 .43 86 1 27 Oak Crest 6 3.88 1.94 6 3 28 54th5t. 2 3.61 1.81 20 1 29 Titus 0 3.5 .25 77 1 30 Chateau 3 3.27 1.80 20 2 31 Newport 1 2.14 1.60 60 2 32 Aber 2 1.6 1.04 15 1 33 Talbot 0 1.41 1.27 55 1 34 Montanasa 5 1.32 1.25 2 3 35 Poinsettia 0 1.2 .30 50 2 36 EI Mac 0 1.1 .66 32 1 37 32nd St. N. 1 .4 .10 77 1 a. SPECIES is the number of chaparral-requiring bird spede$. b. AREA and CHAP are defined in the text. c. AGE is the years since iSOlation of the habitat fragment. d. Under FOXCOY, 1 "" coyotes absent. foxes present, 2 = coyotes absent, foxes absent, 3 a foxes absent. coyotes present. questionnaires passed out to local residents also suggests a rapid loss of reptiles from isolated canyons. Table 2 contrasts the kinds of birds and mammals that are found in long-isolated. disturbed canyons with the kinds ob- served in recently isolated. relatively undisturbed can- yons. Anticipating Future Extinctions Multiple ,'egression is often used to obtain an equation that can be used for predictive pu"poses. Urban planners and conservationsists wishing to anticipate the fate of CR birds in a particular habitat fragment in the southern California region could use an equation derived from the multiple regression results in Soule et al. (1988) in order to predict the number of species that will persist in a particular canyon after a certain number of years of iso- lation. The equation derived from the results is S, = 4.6 - 1.4 (in AGE) + 0.6 (in CHAp) + 0.8 (in AREA) + 0.7 (FOXCOY). where S, is the number of species at time t, AGE is the number of years since the isolation of a canyon. CHAP is the area of natural cover in hectares, AREA is the total area of the canyon in hectares, and FOXCOY is a Score based on the presence/absence of fox and coyote. !The values for AGE. CHAP. and AREA are converted to natural logal'ithms (In) befOl'e being multiplied by their respective coefficients.) Estimates of future values for CHAP and FOXCOY can be based on data in Soule et ..... ..\P.~ JOURNAL 317 SU~I~IER Iqql T MICHAEL E. SOULE , . al. (1988). Note that the numerical values given in the above equation take into account the correlations of the variables. and differ. therefol'e. from those shown in Fig- ures 3 and 4.' Say. for example. that a 2-hectare (5-acre) canyon was ~ to be isolated by a pending subdivision. One might want ~ to estimate the number of species of CR birds that would 1:. remain in the canyon in five years. twenty-five years. and '" seventy-five years. Assuming for the sake of simplicity '0 that FOXCOY has a value of 3 (coyotes present. foxes ;; absent). and using the above equation. the corresponding .c number of CR species that would be predicted to persist ~ following these intervals are 3.53. 1.26. and -1.18 (or Z zero). respectively. (fhe 95-percent prediction intervals around these values are approximately plus or minus 1.9 species.) Because nearly all canyons lose natural habitat with time. let us assume that 25 percent of the chaparral is replaced by non-native vegetation in 25 years. and that 50 percent is replaced in 75 years. Recalculating the number of surviving CR species with these reductions in habitat gives 1.1 species in 50 years and -1.59 in 75 years. respectively. Even given the broad prediction in- tervals. it is unlikely that any CR species will survive for 75 years. Such predictions are rough approximations. Nev- ertheless. this approach can provide estimates of the im- pact of fragmentation. thus transforming a nebulous warning ("extinctions will occur") into qualified math- .' ! I . . . . . . TABLE 2: Species of locally breeding birds and mammals expected to occur in canyons of differ- ent ages and degrees of disturbance . , . Long-isolated. disturbed canyons Recently isolated. undisturbed canyons . . . . . Pigeon House finch Starling Mockingbird BuShtit English sparrow Brown towhee Black phoebe Flicker Grey fox Striped skunk Opossum House mouse Black rat House cat Gopher Roadrunner California quail California thrasher Rufous-sided towhee Bewick's wren Wrentit Brown towhee Scrub jay Mockingbird "BuShtit Black phoebe Flicker Coyota Jackrabbit Brush rabbit Dusky wOOdrst WOOdrst Deer mouse CaJifomia mouse Pocket mouse Grasshopper mouse Meadow vote Gopher 8.0 y = 5.4203 . 0.0713x R = 0.69 . 6.0 ..... . . 4.0 . 2.0 0.0 o 20 40 60 80 Years Since Isolation FIGURE 3: The relationship between the number of chaparral-requiring bird species and the num- ber of years since canyon isolation in 36 isolated canyons in western San Diego County. ematical statements that can be convincing tools for planners. Other kinds of predictions can be made. Analysis of the vulnerability of individual species has provided a basis for predicting the sequence in which they disappear. Two factors account for about 95 percent of the variation in persistence among species (Soule! et al. 1988). In order of importance these are (I) average abundance of the particular species in typical habitat and (2) body weight. Thus, the order in which CR species drop out of the isolated canyons is highly predictable; from most to least susceptible. it is cactus wren,' black-tailed gnatcatchel', roadrunner. California quail, California thrasher or rufous-sided towhee, Bewick's wren. and wrentit. Knowing the likely sequence of extinctions could be an important element in long-range environmental planning. Planning Guidelines for Protecting Wildlife in Fragmenting Systems The results of the San Diego case study demonstrate most of the principles established by similar research throughout the world (Brown 1971; Emlen 1974; Dia- mond 1975; Schoener 1976; Diamond et al. 1987; Soule et a!. 1979; Karr 1982; Brittingham and Temple 1983; Blake and Karr 1984: Howe 1984; Lynch and Whigham 1984; Patterson' 1984; Lovejoy et al. 1986; Terborgh and Winter 1980; Wilcove et al. 1986; Newmark 1987; Tel'- borgh 1989). The factors that make the San Diego study particularly relevant to planners are its urban setting. the availability of information on the "ages" of the fragments. and the small size of the habitat isolates that contributed to the rapidity of extinctions. t APA JOURNAL 318 SUMMER 1991 i f LAND USE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE MAINTENANCE 8.0 Y . 1.6028 + 1.2895x R. 0.80 : 6.0 'u " a- U) . . . . . '0 4.0 G; .D E ~ 2.0 0.0 -2 ., o 2 3 4 Natural Log Chaparral Area FIGURE 4: Species-area relationship for chapar- ral-requiring bird species in 36 isolated canyons in western San Diego County. Area is actual cha- parral cover in the canyons in hectares (natural logs); it does not include disturbed habitat or habitats dominated by alien species. Island biogeographic studies can provide a basis for guidelines on maintaining wildlife and ecosystem values in areas subject to habitat fragmentation. For the planning field. the most important conclusion from this entire body of investigations is that the best way to maintain wildlife and eCOSYSlem values is to minimize habitat fragmen. lotion. Where urbanization is occurring, however, habitat fragmentation is virtually inevitable, and one of the only practical mitigation measures is the establishment of cor. ridors of natural habitat or linkages, such as underpasses, that permit dispersal across barriers. There has been some Jebate about the utilitv of corridors (Soule and Simberloff 1985; Simberloff and Cox 1987; Noss 1987), and ac. knowledgment of their disadvantages in some situations. But this author believes that corridors are the best so- lution. especially where species are disappearing from small. local fragments in a predictable order, producing nested species distributions based on habitat area (Pat. tet'son and Atmar 1986). and where the tal'get species do not disperse well across barriers. Other caveats may apply. however, especially for plants. Small and isolated habitat fragments might be ad. equate to protect certain kinds of plants, including en- dangered or threatened species. assuming that such plants (J) are not suppressed by 01' dependant on fire, (2) are not subject to inbreeding dep''ession or the loss of genetic variability (Ledig 1986: Shaffer 1981: Frankel and Soule 1981; Schonewald.Cox et al. 1983). (3) do not depend on animal pollinators or seed dispersers, and (4) compete well in the absence of habitat disturbance caused by I,,'ge "nimals and fi,'e. On the other hand. plants that are sub. ject to the above forces. or to the various kinds of edge 5 effects, such as trampling, dessication, wind, over.col. lecting, competition from weedy species, and cropping by domesticated animals, will not fare well in small frag. ments unless managed intensively. Vulnerability must be examined on a case.by.case and species. by-species basis. Figure 5 illustrates the planning guidelines for animals suggested by the San Diego results and those of most other studies. Part A of Figure 5 illustrates the superiority of large over small habitat fragments. Wherever possible. natural open space elements should be as large as possible and should be made contiguous. As shown in Figure 4, retention of CR birds is highly correlated with the amount of habitat. One reason for the superiority of large frag. ments is that they can support a larger number of indi. viduals for a particular species. As already mentioned, the probability of extinction is inversely proportional to population size. Large fragments also minimize edge effects (see Figure I). Some species will never breed in small habitat frag. ments. even if they use them for foraging. These organ- isms include those species that require undisturbed (in- terior, non.edge, old growth) habitats, as well as those BETTER WORSE . . A - .. .. B c - ... D - ~ .- E FIGURE 5: Summary of planning guidelines based in part on studies of faunal extinctions in fragments of chaparral habitat in San Diego County. ~ APA IOLR:'iAL 319 SU1\1I'R 1991 ~ MICHAEL E. SOULE that may need a variety of habitats. In the \Iidwest. many bird species that require forest interior habitat cannot be found breeding in patches of fOl'est that are less than 25 hectares in at'ea (Blake and Karr 1984). For some animals. t'oads pl'oduce fOtmidable edge efTects (see. e.g.. McLellan and Shackleton 1988). The degt'ee to which these neg- ative efTects of edges will diminish the value of a partic- ular site depends on the habitat. the region. and the spe- cies under consideration. When in doubt. experts should be consulted. Part B of Figure 5 illustrates a more Contl'Oversial guideline-a single large habitat fragment is superior to several small fragments. at least for vertebl'ate animals. This principle does not apply to all biological systems. although the eanyon data strongly support it. as do data from virtually all studies of vertebrate animals. Our mammal surveys (unpublished data) lead to the same conclusion. The empirical basis for this guideline is the observation that extinctions of vertebrate species in frag- ments of similar habitat nearly always OCCur in a regular and predictable order (Patterson and Atmar 1986). In Our study, for example, the roadrunner and the black-tailed gnatcatcher always disappear first, At the other extreme are the wrentit and Bewick's wren: they are always the last survivors in older and smaller canyons. On the other hand, if extinctions were random with respect to species, then several small fragments would, collectively, have as many or more species than a single large fragment equal in area to the sum of the small fragments, Another caveat pertains to some highly mobile animals, including many species of temperate forest birds. For these animals. a multiplicity of habitat (forest) types may be more important than area per se (see. e.g.. Beissinger and Osborne 1982), One must bear in mind, however. that attempts to breed by such birds in small habitat frag- ments often fail (Terborgh 1989) because of nest para- sitism by cowbirds (Brittingham and Temple 1983) and nest predation by edge species. such as jays, crows. rac- coons. house cats. rats, dogs. skunks. and opossums (Wilcove et al. 1986), Part C of Figure 5 symbolizes the advantage of retaining the large carnivores in a system. In the San Diego case (Soule et al. ] 988) and in others (Terborgh 1988). there is indirect evidence that large predators prevent abnor- mally high population densities of smaller mesopredators (including domestic and feral house cats) that are likely to prey on birds, Unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. plannet.s should oppose the "control" of coyotes. bobcats. badgers. and mountain lions (cougars, panthers). An analogous guideline fl'Om the ecology field is equally important: manage the system in ordet. to maintain habitat-modifying animals such as tortoises. al- ligators, moose, beaver. muskrat. and pocket gophers: such animals create and maintain a mosaic of habitats that facilitate the persistence of many other species of plants and animals (Harris J 988). Part D of Figure 5 shows the problem of human dis- turbance. Chaparral is a rather brittle habitat: it is easily and permanently destroyed by trampling, bushwhacking. frequent lires (Westman et al. 1981). or grading. Other sensitive habitats include heaths. wetlands, sand dunes, and some forests that, when "opened up" or "cleaned up." drained. or "improved" by trail or road develop- ment. are exposed to accelerating or cumulative changes. including the invasion of weeds and mesopredators. A corollary of this guideline is that development configu- rations should minimize adverse edge efTects. Trails. roads. and similar facilities increase the frequency of hu- man contact. and may eventually lead to the disappeat.- ance of sensitive species, In addition. such improvements increase the amount of edge. Deleterious edge efTects. such as predation. nest parasitism (from cowbit'ds). lire. dessication. noise. and invasion of introduced plants and animals. are often mutually exacerbating. Theit, impacts also increase as patch size decreases. The apparent contradiction between this anti-distur- bance recommendation and the previous mention of the benefits provided by animals that produce extensive habitat disturbance (alligators. beavers. pocket gophet.s. etc.) is real. and illustrates the contextual nature of all guidelines, Whether disturbance is beneficial depends on many factors. including scale (e.g.. the size of the frag- ment), the habitat type. the likely longevity and objectives of the project. and the kind and degree of disturbance (Pickett and White 1985), Local ecologists should be consulted if there is a question about disturbance dvnamics. . Part E of the guidelines demonstrates the corridor principle-maintain continuity and flow between patches of chaparral and other habitats. Corridors. including un- der-road links, can mitigate some of the deleterious efTects of fragmentation (Forman and Godron 1986). Wildlife corridors can be viewed as a kind of landscape health insurance policy-they maximize the chances that bio- logical connectivity will persist, despite changing political and economic conditions. The design of wildlife corridors. however, is a new branch of conservation biology. For this reason and others, there are few, if any specific guidelines, Potential corridors must be analyzed and de- signed by teams of planners, engineers, and biologists on a case-by..ase basis. Admittedly, wildlife linkages involve capital investment up front; but it is considerably less expensive to construct underpasses and other linkage elements for wildlife during the construction of facilities than to attempt to retrofit existing "improvements," This corridor guideline stems from the inevitability of local extinctions in isolated habitat fragments. Though there has been little research on optimum corridor design (but see Fahrig and Men;am 1985; Fahrig and Paloheimo 1988; Soule and Gilpin 1991), particularly as it afTects the movement of difTerent kinds of organisms. many of the CR birds have been seen moving and feeding in strips of chapan'al only a few meters wide (Soule et ai, 1988). Planners should bear in mind, however. that species difTer markedly in habitat needs and tolerances, and that the utility of particular corridors for wildlife (Harris and Gal- lagher 1989) depends on the behavior of the targeted species, t APA lOURNAL 320 SUMMER t991 c T .f I LAND USE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE MAINTENANCE For some highly mobile species. the distance between fragments will be relevant. For the CR birds it is not. Our results suggest that close proximity of fragments does not retard the rate of species loss. unless the patchcs are separated by less than a few dozen meters (Soule et aI. 1988). The reason is that the CR birds disperse poorly. if at all. through non-native habitat. Our I'esults (unpub- lished) for rodents. rabbits. and hares. on the other hand. suggest a minor distance effect. indicating a slight benefit of patch proximity for these mammals. For most non- Ilying animals in most places. however. Pl'oximity of habitat remnants will not retard species loss unless the patches are connected by corridors. Other Recommendations The preceding observations suggest that the best way to fight the deleterious effects of fragmentation is to pre- vent it. Wherever possible. therefore. planners should insist on the linking of habitat elements by habitat cor- ridors. This suggestion obviously assumes that it is pos- ,ible to do planning on a scale that is large,' than the '"dividual housing or commercial development. Where corridors are not practical. there are other ways 10 mitigate fragmentation. One is to ensure that open -nace set-asides are contiguous. Such aggregation of open 'pace is implicit in guidelines A and B above. Even if 'uch open space aggregation is accomplished. however, cOITidors between these larger aggregates are highly ",commended. A second possibility. where both land- .cape linkages and juxtaposition of open space elements ..;,e impractical. is "mitigation banking" -the developer. ilstead of setting aside tiny parcels that will deteriorate 'coidly. deposits money into an account for future open . i1JCe acquisition. \ third alternative is a permanent committment to the ..,.tificial transport of organisms on a schedule that pre- dudes the extinction of isolated populations. Translo- cation requires less capital investment than highway un- ,:,rpasses dedicated to wildlife. but assumes that juris- .'jctions and management agencies will commit funds ':definitely for the capture and release of animals. In '~Jny cases. however. the infrastructure does not exist :,) I'outinely translocate animals. or the procedure is pro- :ihitively expensive. In addition. translocated animals t:suully do not survive. and expensive monitoring proe crams are necessary. For these and other reasons. there .,re few if any programs that routinely transfer wildlife ,',)r the purposes of maintaining population viability. Land use planning involves many variables that al'e 11'.1t in the province of the natural scientist. Nevertheless. '-",:ientists can assist planners in the analysis of the avail- ,:h1e land-use options. For example. depending on the -Iage of development and the kind of habitat. many "im- ['l'Ovements." including highway shoulders. the edges of hicycle and foot paths. streams on golf courses and in ['arks, and utility rights of way may facilitate animal 111Ovements, In addition. some species. including large predators. can take advantage of culverts and under- passes, especially if these facilities are designed with an- imal dispersal in mind. Biologists should be consulted when such alternatives are being considered. Some conflicts between recreational uses and wildlife values in corridor design are inevitable. For example. cover is important for chaparral birds and other small vertebrates. The public would have to tolerate a certain "untidiness" in open space systems designed for both wildlife and people. Public education about such matters is a perennial requirement. A question not addressed here is how large is large enough to maintain a population of a species? Questions of this genre can only be answered probabilistic ally- the larger the population (or the patch size in most cases). the higher the chance that the species will persist over a given interval. Such answers may not be satisfying. but the question of population viability is extremely complex (Shaffer 1981; Gilpin and Soule 1986; Soule 1987). and good answers to complex questions are contextual. In practical terms there are no magic thresholds of popu- lation or ecosystem viability. Planners are increasingly called upon and held ac- countable for the present and future quality of the human environment. One body of information that could help planners ensure a more interesting. more diverse. and more natural environment is that provided by island bio- geography. This field, as well as other aspects of ecology. become increasingly relevant where the landscape is usurped and fragmented by humans, and where the rem- nants of natural habitats are isolated. The preceding re- sults and discussion constitute an attempt to begin a dia- logue between planners and conservation biologists. AUTHOR'S NOTE I am grateful for the encouragement, advice, and assis- tance of several anonymous reviewers and of Jim Pepper and Robert Grese. The work was supported by grants from the San Diego County Advisory Commission for Fish and Wildlife and was encouraged by the staff of the San Diego County Planning Department and by Mary L. Brong. NOTES I. The term "development" usually describes a two-step process: (1) the destruction of natural systems or hab- itat: and (2) the replacement of natural systems by artificial ones that increase the welfare or wealth of some humans. It is more appropriate to refer to the first step as "denaturation" (Soule 1990). Denatur- ation, if sufficiently extensive. not only reduces the amount of natural habitat, but also causes the frag- mentation of the habitat that remains. 2. The term chaparral. as used here. includes coastal scrub plant associations. 3. The I'egression equation is for this bivariate relation- ship only and should not be used for predictive pur- ~ ..\1','\ lOCRN\L 321 SUI~IER ] 991 MICHAEL E. SOULE poses when other biogeographic information is avail- able. 4. This species was not included in Our analyses because it only occurred in one canyon. REFERENCES . . . Beissinger. S. R.. and D. R. Osborne. 1982. Effects of Urnanization on Avian Community Organization. Condor 84. I: 75-83. Blake. J. G.. and J. R. Karr. 1984. Species Composition of Bird Communities and the Conservation Benefit of Large Versus Small Forests. Biological Conservation 30.2: 173-87. Bolger. D. Too A. C. Albens. and M. E. Soule. 1991. Rapid Extinction in Fragmented Habitat Produces Nested Species Subsets. Submitted. Brittingham, M. C., and S. A. Temple. 1983. Have Cow- birds Caused Forest Songbirds to Decline? BioScience 33, I: 31-35. Brown, J. H.1971. Mammals on Mountaintops: Non- equilibrium Insular Biogeography. American Natural- ist 105.945: 467-78. Brown. J. H., and A. Kodric-Brown. 1977. Turnover Rates in Insular Biogeography: Effect of Immigration on Extinction. Ecology 58, 2: 445-49. Conservation Biology. 1988. 2. 4. Dearden. P. A. 1980. Soil and Land Use Planning. New York: Longman. Diamond. J. M. 1975. The Island Dilemma: Lessons of Modern Biogeographic Studies for the Design of Nat- ural Reserves. Biological Conservation 7. 2: 129-46. Diamond, J. M.. K. D. Bishop. and S. van Balen. 1987. Bird Survival in an Isolated Javan Woodland: Island Or Mirror? ConservatiOlt Biology I, 2: 132-42. Dunne, Too and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environ- mental Planning. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Elsner. G. H., and R. C. Smadon. eds. 1979. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource. Report PSW-35. USDA Forest Service. Pa. cilic Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley. CA. Emlen. J. T. 1974. An Urban Bird Community in Tucson, Arizona: Derivation, Structure, Regulation. Condor 76, 2: 184-97. Fahrig, L.. and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat Patch Con- nectivity and Population Survival. Ecology 66,6: 1762- 68. Fahrig, L.. and J. Paloheimo. 1988. Effect of Spatial Ar. rangement of Habitat Patches on Local Population Size. Ecology 69,2: 468-75. Forman. R. T. Too and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley. Frankel. O. H., and M. E. Soule. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gilpin. M. E., and M. E. Soule. 1986. Minimum Viable Populations: Process of Species Extinctions. In Con- servation Biology: Science of Scarcity and Diversity, : , . edited by M. E. Soule. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer As. sociates. Goodman, D. 1987. The Demography of Chance Extinc. tion. In Viable Populations for Conservation, edited by M. E. Soule. New York: Cambridge University Press. Griggs, G. Boo and J. A. Gilchrist. 1983. Geologic Haz- ards. Resources. and Environmental Planning. Rel- mont, CA: Wadsworth. Harris, L. D. 1988. The Nature of Cumulative Impacts on Biotic Diversity of Wetland Vertebrates. Environ- mental Management 12, 5: 675-93. Harris, L. D., and P. B. Gallagher. 1989. New Initiatives for Wildlife Conservation: The Need for Movement Corridors. In Preserving Communities and Corridors, edited by G. Mackintosh. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife. Howe, R. W. 1984. Local Dynamics of Bird Assemblages in Small Forest Habitat Islands in Australia and North America. Ecology 65,5: 1585-1601. Karr, J. R. 1982. Avian Extinction on Barro Colorado Island, Panama: A Reassessment. American Naturalist 119, 2: 220-39. Kellert, S. R. 1980. American Attitudes Toward and Knowledge of Animals: An Update. Internatiollal Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 1. 1: 87- 119. Ledig. F. T. 1986. Heterozygosity, Heterosis, and Fitness in Outbreeding Plants. In Conservation Biology; Sci- ence of Scarcity and Diversity, edhed by M. E. Soule. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Lynch, J. F., and D. F. Whigham. 1984. Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Breeding Bird Communities in Maryland, USA. Biological Conservation 28. 4: 287- 324. MaCArthur, R. H.. and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- versity Press. MacDonald. I. A. W., D. M. Graber. S. DeBenedetti, R. H. Groves, and E. R. Fuentes. 1988. Introduced Species in Nature Reserves in Mediterranean_type Climatic Regions of the World. Biological Conservation 44, 1 and 2: 37-66. McBride, J. R. 1977. Evaluation of Vegetation in Envi. ronmental Planning. Landscape Planning 4: 291-312. McHarg, I. 1971. Design with Nature. Garden City. NY: Doubleday/Natural History Press. McKibben. B. 1989. The End of Nature. New York: Random House. McLellan, B. N., and D. M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly Bears and Resource Extraction Industries: Effects 0' Roads on Behavior, Habitat Use and Demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 25. 2: 451-60. Newmark. W. D. 1987. A Land-Bridge Island Perspective on Mammalian Extinctions in Western North Ameri. can Parks. Nature 325, 6103: 430-32. Noss. R. F. 1987. Corridors in Real Landscapes: A Reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conservation Biology I, 2: 159- 64. . i- , i i . , , , ~ -1 # ~ .:: . ; . l , } r , f f ~ ~ APA IOURNAL 322 SUMMER 1991 i I LAND USE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE MAINTENANCE Patterson. B. D. 1984. Mammalian Extinction and Bio- geography in the Southern Rocky Mountains. In Ex- tillctiolls. edited by M. H. Nitecki. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Patterson. B. D" and W. Atmar. 1986. Nested Subsets and the Structure of Insular Mammalian Faunas and Archipelagos. In Island Biogeography of Mammals. edited by L. R. Heaney and B. D. Patterson. New York: Academic Press. Pickett. S. T. A" and P. S. White. eds. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance alld Patch Dynamics. Orlando. FL: Academic Press. Pimm. S. I" H. L. lones. and I. Diamond. 1988. On the Risk of Extinction. American Naturalist 132. 6: 757- 85. Raven. P.. and D. Axlerod. 1978. Origin and Relation- ships o(,ihe California Flora. University of California Publica'tions in Botany 72. Shaffer. M. L. 1983. Determining Minimum Population Size for the Grizzly Bear. Proceedings of the Inter- Ilational Conference on Bear Research and Manage- ment 5: 133-39. -. 1981. Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation. BioScience 31: 131-34. Schoener. T. W. 1976. The Species-Area Relation Within Archipelagos: Models and Evidence from Island Land Birds. Proceedings of the 16th Ornithological Congress 1976: 629-42. Schonewald-Cox. C. M.. S. M. Chambers. F. MacBride and L. Thomas. eds. 1983. Genetics and Conservation: A Reference for Managing Wild Animal Populations. Menlo Park. CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Simberloff. D. and I. Cox. 1987. Consequences and Costs of Conservation Corridors. Conservation Biology I. I: 63-71. Soule. M. E. 1990. The Onslaught of Alien Species. and Other Challenges in the Coming Decades. Conserva- tion Biology 4. 3: 233-40. Soule. M. E" ed. 1987. Viable Populations for Conser- vation. New York: Cambridge University Press. -. 1986. Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sunderland. MA: Sinauer As- socia tes. ~ Soule. M. E.. D. T. Bolger. A. C. Alberts. R. Sauvajot. I. Wright. M. Sorice. and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed I L - APA JOURNAL 323 SUMMER 1991 Dynamics of Rapid Extinctions of Chaparral-Requiring Birds in Urban Habitat Islands. Conservatioll Biology 2. I: 75-92. Soule. M. E.. and ~l. E. Gilpin. 1991. The Theory of Wildlife Corridor Capabilily. In The Role of Corridors in Nature Conservation. edited by D. A. Saunders and R. I. Hobbs. Sydney. Australia: Surrey Beatty. In press. Soule. M. E. and D. Simberloff. 1986. What Do Genetics and Ecology Tell Us about the Design of Nature Re- serves? Biological Conservation 35. I: 19-40. Soule. M. E.. B. A. Wilcox. and Claire Holtby. 1979. Benign Neglect: .-\ Model of Faunal Collapse in the Game Reserves of East Africa. Biological Conservation 15. 4: 260-72. Soule. M. E" and B. A. Wilcox. eds. 1980. Conservation Biology: An Ecological.Evolutionary Perspective. Sunderland. MA: Sinauer Press. Terborgh. I. 1989. Where Have All the Birds Gone? Princeton. NI: Princeton University Press. -. 1988. The Big Things that Run the W orld-A Sequel to E.O. Wilson. Conservation Biology 2. 4: 402. Terborgh. I.. and B. G. Winter. 1980. Some Causes of Extinction. In Conservation Biology: An Ecological- Evolutionary Perspective. edited by M. E. Soule and B. A. Wilcox. Sunderland. MA: Sinauer Associates. Turner. M. G. 1989. Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171-97. Westman. W. E. 1987. Implications of Ecological Theory for Rare Plant Conservation in Coastal Sage Scrub. In Conservation and Management of Rare and Endan- gered Plants, edited by T. S. Elias. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. Westman. W. E.. J. F. O'Leary. and G. P. Malanson. 1981. The Effects of Fire Intensity. Aspect and Substrate on Post.Fire Growth of California Sage Scrub. In Com. ponents of Productivity of Mediterranean-Climate Re- gions: Basic and Applied Aspects. edited by N. S. Mar. garis and H. A. Mooney. The Hague. Netherlands: W. lunk. Wilcove. D. S., C. H. Mclellan and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat Fragmentation in the Temperate Zone. In Conservation Biology: Science of Scarcity and Diver- sity, edited by M. E. Soule. Sunderland. MA: Sinauer Associates. l ,. . ~ .. - .. - .. .- '" .. . .... ... ... "'. _c ...= -- .- .- w .11'; ... ... ..... -. ::, . ., 1 . '.1 4 :;-j CLEAN WATER PROGRAM for Greater San Diego FUSllDltnIII< Plaza . 401 '8' She" Sui" 1000 . San Di'lo, CA 92101-4230 Phme(619)S334200 . Fax:(619)S334267 Approved by the MSCP Working Group December 16,1992 ISSUE PAPER Ho. 5 A COHCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR MSCP PRESERVE DESIGH Introduction The purpose of this Issue Paper is to document a consensus of the MSCP Working Group on how to design the initial segments of the MSCP preserve system. The paper contains two parts: 1. A set of Basic Principles whi~~ should guide a cooperative preserve design process. 2. A diagram which shows graphically how the Basic Principles may be applied to design of the Preserve Segments. The diagram also shows how Preserve Segment design can occur simultaneously on both public and private lands; and how SUb-regional planning efforts already underway may be incorporated into the MSCP. Finally the diagram outlines how Interim Activities by MSCP participati.ng agencies can be consistent with and help to build the future preserve system. Basic princioles for MSCP Preserve Desian 1. Many of the biological components of a preserve system are already in place, although threatened by new land uses and inconsistent management practices. The challenge is to prevent its fragmentation in the near term and preserve an adequate amount of it in a contiguous way over the long term, and consider restoration of key areas and linkage corridors when necessary. 2. Design of the future preserve system relies on a blending of land use, ownership, economic, and local plan issues with biological Preserve Design Standards and Guidelines. Drawing final preserve boundaries in advance of the ability to apply all of these criteria to individual segments may result in poorly considered boundaries which adversely affect property values, local planning options, and ultimately the ability to implement the MSCP. 1 3. Individual segments of the preserve system may be designated and acquired over a period of time so long as the then current MSCP Preserve Design Standards and Guidelines are used. 4. Local public/private partnerships are the preferred way to design individual Preserve system Segments using MSCP Preserve Design Standards and Guidelines to maintain the integrity of the larger system. 5. Encouraging property owners and local agencies to cooperatively design their segments of the preserve system is the best way to assure that decisions are based on a combination of economic, biological, and land use factors. 6. Participating standards and be effective. future design local agencies should incorporate MSCP plans, criteria into General and Community Plans to These local plans may be used to implement of Preserve Segments. Principals 7, 8, and 9 refer to Interim Actions by MSCP participants: 7. Close coordination of land use approval actions by the local jurisdictions with the MSCP Preserve Design process is critical. Opportunities for local projects to complement and provide building blocks of the Preserve System should not be lost and should be properly credited. Local jurisdictions should be encouraged to participate in land banking programs which would be a part of the Preserve System. 8. The Coordination of the Interim Permit Activities described in Issue Paper #4 should be strengthened by development of a Memorandum of Understanding among local agencies which will increase the ability of those jurisdictions to obtain and/or designate future Preserve Segments on public and private lands and receive mitigation credit for those actions. 9. As a policy guideline, participating agencies should emphasize the avoidance of high biological-value lands and direct development to low biological-value lands (or non- contributing lands) which do not contribute to a preserve system. This action is not intended to place a moratorium on the development of land or to result in delay of the MSCP. 10. Design of the MSCP Preserve System should be coordinated with other regional habitat preservation programs. 2 other AssumDtions In the process of developing consensus or the Issue Paper, the working Group made some additional assumptions which relate directly to the Preserve Design process. 1. The biological Preserve Design Standards and Guidelines necessary to designate preserve segments will be completed and available by the end of December 1992. 2. Local public/partnerships which intend to produce Preserve Segment plans should consider undertaking those programs so that draft plans could be produced by June 1993. This will enable the local plans to take full advantage of MSCP data and technical assistance. It is envisioned, however, that local Preserve Segment plans may be undertaken at any time property owners and local jurisdictions feel it is opportune to plan for their projects. 3. Public entities are encouraged to keep a similar schedule for public lands which are already being considered as Preserve Segments. 4. The process for interim activities coordination by participating agencies described in Issue Paper #4 will not be re-visited; but development of a Memorandum of Understanding among local entities on interim activities will be considered. 5. The purpose of the preserve system is to mitigate regional growth, with emphasis on the cumulative success of the process and not on what lands were contributed by whom. Glossarv of Terms GAP Analysis: overlay map Showing Public Ownership and dedicated biological open space onto Bio-value map to determine which important biological resources are currently considered "preserved" on public or private lands. The lands of high biological value which are not on public lands and/or are not protected or managed for biological resources are the "gaps" in protected habitat. Public lands that are currently managed for biological resources provide opportunities for use as building blocks for a preserve system. Management programs can be developed for public lands that are not currently managed for biological resources to add to the preserve system. 3 Habitat/Species Characteristics: the biological components of lands with high probability for preservation, i.e., , vegetation type, size, species diversity, preserve of sensitive species, etc. High Biological-Valu~ Lands: vacant vegetated lands which received the highest rankings based on the MSCP Habitat Evaluation Model. Lands with High Probability for Preservation: those areas identified by their private owners or public manager as those lands which are available for preservation based on their plans for future land uses and activities. Low Biological-Value Lands: vacant vegetated lands which received the lowest rankings on the MSCP Habitat Evaluation Model and would likely only be considered as part of a preserve segment if they could be revegetated to provide critical corridor, linkage, or buffer. Non-contributing lands: vacant lands which because of a history of depleting land uses have no biological value and a very small likelihood of contribution to a preserve system segment. . Planning Guidelines: data, maps, and other economic and land use guidelines furnished by the MSCP for use in local Preserve Segment design and including the Preserve Design standards and Guidelines. Preserve Design Biological Standards and Guidelines: biological standards and criteria furnished by the MSCP to be used by the Sub-area Habitat Plans and other participants for design of Preserve Segments. Preserve segment: a cooperative or individual sub-area planning effort undertaken by property owners and/or local entities of government to identify a draft portion of the preserve system which occurs on their properties, or jurisdictions. Sub-area Habitat Plans: plans produced through local pUblic/private partnerships or by local entities which are integrated with the MSCP as equal components (described in Issue Paper #3). Technical Assistance: assistance provided by the MSCP through its consultants to help local Preserve Segment design efforts. Particularly the interpretation and use of the Planning Tools. 4 Chapler 2 Resource Protection Framework 2.4 Background on Preserve Design Theory and Practice In addition to developing a data base and identifying key resource areas, a review of existing theories and literature regarding preserve design and resource protection is also useful in providing the resource protection framework for the RMP. The science of preserve design for biological resources is still in its early stages of development. The basic criteria for preserve design have been extrapolated from MacArthur and Wilson's (1963, 1967) work on island biogeography. The MacArthur and Wilson equilibrium model of island biogeography provides four major features which have been influential in optimal preserve design: (1) Area effect - the larger the preserve, the greater the species richness (i.e., species/area relationship) and the greater the chances of long term viability of populations (more individuals); (2) Isolation or distance effect - the lesser the distance between preserve units, the greater the opportunity for gene flow, colonization, and rescue effect (e.g., Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977); (3) Species equilibrium - the number of species that the preserve can support is determined by a balance between colonization and extinction; and (4) Relaxation - patches of habitat recently separated from larger patches will be in an "oversaturated" condition and will gradually lose species until an equilibrium level is reached. One additional feature - edge effect - is of equal importance: the larger the ratio of preserve area to preserve perimeter, the lesser the edge effect (e.g., fewer opportunities for the introduction of weedy, invasive, non-native species). While all these features appear to provide insight into sound preserve design, they may, in fact, be too general and of limited value in generating practical preserve design solutions. For example, habitat heterogeneity is far more important than area alone in maintaining biodiversity (the number of species of plants and animals within a biological system). Although larger patches of homogeneous habitat are capable of supporting larger populations of specific species, heterogeneity is responsible for greater diversity. Because ecosystem stability and long-term viability are closely related to diversity, optimizing species richness is an important goal. Simberloff and Abele (1976) demonstrated that a network of islands may have greater species - 57 - Chapter 2 Resource Protection Framework diversity than a single, large, contiguous island of the same size. Thus, Simberloff (1981) argues that to prevent local population extinctions, large total refuge areas are preferred, but it is not necessary for all the area to be contiguous. Soule et al. (1988) have demonstrated that factors such as vegetation cover may be more important than area alone in determining bird species richness in coastal sage scrub communities in San Diego County. Soule et aZ. (1988) also indicate that owing to the exceedingly limited mobility of most coastal sage scrub bird species, distances of more than 25-50 meters between patches may represent significant barriers to dispersal. The latter findings argue strongly in favor of interconnecting all appropriate habitat patches via corridors or similar linkages. While edges do indeed provide avenues for the introduction of non-native species, in many situations the interface between non-native and natural communities provide open areas for foraging animals and may be characterized by a higher diversity than either the native or non-native components alone. Patches of native habitat can be viewed as "islands" surrounded by a sea of inhospitable habitat. Based on MacArthur and Wilson's (1963, 1967) theory of island biogeography, there is an equilibrium number of species that an island can support based on its size and distance from species pools (Le., sources of colonization). This equilibrium level is maintained by a dynamic balance between extinction and colonization; species composition is constantly changing as a function of species "turn-over" rates. Pielou (1979) suggests that upon separation from the mainland, continental islands have an "oversaturated" biota, and that a period of floral and faunal reduction (relaxation) must ensue until the number of species on the island falls to an appropriate equilibrium level. Clear evidence of faunal reduction has been demonstrated by Wilcox (1978) for the lizard faunas of several Baja California continental islands. This situation is analogous to that created by urban development - former large and contiguous patches of habitat are fragmented or isolated into smaller patches or islands (even if the patches are large). The natural tendency of these newly created islands (habitat patches) is to lose floral and faunal components until an equilibrium level is reached. All development, no matter how carefully - 58 - Chapter 2 Resource Protection Framework planned, will resuit in habitat fragmentation at some level, be it local or regional. Hence, the maintenance of biotic diversity is threatened by any type of land use modification. Exacerbating the deleterious effects of habitat fragmentation is the fact that Mediterranean scrub habitats, such as coastal sage scrub and chaparral, are highly "fragile" communities that are more vulnerable to faunal collapse than are temperate forests and grasslands (Soule et aI. 1988). Fortunately, the detrimental impacts of fragmentation can be reduced significantly through the implementation of well planned wildlife corridors or linkages between habitat patches. Hence, in addition to the need to preserve large blocks of habitat for plants and wildlife, the blocks must be interconnected to form a comprehensive preserve system. Studies by Soule et aI. (1988) have identified several features that are vital for the maintenance of bird species richness in fragmented habitats in southern California. These include large patch size for maintenance of viable population sizes, connectivity to facilitate animal movement between patches, and maintenance of select predators such as coyotes to keep the impact of certain bird-eating meso-predators in check. If these features can be incorporated into the Management Preserve on Otay Ranch, natural ecosystem functions are likely to be maintained. The maintenance of self-sustaining natural ecosystems is the primary goal of the Management Preserve, because a naturally functioning system will require less management. Some biotic elements do not fit readily into preserves for multi-species. The design criteria for preserving small, already isolated populations of some plant species may require a more simplistic approach. If these small isolated populations are already functioning in the absence of corridors or conspicuous gene flow, then preservation of small habitat islands for these species may be appropriate. For small animals such as insects, a 5-10-acre patch of habitat actually may contain numerous islands or populations of that species. On a mesa containing vernal pools, each vernal pool may function as its own island. Hence, a 25-50-acre vernal pool preserve may include substantial genetic diversity and may not require a corridor to the nearest - 59 - Chapter 2 Resource ProrecriofJ Framework vernal pool habitat. Arnold (1983) concludes that island (habitat patch) size is not linearly correlated with endangered butterfly population size; density, patchiness, and quality of resources are more important in determining population size. Loman and von Schantz (1991) conclude that even for some native bird species in habitat fragmented by farmland, "very small habitat islands [less than 1 ha] may, per area, be as valuable or even more valuable than medium sized islands [1-10 ha]." Smaller patches of higher quality resources may support larger populations and greater diversity. The conclusion that can be drawn from this brief review of theoretical concepts and practical examples is that few general principles are applicable in all preserve design situations. Each preserve must be designed to meet the specific needs of the species of concern in the region in which the preserve is to serve as a bastion of biodiversity. Optimal size and arrangement of refuges should be based upon knowledge of dispersal characteristics and population dynamics of species in need of protection (Arnold 1983). Hence, design, size, and configuration of the Preserve for Otay Ranch mu.st focus precisely on the species and habitats of concern in southern California. Preserve design criteria applied elsewhere may be ineffective or inappropriate for Otay Ranch. - 60 - I I , I I ! , Otay Ranch Biology Subconnnittee Sample Sign-in Sheets ;1!c,h...... {},/tJ!-. J' /I~--:I ;)i.JI1;fA/- , ! 'J lI~-"fj J\~ Ah... LI r<:I~"r ./ ..:..2".=-...... U ..s. f i-J. S. US f'~' j" 12/13/88 1/16/89 /1 r ? d r 3/4/91 I J..r. ,&;:rt j JJI/db:/; tJ So Pu .S. :/....:: rLJ..S ~'V,'e~ 3/18/91 A!1lf"'A.~ C,/Af',.c- V c.J j' . --;/,7 ~ ,1\ 0 I ./;Y ,IVJ'e" r- . i -f!,,, d' :d.l~ ~ ~~ (j 1t'O~j- ....d~-~ r:;/6,,..-r '" 4/5/91 4/19/91 (j)?LJ-J. 4/26/91 r,{ {" Pt...!...~ 5/10/91 IH?JJr 5/24/91 -fI"_m Jt-l1k.1. rHo FLJS. 6/7/91 if - #4".... (!."/~~.,..r- /'1, ~ ~ ./ G/.....u.a-, ~;"lh;.A 7/19/91 ~ w ~_ N.a,......... t:../~~ oJ I 11~?LJ~ 1/10/92 A.J .,__ _., )1/V ~I-",;j U (/t:.J .\ 3/27/92 ,'-' IJ Ik-..~. .niDQ~.;f- {J <" h(~!; JJ:/J /.{r 5"l"r ,,/C'{.. 4/3/92 No.ne.~ G./h~r+ ~ '...f': ~:..JS 5/6/92 !G.......J4 Jjd~ '" ./ ~f-5 _ h:SJ. j LJ ;/c!lk~r~,c . 5/19/92 /Yo.,.,.... C///;,~ j fl. \ .t::: (" ~ .7 LJ.I /I I..;::' . 6/18/92 "= .ue c.et~ ~~~ vact \J llaU\t\t \O~ ~); lC\\e{ Grt atca: cC,,~el~\ ,v: "too f\y,{ n~ e\09",e {\let \0" 0 . oe" ~ COI~~\ \\~C{I\ .\\ '1\\0 . . sO\l !\II' cS II. . ~ \\01\' "':~ d . .\...\1.1' -~ C<\I. __-:;:;\\\.\\ll. . f,,,al- .- 1"\:." , "eu e- - '.)'\ \l \\trt.\\. f{'alC. 'Qe 91' II~ \lot . ", II" 01 I" <1 ...\\1 ",e,,1 ",\l \frI,\ r:"'^ i.\c~c~ cat\~b3 t at' al..f..~eed.t\e5. I'W"I"' ,ue <1'" p.I,O" "a"o\la lo\,et \\' "a\le calc"et ,,~ a <1e~e I oll\e\\\r e,,~\tC "..,~e~o,et""'~'~1 \~ \<'~\e" elea,;" 01 \\a~' I"al . I"e ht" el\l.... ...\.Ie'" '0" 01 l\;'\~ .i.\: a"f("C~('fo \0 \"~o,,~\tUC\\a5 ,,\a' \" \ o\)~\t\('. d a"(\ . co(\\e5 \0 ' ,,,cola ~'e \\oa. Cosla. ..."el"et I"" .;,,\\U.\ eat \ ~ ',,\('bale \\Cteo 5 b '"\\,,,c~ t\ dC,,(\C$ . \\ ('t\l\a." 'na'le It'fa\ 'l.\t',..."'''\' ,\ ....., {,'t I::~: Rare agreement for rare songbird n.\\ ..\, By DREW SllVI!RN saaff Writer -- .--- ------. CARLSBAD - City officials yesterday announced a mile- stone agreement that will pre- serve hundreds of acres of high- ly coveted habitat for the Cali- fornia gnatcatcher. . The pact, made wit and federal wildlife offici vironmentalists and one region's largest develope hailed as a new model I cities can balance futun opment with wildlife - tion. And - ~t Car/shad DeveJ. Fieldston;A"! 500 A grees To Save ~~4..gor ~~~catcher all a""'rd lVh lie Co. has reach "This pJa" P8lt, ~ Lewis said. bSOO acres O(e....by it Will P......._":! SllcI tlCouo-: l12alcea both 1>;01 . Ut Will i1Iatcat h - .~ CO _e al!llae 082< 3.000 ho atill be able toe b e~ habitat set':;tulata The Fi~:cll "'a"t ~ Fielclato DIes 011 2.300 Uilcl about Viro"", a "ew atan~lIe Co. for in c.rl'~--~ La Costa cI acre. at ita SjJ" e"tal ~ ~ (or ell. Th -. &VeloPDll!llt Lea er of the E.aclaz1 SS1c1 D." e alr'eeJIIl!IIt /lUe. illl'eclliabitata lbatcatch.,. ha to P.......,."e Gll!ll BlacJr. :;ru ~) "8112 e ~~t (coastal sa~ '".. _." IS-yea,. velara.a IIOliatio"" L. er -Xtell . * o( the ".". . oller uet,....... alve , D '""UIol'llta "'.L' ~he~ty of CarJ.h ;}'- devel. . ~artll2e"t o( . ....... 1',.... ... &.hd n._... City HaJJ here said the agree- ment will help shatter the na- tion that developers. environ- mentalists and wildlife agencies are incapable of working togeth. er to protect habitat before im. periled species are on the verge of extinction. The announcement caps months of heated negotiations among the city of Carlsbad. state and federal biologists. th.. Fieldstone Company largest landowner' and a cn."" tilli~" Pact With Builder Saves Habitat for Gnatcatcher . Development: The agreement will allow construction of 3,000 homes in Carlsbad. southeutem Carlsbad. according to U.S. FIsh and Wildlife offIciaIa. In exchange for letting aside. gnatcatcher habitat. over the next 12 to 15 yean the developer will be allowed to bulld.a mtx'of estates. IiIIgle.famiiy houaes and condo. miniums in the area. About 300 acres of sage scrub wiil be de- stroyed during COllBll'Uetion. The agreement also permits a ioin\ citY-developer effort 10 widen Rancho Santa Fe Road. which puaes through the south. eaatem part of the pl'Oject. from two to six !aIIes. - After gnatcatcbers were found in the area last August"city off!- By ROY RIVENBURG SPECIAL TO THE TIMES CARLSBAD-About 500 acres of threatened gnatcall:her habitat in Carlsbad wiil be preserved by a developer under an agreement that government officials hailed Wednesclay as the fU'St of its kind. The agreement. which clears environmental obstacle. to the widening of Rancho Santa Fe Road END:;,CERED HABITATS LEAGUE Dedicated to t1le Protection of Coastal Sage Scrub and ot1ler 17zreatl!t,ed Ecosystems Dan Silver . Coordinator 1422N. Sweetzer Avenue #401 Los Angeles, CA 90069-1528 213 .654. 1456 NEWSLETTER. MAY /JUNE 1992 VOL2. NO.3 CONSERVATION PLANNING IN CARLSBAD Almost one year ago, the City of Carlsbad in Northern San Oilego County, the Fieldstone Development Co., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Fish and Came entered into extraordinary discussions. For Fieldstone's housing projects within Carlsbad, they would seek a pre-listing agreement for coastal sage scrub species, treating the California gnatcatcher as if it were endangemi. TheyWOuld considerall options and bring all parties to the table to reach consensus, including environ- mentalists. They would actually work with the wildlifeagencies, not just "consider" their advice, as in the NCCP program. An innovative, cooperative approach to problem-solv- ing was to betried. Furthermore, as set at our lastmeeting, official League policy for development projects during an interim re- serve pianning period is that project approval be required from the wildlife agencies. This is exact1y what the Fieldstone Co. and Carlsbad sought. Undertaking such negotiations was a gamble for all sides, especially considering that the difficulties posed by the Fieldstone properties were almost a worst-<:ase scenario. There were lots of gnatcatchers (48 pair) living on some of the most expensive land in southern California ($150,000 or more per .cre). At the heart of the problem was Carlsbad's top public facilities priority, a long-pianned road improvement project con- ,idered essential for safety'reasons. The road cut across prime :oastal sage saub. Furthermore, because Carlsbad's growth :nanagement law calls for all such infrastructure to be paid for by ~ew development, a 1arge scale project was proposed forthe site. fo take the $60 million road price tag offofFieldstone's shoulders .vould require a two thirds vote of the good citizens of Carlsbad o put it on theirs. Thus, the problem. If the negotiations failed, the biologic impacts would .imply revert back to certain City approval of a previous EIR .vhose mitigation plan was entirely unacceptable to local envi- 'onmentalists. Conversely, success in the negotiations would 'ncourage other developers and municipalities to embrace com- 1rehensive conservation planning as a necessary prerequisite to :evelopment. A lot was at stake, including our contention that ndangered species listings will not wreck economic havoc. Purchase of the lands was clearly not possible (at least .100-200 million). Legal action under CEQA was a potential as a :elaying tactic. However, even if an endangered species listing :ere to suddenly occur, inclusion of such expensive land in a final abitat conservation plan under the Act was questionable. It was 'us fortunate that Fieldstone desired to work with the wildlife agencies to voluntarily reduce impacts to meet Endangered Spe- cies Act standards. The League was asked to serve on the City's facilitation team, joining Buena Vista Audubon and Batiquitos Lagoon Foun- dation. Rather than make an empty statement of opposition to any and all habitat loss, the League put its own policy on interim development to the test and chose .the more difficult route of constructive participation. The League immed!ately requested that gnatcatcher expert Ton Atwood be brought in to assist, and he was indeed flown in from the East coast, indicating to us good faith on the other side. Initially, the developer proposed complete off-site mitigation for the proposed loss of gnatcatchers. This was unac- ceptable to wildlife agency negotiatws, however. Their goal was to attain on-site preservation of as much land as possible, in order to secure an important gnatcatcher population in the birds' west- ern coastalrange. The Fish and Wildlife Service and Dept. offish and Came thus insisted upona biologicallysignilicant openspace dedication via project redesign as mitigation for impacts. We concurred. concluding that there was no other practical way to bring these particular iands into a reserve system. Creatively meeting the challenge, Fieldstone and their biologists brought into plan an additional, large adjacent prop- erty. They then bisected their pianned development with a broad wildlife corridor (width 1000-2000 feet), lost 100-200 view lot homes. agreed to stringent and unprecedented revegetation re- quirements, and converted many planned low density estate homes to clustered housing. The agencies then .allowed off-site, though nearby, mitigation for impacts on a more fragmented parcel We are convinced that Fieldstpne was pushed to their limit. For its part, the City of Carlsbad altered planned road alignments, instituted density transfers, and granted sloRe v~- ances. Carlsbad-area conservationists will now watchdog events to be sure that all goes aocording to plan. In the end, an impressive 454 coastal sage scrub acres out of a total of 816 were protected in a contiguous block on site. Additionally,250.,'3oo acres will be purchased off-site. Access for large mammals, such as coyotes, was ensured via a riparian corridor. The bad news is that about half the originar gnatcatch- ers will be lost. While difficult to accept, this was recognized by the negotiators as a reflection of the special circumstances in- volved and not as a precedent for future conservation. Unfortu- nately, if the talks had failed - and in the absence of a listing _ impacts with City approval of the previous EIR would have been much worse. (Continued) s:: (j2. (j2. 0 0 +:: ..-I ;:::g 0 ""(j CI:l t-.. 0 ..-I ..r:: 0) I-< ""(j ~ 0) l;,j e .8 0) rJ} I:: >< U) ...... fll 0) rJ} (j2. (j2. ...... U) S ~ rJ} ~ ~ U 0) 0 0 CI:l >. I-< 0 0 s:: ........ ..c: Q,j ~ .:Ej ..-I ..-I ""(j U "tl e fll I-< I:: - ;:::g ...... 0) 0) ........ Q,j 0 0 ~ .:Ej >< ""(j fll 0 ...... CI.l t-.. ;:::g ;::i ~ 0) I:: Q,j 0 0 .~ fll I-< LO 5::~ ao U) ~ - I:: I:: Q,j Q,j El ~ Q,j El Q,j ~ ..r::Q,jb() _ b() fll :I: ......flll:: o I:: fll "tl 0) ""(j =fll~ fll ~ .... o ~ Q,j ~ (j2. ;:::g (j2. ;:::g CI.l 0 0 CI.l_ l;,j "t: b LO 0 ~ 0 .... fll LO 0'1 LO I-< I-< fll.O;: = fll U ...... Q.,~ 0 u El fll CI.l - o:I:~ ...... fll U"tl..r:: I-< Cl fll l;,j ~ = CI.l fll "t:~ fll>. U fll - - ~O .g 0) I-< I-< Q,j ~ Cl.s I-.. u ;:::I o ~ ~ CIl ~ ,..J ..... Z o Z ~ <ll >. ..c "0 Qi .~ s- o u u <: ...-< Percent of Coastal Sage Scrub Acreage Preserved Otay Ranch La Costa County/City Associates Recommended Agreement Plan On Site Preservation 56% 70% With Off Site Preservation 66% With On Site Restoration 85% Minimum Gnatcatcher Preserve La Costa Otay Ranch Associates 31% 80% Endangered Habitats League Otay Valley Parcel "We think that staff has done a good job of preserving some reasonable linkages there. We have not suggested anything to be changed in what staff has proposed in the Otay River Valley parcel." Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League La Costa Associates Habitat Conservation Plan "We want to use this an an illustration. . . of how to work through the Endangered Species Act process, " Jeff Opdycke, u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service "This plan makes both biologic and economic sense, and I want to congratulate The Fieldstone Co. for setting a new standard for environmental planning," Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League "The agreement is 'totally in sync' with the NCCP process, " Glen Black, State Department of Fish and Game Endangered Habitats League Opinion Regarding La Costa Associates Wildlife Corridor "They then bisected their planned development with a broad wildlife corridor." Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League "Maintain two wildlife corridors and use areas suitable for coastal California gnatcatchers and other species of concern, one along San Marcos Creek and one at least l~OOO feet wide across Southeast II..." La Costa Associates Habitat Conservation Plan, Page 56 ...:::J \0 0\ ct') ct') Uj 0\ 000 ~ ~ ~ o "'" ... ~... 0 ct') UQ) .,.-t ~ .,.-t ~ f:P.r f:P.r "a- ct') t'-.. ct'? . ~ ... 0 Uj Uj 00..... N .,.-t ~ ell 0= f:P.r f:P.r U..... ..... 6 ell 0 U ct') .,.-t .,.-t - 00 0 .,.-t "C l'd 00 \0 ~ ... ... ... 0 .,.-t N <<J 00 E-t 0 ... ...... ~ 8 00 00 00 - 0 0 0 ~ 0.0 S ~ ~ ~ aJ s:: ,...-l ..... l'd ..... ,...-l ..... -.. <<J Q) > 6 -""'>, I:Q ct') ct') ,g.9Q) 0\ 0 J-4 ~ .,.-t 0 s::u= ... 0 Q) 0 l'd .,.-t N ..... uP::> tJ 0 0.0 J-4 P-i "'0 s:: Q) .~ S "'0 s:: ~ -..... ~oo .S 00 ~.~ ~ ~8~ - l'dQ)..... o 0 l'd c15~~ UU ~